Rectius Instruendum Or A REVIEW and EXAMINATION Of the doctrine presented by one assuming the Name of ane Informer, in three dialogues with a certain Doubter, upon the controverted points of Episcopacy, the Covenants against Episcopacy, and Separation.  
Wherein The unsoundness, and (in many things) the inconsistency of the Informers principles, arguments, and answers, upon these points, the violence which he hath offered unto the holy scripture, and to divers authors ancient and modern, is demonstrat and made appear. And that truth which is after godliness, owned by the true protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, asserted and vindicated.  Prov 19 27 Cease, myson, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. 
Printed in the Year, 1684.   

THE PREFACE to the reader  
Christian reader  
THat which the wiseman long since offered to their consideration who observe the revolving course of providence, is there any thing whereof it may be said, this is new, hath its signal accomplishment, in the renewed collisions of opinions and debeats. The conflicts betwixt truth and error or not of yesterday, but as early as the morning of time, when he who is a liar from the beginning assaulted with a horrid calumny the truth and faithfulness of God, and having by a lie mad a breach in our first parent's integrity, by inducing them to believe it, instilld his poison into our nature, a love of darkness rather than light. The eye of the understanding (like natures bodily organ when its cristalin humour is vitiat) cannot see and receive the impression of its object, (truth and duty) in its lively colours and nat●… simplicity; and if sometimes the clear beams of truth force a passage for itself, & make some impression upon the perverse & dark mind of man, O how quickly is that little Victory lost, this begun signature obliterat, by the rebellious will & affections. The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God nor can be, hence truth is detained in unrightiousness, convictions stifled, and the convincing spirit of God counteracted and grieved. Hence all the renewed plead for, & discoveries of truth, begets in most men (by a woeful antiperistasis) nothing but renewed contradiction & spurnings against it, While (as the suns vigorous influence upon the vapours of this dull earth) by its irradiations it attracts, and condenses thick fogs, dark clouds of perverse dispute the more to obscure itself. Yet a holy seed there is and hath been in all generations, children of light and of the day, whose work; and honourable badge it is to contend and be valiant for the truth; who under the conduct of Michael that great prince who stands up for his people (truths sincere lovers and asserters) have from the beginning warred this good warfare against that old apostate, and his followers. So that the war which John saw in heaven, betwixt Michael and the Dragon, was not then only begun, but a new battle and encounter of that old war proclaimed in paradise betwixt the seed of the woman and the serpent. All men are enrolled in one of these two armies, imbarques in one of these interests according as they are regenerate, or unregenerat, as they have the seed of God in them or not; & discouries of truth have various effects accordingly, either of more intense love, or violent hatred, as the sun shining upon the flowers & dunghill, draws equally forth a sweet & stinking savour. The erecting of this royal stand art of Zions' King and lawgiver ingadges his faithful witnesses to flow unto it, and come under it, and excits such who have but the spirit of that world in them, to a counter-muster against it. Who would not have thought, that the longed for appearances of that Immanuel, and desire of all nations, that eternal word and wisdom of God in the flesh, should have put an end to all rebellion of wretched sinner's aga●… him; but it never grew more, then by his convincing discouries of himself. Eternal truth and holiness suffered contradiction of sinners against himself, he oft silenced enemies reasonings, not their malice, and the most admirable actings of his effectionat condescending love to men, the giving of himself to death for them, was entertained with the most virulent and hellish eruptions of their wrath against him, in murdering him. The rulers opposed this great ruler of Israel, the learned scribes and rabbiss with all their literal knowledge of Moses and the Prophets, could not yea would not see and acknowledge this great Prophet, the covenanted people would not receive this great messenger of the Covenant; and they who boasted to be Abraham's seed, rejected this promised seed, could not see him when among them, but hated him, whom Abraham saw a far off, and rejoiced in the discovery. Yet this wisdom of God was then, and still is, justified of all children of God, and such as are of the truth will see its beauty throw all the mists of men's calumnies and contendings against it.  
The angry cloud wherewith God hath now of a considerable time covered the daughter of Zion in our land, challenges in this as much as in any thing else, our mournful observation, & simpathizing compassion, that men have taken the boldness, with perverse dispute to infest her true sons and children, to assault her precius ordinances and privileges, and with a barefaced impudence to endeavour the removal of the ancient land marks which our fathers have set, nay which the great God hath established. Yea to cajole us with poor sophistry into a careless disregard and abandoning of the magnalia Dei, the great things of gods Law (important truths and duties) as if they were mere trifles and indifferencies; to cast the aspersions of supercilius scrupulosity upon true zeal for God, of rebellion, upon true loyalti and faithfulness to the King of saints, of devisive humour, upon sincer endeavours after the union and true order of the house of God, is it not to put light for darkness and darkness for light, bitter for wee●…t, and sweet for bitter, yea cru●… percilius mockery. Yet at this rate are we treated by our prelatic pamphleteers. The authority of the second great moral precept anent the receiving and maintaining of all gods ordinances, the doct. worsh. disc. and governm. of his house, the weight and importance of the third anent the observation of most sacred solemn oaths and vows to him for this great end, weighs but light in these men's balances; but he whose hand holds the plummet and line judgeth otherwise, their balances are false, not the balances of the sanctuary. Their new plagiary divinity depending in a great measure upon the camelion-rule of worldly wisdom, and steering its course by the versatil rule of human laws, is calculat for any meridian, but that of canaan & immanuels' land, where all must go to his Law and testimony, and is pronounced base metal, which is reprobat by that touchston, where every pin of the tabernacle must have its sampler from the holy mount, ere it get his approbation, and have the cloud of his glorious presence created upon it. The golden, preface giving a lustre & beauty unto the prophet's message was, thus saith the lord, but these men's ordinary Anthem is thus saith the Law, presenting their dishes under that leaden cover. Our new Ashodits have lost the language of Canaan, or at best do but (like those mongrels mentioned by Nehemia) speak half the Jews language, half of ashdod, debasing thus the golden rule, by a heterogenens mixtur of human testimonies & principles. O How is our wine mixed with Water, the beauty of the virgin Daughter of Zion defaced. That Gebal, Ammon, Amalek & such like do in●…est & take crafty council against God's Church, is nothing so amazing or dangerous as when there is a conspiracy of her prophets within her walls. 'Tis a great question whither these men's malice in wounding our Church, and taking away her vail, while pretending to act the guardians and watchmen, or their treachery in superficial flight healing of her wound, will be found the deepest challenge when the great shepherd comes to plead with them. But sure, both the one and the other will make make up a dreadful impeacement. Who ever saw this house of God in our married land, in its pristine glory & integrity, can but mourn over the present desolation. These gates once called praise, have now desolation set upon their threshold. These walls once called salvation, are laid in dust & rubbish. The joyful sound and voice of the turtle (echoed with the singing of birds, and vigorous heart motions towards the glorious bridegroom) are turned into the harsh sound of enemy's roar, and direful threats, crying raze it raze it to the foundation. To see Bethel turned Bethaven, and men, yea pretended builders, lifting up axes not upon the thick trees to advance the building of the house, but upon the carved work, to destroy it, may make ane impression of sorrow upon any heart, but that of adamant. Israel wept at the sad news of Gods refusing to go with them unto the promised land, but especially when they were brought back from the very borders of Canaan for their disobedience and unbelief, & doomed to return and die in the wilderness, spending the remainder of their days and years in vanity and trouble. 'Tis long since the glorious cloud is withdrawn to the threshold of our sanctuary, and the dark, not the auspicius light some side, turned unto us, yet who are following the glory, who are found crying out a penitent [Ichabod] over its departing. The building was so far advanced, that we were ex●…pecting to see the headston brought forth with shoutings and acclamations of grace grace, to see the glorius accomplishment of a work of reformation in Britain and Ireland, but ah! we are brought back from the borders of this great hope of a completed reformation, into this wilderness of the must dismal desolation that ever the work of God hath been exposed unto since the foundation thereof was laid. What means the heat of this great anger, and where will it issue? Afire is kindled in his anger, afire of angry Jealousy, but shall it burn for ever, is there none to make up the breach and stand in the gap.  
Ezekiel saw the healing waters issuing from the temple, and upon a desirable auspicius advanc, first to the ankles, than the knees: then to the loins, and at la●… 〈◊〉 great river. But now the waters of ou●… Mara, the Serpent's flood of error ca●… out after the fleeing Woman, and of profanity flowing from our defiled sanctuary, have been long flowing apace, & are become of a prodigious growth. Our Presbyterian Church-judicatories, are not straitnedonly bytheinvasion of the ancient Prostasie, or fixed moderator, (which cost K. James some pains to effectuate) but their root must be plucked up, either as Presbyterian, or as Ecclesiastic courts; all their decisive power contracted into a Prelates ipse dixit; and all his pretended spiritual authority, resolving into the sic volo of a civil papacy, regulable by itself only, no superior rule. How deeply we have drunk of the whoors cup; and what a deluge of monstruous wickedness, hath overwelmd us since this idol of jealousiewas set up, ought rather to be wept over then written. Thenameof our Church is nomore jehova Shamma, the Lord is there, nay that glorious motto is turned unto the doleful inscription of Lo-ammi Lo-ruhama not any people, not having obtained mercy And, which is strange, this monstruous Dagon of Erastian Prelacy like a Medusa hath charmed the generation into ane amazing stupidity, yea the most unto an adoration of it, though it hath oftener than once fallen before God's Ark, and its head and hands have been cut off upon the threshold of the sanctuary, a convincing proof that it is not a God. But that it might not want the dedication and adoration of its fellow set up in the plain of Dura, it hath been attended with the menacing Heralds voice — to you it is commanded- and who Worships not &c,- And the melodious Harmony of charming musicians. The quills of our Prelatic pleaders and Pamphleteers have struck up their best notes and measures to gain the design. But the Menaces, and the Idols golden metal have far ut done the musicians in persuading, whose treeples of old & of late, have met with such baffling Contras that the sagacius ear is not fond of their shrill sounds. Which have long since krakt the strings of our sound Protestant principles.  
For this late Pamphleter, who hath dressed up minc't-meat of soom old fragmen to please childish Palates, I suppose few or none who have pierced into the bowels of our present controversies, have judged him so considerable, as to deserve a formal encounter, there being nothing which he or any of our late Scribblers hath offered, but what is already sufficiently answered. So that these little toying mean Dialogues, were like to pass along as securely in their own want of worth, as Bessus in the Comedy. Yet in one point or two I cannot but commend him, first that the substance of this book answers its inscription of the differences of the time, these 3 points being indeed the chief cardines of our present differences, in which had he satisfied all the Presbyterian ar-arguments he had done much to cut the sinews of their cause. But how far are we at a loss in this Expectation, when the book is looked over, not one of these great questions fairly stated, scarce one Argument of Presbyterians so much as fairly proposed, but enfeebled by silly disguises, and the answers to them such poor and ridiculous evasions, as if he had intended in this discoury of the weakness of his cause to proselyt his Readers into Presbyterians, if they were not such before, in stead of weakening that party by this new assault; the great point of Erastianism not so much as once touched: And so notwithstanding of all his defence of the Diocesian Bishop, the Erastian Bishop Lying open to all the weapons, & wounds of such as have impugned those principles. And upon the debate about the Covenants, and Separation, the only presents us with soomwhat of their old musty store, who have appeared in this cause of late, whose notions are more crude after all this man's re-cocting, a convincing proof that there was in the first con●…oction, ane indigestible error. Next I find some what more of a seren temper, less of the sarcastic scolding strain, than what hath tinctured his fellew-actors upon this sceen, who have bravely scolded it out against the Presbyterians, even to a non ultra of that Thersites- artifice, although now and then he puts out his little sting too this way. In soom things also his Ingenuity deservs its praise, in advancing Prelacy so near the pope's mitre, both in his plead from the jewish Priesthood, & from antiquity, wherein he hath purtrayed the beast in exacter lineaments, than soom moresmooth pleaders. His Character of the term [Curate] viz on that serves the cure though not the Minister of the place, and of their preaching upon shorter texts, that it is a racking of the Text and of their brains to find out matter, is honest and apposite, for which the Presbyterians do owe him thanks; but thereby their doubts in the point of Prelacy, & the present Separation, are so strengthened, and like to grow, and especially by his feeble resolutions, that they verily judge he shall never prove the Aedipus, but is in extreme hasart to be devoured in this encounter, & Actaeon-like, to be torn in pieces by the kennel of his own pretended resolutions and Arguings, retorted and hunted back upon him. They do also look upon the Dialogizing Method, so much pleasing him & some of his fellows, as a cover (but now very dilucid and transparent) to hide the childish sophistry, of disguising the true state of questions, and the strength of Presbyterian Arguments, while they must fight with no weapons, but of their adversaries choice and measuring: When the Knight enters the lists with a huge invincible giant, the encounter looks very unequal, and fatal like to the sprightly little Combatant; but the Romance maker can so order the seen, that he shall be sure to lay his adversary all a long, and come off victorious. Our Adversaries have too long ridiculed our serious Theological debates, with their playbooks; wherein they do but render themselves ridiculous. what hath the chaff to do with the wheat? When will they offer a fair and formal enucleation of this controversy, and discuss our Arguments long since offered unto them, which do stand to this day unanswered? How long will they beg Principles, beg concessions, and rear up soaring like Arguments upon a chimaerical foundation, and then Accost their credulous hearers or readers with Thrasonik boasts and Rhetorical Rhodomontadoes, which are as insipid and tastlesse to the discerning, as the Artificial fruit to the hungry palate.  
Reader, for the design of this undertaking, I have this to say, that although I have as little as many men coveted such appearances, yet have been persuaded to be thus public upon this occasion, that having casually met with this Pamphlet, after it had for a considerable time traveled up and down, I judged it expedient to employ upon it some solitary hours, wherein I was taken offfrom other employments, both to prevent languishing, and to satisfy the desire of a friend, whom I highly esteem; as likeways to undeceive some simpler and less discerning readers, who seemed to be taken with this piece; which essay after a considerable times lurking coming into the hands of some wellwishers to our Zion. I did at last yield to their importunity in reference to the publication. Whatever entertainment this may meet with, and how keen soever the darts of malicious reproach may prove which are leveled at me, Hic murus Aheneus esto, I have this shield, that I can say it before the heart searcher, without heart condemning, that as I intended herein a vindication of Truth and duty, and according to my measure and capacity to give this testimony for it, to the strengthening of a poor afflicted remnant contending for the same, so in writing these sheets, I had an eye upon the father of lights for his help and presence, and dare not deny but that this was found in some good measure accordingly. And in the perusal of what is here offered unto public view (which was not at first directly my intention) I would have thee looking after these with other emprovements.  
First, thou may discover what a honourable cause we now contend for, even the Crown dignity and Royal prerogative of Jesus Christ, his glorious supremacy over his own house, in appointing its officers, laws, ordinantes; for the true frame of his tabernacle according to the pattern showed upon the mount, for that Government of his house delivered in his perfect and glorious testament, sealed with his blood, for fealty & loyalty to this King of Kings, in keeping his Covenant into which this nation and Church so solemnly entered; for the walls and bulwarks of this City of God in opposition to antichristian underminers and invaders thereof, for these solemn Assemblies of his saints upon the ancient grounds and principles of our Reformation (so much now aspersed by devouring tongues) the ceasing whereof in our Zion ought to engage to sorrow, and a lamenting after our provoked Lord, now hiding himself from us. Enemies have often invaded him upon his his throne of grace, and professed friends have not sincerely aproached unto it.  
Next, As to our adversaries pleading against us in this quarrel, thou mayest discover first, that they are snared, as by the works of their hands, so by the Words of their lips, and fall before the rebound of their our Arguments; this man's plead against us, especially upon the point of separation, levelling so clearly against himself, that such who impartially read him upon his point may strait entertain this reflection, It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, and that its easy to pull this Egyptians spear out of his hand and kill him with his own spear. Secondly, thou may see, what monstrous issues they are driven unto in the defence of their cause, what a chain of contradictions & absurdities they have twisted to wind themselves out of their inextricable Labyrinth, that they hatch cockatric eggs; obstinate maintaining of one absurdity begets a hundred; so true is that saying & prophecy, evil men shall wax worse & worse deceiving, & being deceived. How palpably have they wrested the holy Scriptures to shift the convictions thereof, and make some shift of answer? How lax and absurd are their new principles in point of Oaths, resolving their strength into the Magistrate's arbitrament and Laws; besides other odd posterns which they have opened to escape allobligations thereby, if their matter be not indispensably necessary, which with them is in a great measure determined by the Law. What a monstrous Chaos of more than Infidel-barbarity and confusion shall this world become, if these men's faith-banishing principles be once admitted. Thirdly, to evince, that our Prelates puppets and new pleaders are Babe●… true brood and builders, thou mayest see, how sweetly they join with the Papists in their glosses upon these Scirptures, pleaded against them. Whenc it is evident, even to a demonstrative certainty, that the cause of popry and prelacy, are of ane inseparable affinity, and stand or fall together. If this man's glosses whereby he shifts off our Scripture Arguments, striking at the Bishop's mitre, be once admitted, the pope's triple crown is equally shielded against the weapons of all Protestants. Our learned Protestant divines in confuting the popish evasions do so manage their dispute, as if they were directly pleading against this Informer in defending our Prelacy. And who hears his glossings, plead and answers, would imagine that by some Metempsuchosis, Bellarmine or Eccius were now acting the Informer to proselyt the Presbyterians to our Prelacy or a papacy rather. Besides, 'tis clear he embarks, with the Papists in his endeavour to bring in antiquity and the Church's practice, as the infallible comment upon the Scripture in the Episcopal debate, consequently in all debats in Theology. Nay we must measure the Temple and the Altar, mould our Arguments in this point of truth by Scripture standard; but for the utter court of Antiquity, we leave it out, for it's given to the Gentiles. It's many soul principles and practices will not be gotten within the Holy Scripture verge. This man in his Scripture plead is very sparing, for a few page's measure will do it. But for Antiquity beware he mets us out large and full, to the great part of all the book; and in this he deals honestly giving the courser stuff the larger yard.  
In fine, thou may see these men discovered beyond all their hiding pretences of love, peace and unity; their large spacious charity (extended to the dimensions of a Metropolitans palace) hath fine entertaining rooms for Papists, Quakers, Arminians, etc. but the poor Presbyterians will scarce get such a room in it as Bishop Bonner's coalhouse wherein he lodged the martyrs; they cry out one Presbyterian Ministers as refusing all Christian fellowship with them in worship: but when shall we see them open their pulpits to our Ministers, after they have banished them from their own flocks? They vili●… all our differences unto mere punctilios; yet they contend about them tanquam pro aris & focis, and had rather all Presbyterians were harassed and persecuted, even to a consuming desolation, than one fringe of their Garments, (As Bishop Lighton called the points debated) were cut off and let go. They declaim zealously in their pulpits and Pamphlets against sanguinary Principles. How can these cruel men, say they, look up to the God of love? But now after they have drunk pretty largely for many years of Presbyterian blood, and are gaping for more as fast as the bloody whore of Rome who in a great measure influences them, these devout Burrio's, can wipe their mouths, and pretend they have peace offerings with them. Mystery Babylon! Mystery Prelacy! What ane abyss of deceit is here.  
In the third place, thou may see, that the cause we contend for, as it hath the first and pure Scripture Antiquity, so the next ensuing Antiquity also, and the patrociny of the purer ages, and the auspiciously Harmonious consent of reformed Churches and divines; So that our present Testimony is the same with that of the witnesses against the beast, and our adversaries stand arranged under Antichrists banner, in the whole series at least & complex farrago of their principles. A Diocesian Erastian Prelacy, underproped by blood and Perjury, headed by a civil papacy, embracing in its bosom all foul errors, is a hideous Monster, a bowing wall, a tottering sense, and looks in face and feature so unlike to Christ's bride, held out and portrayed in Scripture, and once gloriously shining in this land, that no disciple of Christ no friend of the Bridegroom, can mistake the one for the other; So that our adversaries charge of novel heterodoxy is a new minted calumny, a frighting buk bear and scar-cnow. fit to fright children in knowledge, to be the derision of the knowing, and for nothing else.  
Fourthly, thou hast here set before thee, a looking glass representing our sin and punishment in these later days. We have not suitably emproven a faithful Ministry (once our Church's crown and glory) now that crown is falling apace, how many stars hath the dragon cast from heaven to earth. We have not not studied personal reformation, while public national reformation was owned; therefore the holy Jealous God hath given us up to an avowed disowning of that reformation. We endeavoured not, while God's candle shined upon our tabernacle, to get our case discovered and searched, our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, therefore most of us are given up to Conscience- Wasting sins. We have not drawn with joy, from our wells of salvation, while they were open and running in a plenty of powerful & pure ordinances; now God hath suffered Philistines to stop these Wells; and while we endeavour to dig them again, such are the counter endeavours of this man and his fellows by their pleading and practices, that they are called Ezek and Sitna, strife and contention. We are like to dig and strive long ere we get the well called Rehoboth, and faithful Ambassadors of Christ shall find their old rooms again in the house of God. We ●…ave not kept up a due impression of the 〈◊〉 ●…lidging force of our National & solemn Covenants with God; who of us have endeavoured to perform our vows to God therein? Therefore God hath given most of us up to a palpable disowning and shameless renunciation and abjuration of these great and sacred Oaths. We hid ourselves from discoveries of our practical breaches and many whorish departings from God pointed at by our faithful Seers; now he hath given us up to a legal avowed departing. The accursed thing which was before secretly with us, is now pleaded for, disputed for, by pretended Seers and watchmen; even the remnanm have dealt treacherously with God; therefore he hath given them up to treacherous dealers, who have dealt very treacherously with them. We were wearied of reformation, wearied of God, and said to our faithful seers, see not, prophesy not right things, but deceits, get you out of the way, cause the holy one of Israel to cease from before us. Ourwhorish hearts lusted after a sinful liberty and Egypt's fleshpots, neither were we throughly ●…ged from our old sins our iniquities of 〈◊〉 Therefore God hath answered us 〈◊〉cording to the Idols of our heart, an●… hath said to us (after we have set up ou●… Calves) go to Bethel, transgress at Gi●… gall, etc. He hath given us our desire and sent leanness into our soul. Our noble Vine, because so dreadfully degenerate, is now withered and wasted, plukt up in fury, planted in the wilderness and fire going out of itself to devour its own fruit. This is a lamentation and shall be for a lamentation.  
Fiftly, Thou mayest in the perusal of this reply, discover something also of light arising in darkness, the strength and solidity of our principles demonstrate in the plain and easy repulse of these assalliants. The indigested chattered congeries of their new notions do appear but mere vanity, a deceitful nothing, when leveled against these great truths which we contend for, notwithstanding of all their clamorous boasting; as the threatening billows having made a waterish battery upon the rock fall off again in empty froth; so that we may see it accompli●… of our cause and principles which 〈◊〉 Jobs hope as to the issue of his troubles ●…en they are tried they come forth as ●…ld. And our adversaries light empty ●…akets cannot by thousands of degrees counterpoise them, when both are laid together in the even Scripture Balances. Truth under all strokes Virescit Vulnere the bruising of it by dispures diffuses it scent and makes it (as the breaking of that Alabaster box did the ointment) the more fragrant. Thus our holy wise God brings meat out of the eater; it's the Privilege of Truth, in relation to perverse disputes against it, which was promised to Zion, when enemies were gathered together, that it doth arise & thresh them The Horns of this honourable cause are found horns of Iron and its hoofs brass: it can thresh (as it hath done before) even the mountains: (For what are they before Zerubbabel) and sift and fann themas dust. This is a signal token for good in the dark and cloudy day, that these great truths, which are now become the Shibboleth, the special object of our Testimony, and adherence thereunto, the chara●… stick of the Lambs followers, are co●… firmed and shining in a heart engadging beauty: if we hold fast this Testimo●… we are sure to come off victorious, to g●… the white stone & the new name: If we quit and cast off this fortifying girdle of Truth, we will succumb, and be written in the dust, not among the living in Jerusalem.  
For the manner and Method of this reply, it will, I suppose be found very suitable to the scope. The language is plain and accommodat to polemics, which do reject all extravagant ornaments of speech. The Informers Arguments are proposed vivida, vegeta, ad amissim oft time's verbatim, and nothing of seeming strength or nerves in his reasoning declined, but fully weighed and examined. The Presbyterian Arguments, which he hath disguised, are presented and offered in their genuine strength, and fully improven against him; Wherein this trifler is called to the orders, and his tergiversation checked and made appear. The state of every one of these questions is likeways proposed, and Arguments drawn ●…th thereupon, which do abundantly ●…tify the Presbyterian cause and Princi●…s, and in a great measure obviate all his Exceptions, and this in the beginning of every Dialogue before any formal encounter with him. So that if any shall endeavour again to underprop this tottering wall and to draw this saw back again, they must be tied to the same Method; weighing all that is offered in the sound balances of Scripture and reason, and not in such a faint, superficial, dispute-deserting Method as the Answer to the Dialogues betwixt the Conformist and Non-conformists hath been plied with; whose replyer doth but (like the dogs at Nilus) leap here & there superficially thus measuring out the dimensions of the whole book with little or nothing of a formal encounter with the Answerer his Arguments and reasons.  
Some things there are, that do require a little touch of Apology; if any quarrel the prolixity, 'tis easily granted that a sufficient answer might have been contracted into far less bounds; yet as every writer's head or hand is not so skilful as to put ane Iliad into a nut, so every rea●… hath not the tooth to crack that nut; ma●… row is nauseating rather then nourishing to many stomaches. And as the stronger co●… densed light of the Sun, whither in its direct, or refracted beams, hurts weaker eyes; so all eyes are not for the small print of the Laconic stile, nor can every judgement readily digest too much epitomised arguings, especially in such subjects wherein the spissitude and variety of the matter, requires a more dilated stile and method. The fair stating of these great points (now the axletree, about which our religious differences are turned) the giving of light unto them by solid Arguments may well bear the charge of some little pains in reading in order to satisfaction therein; and the man is a wretched miser who would b●… scant as to the affording of time and diligence in this endeavour.  
If any desiderat a more particular Examen of the Testimonies of the Fathers and some other Authors cited by the Informer; there are several grounds which may take off this exception. First, since, upon both sides it is professedly agreed at the scripture is the only judge in this ●…bate, and since both parties now con●…nding (as also the fathers themselves and all sound Christians) have professed to subscribe ane absolute appeal to this judge in matters of religion (whatever deviations from this rule and profession, this man and his fellows are guilty of in their arguings and plead, especially in this point) matters, I say, standing thus in this debate among professed Protestants, who are disputing from scripture, certainly a critical scanning of, or litigiouscon test about the sense ofevery humanewriter, they must in their principles acknowledge to be but a digladiation de lana cap●…ina, a spending of money for that which is not bread. When any disputant hath with much critical travel among the fathers, brought home their suffrage to his cause, or by the same diligence taken it out of an adversaries hand as it were with his sword and this bow, what is all the victory? a humane testimony brought to fortify a divine truth (which was before strong and impregnable in its own light and authority and a testimony apt to a wired●… by a subtler Critic to a different or contrary sense. Next, the scriptures decision in this debat, being (as it is hoped) convincingly made appear, and the chief testimonies of fathers for our cause vindicated against this adversary, no rational or ingenuous reader will judge it expedient, after the scripture decision is made appear and the testimonies of eminent fathers also, and the adversaries contrary humane testimonies, as to the main, dispelled, to pursue every straggling citation. Thirdly, 'tis evinced that as upon the one hand all his testimonies upon the point of Prelacy, though admitted, do but amount to demonstrat the factum, which is not the question, and not all the Ius, which only is, so upon the other hand they are as far short of reaching any patrociny to the present Diocesian Erastian Prelate as the Pigmees arm is to fetch down Ulysses helmet. Now what superfluous waist of time were it to insist in scanning of testimonies adduced to prove that which is not the question? the disputant hath but a mean labour in trying whether his adversaries conclusion is deducd according 〈◊〉 rules, and follows on the premises, when the conclusion itself is a long day's journey out of the lists and ranges of the question, and not the negatum or the principle which the adversary undertakes to prove. If any man will from this Informers testimonies draw out our Diocesian Erastian Prelate, in the nature and extent of the power now exercised by him, he may give a defy to all the Virtuosos to match him in chemical extractions, and may have the chief chair for invention. All the fathers cited by this disputant are as ambiguous as the Delphic Oracles in our debate. In fine, this piece is chiefly addressed to the plain simple searcher for truth, to furnish him with stones from mount Zions' brook (with plain scripture Arguments) to encounter and overcome our Philistine braggarts: not to charge his unskilful weak shoulders and arms with Saul's unwieldy armour. How tastlesse and useless to the unlearned, a dispute about the sense of humane writers is, when the inquiry and debate is about a divine truth, wherein the conscience must he satisfied upon divine warrant, need●… not my pains to prove, it being obvious to the meanest reflection. If any shall yet except upon the want of a full examination of some Commentators upon scripture, whom the Informer appeals unto, 'tis answered, that if the sense of controverted texts be evinced from parallels, and the scope and contexture, and the Adversaries argument repelled, the humane testimony or sense of some Interpreters must veil to this in the judgement of all Protestants; and besides, neither the suffrage of Commentators is wanting to our sense of these scriptures we plead, nor can this man's glosses be reconciled to the sense of sound Protestants. Which we suppose the reader will find abundantly clear in the Perusal. The learned do know that we might muster up as many commentators suffrages to patronise our sense of text controverted, as would spatio conficere immensum aequor. The truth is, that with some, we will need an Apology, in that, this piece is swelled to such a bulk upon this ground, & that so much of it is taken up in presenting and scanning the sense of authors; besides, the many testimonies of reformed Churches and divines for Presby●…erian Government which we have presented in a short view in the last Chapter upon the first Dialogue, do, consequently give sentence for us, as to the sense of the texts scanned in this controversy, and more than counterbalance any whom this man appeals unto.  
Some, 'tis probable, may think strange, that the Informer hath so far got the start of this corrector, and traveled so long before this appeared; but such may be quickly satisfied as to this punctilio of a time-ceremony, when they are made to understand that as this piece was a long time abroad ere ever I did see it, so after some sight of it, it was a considerabletime before I had the least intention of imparting my thoughts of it, & after I had this imparted them much more time did intervene before my intention did fully correspond with the press motions, & access where it could be had. But however, the knowing reader will not so much value who replied, or when; as what and how. Satcito si sat been, is a sound proverb: although (if this matter did deserve any more Apology) it might be truly averred that the substance of this reply, all to a very little was written in the months of June and July in the Year 1681. since which time these sheets were much lurking and out of my hands. And but little opportunity offered for boring them through exactly after the writing thereof. Yet upon some renewed desires, as to the publication I did again hastily look them over amidst many avocations, dividing the whole into Chapters for Methods sake, with suitable inscriptions containing the sum & series of the chief points treated of; having also access to peruse some Authors which were not by me at first writing, some inlargements were made which have much increased it to this bulk, and 'tis probable may make it prove rugged in several places, and not so intelligible to the plainunlearned reader, for whom at first writing it was principally, if not only, intended; yet for his advantage the Citations of Authors are all Englished, and some times rendered only in English, and often upon repeating some few of the Author's words, the sentence is broken off & the rest presented in our own language: which if it seem strange to any other; as the ground assigned will, I hope, satisfy, so a view of the Authors will be my vindication as to the truth of the testimonies themselves.  
Upon the point of Separation (which is a difficult and comprehensive question) I have not undertaken any large scrutiny into its nature and degrees, nor to scann the several incident cases and subordinat questions, which the full discussing of that great point would require; desiring only to maintain the antithesis of the Informers principle and fundamental Topick in the third Dialogue, and in so far only to inquire into this point as to vindicat this practice of presbyterian Ministers and professors their owning and following their respective duties, from his imputation of a sinful and Schismatic separation; and therefore have not directly spoken to these cases, viz. what may be said for, or against Conformists Ministerial mission? What difference is in this our case betwixt a fixed or stated, and ane occasional hearing. In what cases it might be abstracted from a formal ow●… ing of Curates as Ministers of this Church? Whether a protestation at first hearing might be a sufficient salvo to free the practic from that compliance which is pleaded from the narratives and declared design of the Acts which do enjoin it? And upon the affirmative solution of this case, what might be the nature, extent and circumstances of such a protestation? Whither the divers cases and dispensations of several places of our land, will import such a difference as to sin or duty in this point, as there might be a diversity of practice and union keeped thereupon? These and several such like cases I have not taken upon me formally to state and clear (whatever light about them may follow upon what is here asserted) not finding it necessary in order to the scope of this defence, as the question with this Informer is stated and limited, norbeing desirous to render this reply of too great a bulk, or to be forward and presuming in difficult points. If the learned and Judicious desiderat here many things both as to matter and manner, as I doubt not, they will, let not the Presbyterian ●…ause and interest fall under the worse Character with them; this being but ane essay upon these great questions offered by a very mean person of that number, and not their joint- polities and formed thoughts; addressed also mainly to the plain and unlearned readers. Yet for its scope and substance, I doubt not, but it will be found such as is able to speak with the Enemy in the gate, and succsesfully to undergo their assaults, if any such be made upon't. One thing is indeed to be regretted, whereof I could not but acquaint the reader in this place, that Because of many difficulties which the overseer of the first part, in Answer to the first Dialogue, at the press, did labour under, Both in respect of the Copy and several other ways, there are some considerable Tipographical errors which have crept into it, and several Latin and Greeck words misrepresented; of which errors, such as do considerably mar the sense are noted among the Errata. The other parts 'tis hoped will not be so bad, & create the Reader such difficulty.  
I shall also here acquaint the Reader that I have seen a manuscript entitled Positions relating to public worship maintained by Presbyterians In former times, and contradicted by the practice of many in these days, driving the same design with this Informer in his third Di. alogue, and upon the same grounds, whereof I had written a considerable time since a full Examen, but cannot here present it: both, because that pasquil is not extant; and especially, because it is for substance fullyanswered in this reply. The Author upon these general acknowledged grounds of the obligation, lying upon all Church-members to attend the ordinances: the unlawfulness of separating from public worship for the sins of Ministers or fellow-worshippers; the condemning of the Brounists in England by the old Non-conformists there, because of a total Separation, though themselves did separat in part: their acknowledging of the lawfulness of Episcopal ordination for substance, etc. draws out a strange and remote conclusion against Presbyterian Ministers of this Church, their officiating in their present case & circumstances, and people's adhering to them in the exercise of their Ministry. The absurdity of which inference, and what a sand-rope connexion it is, needs not any renewed discovery here, which were but Actum agere. The impertinent and groundless suppositions upon which this inference is founded, and the confused shuffling together of thatwhich in this question is to be distinguished, being abundantly above evinced, and also the apparent inconsistency of this way and Method of Arguing: since from all these grounds a destroying conclusion may be drawn out against this pasquiller, in reference to the owning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry: since the ordinances administered by them are really ordinances of Christ, their mission and ordination warrantable, the worship not corrupted by their supposed scandals, and consequently they are highly guilty who disown their Ministry, or plead for it; or else to evite the deadly rebound of his own weapons and Arguing, he must state the question of new, and restrict and limit to the particular state and circumstances of this Church; but then he must confess his arguing upon these general positions, to be but beating of the air and poor childish babbling. It were not unpleasant to trace the many gross contradictions incident to this way of arguing and apparent to men of an ordinary reach who have read this paper. First, [attending of ordinances] add [receiving them from Conformists] are all one and identified with them, yea tied with adamantine chains; yet in the case of Presbyterian Ministers, these two are as far separat, as east & West. Secondly nothing but a substantial corruption of ordinances administered by Conformists can warrant a withdrawing from them, & this principle says the Author hath strong Scripture grounds to warrant it, But take this principle over to Presbyterian Ministers, and then it loses all its virtue, and he will find grounds of separating from them, were ordinances never so pure, and this is no strange thing, the sharpest sighted eye cannot see itself. Thirdly, a man can never be reconciled to himself, who confesses the Episcopal ordination lawful, and yet disowns Conformists. But once turn the Tables, and the game runs cross; a man may acknowledge the Presbyterian Ministers have a lawful ordination, and never cross that principle; though he totally disown them. There are also several gross inadvertencies, besides these that are common with his fellows in this way of arguing, which are peculiar to the Author of that Pasquil. Such as, his cutting the sinews and overturning the foundation of his arguing, in granting all to be true which Nonconformists charge prelatists with, id est, that they are Schismatics etc. So in the second position. Yet holding, that this position viz. That ordinances are not polluted by their Scandals, will infer a conclusion of hearing them hic & nunc; Whereas this very ground of Schism is that upon which he mainly pleads for disowning Presbyterian Ministers, his confounding in the matter of Aerius his supposed censure by the ancient Church our acknowledgement of the factum and of the Ius. His denying in answer to the objection anent the Covenant, that any act under a General head of duty, considered Physically or materially, may become hic & nunc, and in its present circumstances sinful exaccidente, yet walking all along upon this very ground, in condemning the preaching of Presbyterian Ministers and people's hearing them: In calling (in answer to another objection) the Prelatic party the Church of Scotland as now constitute; Yet in the premised concession acknowledging them Schismatics from this Church: Thus stealing back a principle to make shift of answer, which he hath already given away to his adversary in this debate. In granting to the Presbyterians that this frame of prelacy is worse than the former, and gives more to the Magistrate than God's Word allows, yet calling this establishment of it, the prerogatives of Authority & the commands of submission thereunto lawful commands. These & many such like absurdities are obvious to any that have read that chattered Pasquil: which might be made further convincingly appear if we could dilate upon it and present the pasquil itself. But this little toutch may abundantly discover its vanity and insufficiency in the present dispute, and that the cause, which our Prelates puppets are pleading for, is so desperate and tottering that it needs many concessions of its adversaries and begged sup. positions to underprop it withal, & yet sorotten is this fabric and bowing wall, that it must notwithstanding fall to the ground.  
Reader, I shall detain thee no longer from the persual of these sheets, save only to tell thee that as the strengthening of the hearts of the Lords remnant in following their duty and amidst their present sufferings, is the intendment of this appearance, so there is no patrociny intended, nor can be drawn by the most remote consequence from what is here pleaded upon the point of separation, unto these dreadfullly presaging anti-●… nisterial principles and practices, tha●… several in this land are sadly precipitating themselves into; which we hop●… will be abundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head, and the state of the question as It is exhibited: how clear and full our confessions and principles are in asserting the due right of Magistracy, as well as of a true Gospel Ministry, and how harmoniously we join to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches herein, is sufficiently notour to the unbiased and judicious; and consequently, that no precipitations or strayings from the scripture path upon these heads, can be charged upon our cause and principles. Great and manifold have been the assaults of Satan upon this poor Church, and reproaches of that grand accuser of the brethren upon our Reformation and the faithful promoters thereof. And the plowers have long ploughed upon her back, and enemies of all sorts have many time afflicted her from her youth. O that our provoked jealous God would show us, wherefore he contends, and give both Ministers and People a heart-affecting sight and sense of the true grounds of this controversy, and show unto us our transgressions, wherein we have exceeded and provoked him thus to lengthen out our desolation; that he would excite Ministers to make full proof of their ministry, and open up to them an effectual door and engage his people to a due and suitable subjection to their Ministry that this word might run swiftly and this sword of the Lord eut the cords of the wicked, that we were all excited to encompase his throne with strong crying and tears in order to the returning of the Eclipsed departing glory that this great Shepherd▪ Israel, would show himself the only wise of God and the only Potentate in dissappointing and crushing the crafty, cruel stratagems and designs of Satan (now acting both the roaring lion and subtle old Serpent) and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrist and his Artisans. That this our Isle, upon which, the ●…ay-spring from on high did early shin●… and which did early wait for his Law●… who is Zions' great Lawgiver, was rec●…vered from Popish darkness, and fro●… decays after the times of Reformation, may have a restoring healing visit and being made a married land may be upon this ground a land of desires. That Christ's Tabernacle, now fallen down, may be reared up according to the pattern, and planted among us until his glotious appearance to accomplish his Church's warfare and to make up his jewels. This is the Expectation of the prisoners of hope, and in this expectation let us turn in to the strong hold, even to his name which is a strong tower and go on in his strentgh keeping his good way which hath always been strength unto the upright. Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, since he comes quickly, who is our head and judge and his reward is with him so that neither our labour nor suffering shall be in vain in the Lord.   

The Contents  

FIRST PART.  

Chap. 1. page 2.  
THat the prelate now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared. By the present standing acts hereanent page 2, 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly, Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelate as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors, to a Prelate. The absu di●…y of this discovered Calvines remarkable Testimony on Titus 1: 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediate object. Cleared from 1 Pet. 5: 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters. The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from several Scripture grounds page 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 4. Impeaching Christ's Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelates office and some Scripture grounds page 13, 14, 15.   

Chap. 2. page 16.  
Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelate. that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order, cleared from the matter of fact and Several Scripture grounds page 16, 17, 18. It maims and diversifies the Pastoral office, by Antiscripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19, 〈◊〉 His office many ways contrare to thevery nature 〈◊〉 the gospel Church Government, cleared also at larg●… from the nature of the Prelates office and several Scripture grounds page 21, 22, 23, 24.   

Cap. 3, page 25.  
The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices, in consounding them with ordinary, cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices, and the nature of the Prelates office, according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopal party. Pag 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelates office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus, loaded with absurdities. ibid.   

Chap. 4. page 30.  
The Diocesian Prelates office takes away the people's right to call their Pastor. This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31, 32, 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likeways the preceding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds, especially 1 Tim. 5: 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatic party examined Page 34, 35, 36, 37, 38.   

Chap. 5. page 39  
That the present Prelacy is gross Erastianisme, proved, from the matter of fact, some Arguments against it under that notion. It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civil; contrary to the Church's privilege both under the Old and New Testament, which is demonstrat at large. Page 41, 42, 43, 44, Is in many points ane encroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christ's mediatory Authority over the same; which is cleared page 45, 46.   

Chap. 6: page 47.  
Erastianisme denies the complete constitution of the Apostolic Church in point of Government. Removes the Scripture land marks, set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastic powers, which is cleared in several points page 47, 48, 49, 50. It is liable to great absurdities ibid.   

Chap. 7. pag. 51.  
The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy, and flinching from the point debateable discovered several ways page 52, 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelates civil offices, yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherein his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear. His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel, and the Priest's concurrence in that Court 11 Numb. to fortify the Prelates civil state offices, ad examined page 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 He is contradicted by interpreters in this point, Antiquity full and clear against him. The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the civil offices of Ministers page 63, 64. The Informers endeavours to bring in the Diocesian Bishop under that command of decency and order as lawful though not commanded and necessary. That the Bishop cannot he warranted on this ground but must as a supposed Church officer, instruct his institution: and mission from Scripture, cleared from several Scripture grounds and the acknowledgement of some adversaries page 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73.   

Chap. 8. page 73. misprinted Chap. 9  
The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy, his answers to our Arguments from Matth. 22: 25, 26. Wherein having misrepresented it, he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papists, falls in divers inconsistencies, and walks cross to the sense of sound divines upon this Text: Yea of some of the ancients which cleared at large page 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. his answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5: 3. Wherein he also offers violence to the text and joins issue with the Papists, his evasions examined and this Text (as also the preceding) Improven against him page 84, 85, 86, 87, 88   

Chap. 9 misprinted Chap. 10. page 88  
The Informers Answers to our Argument from acts 20. and Titus 1: 5, 7. These Texts emproven against him, and his answers fully examined page 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96. His answers to our Argument from Philip. 1: 1. His absurd and inconsistent shifts discovered and confuted page 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. Arnoldus and Chamier do class him with the Papists in his answers to this text, he walks cross to the Dutch, and English Annotations, and to Calvin. page 103, 104, 105. His answers to our Argument from Ephes. 4: 〈◊〉. Examined page 106, 107, 108.   

Chap. 10. misprinted Chap. 12. page 109.  
The Informer offers Scripture warrant for Bishops. His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament, the subordination of the Priests and Levites. The remoteness and absurdity of his consequence anent the lawfulness of the present diocesian Erastian Prelates office, asit is deduced from this principle, discovered several ways, page 110, 111, 112. That there is no image of our Prelacy in the Jewish Church Government, cleared, The Informer walks cross to junius, yea Bishop Bilson himself, and in the series of his reasoning, introduces a pope into the Christian Church, page 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120. His Argument from the Apostles superiority to the 70 disciples, examined. He begs the question in supposing Prelates to succeed the Apostles immediately, and Pastors the 70 Disciples, and from a superiority among officers of different kinds, groundlessly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind. No Image of our prelacy in the Apostles superiority over other Church officers, page 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126.   

Chap. 11. misprinted Chap. 10. page 127.  
The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. Their Episcopal office disproved, from the office of Evangelist, ascribed expressly to the one, and by good consequence to the other, from many circumstances of the sacred text, and the judgement of interpreters. page 128 129, (misprinted 127,) 130 (misprinted 128) 131. (misprinted 129.) The Informers answers anent the strict and large sense of an Evangelist, his reasons of deny 〈◊〉 to Timothy, the Evangelistick office in a strict sense, 〈◊〉 amined: and found inconsistent with themselves, a●… contrare to Scripture, 132, (misprinted 130) 13●… misprinted 131, (134 misprinted 132) 135 (misprinted 133,) 136, misprinted 134, 137 misprinted 135, 138 (misprinted 136) he denies the powe●… in ordination and Jurisdiction to be the proper work of an Evangelist. How absurdly and inconsistently page 139, 140 (misprinted 137, 138) his contradiction to Saravia discovered in several points page 141, 142 (misprinted 139, 140) 143 (misprinted 151). His answer to the Doubters Argument anent Timotheus his not being fixed at Ephesus, but occasionally left there examined, as also his answer to that Exception of the Doubter [anent Paul's giving the Episcopal charge to the elders of Ephesus, not to Timothy] our Informer pityfully bruilied with this Text, page 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 (misprinted 142, 143, 144, 145, 146) he walks cross to Bishop Hal, Dounham and Hooker, to chrysostom, Jerome, Theodorus. His grounds upon which he pleads for Timothy and Titus their Episcopal power, particularly examined. the first taken from Paul's giving direction to Timothy and Titus, how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction, generally examined page 149, 150, (misprinted 146, 147) his arguing from these directions particularly examined anent their not laying on of hands suddenly, anent rebuke and censures. page 151, 152 (misprinted 148, 149) the Informers next Argument, from the concernment of after ages in these rulers. That neither this, nor the adressing of these rulers to the Evangelists will afford any help unto him, cleared. The London Ministers vindicat. That Timothy and Titus power at Ephesus and Crete, was not voided after some elders were ordained there, a sandy foundation to support their Episcopacy. The Informer is pityfully in the briars, in answering his Doub●…ers exception anent Timothy's ordination, by the laying on 〈◊〉 the hands of the Presbytery. The practice of after ages a ground to support the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169. (misprinted 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166.)   

Chap. 12. misprinted Chap. 11. according to the misprinted Method (which shall be followed hereafter except in some few pages) page 167.  
The Informers plead for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels, discussed. That the stile of prophetic, writings and of this book do strongly conclude a collectivesense in the term, Angel, proved by several Arguments page 168, 169, 170. Whatever he can allege is the Characteristic of this angel, proved to be in Scripture apropriat to Ministers. page 171. Many divines ancient and modern for the collective sense of the Word (Angel), yea some episcopal men themselves, page 172, 173. The admitting of the Angel to be one single person will nothing help the Informer, page 173, 174. His answer to the exception from Rev. 2: 24. examined. Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Testimonies of the ancients and the Catalogues of succeeding Bishops. examined. Page 175, 176, 177, 178. The addressing of the Epistle to the Angel. Will not help him▪ as neither Doctor Reynolds, nor Beza their taking the Angel for a single person. Page 178, 179, 180, 181, The Informers new Argument for prelacy [taken for Diotrephes his love of pre-eminence] wherein he embraces Bellarmine's evasions, and offers violence to this, and parallel texts page 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187.   

Chap 13. misprinted Chap. 12. page 187.  
The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of Episcopacy. That Antiquity is not the Judge in this debate, although he could instruct the matter of fact, proved. Page 188, 189, 190, 191. The Scripture (even by the Confession of the Fathers) the only judge in matters of faith and practice, not Custom and Antiquity. Ibid. The Informers reasoning on this head reduced to a formal syllogism. The Major proposition, the Informer though obliged offers no proof of. It is scannd, and likeways the assumption; and the unsoundness of both discovered. Page 192, 193, 194, 195, 196. The Informers Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops, largely scannd, and the insufficicy thereof discovered, in the Judgement of sound divines. Several things do invalidat Eusebius Testimony. page 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202. That the first purest Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishops. Jeroms Testimony in his commentary upon Titus, and the Epistle to Evagrius, for the Identity of [Bishop] and [Presbyter], and a Presbyterial Government in the Apostolic times, largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer, which are discovered to offer violence to Jeromes Words, to be inconsistentent with themselves, and contrary to that sense of Jeromes Testimony which is exhibit by learned Protestant divines, yea some adversaries themselves. Page 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 316, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222,   

Chap. 14, misprinted Chap. 13 page 223.  
The difference betwixt our present Prelacy, and the ancient Episcopacy, stated and evinced in many points. Such as 1: The power of ordination and jurisdiction above Presbyters, cleared in several particulars. And from the Testimony of the Ancients, and eminent Protestant divines. Chrysostom's Testimony on 1 Tim. I. Homely II. explaind. 2. That they were set up by the Presbyters free choice and election. Proved from Antiquity 3. In referen●… to the people's Interest in their choice. 4. That they could not, ordain alone. 5. That they did not invade Presbyters decisive suffrage. Cleared also from Antiquity, page 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231. 6. In the point of their civil state-offices; which is proved to be contrary to the canons called Apostolic, & other canons of ancient Councils. 7. That metropolitan Primacy is a stranger to antiquity, also cleared. 8. So likeways Erastian Prelacy, page 232, 233, 234. 9 Our Prelates exclusion of the ruling elder from Church Indicatories crosses Antiquity. 10. Their large and Provincial inspection. 11. Their laying aside the preaching of the Gospel, renders them Monsters to pure Antiquity, and exposes them to the censure of Ancient Canon's page 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242. 12. In their fastuous pomp and sumptuous grandeur ibid.   

Chap. 15, misprinted Chap. 14. page 243  
The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvin, Beza, blondel etc. For Episcopacy, examined. Their anti-episcopal Judgement cleared from their ings, particularly Calvines, from his Commentari●… upon the controverted Scriptures in this point, several passages of his Institutions and Commentaries vindicated. page 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251. As also of some Epistles page 252, 253, 254. As also of Beza page 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 360. The Informers two absurdities which by way of 〈◊〉 Dilemma he offers unto us from our assertion of the unalterableness of Presbyterian Government, and our concession of a Pro●…stos early brought in, scannd and retorted upon himself. Page 260, 261, 262, 263. Some passages of Blondel vindicated, and of Chamier, and Moulin, page 264, 265, 266, 267, 268. (misprinted 236) the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii anglicani vindicated at some length, and in special from imputations of a contradiction imposed upon them by the Informer, page 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274 (misprinted 237, 238, 262, 263, 264) a passage of Bucer vindicate ibid.   

Chap. 16. misprinted 15. page 275. (misprinted 265.  
Several Testimonies of the fathers offered by Mr Durham in his commentary upon the revelation, for evincing the identity of Angel, Bishop and Presbyter, vindicated from the exceptions of the Informer his Exception to Mr Durhames testimony of Augustine examined, as likeways to that of Ambrose and chrysostom. Page 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, (misprinted 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271) the Informers inconsistences noted, page 281, 282, 283 (misprinted 271, 272, 273.)   

Chap. 17. misprinted 16. page 284. (misprinted 274.)  
The Harmonious consent of ancient fathers, modern divines and confessions of reformed Churches, for Presbyterian Government in its essential points of difference from Prelacy, exhibit. 1. That there is no diffence betwixt a bishop and Presbyter jure divino. Page 285, 286, 287 (misprinted 275, 276, 277. 2. In their point of ordination & jurisdiction that these are not in the hand of a single prelate, but that Presbyters have essential joint-interest therein page 288, 289, 290 (misprinted 278, 279, 280.) 3. In point of the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers. Page 290, 291 (misprinted 280, 281) 4. In relation to the ruling elder, as appointed by Christ. Page 292 (misprinted 282) 5. As it stands in opposition to Erastian principles and the present prelacy in that respect, and maintains a spiritual Authority in the hands of Church officers, distinct from, & independent upon, the civil powers of the world, ibid.    

SECOND PART.  

Chap. 1. pag. 2.  
A Twofold state of the question proposed, the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both Covenants, the other concerning the obligation of these Oaths against it. That prelacy is abjured in the national Covenant, proved from several clauses of it, page 3, 4, 5, 6, That it is also abjured in the solemn league and Covenant, proved from several passages thereof, and the than state of our Church. page page 7, 8, 9, 10. The standing force of these Oaths upon the present and succeeding generations proved. 1. from their nature and essenc, page 11, 12, 13. 2. From the subject they affect. 3. Their matter and object. 4. Their end and scope, and even as to Presbyterian Government, page 13, 14.   

Chap. 2. page 16,  
The Informers Arguments against abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant. Some reasons of his against an Oath in general, or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity, weighed, page 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Mr Croftons' Testimony (in his Analepsis) for the obligation of the Covenant upon the posterity, page 21, 22. The Informers reasons against the abjuration of prelacy in the National Covenant, examined. The Author of the Apologetical relation vindicated, together with the Assembly 1638. page 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.   

Chap. 3. page 42.  
The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemn league and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of the Informer. The Informer alleges it is only the English Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges against, how in pertinently, cleared. page 43, 44, 45. That Timorcus affords no help to him in this answer, cleared ibid. Nor Mr Crofton, which is also cleared; page 46, 47, 48, 49, 50. From several passages of Mr Crofton in his Analepsis. The Covenant excludes our Prelacy, and oblidges to Presbyterian Government in his principles, proved ibid. His objection anent [the sense of the 2 Article offered by the Parliament of England] Answered. As also his Exceptions to our Argument taken from our obligation [to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland] page 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article, refuted. The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton. The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own, ibid. That the English Presbyterians did look upon themselves, as obliged to reform according to our pattern, which is the Scripture pattern, proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, The Informers allegiance [that the first Article is ambiguous, and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath, their sense cannot determine its meaning] vain and impertinent. pag 65, 66, 67.   

Chap. 4. page 67.  
The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth, although its obliging force for the time past, were supposed, examined. He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy, how poorly and impertinently cleared, page 68, 69, 70. His first ground taken from [the command and authority of Rulers] generally considered, and found impertinent to support his conclusion, though his supposition were granted. page 71, 72. His 2d ground touching [the alteration of the matter sworn] as also his third taken from [the hindrance of a greater good, by the performance] resolving (in his sense) wholly upon the Magistrates command, absurd when applied, to our case which is fully cleared. page 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a [greater command overruling the less] and our obligation to obey the rulers, as prior to that of the Covenant. page 7. ibid. also page 79, 80. His Argument taken from Num: 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists, and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning, while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates laws, the Informers rules pleaded against him, and according to the mould of his i'll ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate, page 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. His impertinent repetitions, some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is liable. page 87, 88 His Argument from Eccles. 8: 20. weigh. page 89, 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood, resolving still upon the command of the powers, absurd, and contradicted by Casuists, and many ways crosses his design and pleading, cleared at large, page 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge, examined, as also his Arguments from the Rechabites. page 97, 98, 99   

Chap. 5, page 99  
The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites. His trifling way of moulding our Argument. And in what sense we plead this passage. page 100, 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz: [that an Oath can bind against a command of God, impertinent to the point, and such as the Informer himself stands obliged to answer, in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text. page 102, 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand, inconsistent with himself in this point. Page 104, 105, the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20: 10▪ discovered and cleared from Interpreters, and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures. page 106, 107, 108, 109, 110. His gross and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua. the league and the peace discovered. page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here. He supposes, but doth not prove a limitation in God's command to cut of the Canaanites. His absurd supposition that Joshua broke his league with them when he know them to be such. page 111, 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of God's command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him. As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined. And solomon's imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him. page 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119. The manifold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed. page 120, 121, 122, 123, 124. The impertinency of all he answersup●… this point though granted. His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs' Oath to the King of Babylon, examined. As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15: 4, Page 125, 126, 127, 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelates, groundless and impertinent to the point, ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion [Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us, and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury] largely scannd. The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points, both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136.    

THIRD PART  

Chap. 1, pag. 2.  
THe question stated and cleared, from our Church's state before, and since the introduction of prelacy; and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatic party (and this man particularly) plead upon, for the people's adherence exhibited. [Separation] in many cases not [Schism.] The many groundless suppositions that this charge of [Schism] is founded upon, exhibit, and cleared page 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The state of the question largely drawn forth upon a true account of the matter of fact, and of our principles, a●… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of [Schism], such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church. 2. That they are under no obligation to join to the prelatic interest. 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatic party on this point. 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted; which is cleared in several particulars, page 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations, which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19, 20, 21. 6. That the Prelatic party will be found in their persecution, the grand renters and dividers of this Church. 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinful separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large, page 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Finally this practice cannot be that [Schism] abjured in the Covenant. The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schism, cleared page 27, 28, 29.   

Chap. 2, page 29.  
The Informers charge of [internal Schism] upon non conformists, his Eulogies of Schism, and Testimony of Cyprian considered, and this charge [retorted upon him page 30, 31, 32, 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have own Bishops, liturgies etc.] examined, found groundless, and impertinent to the point. His Argument from Rome 14. Examined and retorted upon him. His charge of [external Schsme] in separating in acts of Worship, fortified by that passage Heb. 10: 25, Examined, page 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. The doubters argument from 1 Cor. 12: v. 31. [that we ought to seek the best & most edifying gifts] advantageously for himself, but fraudulently proposed by the Informer. Considerations to clear and enforce this Argument. The Informers answers examined at large page 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 42, His Argument for adhering to Conformists taken from the reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and people Ezek. 33: 8. Heb. 13: 17. Mal. 2, 7. 1 Thess. 5: 11, 12. As also from Mr Durham on the revelation page 105, 106. examined at large, page 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 the premised texts impro●…en against Conformists plea from this supposed tye and relation. ibid.   

Chap. 3, page 58.  
The doubters argument from Curates not entering by a call from the people, and that passage Acts 14: 23. cleared and emproven. page 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. The Informers first answer, that several whom we refused to own, entered by this call. ibid. his exception upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined. his first answer touching the use of the word, to express the action of onesingle person, proved from Acts 10: 41. examined. the use of the word cleared from parallels, critics and Interpreters. page 64, 65, 66. His second Answer, that Greek writers use this Word to signify ordination without suffrages, and that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas, examined. The granting that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas, distinct from the Church's suffrage, will not help the Informer. Page 67, 68, 69. He walks cross to interpreters in this answer page. 70, 71, 72. His third answer [that we will thus give advantage to independants for popular election of Ministers] examined, wherein the difference betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared, from the Judgement and principles of Presbyterian writers. page 73, 74, 75, 76, 77. His last answer is that if we disown Conformists for want of this call we null the Ministry of the Christian world for above a thousand years & upward, and the Ministry of this Church to the year 1649. examined, even the later Antiquity clear for this call, by the testimony of Marcus Antonius de Dominis the Council of Paris anno 559, the examples of Eradius, Ambrose etc. Yea of Bishop Bilsone. page 78, 79, 80, 81. That patronages are abjured in the Covenant, cleared against the Informer, and his exception an●… our Church's perjury, because of the use of patronages after the Covenant, repelled. In what sense the prelatic ordination is pleaded by us in disowning conformists. of the term, Curate. The Informer honestly grants that it signify one who serves the cure, though not the Minister of the place, but the substitute of another. page 82, 83, 84, 85. His answer anent the charge of Perjury, and reasoning anent the lawfulness of disowning Ministers, because of Scandals, who are not censured, examined. His reasoning found frivolous, and retorted upon him. page 86, 87, 88 his great argument from Math. 23. Anent the supposed command of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees, examined. Several circumstances of the sacred text offered to discover how very difficult, it is to prove that there is a command of hearing them, as Church officers. The consequence from hearing of them, though granted, to the hearing of them, denied upon five grounds: As also his reasoning from Simeon & Anna, Joseph and Mary their attending the Temple-Worship, examined. page 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. Mr Durham on Revel. 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point. page 94, 95, 96. His reasons to prove there is a command of hearing Matth. 23. as above described, examined and repelled. page ●…7 several answers of the Informer to our charge of intrusion and the queries that he propones thereupon; as also his retorsion upon this charge, examined and found vain and frivolous. page 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. His answers to the doubters Argument anent the abjuration of Episcopal Ministers in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted. His retorsion [that we were bound upon this ground to disown all the Ministers at the taking of the Covenant, who had been ordained by Prelates, unless they renounced their ordination] ane empty knack, reflecting on the reformed Churches, & justifying the pope's plea against them; page 103, 104, 105.   

Chap. 4, page 105,  
The Informers answer to the doubters Argument anent [separation from a corrupt Church.] In what respects and how far this separation is owned. His answer anent [the not separating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, and the asian Church's Rev. 2: 3. Though tainted with most gross corruptions &c:] examined. The discrepancy of our case from theirs in this point cleared in some particulars, and our cause fortified from Scripture directions to these Churches, page 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113. The impertinency of these instances to our case, cleared from hence several ways, ibid. The Informers answer to these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6: 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 5: 11, 2. Thess. 3: 6. Rev. 1●…: 3. Examined, and found contradictory to his concession anent [a necessary separation from a corrupt Church], when highly corrupted] page 114, 115, 116, 117. His answer to the retorted charge of Schism upon Conformists [for separating from this Church, examined, and found naught: He therein cuts the sinews of his arguing against us, page 118, 119, 120. His answer and reasoning concerning lecturing examined. God never appointed a dumb reading, the Levites gave the sense of the Law etc. the exceptions anent [the disuse of our first Method of lecturing] and [the want of Circumcision and the passover for a considerable time in the Jewish Church] help him not in this point, page 121, 122, 123, 124, 125.   

Chap: 5. page 126.  
The Informers answer and reasoning upon the point of scandal and offence, in reference to the owning of Conformists considered. The Informers groundless supposition anent the duty of hearing Conformists. Our Orthodox sense of Rome 14. and 1 Cor. 8. in the point of Scandal, cleared at large from the exposition of chrysostom on the first text, and Pareus on the second. page 126, 127, 128, 129; 130, 131, 132, 133. The Informer upon supposition that a practice is lawful, and offence flows from it, holds that the command of the powers will lose the giver of offence from guilt; and remove this liberty of the practice and the nature of offence, how absurdly, cleared in fyve points. page 134, 135, 136, 138. He is herein contradicted by Amesius. The instances of the Brazen serpent, and gideon's ephod improven against him, ibid. His absurd gloss upon Acts 15: 28, [that the things before indifferent were made necessary by the mere determination of the Council,] largely repelled. Calvin classes him with the Papists herein. His manifold inconsistencies observed, and absurd exposition of [scandalum acccptum] and [datum] which do destroy that distinctione. Mr Gillespie (Eng: Pop: Cerem:) Ames: (Consc: Lib: 5. Cap. 11.) Mr Durham (on Scandal part 3. Chap 1) discover the futility of his doctrine on this head. page 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. The Doubters Argument for presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner controverted, taken from [Christ and his Apostles preaching in the fields and houses.] The Informers general answer [anent Christ's not separating people from the Synagogue] weighed and found frivolous. page 145, 146, 147. Some special reasons wherefore our Lord did not separate the people from the Synagogue, ibid. The special grounds of our Lord's practice, offered by him to enervat our Argument, considered and Answered. Such as his bringing in the doctrine of the Gospel as the Messiah, his being head of the whole Church page 148, 149, 150, 151. What actions of our Lord were mitable. Rules hereanent (allowed by sound divines) applied to the case and practice controverted. [That the law allows the gospel to be preached purely, and faithfully by some] though granted to the Informer, will help him nothing. ibid. The Informers answers and exceptions to our argument from Acts 14: 19 examined. His answer from the Apostles extraordinary callfrilous, as also from the tendency of the ruler's prohibition to silence gospel page 152, 153, 154, 155. His reasoning upon Solomon's thrusting out Abiathar from the priesthood, examined; as also his citation of Bezaes' letter to the Non-Conformists in England. Page 156, 157.   

Chap: 6. page 159.  
The nature of Presbyterian Minister's relation to this Church, and their call to officiate therein, vindicat from the Informers simple cavils. Mr Rutherfoord and Mr Durhames acknowledgement that a Minister isnotmade a Catholic Minister of the Catholic Church but by his ordination restricted to a flock, will not help the Informer, which is cleared in six points: page 159, 160, 161, 162 His Dilemma which he offers to us viz. that our call to preach, is either ordinary or extraorninary answered & retorted upon him. His Cavils in relationall to the Acts of Councils condemning this encroachment (as he calls it) and the Doctors of Aberdeen their charging Presbyterian Ministers therewith, repelled. ibid. His charge anent [our ordaining others to perpetuat our Schism] a manifest groundless calumny. page 163, 164. His passage cited out of Mr baxter's preface to the cure of Church divisions, answered, page 165, as also his 5 healing advices to his half-proselyted Doubter. page 65, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170. Mr baxter's rules in his cure of Church divisions which he after commends unto us, shortly viewed, & their impertinency to his purpose discovered. page 171, 172, 173. 174. his testimonies out of the jus divinum Ministerii anglicani, and of Mr Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation, in sufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion. The difference between the case they speak to, and our case cleared in 4. Considerations, page 175, 176, 177. His citations from the first author particularly considered, and their insufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion discovered. page 178, 179, 180, 181, The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in so fa●… relating to his scope. page 182, 183, 184, 185 186, 187. In his citations from both these authors, and arguing therefrom, he is found inconsistent with himself, to walk upon groundless suppositions, and liable to a manifest retorsion. ibid. The Informer draws out no conclusion upon these citations, save this general one at the close viz: That real, much less supposed corruptions in the Worship, or administrators will not warrant separation. The impertinency of this position to help him cleared, ibid. He pleads for retractions, and presents at the close a character of Schism, which is retorted against him page 187, 188.   

Chap: 7. misprinted Chap: 6. page 189.  
Animadversions upon the Informers preface and title page, prefixed to this Pamphlet. He pretends conscience & a design of union in this undertaking, how unsoundly, discovered. page 189, 190. 191. His Testimonies out of Zanchy and Blondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy, left by him untranslated, (though he pretends for the advantadge of the English reader to translate all other testimonies) answered.  
    

A Confutation Of the First DIALOGUE, Upon the point Of EPISCOPACY.  
Wherein it is demonstrat, that the Episcopacy now existent, both in its Diocesian & Erastian cut, is contrare to the Scripture, to the first and purer Antiquity, the Doctrine and Confessions of Reformed Churches & sound Divines. And the Informers Reasonings for it, from Scripture & Antiquity, are weighed, and found wanting.  

CHAP. I.  
That the Prelate, now established in this Church, is both Diocesian and Erastian, cleared. The Informer is engaged to defend both. A twofold State of the Question propounded accordingly. Some Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelate, as a pretended Churchofficer. Such as, 1. Perverting the Scriptural term, Episcopus, common to all Pastors; in appropriating it to a Prelate. 2. Making it relate to Pastors, which hath the flock for its immediate object. 3. Invading & nulling the Authority allowed unto Presbyters, which is demonstrat at large. 4. Impeaching Christ's Kingly office, as Head of his Church, and the perfection of his Word, in obtruding ane Officer upon the Church, of a different moold from those described and allowed by him.  
THE state of the first Question in the first Conference is, whither the Episcopacy now established by Law in Scotland, be warranted or condemned by the Word of God. For clearing this, it must be understood, what that Prelacy is, which is now existent, and which this Author pretends is consonant to Scripture and Antiquity. As to matter of fact, it is undeniable. 1. That the Parliament 1662. did expressly raze Presbyterian government, in all its preexistent Courts, Judicatories and Privileges, declaring it void and expired. 2. They did Redintegrat the Bishops [to their Episcopal function, presidency in the Church, power of ordination and censures, and all Church discipline to be performed by them, with advice (only) and of such of the Clergy (only) as they shall find, (they themselves being judges) of known Loyalty and prudence.] And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges possessed be them in Anno 1637. What time their power was at the greatest height. Since, of themselves they framed the Book of Canons, which doth establish their sole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories, razing classical Presbyteries and Parochial Sessions, and drew up the Liturgy and Book of Ordination without the least shadow of advice from this Church; Threatening even excommunication against the opposers of that course. 3. It is also evident, that all this Power and Authority of our Prelates, is fountained in, derived from, and referable unto the Supremacy; As is evident by the Act restoring Prelacy, after the declaration of the Supremacy, as his Majesty's Commissioners in the exercise of his Ecclesiastic Government, and, in the administration of all their pretended spiritual Authority, as accountable to him, their Head and supreme Legislator in all Church matters. Hence, it is evident, that this Author is obliged (if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacy) not only to evince the warrantableness of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories; But likewaves of the Erastianbishop, deriving all his Authority from the Civil Magistrate.  
We shall then (before we come to examine his pleading upon this Head) offer, I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelate, as a pretended Churchofficer, and shall show his office to be contrare to Scripture. 2. As ane Erastian Prelate deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrate. I. As a pretended Church officer, the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture, in many respects.  
I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ane office and officer, distinct from, and Superior to, a Presbyter or Pastor. For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters, and consequently the work and office therein imported, Tit. 1: 5, 7. Act. 20: 28. 1 Pet. 5: 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation, to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop only, as the Characteristic of his office. Episcopal men themselves (and this Author particularly) do acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applied to Presbyters. Let them then show a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelate as distinct from Presbyters; Or, let them show where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denots such ane officer as they have shappen out (viz.) A diocesian Prelate having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a whole diocese, with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof. Should they appropriate the term Pastor, or Minister, to a diocesian Prelate only? Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due? And why also, shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriate the term Episcopus or Bishop, to such a pretended distinct officer: Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture, as the term of Pastor or Minister. Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Commentaries. On Tit 1: 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one, He calls the appropriating of the name, Bishop, to the Prelate, a profane boldness and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit— nomen officii quod Deus in common omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis & injurium est & absurdum. Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam— nimis profana audaciae est. Act. 20: 28. He collects the identity of the name & office of Bishop & Presbyter, from the elders being called Bishops, And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after, the name [Bishop] became peculiar to one. He adds, id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est, Scripturae autoritate minime nititur. Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one, ane unlawful dominion was brought in. But of this again.  
II. The office hereby designed, doth always relate to the Flock, and hath them for its immediate object and Correlat, as much as the word Pastor. The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the flock of God whom they were to feed. Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus, or Bishop, His office and inscection relates immediately to the whole pastors of his diocese, who are also much, his flock and the object of his oversight, care, direction, correction and censure, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or laiety. Peter, bids the Episcopountes feed the flock & act the Bishops over them; But our diocesian Prelate, pretends to feed and rule the pastors themselves. The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelate is Pastor Pastorum, Presbyter Presbiterorum, And therefore is ane Antiscriptural Monster.  
III. The Diocesian Prelate usurps and takes from Presbyters that authority allowed them of God in his Word. For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is solely and properly in the Diocesian Prelate according to Episcopal men, and likewise according to our Laws, As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy. For according thereto the Prelate is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters, he is sole as to ordination, may do it alone, and assumes Presbyters only proforma. Which no more lessens his Principality and supereminency in this point, than a Prince in assumeing Counsellors (saith Dounam, Def. lib 5, Cap. 7.) weakens his princely power and authority. Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependence upon him, he only is the proper Pastor of the diocese (as shall be afterward cleared) Presbyters are but his substitutes and helpers. They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastic censures of suspension, deposition, excommunication, the decisive power in Church judicatories is properly his. For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance, to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure. He is the Sine quo non, and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories: the law allowing his Presbyters only to give him advice, Nay and not that either, unless he judge them of known layaltie and prudence. Now, in all these, he usurps over Presbyters authority allowed them of God. For I. We find the Scripture atributes the power of order & jurisdiction, equalie to all Presbyters, who have both keys of doctrine & discipline given them immediately by Christ. In that I. They are command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authority and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline. 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power, there is not the least hint of ane equality among them, which were very cross to the Lords Scope, if the Diocesian Prelates Superiority were allowed and appointed. The Presbyters or Bishops of Ephesus, and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto, are commanded to feed and rule jointly, equally, and with the same authority, but none of them in dependence upon, and deryving a precarious authority from another, in feeding and ruleing. 3. In all the commands relating to people's Subjection & obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power, their is not the least hint of disparity among these Rulers. 1 Thess. 5: 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them, and are over them in the Lord, and to esteem them highly. And Hebr. 13: 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Souls: but nothing of a special degree of obedience to this supposed highest & supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any such like precepts. And no wonder, for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Souls, and laboured in the word and doctrine. When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers: He distinguishs the King as Supeream, and Governors sent by him, that a Chief subjection may be yielded to the one, and a subordinat to the other. But nothing of this is heard of, in enjoining people's subjection to Ministers. Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey (by the people of God consequently) to elders that rule weil, yea and a double honour, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, especially, to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine. The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders, and in this different character of the one from the other, diversifies elders higher & lower. Now by the same reason, upon which Divines do rationaly build this conclusion, it must be granted, that the enjoining obedience to all pastors promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction, will infer their equal office and authority. And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especially, in this place, he should have added, in these, or some such commands relating to the people's obedience, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especially, to distinguish the Diocesian Prelate from other pastors, and expressed it thus, esteem them all highly obey them, be subject to them that teach and watch over you, All your Pastors, but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection, and from whom all the rest derive their authority. Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties, he should have been especially noticed, who had the chief hand and authority therein (which is a Topick improven by this informer) but nothing of this is seen in Scripture, as shall be after, more fully cleared. 4. We find accordingly, A practical Equality, among pastors or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power, abundantly held out and exemplified in Scripture. The judging and censuring of the incestuous man, is by the Apostle enjoined to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth jointly. 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act; ●…ydes them for so long neglecting it, and shows its object (viz.) This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus. Again he shows its nature to be Ajudging, or putting from among them, and delivering to Satan, upon this judging previous thereunto: He also shows, that this authority touches, all Church Members, not them that are without, whom God judgeth, but those that are within. Now, as he supposes (I say) ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers, so he speaks to them indefinitely and universally all along, which were very cross to his Scope, If he had set up or allowed, the Diocesian Prelate whose sole prerogative this were: And the inflicted Censur he calls, with the 'samine indefinitnes, A punishment inflicted by many, who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression, To receive & absolve him upon his repentance. The exercise of the binding and ●…owsing power, being in the representative juridical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church, to whom scandales must be delated, and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven, is made. Matth. 18: 17. Besides we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry, 1 Tim. 4: 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy. The Presbitry here, must be a juridical Senate and meeting, for the Office can lay on no hands: And ordination is ane high authoritative juridical Act. Paul's presence and laying on of hands together with them, confirms their authority, as being cumulative thereto, not privative thereof, even as his countenanceing of, or concurring, with, our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelate (let us suppose it in his Act of ordination) would not infringe his pretended right herein. Ergo. By their own Confession, and by parity of reason, it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbytery. Had the Apostle in stead of Presbytery, put in Pr●…at and expressed it, thus, By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop, or Diecesian-Bishop: I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat there from, notwithstanding of Paul's saying, 2 Tim 1: 6. By the laying on of my hands, (viz) together with the Bishop. Paul's extraordinare Apostolical imposition of hands, being no white derogatory unto the supposed Episcopal ordinary power, now, verte tabulas, the Apostle says, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbitry, Ergo, the ordinary and equal power of pastors, and its equal exercise in ordination, is herein convincingly made out.  
Nixt, The Prelates monopolising thus in himself, the decisive suffrage of Judicatories, is cross many ways to Scripture. For, I It's a stepping up (in a piece of Diotrephese-lik, or rather papal-pride) above the Apostles themselves, who in Churches constitut, did always take alongst with them, the advice, consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government: As is evinced in the premised Scriptures, wherein it is convinceingly clear, that Paul, though ane Apostle of all the Churches, endued with extraordinary unconfined inspection over the same, and Pastor thereof, in actu exercito, having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts, & being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father, who by the Gospel had begotten both pastors and flocks of many Churches, Yet would neither excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian alone, but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to do it by a judicial, decisive, joint suffrage: Nor yet did he exclude the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist, but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence. And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem, where was a whole College or Presbytery of Apostles, and met about ane Act or decision of a high Nature, wherein was put forth both Adegmatick, critic & diatactick authority or power, in relation to the clearing of that great point of truth, anent the abrogation of the Mosaical ceremonies, and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herein, who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine: And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches: The ordinary Ministers or elders concur with the Apostles in every step: viz, In the conference & disquisition, the authoritative decision, the drawing forth of the sentence and decree, the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle, the imposeing of the decry upon the Churches to observe and keep the same etc. 2. This cuts the throat of that juridical forensical joint decision of Church Judicatories, which the Scripture doth so clearly hold forth. Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court, drawing forth a joint decision or censure? Where is the Presbiteries forensical Act in ordination of Timothy? To what end must the Corinth Church Officers Meet together, and authoritatively and jointly punish or censur the incestuous man? Where is that pleasing of the Apostles and elders as the foundation of the Synodical decree and letter, together with, it seemed good to the HolyGhost, and to us, And to us, Met with one accord. Where is, I say, this joint decisive power of Church Judicatories, thus clearly held out in the premised Scriptures, if the Act and Ecclesiastic decision thereof, be solely the Prelates, sic ●…olo, sie jubeo, masked with advice of Presbyters, of whose advice he may make what use he pleases, and with a simple nego. make their judgement and suffrage vanish into smoke. 3. This power of the Prelates cuts of from Ministers one half of their authority and commission received in their ordination. They are made therein (as is clear in Scripture, & our adversaries grant it) Rulers, Governors, Overseers, Pastors & Stewards in the Church; Have both the Shepherd's bag & staff, the key of doctrine and the key of discipline entrusted to them. By what warrant then must they give up all their power in government & their decisive suffrage in Church Judicatories, unto the domineering Prelate, and as to spiritual power in Church Judicarories, become mere cyphers? They watch and rule as they that must give account of all their administration to Christ. Peter exhorts the Elders suteablie to exercise their Episcopal Authority over the flock, that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd. Stewards (of God especially) must be faithful, and employ well all their Talents received from the great Master, that they may get his approbation and reward as faithful Servants. The Elders of Ephesus were obtested by Paul to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which they were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, to feed and rule the Church which God hath purchased with his blood. Now all thes exhortations directed to Ministers, are to no purpose, if they have no inherent immediate Rule, essentially included in their office, And to be exercised accordingly, but must only preach as a Diocesian Prelates Deputes, and be in the exercise of their ruling governing power, absolutely subject to him and at his disposal. Finally, This usurped authority in the Prelate sets him above the reach of all censure by Church Indicatories; So that though Ministers are absolutely and at his beck, censurable by, and subject to him, both as to their doctrine, conversation and discipline (and every one of them thus censurable and jointly) yet this high Pop, who judges All, will be judged by none himself, Either as to his Doctrine, Life or Government. Some have said of the Prince, that though major singulis, yet he is minor universis, less than the whole body of the people, though greater than every one apart. But the Prelate exercises a greater principality in Church Judicatories, & is therein major universis, greater than the whole meeting, so that though he can stop the Votes and Censures of the whole Synod, yet they cannot either by suffrage or censure in the least put a check to him, in any of His most wicked Acts or Antichristian Exorbitances. Now, how contrary this is to Scripture, any may judge. The Prophets after their prophesying must be judged by the rest, as to their doctrine, 1 Cor. 14: 29, Ergo, a fortiori, much more as to their conversation & government, are liable to be judged, and consequently censured if deserving it: For he were a great Critic, that would distinguish these, so as those who have power to judge, have no power to censure or pass sentence upon their judging: And this is founded upon a general comprehensive ground, viz. the Spirits of the Prophets (that is the gifts and exercises of the Ministry in all Church Officers without exception) are subject to the Prophets, viz. to their disquisition, and censure in any piece of their work or official Acts. Now unless our Prelates would deny themselves to be Prophets and Ministers, or the Presbyters to be Prophets, they must acknowledge this subjection to their censure enjoined in the Scripture premised, and consequently, that their exeeming themselves from the same, is an anti-scriptural usurpation. I remember, while a writing, that proposing once this Argument to ane Episcopal Clergy man, I enquired to what Church judicatory in Scotland was Mr Sharp subject, as to either his life or doctrine? He answered that he was subject to a general Counsel, and this was very apposite and consequenter to their principles: So that our Prelates (at least the two Arch-) are in no fear, but of a general Council if the Court frown not. In our Act of Parliament touching the mould of our National Synod, the Primate is the essential Precedent, & sine quo non, and so is sure enough, from being censured there; so are the rest of the Prelates as to all their Synods, according to our Laws. But what think these exleges Episcopi, or high Court Prelates, of such a humble Bishop as the Apostle Paul, who had hands laid upon him, and was authoritativelie sent out by that Presbytery of Prophets and teachers at Antioch. Act. 13. together with Barnabas, (about ane eminent Gospel-Legation) and was by the same Church and Presbytery sent (together with Barnabas and certain other commissioners of the Churches) to that Synod at Jerusalem, Act. 15. Why did not Paul make use of his Negative voice and command them all silence in this debate? How comes it, that his high Bishop subjects himself to the authoritative blessing and mission of some petty Prophets and teachers. Ane amazing looking glass, this is, (no doubt) to our aspyreing Prelates.  
4. The holding of the Diocesian Prelate, and obtruding him upon the Church, as ane ordinary Church officer, distinct from, and superior to Presbyters, doth many ways Impeach Christ's Kingly office as head and law give●… of his Church: whose faithfulness above that of Moses (who ordered, according to the Pattern showed upon the Mount, the least pine of the Tabernacle) must needs reach the appointment of the officers, offices, qualifications, work and gifts of these officers, who are to officiat in his house, as our Confession of Faith and Catechisim do assert. For according to our Prelatical Clergy, and according to the Laws, the Prelate hath a distinct Work from that of a Presbyter (viz.) to govern a diocese, he hath the Actus primus of a State ruler, to sit in Council or Parliament. Nixt, he hath a distinct solemn Consecration or inauguration to his Office. And 3. Must needs be supposed to have likewise distinct qualifications and Gifts from those of a preaching Presbyter, conferred by this solemn imposition of hands and blessing at his Consecration, whereby he must be supposed to have a superior distinct mission, and to be in all the forementioned particulars, distinct from, and superior to a Presbyter. Now, if none of all these points of his superiority can be found in Scripture, this Officer patched up thereof, must either be unwarrantable, or, Christ the Church's head and lawgiver, his Laws and rules in point of Church Government, and in relation to the duties, gifts, ordination, and work of Church Officers, are not full and perfect, but mank and deficient as to such ane eminent Church Officer. And where is then the perfection of his word and Testament, to make not only the ordinary Christian but even the màn of God, the Minister of God, perfect and throughly furnished to every good work. That none of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer distinct from and superior to a Presbyter, can be found in Scripture, but are contrary thereunto. I prove thus 1. The Scripture mentions no name, qualification, work, duty or ordination of any or dinary Church Officer superior to presbyters, and which are not likeways appropriate to them, who are called Rulers, Governors, Bishops; and both ordination and Jurisdiction are apropriat to them in a perfect parity 1 Thess. 5: 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5: 17. Hebr. 13. v. 7, 17. 1 Cor. 5: 13. 1 Tim. 4: 14. 3 Epist. joh. 9 v.— 2. In all the Holy Ghost his purposed recitals of ordinary Church officers, and purposed declaration of their gifts and duties, there is not the least hint of the premised ingredients of the office of this supposed Diocesian Bishop, as thus distinct from and Superior to Presbyters, (1 Cor. 12: 28. Eph. 4: 11, 12. Rom. 12. 7, 8. In these places we have besyds the Apostles, Prophets & Evangelists (whose Office, as extraordinaire, is ceased) pastors, Elders, Deacons; But no hint of the Office, name, qualifications or Mission, of ane ordinary Church Officer Superior to the Pastor, is either heir or in any Scripture else, which notwithstanding is express as to the Office and qualifications even of the Deacon, the lowest Officer. Strange! the server of Tables his Office and ordination clearly set down in Scripture: And yet Altum silentium, as to either, name, Office or ordination, of the Diocesian Bishop. If the argument of our divines be good from hence against the Pope, because not mentioned in these Catalogues of Church Officers, Ergo, a pari, It must hold good against the Prelate. And as to that, that the Prelate hath the Actus Signatus of a State Ruler, how cross this is to Scripture, we may after show. Sure, since Christ set all these his Officers in the Church, and commands them diligently to wait upon, and attend their work and Ministry therein; He never made or allowed them to be State Rulers   

CHAP. II.  
Some more Arguments against the Diecesian Prelate. That his office debases the Acts and exercise, of the power of order, cleared. It maims and diversisies the Pastoral office, by anti-scriptural now invented degrees thereof. His office, many ways contrare to the very nature of the Gospel-Church-Government.  
THe Diocesian Bishop, his office is in this contrare to the Word of God.  
V. In that it Debases the highest Acts and exercise of the power of order, in a Gospel Ministry. For all do grant preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be such: So that he who can do thes Acts, hath the badge of the highest Ministerial Authority as ane ordinary Church Officer, these being among the most emnient Acts of the Apostles there office and Authority — Go teach, baptise, etc. They must have some to serve Tables that they may give themselves continually to the Ministry of the Word. Timothy, our prelatical men's Supposed-Bishop, must preach the Word, and be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4: 1, 2. The great Apostle of the Gentiles who had the care of all the Churches coming upon him, and therein a great ruleing work, Yet pronunces a woe upon himself, if he preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9: 28.— And he tells us this was a special trust committed to him: In this he admires the rich grace of God that he was put into the Ministry, and honoured to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Peter, that great Apostle of the circumcision, when by the Lord restored to his office, and encouraged to its exercise, by a Threefold renovation of his Mission; is thrice enjoined (as the great badge of his love to his Master) to feed his Lambs and Sheep. Accordingly, the Scripture Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apt to teach; and he that teacheth (by office scilicet) must wait upon teaching, and the wise and faithful Steward appointed by the Lord to give the children their meat in due Season, must be found So doing when the Lord comes to reckon with him; and not lay up this noble Talon in a Napkine. To this, the key of diseiplin is inferior and Subordinat, as themean to its end. the higher honour above ruleing only being allowed to the labourer in the word & doctrine, 1 Tim. 5: 17. This being clear, I say the office of the Diocesian Bishop debases and tramples upon, these high and noble Acts of a Pastor, and consequently upon the premised Scriptures asserting the same, and that in these ways. I. In that the quondam Presbyter only, when made a Prelate, leaves off, The feeding of the flock, and lays by the preaching talon, the Church where he did preach or officiat, it may be, shall never see or hear him again, but is ipso facto, void to be possed by another, nor by his now-office is he obliged to preach or Minister the Sacraments any more at all, these petty pieces of work being below his new Lordship. Trew, he may preach if he please, and at the Church where he reseeds, but that is per accidens ex abundanti, and out of courtesy: but by his office, Qua Prelat, he is bound to preach no more to any frock, nor is he in the least judged faulty or deficient in his Episcopal office if he be wholly silent. Nay, in England preaching Prelates have been highly upbraided and reproached by their fellows, and called preaching Cox Combs. We all know, what ane odd piece of work Mr Lightoun's preaching was esteemed by the generality of the Prelatic party when he turned Prelate. Now, let any of common Reason or ingenuity judge, what ane office that must be, which puts a Minister entrusted with the Lords great commission to preach the Gospel, under pretence of advancement to a higher Sphere in the Ministry, to lay by this work which is the noblest and highest of the Ministerial Authority, wherein the Apostles themselves mainly laboured and gloried, as the most noble mean of the conversion of Sonles: and consequently of the glory of Christ therein; Nay, to lay by this noble work under pretence of new burdene of Government. Whereas the Apostles who had the whole Churches to plant and Govern, most enixely plied this work still. If this man become not a dumb dog and a slothful unprofiteable servant, let any judge. 2. The Diocesian Prelate debases and tramples upon this noble work, in that be makes it in all the pastors of the Diocese, to depend upon his Lordly disposal, and the authority thereof to be deryved from him as the sole proper Pastor of all the Diocese, whose deputs the preachers are in this work, although himself is obleiged to feed no flock. 3 He makes these high and noble Acts of the power of order, [preaching and administration of Sacraments] a lower and subordinat work and office, to the work and office of ruleing only, which is his Characteristic whereby he holds himself Superior to all the preachers of the Diocese? whereas the Scripture doth (as we heard) appropriate the highest honour to the labourer in the word and doctrine as the nobler employment and office, above the Ruler only.  
6. In this the Diocesian Prelates office is contrare unto, and reprobat by the Scripture, in that by Apocryphal, Antiscriptural, new invented, Degrees and orders. It diversities and cuts asunder what God hes made one and the same, I mean the Pastoral Office, and by consequence other offices mentioned in Scripture, as that of Prophets, Evangelists, Deacons; none of which offices admites of Subordinat Spheres and degrees, but all the persons that are Entrusted with these offices, are of the same degree and authority therein by the Word of God. No Evangelist, Prophet, or Apostle is found of a Superior office or order to other Apostles, Evangelists, etc. Whence comes this diversity then in the Pastoral office, that one Pastor must have a Lordly Dominion over some hundreds of his fellows? If it be said, that the Episcopal office succeeds that of the Apostles or Evangelists? besides that we shall disprove this afterward, and show that these offices taken formaliter as superior to that of the Pastor, are expired, as sound Divines do almost universally grant; I answer that most, if not all Prelatists ancient and modern, do hold the Diocesian Prelate to be no officer Specifially distinct from the Presbyter or Pastor, but only gradually distinct, as being a Pastor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government. Mr Burnet, in his pretended vindication of the present Prelacy, 4t. Conference, pag. 310, 311. tells us, that he is not clear anent the notion (as he calls it) of the distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter and akonowledges the Presbyter to be of the highest office in the Church, telling us that the Prelate is but a different degree in the same office. Although in this he and the rest do speak most inconsequently, the forementioned ingredients of the Prelatical function, being such, as do certanly amount to make up a new species of ane office, such as a different work, consecration or ordination, the actus primus of a State Ruler, different qualifications (by consequence) above and beyond these of a Presbyter. The diversity of these distinguishes the Scripture offices of Apostles, Evangelists, etc. which Paul sets in several Classes, as, first, and second. 1 Cor. 12: 28. Mr Burnet his reason is the same with that of others herine (viz) the Pastor's authority to administer the word & Sacraments which are the highest acts of the power of order. He tells us [that since the Sacramental actions are the highest of sacred performances: he cannot but acknowledge that such as are impowered for them, must be of the highest office, in the Church] now I say, since they will needs have the Diocesian Bishop to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or Pastoral office, they cannot with any shadow of reason make him Successor to the Evangelists or Apostles in their formal office, which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat or pastors office, and will affirm it to have been specifically distinct from the same. The Ancients and Schoolmen held that the Pastor in his ordination received the same Power of Government that the Prelate hath, but that the Prelate is the [primus Presbyter,] who hath the reins of all the exercise, in his hand. But how cross is this to Scripture, that any Church officer hath a power and authoriritie which he cannot exercise? To whomsoever God hath given the power, he hath certainly commanded the exercise of it; and particularly pastors or Presbyters are (as we have heard) enixely commanded to exercise all their Pastoral authority and power, as they shall answer to their great Master. Besyds, if the Pastoral office, or its official power of order and jurisdiction, may be warrantably thus divided and cut out in Shreds and parcels, and divided among different recipients, than it were lawful to divyde preaching and administration of the Sacraments, so as one Presbyter (notwithstanding of his authority and mission, in relation to both word and Sacraments, received in his ordination) might have preaching only allowed to him, but no administration of Sacraments: Another might be allowed to administer Sacraments, but not to preach. One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or union (pretences are never wanting to humane inventions) might be set a part and authorised to Baptism all the Children in a whole Province, doing nothing else of the Pastoral Office, And this power by the same authority might be taken from all the Pastoures of the Province, Sure all would acknowledge this to be a most wicked divyding and diversifieing what God the conjoined. And such is this Prelatical divyding of the Pastoral charge in relation to order and jurisdiction, or the keys of Doctrine & Government? the power whereof, the Pastor receaves entirely in his ordination, as well as the Authority of administrating Sacraments.  
7. In this the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture. In that his Office is in many respects cross to the very nature of the Gospel-Church Government, and is ane Office which the man that exercises, cannot but in so far cease to be a Gospel Church-ruler, Which I prove thus. 1. Since all authority in the Diocese, as to either the Word or Discipline, is deryved from the Bishop, as its proper fountain and subject, this power of the Bishop is properly and of its own nature, not a Gospel Ministry, But a dominion and principality, discharged to Church Officers of what ever sort, whose authority is not a despotic, nomothetick, or architectonick power, but a Ministerial Stewardship only. Matth. 20: v, 25, 26. 2 Cor. 1: 24. 1 Cor. 4: D. 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3. 3 Epist. John. 9 The work of all Church Officers, is called a Ministry, Pastors, Doctores, yea Apostles, Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the work of the Ministry, Ephes. 4: 12. 2 Cor. 4: v. 5. Paul calls himself a fellow servant with Epaphras, Collos. 17. with Tichicus Collos. 4: 7. And calls Ministers his fellow-soldiers and fellow-labores Philip. 4. 3. 2. 25-Rom. 16: 3. 2. The Bishop's power inverts Christ's rule, as to the gradation in point of censures and appeals, which is from one one to more, from the lesser number to the greater, from the Presbytery to the Synod, as from the Presbytery at Antioch, to the Synod at Jerusalem: Not to any one Apostle, Pop, or Prelate; Whereas the last appeal and reference in this Diocesian Mould, is to the Bishop. Our Lord's rule is this in relation to the removeing of Scandales. First, tell the offending Brother Alone, then take two or three more, then if he be farther contumacious, tell the Church, the greater embodied court or judicatory, who have the official power of binding or lowseing. He bids not toll it, uni, to one, but unitati, a multitude gathered into one, for so the Greek word doth necessarily Import, whereas in the Diocesian sea, the gradation is from many to one Prelate, whose sole prerogative this highest censure, is. And with Prelatists the rule runs thus, tell two, or three, lastlie and finally one Lord-Bishop: Which is point blank contrare to the Scripture rule. 3. The Diocesion Bishop's power, and Ministerial Pastoral pretended duties, as Diocesian Bishop are such as falls within he compass of no command, and which it is impossible to perform according to Scripture rules, which I prove thus. 1. The Prelate according to their principles is the proper Pastor of the whole Diocese, for he being peculiarly Bishop of it, and consecrat in order to his Episcopal inspection over the same (for to the participation of his power & office, denoted by this term [Bishop of Edinburgh] etc. He admits none in the diocese, it being the characteristic of his Superiority over Presbyters) & withal, it including the whole Ecclesiastic Authority both of order and Jurisdiction with in the Diocese; It follows of necessity that he is the sole and proper Pastor thereof according to this mould of Government. Now it being so, let it be considered. 1. That the true Scripture etimon of Episcopus or Bishop, imports all the Pastoral duties of feeding and ruling, and lays a●…e obligation upon the person under this relation and clothed with this Office, to perform all these duties accordingly to these to whom he stands in that relation. 2 That its impossible the Bishop can feed, Rule, Oversee, and perform the Pastoral duties unto, and watch for the souls of all that large flock, in which, some hundereds of painful▪ pastors will find their hands full of work. So that the Bishop assumes a charge, which it is impossible he can dischag or perform. 3. The Scripture allows no Derivation or Deputation of the pastors work and Office to which he is called of God, unto other subserviant Officers. Because God entrusts no man with any piece of Stewardship in his Family, but what he must both oversie and execut immediately by himself, and is likeways disposed and enabled to manage and overtake. God still conjoyneing the Office, gifts, and call together, for every piece of his work: Which the man that is entrusted with; and called unto, must himself immediately wait upon and attend Rom. 12. 7. and not intrust it to others for him. Hence 4. By clear consequence, it follows, that the Diocesian bishops work qua talis, is such, as he can neither manage nor hath warrant from the great Shepherd to exercise or assume. In the 4t. Place, the present Diocesian Bishop is a Person who is authorised to sit in Parliament, Council, and other civil Judicatories, as a constituent member thereof: For they are restored to their places in Parliament & civil pretended dignities, which places they a●… by there Office bound to manage, as civil Rulers. But so it is that all civil dominion, & magistratical Rule, is expressly prohibit to Church Rulers, so that the Church Officer who is installed in these Offices, falls from Heaven to Earth. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authotie upon them, but it shall not be so among you. Matth. 20: 25, 26. This charge our Lord gave to his Apostles and their Successors pastors or Bishops, who are here forbidden all civil rule or Magistracy, the nature whereof is properly a Dominion, and thus distinct toto coelo from the nature of Ecclesiastic Offices which is a Ministerial service or stewardship only. All our divines impugn from this text the pope's civil Dominion and the amphibius civility ruleing or domineering Prelate falls under the lash thereof. Non who go Christ's errands and his warrfare must be in●…angled with these things that are temporal. The Minister must wait upon his Ministry. So the civil Magistrate is God's Minister in civiles, attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13: 4, 6. Now, those being in their nature so disparat employments, and both requireing a constant waiting and attendance, he is a strange man, That can be called and sufficient for both: Who is sufficient for these things said the great and highly gifted Paul, speaking of his Ministerial employments: Are our Prelates beyond his sufficiency, who can act the Pastor of a whole Diocese and guide State affairs too? Christ's Kingdom is not of this World, and so are not its Officers, the weapons of whose warrfare must not be carnal. Who made me a judge, said the great Shepherd himself, when desired but to give a deciding advice in a civil cause Luke, 12: 14. Where is there any thing like the work or qualifications of the Magistrate in all the New Testament Rules and instructions anent the work, Office and call of Church Officers.   

CHAP. III.  
The Diocesian Bishops Office debases extraoadinarie Offices, in confounding them with the ordinary. That Timothy and Titus power lays no foundation for Prelacy, cleared at large. The derivation of Prelacy from them, loaded with gross absurdites.  
VIII. THe Diocesian Bishop's Office, is in this contrare unto the word, in that It debases the Apostolical and Euangelistick Offices, and confounds the ordinary & extraordinary functions & administrations, which Scripture, Reason, & all sound Divines do diversify & distinguish. The Prelates Advocats, & this new informer particularly, pleads for and derives the Episcopal pre-eminence from the office and inspection of the Apstles and Evangelists, whom they affirm to have been properly & formally Bishops, in the sense they take the Diocesian Bishop, and that the formal power and offices, which they exercised are to be continued still in the Church. That Timothy was formally constitut Bishop of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, james of jerusalem. And that the Prelates office, is the same, and properly Succeeds them, and is as it were, A continuation of their office in a formal sense. Timothy's authority is is one main ground which the Episcopal men at the Isle of Wight, and this Author also do plead to legittimat the Prelates office. This being clear, I say, this pretended Mould of the Diocesian Bishops Office and Authority, is liable to the charge & censure of debasing these holy extraordinary functions, and confounding them with the ordinary, which I prove, thus. 1. All sound protestant Divines do harmoniously assert the extraordinary nature of the Apostolic office as such, and likeways of the Evangelists, reckoning the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers, whose proper formal Office, died with them, and admits of no succession: for thus they ordinarily define the Apostles, that they were Christ's immediately called and extraornarily gifted universal Ambassadors, sent out, to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church, and to plant the Gospel government therein: Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckons up these as their extraordinary expired prerogatives (to which we will find this Informer in part give assent.) 1. Their immediate institution by Christ. 2. Their immediate mission to teach, (Paul had his from heaven.) 3. Their universal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world. 2 Cor. 11: 28.— 4. It's visible badge, (viz.) the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands. 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors, as being set over the whole Church etc. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office, as such, must needs be expired, And no Church Officer can be said to succeed them therein. Their Call was immediate, sure, none can succeed them in that. Their special or proper work, was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them, and set up their Officers, of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits, sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this. Their Qualifications as such Ambassadors, were correspondent to this great work, (viz.) their gifts of miracles, gifts of tongues, Prophecy, infallibility in Doctrine; Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this. Nixt, for the Evangelists, their Office was equally extraordinary, it consisting in a planetary motion, from place to place, to water where the Apostles planted, to bring reports of the Church's state to the Apostles, and commissions from the Apostles to them. Their various motions, pro re nata, upon & down, even after these Epistles (wherein they are supposed to have received their Episcopal charge) were written to them; and the Scriptures absolute silence as to their ever returning to these Churches again, besides the Apostle Paul's showing expressly in these Epistles, their occasional transient employment in this places, and express recalling of them therefrom, to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment, and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder: All these clear grounds, I say, do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Evangelists, is expired, and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer, it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolic charge, and supposing its exercise and existence, and the Churches then- infant state and condition. Now, to make these high and extraordinary functions, ordinary, and thus confound the two together, must be a very gross usurpation. 2. Hence it is manifest, that the Episcopal function (as above described in the quality, and mould of the Diocesian Bishop) will never be found in these extraordinary functions, either formaliter, or eminenter, and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God, to pretend this in the assuming of this usurped Office. First, The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Evangelists formaliter. For these were universal unfixed Officers, set over no particular Church or Diocese: But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being (the Apostles especially) Officers thereof in actu exercito. Nixt, the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter, or in the ordinary power whi●… the Apostles or Evangelists exercised, or transmitte 〈◊〉 the Church. And that for these Reasons. 1. Neit●… the Apostles nor Evangelists in respect of their perpet●… ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in 〈◊〉 Church, did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Ministers, but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge, they held them their equals, and in the ordinary power of government, as we saw above in the Apostles practise in ordination and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut, and far less can we suppose that the Evangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal pre-eminence in government. For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present, should notwithstanding usurp pre-eminence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle. And that whereas Presbyters did concur pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every piece of a judicial Act and decree, yet that ane Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles, should take Episcopal pre-eminence over a Presbytery. 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church, as had that Episcopal Power, therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmitted by them in the Church: And by further consequence it is not included in their Office eminenter. For it is evident, that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters, or Pastors, as their immediate Successor's in the Ministerial power, and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches, they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government, without the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order. Act. 20: 28, 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3. with 2 Pet. 1: 14— 3. It was in respect of Paul's ordinary Ministerial power, and in that Capacity, that he had hands laid upon him by that Presbytety at Antioch, and was sent out with other commissioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them, which looked like a humble submission pro tanto, unto them, and is far from the Episcopal pre-eminence: since the Prelates dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies. 4. The Prelates authority is this, he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Diocese, whose Episcopal inspection reaches pastors and flocks both, as is above cleared. He is the fountain from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the whole Diocese, is deryved, and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal. Now, this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their ordinary and extraordinary power, contrare to its very nature in universum, their office being a declarative executive Ministry only: And Dominion or Lordship being discharged to all Apostles, and all Church Officers whatsoever.  
Hence in the 3d. place, This Episcopal pretence, a●…nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour, from the Apostolic Office, fastens a gross charge of unfaithfulness upon them. 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoined them (viz.) a Lordly dominion, not a ministerial Stewardshipe & service only, & such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise, even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer, yea Chieff-peer, or Parliament man. 2. In debaseing and Straitening their Apostolic Inspection, and carrying ane Office incompatible with it, and thus unfaithfully tearing out a part of their commission. For, in becoming Diocesian Bishops, they should be fixed to particular dioceses, and therein exercise ane ordinary fixed poever, whereas their commission was to exercise ane extraordinary unfixed ministry towards all the Churches, planted, and to be planted. 3. In setting up up no such ordinare officers to succeed them in this so necessary a work, but committing the whole government to mere presbyters as is said. 4. In ommiting in all their rules & prescriptions anent Church government, & the offices and officers thereof, the least intimation of this officer, and giving no rules for either the qualifications or ordination of any higher officer than a mere presbyter, 5. In express dischargeing of Lordly dominion & pre-eminence among ordinary Church officers. Now, if this be not a debasing of, and high reflection upon, these eminent extraordinary Church officers, both to make them carry ane office contrare and inferior unto, and inconsistent with their holy functions, entrusted to them by the Lord, and likeways in their practice to contradict their doctrine in relation to Church government, yea and in both their Doctrine and practice, to contradict & cross the Lords great commission and instructions, If this be not, I say, a horrid reflection upon their faithfulness, Let any judge.   

CHAP. IU.  
The diocesian Prelates office, takes away the people's right, to Call there Pastor. This right proved from Scripture and divine Reason. It excludes the office of the Ruleing elder. Some Cheiff exceptions of the prelatic party to that 1. Tim. 5. 17. answered.  
IN the 9●…. place. The Episcopal government is in this contrare unto the word; In that it cuts off Congtegations from all interest and right, in Calling there Pastor. For in this government, the Minister's mission, Call, Ordination, and Relation to such a people, over whom he is to officiat, flows all from the Prelate. The congregational eldership have not the Least interestin it. Hence this power of calling pastors was ranversed by our Parliament when prelacy was set up, and the old popish Custom of patronages was restored. The Prelate sends a man to the poor people as their Minister, whom possibly they never saw in the face. Now, this is contrare both to Scripture and reason, contrare, to the practice of the apostolic Church. For 1. Even the deacons' were looked out, and chosen by the people. Act. 6. 3. That the Apostles might ordain and lay their hands upon them, and install them in their office with a public blessing: And if the people were to have so great ane Interest in choosing these men (though even the Apostles, who had infallible knowledge of qualifications, were present to ordain them) that this trust of disburseing their Alms or charity, might be committed to none but upon their consent & choice. Ergo, a fortiori, People have a far greater Interest as to their Consent and choice of the man, To whom they are to Intrust their Souls conduct unto another world, which is of infinite more worth than all the Earth's treasures, And while the are no such infallible discerners of fit persons to officiat, as the Apostles were. If the Apostles would not set apart men for this meanest employment, without the Peoples-Consent & looking them out, How absurd is it, that the highest ordinary officer [the Pastor] should be sent to officiat in that eminent office with out their knowledge or Consent.  
2 We find the chooseing and sending out of Church officers in this high ministerial employment, To have been upon the people's consent and choice: for Act. 14. The Elders or Ministers who were ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church, were thus ordained and set apart to their office, Compared with Tit. I. 5. Berause (not to stand here upon the import of the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which imports a hand suffrage, and consent of the people, as shalt be made good upon the Third Dialogue and the exceptions of this pamphleter, upon that passage, examined) this is clear, that this ordination was to be performed in the Church, Ergo, of necessity, with the people's Consent and choice: And Nixt, If the Apostles would not ordain the Deacons, but after this manner, much less Ministers unto such a weighty employment, since in their faithfulness the people are (as is said) infinitely more concerned. Besides, the very Intimation, and little, of the men out of whom a Successor to the Apostleshipe in the place of Judas, was by God immediately to be chosen, was with the people's Consent, Therefore much more ought this to be in the ordination and admission of ane ordinary officer whose call is mediate and ordinary. 3. The Scripture doth clearly hold forth a congregational Church & juridical eldership, representing that Church. Which (besyes many other reasons add●…cible, and accordingly pleaded by our writ●…ers) is evident in this, That as the Scripture makes mention of greater Churches, such as that of Corinth, Jerusalem &c, Who were certanly presbyterial, because, 〈◊〉 they are found, though consisting of many officers and Rulers, and of lesser Societies, yet to be all pointed cut as one Church, which must needs Import a Classical or presbiterial unity of these lesseSocieties. So the Spirit of God doth also●…all these lesser Societies Churches, in the plural. Let the Woman beep Silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches 1. Cor. 14. 34. Which must needs Import the Single Congregations of that one Church of Corinth. And moreover, through thes Church's Rulers, Elders, & Gouvernours were set and established 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church, that is, throw all particular Churches Act. 14. 23. With Tit. I. 5. For if the Church is found to have had both ruleing and teaching Elders, Rom. 12. 8. 1. Cor 12. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. And upon the other hand, if these lesser Societies are called [Churches] It certanly follows that they had ane eldership & rule in them. If ane eldership, and rulers, be allowed to rule and represent the Congregation in matters Ecclesiastical, then by necessary consequence it follows, that the Call of the Pastor and Chieff elder and his choice, as most suitable to their condition, must fall within the compass ofther Spiritual authority.  
Finally, the denying of this unto Congregations, & the Episcopal arbitrary obtruding of Ministers upon them without their call and consent, is in two great points, contrare unto divine Reason. 1. Unto that spiritual and near relation, which is betwixt a Minister and his flock, (which we will find this pamphleter after plead) which is certainly marriage like and very straight. And there being many peculiarduties, which they owe unto him beside others Ministers, all flowing from this relation, particularly a special reverence, obedience, and subjection; These must certanely suppose a voluntary consent and call, and cannot be bottomed upon the mere will and pleasure of another, which cannot make up this relation 2, This denying of the people's right to call their Pastor, is contrare unto that judgement of discretion, that spiritual discerning, and trying of the Spirits, which is allowed, yea & enjoined to the people of God; If in any thing a spiritual discerning must take place, surely in this especially, to whom a people do intrust their soul's direction and guidance; If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith, and not give up his persuasion to ane implicit conduct, and thus become a servant of men, sure it must be, in a mater ofso great weight as this is? If Christ's sheep have this for their Character, that they know the voice of the true Shepherd from the voice of the hireling and stranger, from whom they will fly, Joh. 10: 4, 5. Sure their knowledge and consent must intervene, in order to their acceptance of, and subjecton to their Shepherd? If they must not belive every Spirit, buttery the Spirits, sure this caution and trial must be especially allowed in this case, that they admit not a false Prophet instead of a true? So then the Episcopal Government, is in this, as in other points, chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyranny over Christ's flocks.  
10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God (viz.) In denying, and cutting off from his administration, and the total laying aside of a singularly useful Church officer appointed by Christ in his House (viz) the ruleing elder. That Government which denies and lays aside, any of the great Master of the vine yard, his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed, must needs be highly derogatory to his glory and contrare to his word; But such is Prelacy. The Prelates are like that slothful wicked servant who smites and beats away there fellow-servants, while they eat and drink with the drunken. That Prelates disoun and exclude this officer, is evident both from their principles and practice. They all deny the divine warrant of this Church officer: And where Prelacy is established, he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synods, and upon the mater also, from the congregation: For they deny and exclude all decisive suffrage there, and take away all Authority of congregational elderships, as we seen. Now that this ruleing elder, distinct from both the preaching Presbyter, and Deacon, Is appointed by God, our Divines have made good from several Scripture grounds. Such as 1. From Rom. 12: 6, 7. Where among several other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat, there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or he that ruleth. Here is ane ordinary Ruler, distinct from all other Rulers, and Church officers, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rule and authoritative power. Again, he is ranked among ordinary Officers, and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer, yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers, having both a distinct name from all the rest, likeways a distinct work, as being diversified from the teacher, the exhorter, and the giver. And moreover, a peculiar direction, as have likewise all the rest. So that from the circumstances of this place, the divine right of this officer, is clearly demonstrate. Nixt, That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose, 1 Cor. 12: 28. Where we read of helps, Governments, under distinct paragraphes, clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers, distinct from the elders that preach, and the Deacon, and all other Church Governoures whatsoever. They cannot be Governoures in the General, for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers▪ These are distinct from helps, distinct from the teaching elder, for he is already mentioned in this same vers. So here is a Rule, and Government, distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastic, except this ruleing elder, yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament. But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines do demonstrat the divine right of this Church officer is that of the 1▪ Tim. 5: 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine. Here is a ruleing Church officer, distinct from the preaching elder: For here is a general, elders, Nixt, we have two distinct branches of these elders (viz) the ruleing elder, and the elder that both rules and labours in the word and Doctrine, in the word as the Pastor, In the Doctrine as the teacher. Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epithets, [ruling] is made the mark and characterick of the one (viz) Ruling only: And [both Ruleing and teaching] is made the mark of the other, whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office. But in the 3d. place, the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially] which is set betwixt these two kinds of elders, intimating that as there were some of these ruling elder who did labour in the word and Doctrine, so there were others who did Rule and not labour in the Word: Both were worthy of double honour, but especially the labourer in the word, over and above this ruling. And to this purpose it is well observed, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially, is always in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another. As when it is said Gal. 6: 10. Let us do good to all men, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expecially, to these of the household of faith, hereby distinguishing soom that were of the household of faith, and some that were not. In which sense it is also used Phil. 4: 22. and 1 Tim. 5: 8, This precept, saith P●…scator (Anal: in Locum) he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike; for he distinguishes elders into those who were set over Ecclesiastic Discipline, yet so asthey did not publicly teach, & those who did teach also: Wherein he clearly gives sentence for us against the Prelatic party, in this point. We may hence Collect, that there were two sorts of elders at that time (saith Calvin, on 1 Tim. 5: 17.) For all were not ordained to teach; for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had governed well and faithfully, to whom notwithstanding, the office of teaching was not committed. And truly from among the people their were grave and good men chosen and approved, who did together with pastors, by common Council & authority administer Church Government, and were in some sort, censors for correcting of manners, which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worm out of use, by the negligence, or rather the pride of teachers while they covet to rule alone. The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasiones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer: Some of which we shall here take notice of, and the confutation of the same, offered by our divines upon this point. Some, by Ruleing well will have living well, to be understood: But the Apostle is speaking of the office of ruling in a Church officer, ruling over others, not of ruling over a man's ●…eif in a private capacity. Neither is the Churches Honorarium. double honour, double maintinance, due to living well, as here it is allowed to [ruling well] And this will say that the Minister that preaches not, is worthy of double honour for living well, which will make very harsh sense. Some understand this ruleing elder, of the [Deacon,] but the Deacon is no where called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elder, his work being to help, to distribute, not to rule. 1 Cor. 12, 28. Rom. 12, 8 Some would being in under this [Ruler,] The ancient Superannuat Bishop; But this gloss will in honour prefer unto him, the diligent preaching Minister, which will wound their cause to death. Some, by the [Ruler] will have such understood as did administer Sacraments, but preached not: But Paul knew none of these non preaching or seldom-preaching Ministers, far less would he allow them a double honour, who rather deserved the contrary. Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach, and able to convince. Some by the [ruling elder,] would have Inferior Magistrates understood, who were appointed for ending civil Striffes'; but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers, not civil rulers, and teaching Timothy how to carry in the Church. Again, they had then no Christian civil Magistrates, as all do grant, and for their going to Heathens to compose their civil differences, Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some again will have the labouring in the word & doctrine to be nothing else but ane explanation of rulcing well; but this inadvertant gloss will set aside My Lord Bishop as no good ruler. Again, as is said, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, or the word [especially] is discriminating, and discretive, distinguishing one thing from another, not explaining one thing by another. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thus sensed, what odd work would it make in other places. 1 Tim. 4: 10. Who is the Saviour of all men, especially [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of them that believe. This gloss will sense it thus, the Saviour of all men greatly believing Others yet, by [labouring in the word and doctrine] will have a higher degree of labouring as to diligence, understood, yet so as both branches speak of labouring in the word and doctrine; But (as the Leyden Professoures' do well answer) this will allow double honour to the less-labouring or lazy elder, who deserves rather a double rebuke, the Lord requiring the the utmost faithful diligence, of all labourers in his vineyard. Besides that this gloss justles out, and makes Superfluous, that clause of the verse viz in the word and doctrine, which according to this exposition, should either have been totally omitted, or added unto both the branches of this sentence. Some, to escape the dint of this text, invent yet another Shift [all Sort of Rulers; whither civil, ecclesiastic, or domestical, are worthy of double honour; so they sense the first branch, and say they, this General proposition the Apostle might premise to enforce the honour he enjoins to the labourer in the word, etc.] But the context fully rejects this gloss, since the Apostle speaks not generally of Rulers, but of elders that rule well, and of such elders and rulers to all which he allows double honour. So that this gloss will make pitiful work, both in allowing the Churches honorarium, double honour, or honourable maintinance, to domestic Rulers; and likeways will allow more honourable maintinance to Ministers than Magistrates. Some would, by the labourer in word and Doctrine, as distinct from the ruling elder, take in transient visiting Presbyters, distinct from fixed preaches; but where will they show us any such who were not Evangelists? We find that mere ordinary Presbyters, were ordained for several cities and places as there peculiar charges, whom they were fixedly to feed, Act. 14: 23. Tit. 1: 5. Act. 20: 28. But where find they such Presbyters as had no fixed charge. Neither can Evangelists be meaned (as Dr Burnet would glad shift it in his first Dialogues) the Apostle all along speaking of ordinary preaching Presbyters. These, and several such like exceptions, the evidence of this text hath long since refuted; So that we may conclude solidely from what is said the divine right of this Church officer, and by consequence the horrid Sacrilege and usurpation of Prelacy, in robbing Christ's Church of the same: And likewise the Babilonish confusion, which this Antichristian Hierarchy hath introduced into our Church: both in dividing and maiming the Pastoral office, in bringing in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed, and in excluding and thirsting our offices and officers which the hath ordained; upon which grounds, and upon all the preceding, we hope we may now safely conclude the Diocesian Prelate, existing among us, to be a plant which the father never planted, and consequently as a poisonus weed, to be rooted up.   

CHAP. V.  
That the present Prelacy is gross Erastianisme. Some Arguments against it, under that notion. It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers, distinct from the civil; contrar to the Church's privilege, both under the Old and New Testament, which is demonstrat at large. Is in many points ane Encroachment upon the liberties of the Gospel-Church, and upon Christ's mediatory authority over the same.  
HAving thus far impugned the Diocesian Prelate, as a pretended Church officer. We shall nixt, offer some Arguments against him in his Erastian Mould, as deriving all his power from the civil Magistrate. Although the office of the Diocesian Bishop were acknowledged warrantable, yet this will help nothing the Erastian Prelate, these being very distinct themes and questions. [What is that Species of Church Government, allowed and commanded in Scriptnre]? and [whither there be any inherent Church Government, allowed her, distinct from that of the Civil Magistrate?] and whither Church officers, or the Civil Magistrate, be the proper Subject thereof? that the Present Prelacy is gross Erastianisme, is manifest; for after all Church Judicatories were in Anno 16 62. discharged until they were authorized by the Bishops nominat by his Majesty— the disposal of the Government is declared to be the Crown-right, and inherent p●…rpetual prerogative: and thereupon the Bishops are restored, not only to their civil dignities, but to their Episcopal function, presidency in the Church and over all Church discipline, etc. And it is expressly declared, that there is no Church power, jurisdiction or Government, in the Church office bearers or meetings, but what depends upon, and is subordinat unto the Supremacy, and is authorized by the Bishops, who are declared accountable to his Majesty for their administration. In the Act for the National Synod, the constituent members thereof, the matters to be treated of, the authorising of the constitutions as Church Canons, is solely in the Civil Magistrate, there work being only to give advice to him, without any decisive inherent suffrage. By virtue of which Ecclesiastic Supremacy, his Majesty puts excommunication and Spiritual censures, and consequently the power of the keys, into the hands of persons merely civil, in the Act for the high commission. Hence it is aparent, that his Majesty as the fountain of all Church Government, imparts this Authority to such as he pleases, and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesty's Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastic Power, which is originally in himself. Now, that this Erastian Prelacy, or Church Government, is a stranger to the Scripture, is many ways evident.  
1. This Erastian Prelacy, Denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers, distinct from civil Magistrace: which is ane error fully confuted and largely baffled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers, and is contrare many ways to Scripture. I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastic and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet, asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines, paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aaron's road. I. From the institution of that Court of elders, supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth, Numb. 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d. Month in the 2d. Year they took their journey from Sinai to the ●…dernes of Paran Numbr. 10. 11, 12. And there pitched, when the seventy elders were chosen to relieve Moses. They were not the judges chosen by advyce of jethro, for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year, or the beginning of the Second after they came out of Egypt; Nor could they be judges, who judged before he came; for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone. So they must needs have been Ecclesiastic Rulers under the presidency of Aarone and Hur. vers. 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel, after the Judicial laws were given, Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial laws, concerning the worship of God, and the Structur of the Tabernacle. Deutr. 17. 8, 9, 10. All grant there a Supreme Court of judges, therefore also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastic Court: For it caries the authority & sentence of the priests, as high as the authority & sentence of the judges, & that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers, each binding respective in their owned proper Sphere. 3. From these judges & officers 1. Chr. 23. 4, & 26: 29. Supposed, & set to their work when the Levits were divided to there Charge, who were not tied to service & attendances in the Temple, but to judge & give sentence concerning the law & its meaning: and this saith the text, over Israel, coming to them from any of the cities of the land. 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation. 2. Chron. 19 8, 10, 11. Who restoring the government of the Church, did set in jerusalem levits, priests, Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord, & for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests & Levits with power of Suffrage & thus consisting of Ecclesiastic membres. 2. In Ecclesiastic matters, Matters of the Lord, distinct from Matters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastic end (viz.) to warn that they trespass not, not only against one another, but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelled in the Cities, were to come to them unto Jerusalem. 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastic Moderator, or precedent, Amariah the chieff priest, over them in all Matters of the Lord, ●…istinct (as is said) from Matters of the King. These & many such Arguments are made use of by him & others, To clear this point of the Two distinct Sanhedrins, which fully overthrows this Erastian Confusion of these two powers & governments. 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil, and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers, distinct from the Civil government, is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government, from that of the Civil power, which is clearly held out in the new Testament. Wherein it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdom as Mediator. And so its Officers, Laws, & Censures falls with in the compass of his mediatory appointment and inspection. Matth. 16. 19— & 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11, 12.— 2. That the gospel Church was Completed in her being & essence, both as to Rulers & Ruled, Members & officers, and in rules & directions for the exercise of her government accordingly, when no Magistrate was so much as a member of her.— 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power, it is enjoined to the Church, & to these Church officers, as such, with the same freedom & independency upon the Civil power, as at the first, & without the least restriction & limitation, in case of the Magistrates becoming Christian; All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power, being moral & perpetual, & respecting the Church her condition as a Church, whither the Magistrate be friend or enemy.  
In the 2d. Place, This Erastian prelatic mould of government brings in many gross encroachments upon the liberties of the gospel Church. As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power & Key of Censure without the Magistrate: Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise thereof with out him. 2. Introduceing a dominion, & arbitrary power upon all her government; Contrare to her liberty & the very nature of her government, which is a Ministerial Stewardship, not a dominion; for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrates dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatic Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer.— 3. Giving to the Magistrate qua talis (for this power in Church matters, is by Prelates and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right) the proper & Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastic cognisance: for Prelatists only meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod, according to the forementioned Act. Now, this Cuts off all Church judicatories there decisive suffrage as Church judicatories, which (as is cleared above) they did fully at first exercise of themselves, without the Magistrate. 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrate the proper immediate subject of the Keys, and Imparts all Church government to One, who, as such, is not so much as a Church member, and empowers him to give out this supposed fountain power to no Church members, or to here enemies at his pleasure, As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excommunication? Yea it gives him a power, by his owned proper clicite acts, to dispense all her [external government] as the law terms it, which (if we look upon it as including all external ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man, & the Church invisible) will necessarily import & include the exercise of both the Keys, & all the external dogmaticke, diatactick, & Critic authority & power, entrusted to the Church representative: Which is a mere Civil papacy & the grossest of usurpations which the Church can be exposed unto, as shall be afterward touched. Finally, This will infer, that Children, Heathens, yea women, may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too, since they may possess the Crown of these Kingdoms, to which this Headship and Supremacy is annexed. But of this also again.  
3. This Erastian government is a gross encroachment upon Christ's prerogative over his Church. And that in these ways. 1. In assumeing a power over the Church which is proper to Christ only, I mean a Magisterial, architectonick power. That this is assumed by this Erastian mould of government, is evident? He who can dispose of government, and governoures of the Church arbitrarly, and dispose of all Church meetings, and Church matters, as he pleases and thinks fit, Hath certanly this power; but that this Magisterial, architectonick, power and dominion over the Church, is Christ's Sole prerogative, is abundantly clear by manifold plain, positive, Scripture assertions. To Christ is all power given in Heaven and Earth, Matth. 28. 18. And he, as Mediator, is given to be head over all things to the Church, Ephes. 1. 21, 22. To h●…m is all judgement (over her) committed, John. 5. 22. He it is also who possesses these high tittles, to be the Governoure (over his Church) by way of eminency, Matth. 2. 6. That great shepherd of the sheep. Hebr. 13. 20. the shepherd and Bishop of Souls. 1. Pet. 2. 25. He is that one Master over all Church officers, who are but Brethren, Matth. 23. 8, 10. To us there is but One Lord jesus. 1. Cor. 8. 6. He it is, to whom only the imperial acts of power are ascribed: as, the giving of laws to his Church, the gospel precepts are his law. Gal. 6. 2. He it is who gave commandments to his Apostles, Act. 1. 2. there is but one law giver who can save and destroy. Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver or Statute maker, the Lord is our King, I say. 33 22. He it is who Constitutes her ordinances, preaching of the word Matth. 10. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 17. administration of the Sacraments, as of baptism, John. 1. 33. the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. dispensing of Censures, Matth. 16. 29. He it is who appoints his Officers, Prophets, pastors, Teachers, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. 1. Cor. 12, 28. In his name only all ordinances are dispensed: Not in the name of Magistrates, or of any Mortal. The Apostles spoke and taught in the name of Jesus. Act. 4. 17, 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. 13, 14. In his name only Ministers are to preach and baptise, Matth. 28. 18, 19 2. Cor. 5. 20. In his name only they are to Censure, to deliver to Satan. 1 Cor. 5. 4. In his name only Church assemblies are to be gathered, which seems the Smallest Act. Matth. 18, 20. (See jus divinum Regim: Eccles: Appollon: Revius. etc.— 2. This Erastian government incroaches upon Christ's prerogatives, In taking and using the Keys against Christ's donation and authority Christ is the only Lord giver of both the Keys, and all their power. But, in this Usurped power, the Keus are 1. divided, against his prescription, who gave both the Keys of Doctrine and Discipline jointly to the proper recipients the●…of (viz.) Church officers. Matth. 16. 19 This Erastian government ●…ches away One Key (viz. of government) from such to whom Christ the great Master of the House, hath Entrusted both. Christ in this donation of the Keys, making no mention of the Civil Rulers, but only of Church Officers then appointed, who were distinct from the Magistrate. Hence 2. The Key of discipline is taken and used against his mind, by these to whom he hath not Entrusted it, which is a great encroachement upon his authority. In the 3d. place, this Erastian government encroaches upon Christ's authority over his Church, In superadding Ane officer to theseChurch officers institut and appointed by him. For in all the Scripture rolls of Christ's Church officers, the Civil Rulers are not found. Eph. 4. 10, 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 6. 7, 8.— 4. This encroachment appears in making Church officers, as such, immediately subject to the Magistrate in all their Spiritual administration, which is a high Censure of the Primitive exercise of this power independantly, as we shall show. 5▪ In exeeming him from all Spiritual subjection unto, and censure by, Church Rulers. For where, ●…pray, shall we find the Magistrate excepted, and the hi●…herCivil powers, if within the Church, from Christ's laws and rules anent subjection to Church censures and to his Spiritual office bearers entrusted therewith?   

CHAP. VI  
Erastianism denies the complete constitution of the Apostolic Church in point of Government. Removes the Scripture Landmarks, set to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastic Powers, which is cleared in several points. It is liable to great absurdities.  
IN the 4th place: This Erastian Government presumes to impeach the primitive Apostolic Church, her complete constitution and faithfulness of Administration in relation to Government, and makes here to have had but a defective maimed constitution and authority thereanent, while the exercise of the civil power in her, was wanting. Which charges a gross deficiency upon Christ's prescriptions in relation to her Laws and Officers: Which are found in Scripture, very full, and suited to her state and condition in all times until all the Elect be made up, and here warfare is accomplished; and consequently, it impeaches Christ's saithfulness and authority as Mediator, whose proper work this holy constitution is  
5. This Erastian Prelacy takes away all the Scripture Landmarks and Limits, which are fixed therien by God, to distinguish the Civil and Ecclesiastic Powers and Governments, and makes them every way the same, in all things wherein Scripture and Reason do distinguish them, both as to their Nature and Acts, and likeways as to their Causes.  
1. As to their Nature, this Erastian Government doth confound them. 1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth, the Political and Ecclesiastical Societies, one and the same, which are formally distinct. It being a visible profession that make a Church member, and outward habitation and subjection to the civil power, that makes a Subject; Which may be where there is no profession, and consequently no Church-membership. For in this mould, the King's Government Civil, is Church Government, for it is his Government as King, in which capacity this Ecclesiastic Supremacy is his prerogative, and his Ecclesiastic Government is also Civil Government, for it is his Government as the Supreme Civil Magistrate: And thus the Church, respected by his government, is the Commonwealth, & vice versa. 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State, which the Scripture doth abundantly distinguish. For, as is said, The Church had all her Officers of Christ's appointment, when no Magistrate was a Member thereof; and on the other hand, Commonwealths had all their civil Rulers, before they became Churches; But in this Erastian Prelacy, this order is confounded, The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrates Commissioners to Church and State; whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediator to his Church as a Church, 1 Cor. 12: Ver. 28.— 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastic authority are thus confounded, Spiritual church Rulers Act only in Spiritual matters by God's appointment, and civil Rulers there immediate proper Acts are only in matters Civil. But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners, and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicate.  
Again in the 2. place: This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes, which are wholly divers. 1. The efficient cause is divers, God as Creator, is Author of Magistracy, Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediator appoints Church Government, Matt. 28: 18. But here, the Magistrate qua talis, is a suprem Church Ruler? And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church: Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus, particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aaron's Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause, the matter on which the two powers do act, are divers: Ecclesiastic power doth act in the exercise of the Keys, the administration of the Word and Sacraments, having this for its proper Object and matter. The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword; the one reaches the inward, the other the outward man. But in this Erastian prelacy, the, Sword and Keys, are made one, promiscuously used, and put into the same hands. 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause: the civil power is put forth in political punishments, the Ecclesiastic in spiritual censures. But here, the same power is the first Radix and Fountain of Spiritual Censures, and Civil punishments, and gives them their formal essence and being, as such. Finally. The proper immediate end of Civil power is the Temporal, External, political peace of the commonwealth. Rom. 13. 1, 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power, Is the Church's Spirival good and edification as such, Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here, the Magistrate quatalis, being the Church's head, these ends are Confounded. These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus, which do fully evince the unlawfulness of this Erastian prelacy. Whosoever shall peruse Apollonius His jus Majest: Circ: Sacr: the jus Div: regim: Eccles: the Aaron's rod, wallaeus against Vtenbog: and such like, will find this abundantly clear.  
To sh●…t up all with One word more. There are these 3. horrid absurdities, in relation to Church government, which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacy will necessarily infer. 1. That a man may be borne, not only a Church member, but a Chief Church Ruler: Nay, that a Heathen, and a man that never professed the true religion, but lives and dies ane ingraind enemy to it, and so hath neither mater nor form, of Church membership, may be a Chieff Church officer. For his Majesty's present authority herine (acknowledged by our prelates, and which is the Fountain of their power) is the proper Crown dignity of all that ever shall possess and wear it: and so here is a monstrous Church officer, who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed. 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church (which is the essential mark of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28.) for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d. absurdity is this, That Children and women (who may have a lawful lineal right to the crown) may be Church officers, Yea the Fountain of our prelates authority, and of all their Under●…ings, and the chieff governoure of this Church; and thus, they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church, shall be Chieff Church Rulers, and likeways such as have not the use of Reason. 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34, 35.— A 3d. absurdity is, That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical, and that One man may be her Supreme head, legislator, And architectonick Monarch and Ruler, for aquatenus, ad omne, valet consequentia. Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions, the Church in all other places, being a body of the same nature, Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions, he were her Supreme universal head? And it were so, if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches: By this same reason of his headship over One, he may be head over all, and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers. And if this will not Clearly set the pope's Treeple Croun upon his head, and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have written and acted against his blasphemous Supremacy, let common discretion judge, Ambrose (Epist: 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem) Saith, noli gravare imperator, ut putes in ea quae divina sunt, aliquod imperiale jus habere, opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est, non Sacrorum. Grieve not O Emperor, so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine, the right or authority of political offices is committed unto thee, but not of Sacred.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Informers deceitful shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacy, and flinching from the point debatable, discovered Several ways. He declines a direct pleading for prelates civil offices, Yet offers some argument's defence thereof: Wherein his prevarication, and Contradiction to himself, is made appear.  
TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist, hath produced in defence of the present prelacy established amongst us, And to examine his answers to our plea against it; We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelates, with which He prefaces this Dialogue, it being altogether extrinsic to the Question anent the lawfulness of the office itself, And would be no argument in our case against him, as this man cannot but acknowledge, else He must give up the cause, upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent piety, and integrity, of many burning and Shining lights, who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacy. That which is here mainly considerable, Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacy, (viz.) [Whither the ancient bishops had a Superiority over other Ministers] wherein he utterly ●…ches away from the point debeatable. 1. In making this the State of the Question [what bishops were in the primitive Church] whereas the true State of our Question, is, whither the prelate now existent in this Church, be a Scripture Bishop and consonant thereunto, Or, ane officer appointed by Christ in his house, Yea or not. And not whither there have been Bishops, or such as we now have, in the ancient Church. The Question is not of the mater of fact, but of the right, yea and the divine right of the present prelates in relation to their power. 2. In stating the difference betwixt the Bishop he pleads for, and the Pastor, He Smooths it over in this general, [whither there have been such bishops, as have had a Superiority over ordinary Ministers] but doth not explain what that Superiority is which he pleads for, whither of order or jurisdiction, or both; whither specifical, or gradual; Whither a Superiority of mere presidency, or of principality; The [Episcopus prese, and princeps] sharing in this general name. Dolus latet in generalibus: Since there have been various Superiorities, de facto, He should have particularised that Superiority which He undertaks to defend. 3. His Doubter suggesting [that they were not Lord bishops] He must needs make him refer to 1. Pet. 5. 3. Discharging to Lord it over God's heritage; But how poor is his evasion from and solution of this difficulty, in starting this notion [whither there have been, De facto, Bishops with a Superiority over Presbyters, Or Bishops who had Civil dignities in ancient times?] The pinch of this debate lying in this, whither the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Or Lordship] discharged in that Scripture, will not strike against such a Superiority or dominion, whither in Ecclesiastic, or Civil rule, as our prelates now assume? and not what sort of Superiority in Ecclesiastic, or Civil government, prelates have formerly had. The present prelate existent in Scotland, having such a dominion over Church Judicatories, and likwayes in Civils, as is above expressed, and derving all his power from the Magistrate in Ecclesiastic, as well as in Civil rule, He should have Stated his Question thus distinctly, and then fenced for his great Diana. But the man probably found this a task which be durst not undertake: which appears immediately after, in his declining the debate anent the bishops Civil rule, telling us, [That he will make it none of his work to debate with us, their acting in Civil affairs, Sometimes] But 1. Since he undertaks the patrociny and defence of Episcopacy now established among us, And in his preface professes it his design to prove it lawful, and thereby to take off one of our arguments for withdrawing from Conformists, And it being likeways Certain that the present prelates are Civil rulers. He must either undertake this debate, or acknowledge them unlawful pro tanto at least? And that he proves but a maimed pleader for their present office, and falls short of a great part of his design in this pamphlet. 2. He pitifully Snakes away from this debate also, in min●…hing their State-medling, thus, (viz.) Their acting in Civil affairs Sometimes, which may be said of any man or Minister, His rare transient, occasional, accidental or private actings, and even in domestic affairs. But cannot this man distinguish betwixt this, and a Stated official acting, 〈◊〉 constituent and constant members of Civil judicatories, as prelates are according to our laws, and that even ex natura officij as they are prelates; Sure, he cannot distinguish the Mountain from the Molchill, that cannot see a difference betwixt these. Either this Informer must account the prelates present State acts lawful, or not? If He account them lawful, than He falls under a Three fold praemunire in this point. 1. In de●…lyning the defence of one of the prelates Unquestionable legal privileges (disouned by presbyterians, and by him esteemed lawful) notwithstanding of his undertaking to plead for them. 2. In Undertaking only tos plead for their acting Sometimes, which (as I said) i far from the point and matter of fact, which he must defend. 3. In confessing at the foot of the page [That Church men should not needlesslie, or of Choice, entangle themselves in these incumberances] wherein he palpably contradicts himself as to his Scope. For do not our prelates of most free choice and deliberately assume State Employments? Or are their shoulders burdened against their will with these State honour's? Besides, He citys 2. Tim. 2. 4. In acknowledging this intanglement in worldly affairs, to be unlawful in Church men; The text says, no man that warreth entangleth himself in affairs of this life. Now, if this text discharge universally, and absolutely, a Minister's intanglement in worldly affairs, How comes he to foist in his limitation of [needlessly, or of Choice] where is this limitation in the text? If all entanglements or in cumberances, as such, be unlawful, as is here expressly asserted, as being inconsistent with the nature and importance of the Ministers Spiritual function, which requires the greatest abstractednes from all worldly things, and the man's constant waiting upon, and giving himself wholly unto the things of God; Then surely whither he entangle himself by choice, or not, it is still ane intanglement, and consequently sinful; his acting deliberately is butane agravation. Again, since He makes ane intanglement Of choice, to be a needle's intanglement, and consequently sinful, He must needs acknowledge that such is the present prelatick meddling, which, as is said, He cannot deny to be most deliberate and of choice. But nixt, If He account our prelates State-actings unlawful? Then 1. Why doth He not interminis acknowledge so much, and not lisp it half out? 2. Why doth He allege something from Scripture precedents to prove it warrantable? But Let us hear his Scripture arguments whereby He would prove this State acting lawful. His first Reason is [That the jewish Sanhedrin made up of the Sevinty elders, Moses assistants in Civil government, did consist partly of priests] where 1. We see He overstraines his point, and overstretches himself in his pretended proof, for the These he undertaks to prove, is, [That Church men may act in State matters, though not of Choice, and so that it be Sometimes only] which he cannot but distinguish from a Constant official meddling, if he speak sense. And to prove this, He brings ane instance of priests under the old Testament-dispensation, their being constituent members of a civil court? Now, how do these quadrat? Were not these priests to act deliberately and of Choice? If this prove any thing at all it will prove that Ministers (as being such members) may deliberately and of choice involve themselves in Civil affairs, which this man holds to be discharged 2. Tim. 2. 4. And so this Reason, because proving too much, and beyond his assertion, proves just nothing. 2. As we cleared above, the difference betwixt the Civil and Ecclesiastic Sanhedrin, and that those Sevinty, mentioned in the 11. Numbr. who were chosen for the government of the Commonwealth, are distinct from those mentioned Exod. 24. Who were Ecclesiastic and not Civil officers; So it is more than this Informer hath offered proof of, that there were priests in that Civil Court, since as is said, the Two Sanhedrins Civil and Ecclesiastic, did consist of distinct members, and there was not one Sanhedrin only, as this man seems to suppose. But 3. Though the concurrence of some priests in that Civil Court, were granted, Our writers have abundantly cleared the inconsequence of any argument drawn from that instance as to this point, In that though the Civil and Ecclesiastic Sanhedrin, were distinct originaly, Yet the judicial Civil law being given immediately by God to the jews, as well as the Moral and Ceremonial, the priests by consequence, under that dispensation, had a most necessary interest as to its interpretation & decision in many cases, for the law was to be sought at their mouth. The difference of which condition of the jewish, from that of the Christian Church (Spread over the world, and in Country's where are different moulds of Civil government and laws, and which are not tied to that judicial law) doth cast the balances and overthrow his argument. As for that of deutr. 17. We have seen how it holds out a Twofold Sanhedrin which had distinct members, acts, and objects. In a word, if his argument from this instance were good (upon his supposition that priests were members in that Court) it would prove that Christians could not have a lawful civil Supreme judicatory, unless Ministers were constituent members thereof? And that Ministers were essentially & necessarily ex natura officii (as these priests) constituent members of civil Judicatories? which is more than he dare assert, and the absurdity thereof is above cleared. His 2d. Ground is drawn from [the examples and instances of Eli the Priest who judged Israel forty years, and of Samuel the Prophet, who, though lent to the Lord from his birth, yet went in circuit yearly judging the people] But 1. The force of this reason leaning upon ane example merely, of Church officers under the old dispensation, and the gratis supposed imitablenes thereof, it is (like the other argument) very unsound and lax. He will not dare to aver that every deduction a facto ad jus, is sound; All scripture examples, are for our improvement, but not for our imitation. Even good and laudable Acts of the Saints, are of this nature, many of them. Some were heroical, as Elias bringing fire from heaven, which the Lord discharged James and John to imitat. Phinehas his Act, he will say with his Master the surveyer, was of this nature. Some Acts did flow from ane extraordinary emergent of Providence, and a call flowing therefrom, as Abraham's attempt to offer his Son, Israel's borrowing from the Egyptians and not paying. Some Acts had their issue from a ●…ansient and occasional juncture, procuring a necessity pro tunc, as Paul's preaching gratis, and working with his hands. Some acts were to confirm a special extraordinary call, So our Lords forty days fast, and that of Moses his type. Now, to conclude from the premised instances, the lawfulness of these Acts (viz) Sacrificing Children, borrowing and not paying, the popish quadrantum &c, This Informer will grant to be very poor and childish Sophristrie, yet such is his reasoning here. 2. Divines do tell us that these examples only are imitable, whose ground and scope are of a moral nature, which the persons did, as saints or Christians: such are all examples of moral standing duties enjoined in the commands. They tell us. 3. That there are two Rules necessarily to be observed (and which this Informer must of necessity grant) as to a conclusion, ab exemplo ad factum, or a facto ad jus, which cuts the sinews of his argument here. 1. No example which crosses a moral precept can ground a Rule, for this would make the Rule cross itself. And to bring this near the point in hand, I will show, that this Informer fights against himself, and must needs admit this answer, from the very mould of his argument: For he thinks to imforce the Instance from Samuel his civil actings, by telling us that he was lent to the Lord from his mother's womb: Which will say, according to his pleading, That a man though singularly devoted to God in the sacred Ministry, yet may deliberately and of choice become a civil judge, yea a supreme civil judge; and then I would know, how he will reconcile this with the great gospel precept 2 Tim. 2: 4. Which himself pleads as discharging deliberate meddling in civil affairs, because the sacred Ministry is a warfare, or a dedication of the Minister to the service of Christ? And what will he say if one shall argue thus, if a Minister, though dedicat to the Lord from his mother's womb, may notwithstanding become a civil judge, than the Ministry its being a warrfare under Christ, cannot hinder a man's meddling by choice in civil affairs, which notwithstanding he denies: So that either he must disown this Instance, or his sense of that Gospel's precept. But of this again. 2. No examples of Acts done from ane extraordinary calling & gifts, are to be imitated by such as have neither the one, nor the other. We will find our Informer afterward grant this in relation to the Apostles, & that there are many things depending upon special emergents that are not imitable in them. And if he should deny this Rule, as he will contradict himself, so he will not evite a great inconvenience from the fact of Phinehas, from Ehud, etc. Incase some person of a boisterous heart, and unruly hand, should plead these instances to offer violence unto him. Be side, if this rule be not admitted, he will brangle the boundary and limits of different ordinary callings, (and relations by consequence) which the God of order hath fixed. The examples of Magistratical or Ministerial duties, obliges not private persons to ane imitation; The Apostolic Acts of working Miracles, giving the Spirit by laying one of hands, universal unfixed preaching (he will grant) are not imitable (as neither the peculiar duties of Relations among private persons, do oblige every one) because these extraordinary gifts and callings are now gone: And so say I of these examples of Eli, and Samuel, who are by all sound divines ranked among the judges whose call and office is acknowledged to have been extraordinary; God keeping at that time the regal rights in his own hand., before he set up any fixed ordinary Rulers and Kings, and creating, & calling extraordinarly, his own deputies in the Government, sometimes out of one tribe, and sometimes out of another, whose authority died with themselves and admitted of no succession. Wherefore Gideon told the people that God was their King, and refused that office when offered; and the people's guilt in wearing of this holy immediate Government of God himself, and desiring a King, is aggravated from this, That they had rejected God who was their King. So that his argument from these extraordinary instances, is wholly inconcludent; it being from ane extraordinary, to ane ordinary calling, from ane extraordinary factum, to ane ordinary jus; which is consequence we will find himself afterward disown. And if he strain these instances, they will prove too much, (viz.) That Ministers may be Kings, or supreme civil judges; which I believe he will not adventure to plead for, since what ever thanks he may merit for this from the Pope, yet Royalists will allow him none.  
If, in a matter so plain and evident, it were needful to adduc testimonies of writers and commentators (as this informer doth to no purpose) how harmonious would their consent appear unto this truth. The English Annot: in their preface upon the book of judges, will tell him that the judges were not ordinary Magistrates, but extraordinarly called of God in times of great extremity etc. And in their preface on the first book of Samuel, they show, that it contains the History of the two last judges, Eli, and Samuel, and of Saul the first King of Israel. And upon that place, Chap. 7: 15, 16. Anent samuel's judging of Israel, notwithstanding of his being lent to the Lord from his birth, 1 Chap. 28. They will Inform this informer [thatas thiswas the jurisdictionof a judge, whichGod called him unto all the time of saul,— so, he was quo bound by his Mother's vow, Chap. 1. Whereby he was devoted to the service of the sanctuary, to continue his residence there, both because God had forsaken it for the sins of the Priests, and also, because the Lord himselfhad taken him off from that levitical service, and called him to another employment, namely, to be a holy Prophet and a judge over his people, which places he could not discharge, if he had been confined to a settled place.] The du ch. Annot: in the argument of the book of judges, describe them [to be such persons, not (who administered the ordinary function of judges among the people, as the Word is other where taken, but) whom God now and then as the state of Israel required, sometimes out of on tribe, sometimes out of another, extraordinarly raised, called, and with his Spirit of wisdom and couradge endued etc. In the argument, of the first book of Samuel, they show that therein is described the Government of Samuel as judge over Israel &c] So that until our Informer shall instruct the Prelates extraordinary call from God, and also their extraordinary enduements for civil Government, these instances of Eli and Samuel, will not [in the Judgement of these divines] afford them the least shadow of warrant for there civil offices. So this man may be ashamed that he ever mentioned such an argument.  
Finally, That He is in the breers of a contradiction here, is (as is hinted) evident, in that to prove that Church men should not ofChoice meddle inCivil affairs, he gives this reason, for, no man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life. 2. Tim. 2. 4. Now, if this [for] or illative here, signify any thing, and be not nonsense, this He must be supposed to hold, that, this text forbids Church men all deliberate meddling in Civil affairs. But will He dare to say that Samuel and Eli their judging of Israel was not deliberate and of Choice, Ergo, It was sinful by this rule; Yet he pleads for its imitablenes as lawful; though a deliberate involving themselves in Civil government, yea a Supreme rule; and thus holds it not cross to this gospel precept. So that to escape this Scylla or Charybdis, He hath no imaginable refuge but one; (viz.) To assert with us, their extraordinary Calling for what they did, and that singular old Testament-dispensation under which they stood. But then He must quit his plea for prelates civil Employments from this Instance, and confess it to be inconcludent.  
But for the new Testament times, he tells us. How much Bishops were employed in Civil affairs, when Emperors became Christian, as Smectymnuus confesses. But 1. Since he pretends Scripture Instances under the old Testament, his new Testament Instance is very apocryphal and heterogeneus thereunto, being of Bishops meddling three or four hundred years, after the Canon of the Scripture was closed. Humano Capiti cervicem pingere equinam. But his new Testament precept 2. Tim. 2. 4. Chased away the Instance of Bishops meddling in civil affairs, Three or four Hundred years forward. Nixt, I would know whither our Informer holds these Bishops meddling in Secular affairs, to be lawful or unlawful? Iflawfull, and consisting with their Calling (which He would seem to insinuat in telling us, that Saravia defends at large, (even simply and absolutely) Church mens meddling in state affairs) Why then doth he tell us in the nixt page That the fathers compleaned of this as aburden? Sure they were very froward to fret under a piece of lawful employment. If it was unlawful, or a deliberate sinful intanglement, why obtruds he it upon us as a regular precedent? And what will Smectymnuus acknowledgement of the factum import, to infert His, or Our acknowledgement of the jus. He tells us likwayes, That ancient Counsels [upon the ground mentioned, 2. Tim. 2. 4. of a Ministers sinful intanglement] discharged them to follow Military employments, or to take ferms etc. Hence I infer, than these Counsels held, that deliberate meddling in state affairs, ●…or worldly incumberances, is inconsistent with a Ministers calling, and a sinful intanglement discharged in that text; for since they discharged Military employments and ferms upon this ground, they do consequently discharge all such Intanglement. For, a quatenus, ad omne, etc. This he cannot but grant. And from hence I infer, two things against him. 1. He sets these Councils by the ears with his Scripture instances. For since they condemn these formentioned civil employments upon that ground, 2 Tim. 2: 4. As a sinful intanglement in a Church officer 3 he must either say, that they condemned these old-Testament Instances of the Priests, of Samuel and Eli, as sinful: Or else acknowledge, that they held them (with us) to be extraordinary, and no regular precedents. 2. It will hence follow, that these Councils do condemn Saravia, who (he tells us) doth at some length defined Church mens acting in State assaires. And Saravia condemns and disputs against these Councils; and then, it will be a pussing problem to him, to which of them he will adhere in this contest; since he holds, with these counsels, upon that ground, 2 Tim. 2: v. 4. the unlawfulness of Ministers deliberate involving themselves in civil affairs, it seems be quites there great Advocate Saravia, and all his pleading upon this point; For he tells us of no limitation in Saravia his pleading for Ministers meddling in State affairs. As for what follows in this page, he obscures and shifts the point here inquestion, in saying, That it is hard to call it simply unlawful, and in every case, to meddle in these things. We know there is a lawful Concional meddling, & also in way of Ministerial advice, unto the Magistrate in order to the satisfaction of his conscience, the Ministerial direction whereof is the Pastors' work, at whose mouth God's mind must be sought, and likeways by way of ministerial testimony against what is sinful in state Rulers, which is all that our principles do own as to Ministers interposing in state affairs in our late times; but he that cannot distinguish this, from accnstant official meddling as a civil judge, and constituent Member in civil Indicatories, is very blind; And as stupid that man were, who could not distinguish this from the private domestic care mentioned, 1 Tim. 5: 8. Which is a part of that Eiconomie founded vonp the Law of nature, and competent to a Minister as a Master of the Family, who is to govern and rule his house under that notion. Yet we must here tell him, that Gods allowing the Minister his honorarium, or maintenance, is for this very end, that he may not by any overstretch of the domestic case, be taken off from his holy employment.  
Here, we shall offer to this Informers grave judgement, the Reasons of the Assembly 1638. Sess 25. against the civil Offices of Ministers. [1. Christ's notable example Luk. 12: 14. Refusing to deal in a civil cause; Ministers are his Ambassadors sent by him, as he was by the Father, Joh. 20: 21. Joh. 8. He would not sentence that woman who deserved death. 2. Civil Rule is discharged to Apostles, Matth. 20: v. 25, 26. not only Supreme which is competent to Princes, but subordinat also: Citing that passage of Bernard to Eugenius, Lib 2. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus, ergo, tu tihi usurpare aude, aut dominans, Apostolatum aut Apostolicus, dominatum Dominion is discharged to Apostles, Go thou therefore and dare to usurp to thyself, whither the Apostleship, if holding a civil dominion, or being Apostolic a civil dominion. Where theyrefute the ordinary Episcopal & Popish evasion as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. That Ministers having given up their names to this holy warfare, they ought not to be involved in things of this life, as the law denies this to soldiers. C. d. Lib: 2. 'tis 13, So the Apostolic law, 2 Tim. 2: 04. This work tobe heavier than that any man can be sufficient for it alone 2 Cor. 2: 16. Hence Ministers are called watchmen, labourers, soldiers, fishers, etc. 4. The Apostles, for all their extraordinary gifts, were not fit for serving tables and preaching the word both, Act 6. although these were both ecclesiastic functiones; therefore far less can any Minister now assume both ecclesiastic and civil offices. Gregory the 1. (cited by Gratianin Decreto dist: 89 — Cap. Singula.) proves that two ecclesiastic offices are not to be committed to one, from that place of the Apostle Rom. 12: 6: 7. As it is unbeseeming that in man's body, one member should Act the part of another. The 6th. of the Canons called Apostolic, appoints that the Bishop or Presbyter assuming civil places, be deposed (which will make fearful Mass●…cre among our Prelates, that day the Parliament rides) so Can. 81: and 83. Cyprian. lib: 1, Epist. 9 says, that long before, It was appointed in a Council of bishops, that none appoint in his Testament, one of the Clergy, a Tutor or Curator, Quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati, non nisi altari & sacrificiis, precibus & orationi vacare debent. Since every one honoured with the divine priesthood, ought not to attend but to the Altar and Sacrifices, to prayer and preaching, for it's written, no man that wars etc. Clemens the 1. (whom many make Bishop of Rome, and out of whose writings, the defect of ecclesiastic history after the Acts of the Apostles, they affirm, must be made up) in the Epistle to James the brother of the Lord, whom they make a Bishop, hath these words, neque judicem▪ aut cognitorem secularium negotiorum, te ordinare vult Christus, ne praefocatus presentibus hominum curis, non possis verbo Dei vacare, & secundum veritatis regulam, secernere bonos a malis. impietatis tibi crimen est, neglectis verbi Dei studiis, sollicitudines suscipere seculares. That is, neither will Christ ordain thee a judge and arbiter of civil affairs, lest being involved in the present cares of men, thou be not able to attend the word of God, and according to the rule of verity, to separat the good from the evil; It blotts thee with the Crime of impiety to take up secular cares, neglecting the Studjes of the word of God. Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, cited by lipsius in politicis, said, that it is unlawful to join the Civil power with the priesthood-nam hoc esset miscere non miscenda, hoc est Sacris civiliaconfu●…dere. For this were to mix together things which cannot be mixed, that is, to confound Civil matters with Sacred. See several others cited by the assembly, and recorded in the Historiamotuum, pag. 283, 284. Where there is ane Answer to the objection drawn from Augustins' practice, and from that of 1. Cor. 6. 4.  
The informer comes nixt (page 5.) to his defence of the Episcopal office itself, But still goes on in the mist of confused generals, never condescending upon the nature, power, and extent of the diocesian bishops office, as it is now established by law. However, let us remember that our present prelate is, according to our law [Ane ordinary Church officer, assuming the government of some Hundereds of Congregations, as monopolised in him, and conveyed according to his pleasure, unto the Ministers thereof; Having sole power in ordination, and jurisdiction, and a negative voice in Church judicatories, & whose proper work is Ruleing only, not feeding by doctrine] This is the Bishop which all his pleading must be commensurat unto, else He but beats the Air. 1. The Doubter alleages [The unlawfulness of the Episcopal office for want of ane express warrant for it in the word] To which He answers [By granting that this will prove it to be not simply necessare, but not unlawfall, since it may be lawful and expedient as falling under some general; as the command of decency and order, will war and a Moderator and Clerk, although this be no where commanded. That many learned men have thought prelacy lawful, though not commanded, nor warranted by any particular Scripture precedent, nor yet prohibited, but left to Christian prudence at it is found expedient and conduceing to the good of the Church.] To which I answer. 1. He grossly mistaks the Import of these relatives, a command, and the necessity of a thing flowing therefrom, when restricting it to ane express warrant or command: there being many things necessary, necessitate precepti, which have no express warrant or command. Divines do tell us, that Scripture commands are either immediate, or mediate; the immediate, are either explicit, or in express terms, enjoining a thing: as [honour thy father and thy mother] or implicit, holding out, either that which is comprehended in the command, as suitable midses leading to the duties enjoined, or deduced by consequence from what is expressed; As Ministers preaching is deduced by consequence from the command thereanent which the Apostles got●…: the Circumstances of the command pointing out this to be a perpetual duty of Church officers. Again 2. There are divine commands which are mediate, coming mediately from God, but immediately from men, by a determination of the general divine principle, and ane application thereof to particulares: which they illustrate by that passage where Paul says, to the rest speak I, not the Lord, applying Gods general command anent divorce, to the Corinthians particular case. There are likewise [mediate accidental commands,] deduced from God's general Rule, upon rare transient occasiones, yet necessitating to such a determination: So the abstaining from blood and things strangled, was enjoined (Act. 15.) to the gentiles, and as necessary upon the ground of Charity when the use grew scandalus, although the law hereanent was abrogat, as being originally Ceremonial. Hence we may Infer, that this Informer in denying the necessity of what is commanded only under some general head, Cuts of from the category of things necessary, all the duties in the decalogue, which are subserviant to the duties expressly named: and thus destroys the Spirituality and extent of the law, acknowledged by all divines; yea Cuts off all necessary Scripture consequences, and duties founded thereupon: as Ministers preaching the gospel, administering the Seals, Infant baptism, women's receiving the Sacrament, the Christian Sabbath etc. But (to come nearer him) in the Nixt place, I suppose this man will not deny, That there are many things sufficiently discharged, and consequently unlawful by Scripture rule, because theyare not commanded either mediately or immediately, and that all ordinances of worship, Sacraments, and the substantials of government also, do require clear divine commands and institutions, by the acknowledgement of all protestant divines; So that the not commanding of any part or supposed ingredient thereof, is a sufficient discharge, discovering the thing superadded to be sinful. Not that which seems good unto thee, shalt thoudoe to the Lord thy God but what He hath commanded, thou shalt add nothing thereunto, nor diminish from it. add thou not to his words lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. In vain they do worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. See, deut. 4. 2. prov: 30. 6. rev: 22. 18. deut: 12. 32. Isay. 29: 13. These Scriptures do clearly fortify this principle: Otherways if he deny this, He will open a door to all popish superstition, yea & deny the very definition of it assigned by all sound divines, in calling it, ane opposite extreme (in the excess) to true religion, adding to God's worship beyond what is commanded. Our Lord reprehended the pharisees their washing of hands before dinner (a decent ceremony in itself) as simply unlawful, when they made it a point of Religion, Because it was beyond the command. That text Isay. 29: 13. In vain they worhsip me, teaching for doctrinés the commandments of men] is applied in this case unto them. Our answer to the Papists demand [Where find we their bastardSacraments, and other Superstitiones discharged] is, That they are discharged as sinful in God's worship, because not commanded: Should they rejoin with this man, that this will prove them to be not simpy necessary, but not unlawful, upon the ground which He alleages, let him conjectur what his answer would be, and correct himself. For the substantials of government, He cannot but grant that they fall under the same consideration; It being most certain, and universally acknowleged, that the Scripture lays down rules as to the excercise of both Keys of Order and jurisdiction, the officers and censures of the Church. Nay, himself asserts page. 118. That the substantials of government and policy of the Church are utterly necessary and unalterable. Now it being thus, the Question is [whither the diocesian Bishop, or Episcopal government, be among those things which must either have a clear Scripture institution or warrant, or else is to be rejected as sinful and unlawful] That the diocesian Bishop is such, I prove it thus: the Bishop which He pleads for, is supposed by him to be a Church officer distinct from, and Superior to a Pastor or presbyter, having a distinct work, ordination, and qualifications; Therefore, say I, He must either have clear warrant or institution in the word, or He is unlawful. The consequence leans upon these clear Scripture grounds. 1. This officer cannot but fall in among the substantials of government, wherein the Scripture is full and perfect (as himself acknowleges) So as to make even the man of God, perfect: It is full in setting down all administrations relating so the Key of order, as prayer and thanksgiveing, 1. Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1. Cor. 14. 14, 15. Singing of Psalms, preaching of the word, public reading of it, and Cathechiseing, falls within the compass of Christ's commands and regulations, Collos. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 15, 16. Ephes. 5. 19 2. Cor. 3. 14. Matth. 28. 19, 20. 2. Tim. 4. 2. Hebr. 6. 1, 2. So doth the administration of Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper, Matth. 28. 18, 19 1. Cor. 11. 23. And as these administrations of the Key of Order, so all the administrations relating to the Key of jurisdiction or discipline, falls under Christ's clear institutions. Such as Ordination. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The dogmatic power, as to Ministerial judging of doctrine. Act. 15. The critic power, as to the public rebuke and purging out of the Scandalous, and receiving of the penitent. Matth. 18. 15, 16. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Compared with Matth. 16. 19 John. 20. 21. So the diatactick power, in relation to rituals and and alterable Circumstances, is clearly asserted and rules laid down anent its exercise 1 Cor. 14. And as the administrations, ordinances, and acts of Church government, So the administratores, officers, yea and Courts falls under clear Scripture warrants and institutiones. Pastoures, Doctores, Elders, Deacons, their several works, the greater and lesser Church judicatories, have their clear warrant, 1. Tim. 4. 14. Matth. 18. 17. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. Now let this Informer show me a reason of this distinctnes, If not to point out all the substantials of government? and if it be lawful to add any new officers, or administrations, or ordinances, to these expressly warranted? He dare not say but is unlawful; therefore say I, upon the same ground, that he shall acknowledge this to be unlawful, this eminent officer, the Bishop or Archbishop, must either produce his warrant and institution, among the forementioned Rules, or he must be holden unlawful. 2. The Scripture coming this length in the forementioned condescendency in point of Church government, as to Ordinances, Officers, Laws, Censures, Courts &c, it must needs amount to determine Some species of government, and presbytery, and Episcopacy, being of contrary moulds, it must needs appoint and authorise the One, and discharge the other. For all Church offices and officers have a positive institution. 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath set etc. Ephes. 4. 11. God hath given etc. Rom. 12. 6, 7. The office not given is not a gift of grace. And surely the command [not to add to the word] includes a command not to add new spiritual officers, who must have a new work etc. And the Bishop's authority must either be comprehended among the rules anent these officers enumerat, and the exercise of their power, or he is an●… apocryphal officer and unlawful: Or he must say we may add new officers, and offices, and institutions in point of government, to these contained in Scripture; and so our divines argument against the pope, from the Scriptures silence anent him, in its enumeration of officers, is naught. 3. Christ exercising ane external visible kingdom over his Church visible, and all Church officers, and their administrations, being in his name and authoritis as is above cleared, every Church officers mission and warrant must be found in his word, other w●…yes he runs unsent, and cannot expect his blessing; all that come be for him, and anticipat his call, are thiefs and robbers. 4. All Christ's officers, and their gifts are Christ's royal and mediatory donations to his Church, and by him peculiarly set and authorized therein. Ephes. 4. 〈◊〉, 7, 8. &c, 1. Cor. 12. 28. He, as the great Master of the house, gives all his Stewards their Keys, their Orders; Now, how Christ the king and head of his Church, his donation, his commission, his giving his Keys, Should be instructed other ways, then by his clear warrants and institutiones in his word and Testament, I would gladly learn of this Informer. Is there any officer of State, any subordinat Magistrate allowed in a kingdom, which hath not the clear warrant of the laws? Surely not, and so the case is here. Finally. The ground and reason which he builds this shifting evasion upon [viz. That many things are not otherways commanded, then under some general: as that all things be done decently or to edification, instancing in the moderator and Clerk of a meeting of Ministers] is very poor: For since the authority which God gave Paul was to edification, & all ordinances which have the most clear institution, must be thus qualified, and to this end, that which is not Otherways commanded then under this general, must needs be the alterable circumstances only, common to Civil and Sacred actions, and such as supposes the thing itself, clothed with these circumstances, to be [that which is to be done,] and by consequence falling Hactenus under the Compass of a command or institution; for it is these only which are left to the regulation of Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word. But, as we have above cleared, such ane eminent Church officer as the Bishop is supposed to be, or any Church officer, can be no such circumstance, but is such a substantial point of government as requires a clear and positive warrant, or else must be holden unlawful; and this he must acknowledge or contradict himself, for He dare not say but that Church officers are other ways commanded then under this general, and himself alleges the prelates divine institution: & so He can be none of these things which hath only this general warrant. Besides, I would know, if He will say that this officer, the prelate, must be set up and Act with decency and order; surely He will not deny this: If then the prelate himself is but a piece of [decentie, and order] (as being only commanded under that notion, and a species under that general) than he says that [order and decency] must be managed & clothed with [order and decency] which will be very hard to reconceale to sense; or He must say, that the prelate must act with disorder and confusion, or (to evit these rocks) that the prelate must be warranted under another notion then that of a circumstance of mere order, and so must have a particular warrant. His instance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolish, the Clerk not being necessarily [a Church officer] and the Moderator [no distinct Church officer] from the rest of the members, and so is utterly Impertinent to this point and question, anent a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a presbyter, whither he ought to have a particular Scripture warrant. Besides that the same divine warrant that a judicial procedor by disquisition, votes, and suffrage hath, and is exemplified in that Synod Act. 15. (this being the necessary frame of judicatories, as such, and consequently of all Church judicatories) the moderator hath the same foundation of his office; but He will never let us see a shadow of this for the prelate. Now to show what good Harmony this Informer keeps in this point with some chieff men of his way (& others also) let us hear what they hold, Institutum Apostolorum de regimine Ecclesiastico— & ea gubernationis ratio quae aetate Apostolorum fuit etc.— The Apostles appointment as to Church government, and that way and method of government which was in their time, is perpetual, and can no more be changed then the priesthood of Aaron could, saith Saravia con troth bezam Whitaker controv. 4. Quest: 1. Cap. 9 Tells us, That the Church must not be governed-ut humano ingenio arriserit, as pleases men's fancy, sed ut Christo Ecclesiae domino so lique principi placet, But as it pleases Christ her only head and Lord. Hence he concludes that the forms which He hath institut must be held fast as the best. Matth. Sutliv: de Pontif: Roman: lib. 1 Cap. 1. Answering Beauties argument from Civil to Ecclesiastic Monarchy, tells him that-sicut unus Ecclesiae summus princeps &c As thereiss one chieff Prince of the Church, so there is one true essential form thereof, differing from the various moulds of common wealths; & that as she hath but one head, so but one frame of policy, which those who resyle from Christi leges transgrediuntur-they transgress the laws of Christ, and blotts her true government. Field, of the Church, lib: 5. cap. 45. Argues thus against the pope's temporal power, that among men none hath power of chaingeing any thing but he alone to whom in an eminent degree it belongs, and from whom it is originally derived; but to govern the Church as such is not eminently in the Magistrate.] It is a Bad omen, cespitare in limine; our informer we see, in his first answer to his doupter, is so anhappie, as therein to justle with soom chieff champions of his cause.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy. His answers to our Arguments from Matth. 20: 25, 26. and Petr. 5: 3. Examined at large. The genuine strength and nerves of our reasoning upon these Texts, which he dare not meddle with. His answers found inconsistent with themselves, the same with Papists answers for the papacy, and contrare to the sense of sound divines.  
THe doubter in the nixt place [alleages Prelacy to the forbidden, and therefore unlawful: bringing for proof Matth. 20: 25, 26, 27, 28. And the Argument from this text, he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus, That Christ forbids any of his disciples to he greater than another. This passage with its parallel Luk. 22: 25. Is much scanned betwixt the Papists and us, in relation to the pope's Dominion, and as it strikes clearly against Prelacy, so Papists and Prelates do as clearly join issue in their answers. In both passages it is apparent, that upon occasion of a sinful and ambitious emulation àmong the Disciples, which of them should be greatest, our Lord did sharply reprehend them, dischargeing them expressly the Lordly grandour of Earthly Rulers or Princes, and to exercise Lordsnipe or Dominion over one another, commending instead thereof, and in opposition thereto, a humble Ministerial service, and spiritual diligence in their spiritual stewardship or Ministry, pressing both, from his own exemplary humility in his converse with them. Now, our Argument against Prelacy is very strong from this text, and hath these Nerves. 1. The Lord most expressly discharges Superiority and inferiority among officers of the same kind: Non are greater than another in their office; no Apostle above another, but a complete parity in their official power is here holden out; ergo, by necessary consequence, he commands a parity among Pastoures, and discharges superior and inferior degrees among them. 2. Whatever priority of order among officers of different kinds, be allowed, yet he discharges Dominion or principality in any of them, all masterly power, such as is allowed in civil Government; there being but one Master or Lord over the Church, and all Ministers being Brethren. This is clear, in that he mentions the civil lordship of Rulers who are called benefactors in exemplyfiing what he discharges them, and likeways in opposition thereunto, commends a humble Ministerial service, not a sort of warrantable Dominion, as that parallel 1 Pet. 5: 3. Makes it evident; So that he gives two deadly blows here to the Diocesian Lord Prelate. 1. In that he makes himself a higher order and degree of the Pastoral office, whereas the Lord discharges this among officers of the same kind. 2. In Lording it over his brethren (other Pastoures) both in a pretended spiritual capacity, arrogating to himself a sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, and a masterly power and principality over Church judicatories, (as is cleared above) and likeways in his assumeing the Earthly Lordship, place and grandoure, of civil Magistrates, which is here expressly discharged. This being premised, let us hear what this new Advocate says to this Text. 1. He tells us that [It is a great mistake to think, that all superiority among Church men is here forbidden, which he fortifies 1. With this Reason, that the twelve, though equal among themselves, yet were superior to the seventy Disciples who were also sent to preach, & this He proves, because Mathias who was chosen to succeed Judas in the Apostleship, was one of them.] Ans. 1. It is here convincingly apparent, that this man shifts, but dare not grapple with this Scripture, and the argument drawn from it, while he shuffles in this gloss and mistake (which is his own, not ours) viz, that all superiority is here discharged among Church men, as our inference or medium ágainst prelacy from this text, as is evident from what is said. We grant with all sound divines, that among Church men or Church officers, there are superior and inferior degrees. First Apostles, secondary Prophets etc. But we say, that hereby superiority among these of the same degree is forbidden, and likwayes principality and lordship in any of them of whatever order or degree, over another. So that we are not concerned to inquire, whither the Apostles were Superior to the seventy Disciples, or whither they were sent to preach, and not rather (as some do judge) entrusted with a transient mission to prepare our Lord's access to those places whither he was to come, with out any formal Ministeral mission above ordinary Disciples. Only I must say, his proof of this Superiority of the Twelve above the seventy, is very odd (viz.) Mathias was chosen ane Apostle, though one of the Sevintie. Now, to give Scripture light and proof of this topic, both branches of this assertion must be proved from Scripture, not only that Mathias was chosen in Judas room, but also and mainly, that he was one of the seventy, whereof the Scripture is utterly silent: and instead of Scripture proof of this, we must take Clemens and Dorotheus, their Said so, which makes up a heterogeneous proof, like the feet and toes made of iron and clay. 2. He tells us, That ambition, and not inequality, is here discharged. This ane old shift of Bellarm: and the Papists, we say that both ambition, the root and principle of this desire, and the thing itself which was the object of this ambitious desire (viz.) Dominion, Principality, and Lordship one over another, is here forbidden: Subordinata non pugnant, 'tis strange sottishness in this man to imagine, that ambition, the inward principle of this unlawful primacy or inequality, should be forbidden only, and not the inequality or primacy itself, the outward act and accomplishment of this ambition. Bellarm: answer to our divines argument against the pope's Supremacy from the text, is, that dominion is no: here discharged, but rather supposed, and that it is only such ane ambitious lust of overruling as is among the Kings of the Gentiles, that is forbidden. Whittaker (de Pontif: cap. 1.) Answers him, that this dominion itself, not the ambitious affectation only, is discharged. Bernard writing to Eugenius, & expounding this passage, & that of 1. Pet. 5. Understands them both as striking against dominion, and enjoining a Ministerial care in opposition thereunto, Dominion (saith he) is discharged and Ministry is enjoined, So at length he concludes after several things to this purpose. Thus Bernard clearly teaches (saith Whittak: de Pontif: Quest: 1.) that humility is not required in dominion (as our Informer distinguishes with Bellarm:) but dominion itself is discharged. But Bellarmin admits to play the Lords if they be modest and humble in their dominion. Christus de re ipsa etc. (saith junius, de pontiff: lib: 1.) Christ said of the thing itself, they exercise dominion but he spoke not of the manner, they exercise dominion after this or that manner; they exercise dominion, saith he, but not so ye that is, ye shall not exercise dominion: it is a plain denial of the thing proposed. So we see his shift here as to prelacy, is the same with that of the Papists in defending the papacy. But his Reason of this his gloss must be considered, [viz.] Because otherways, our Lord's argument taken from his own example v. 28. Would not suit his purpose, since he was in power and authority above the Twelve. Ans. (Not to stay here to tell him, that this defence and gloss will equally serve the pope's turn, and bear the blow of this text off his head in Correspondance with Beauties' Notion above touched) Our Lord's scope in proposeing his own example, is to antidote their inward pride, the root of their desire of this dominion, and powerfully to commend to them humility and low lines, as the most excellent remedy thereof: And his argument runs a fortiori thus. If I your Lord and Master be as on that serves, and am such a pattern of selfdenial and humility among you, much more ought you to study humility, and to guard against all usurped authority and dominion, over on another, who are fellow Disciples, and servants. So he reasoned Joh 13. If I your Lord & master have washed your feet, you [viz, much more as being equals] aught also to wash one another's feet; so that which he imagines doth make Christ's argument not suit well, maksit the more forcible & suit the better. 2. He here contradicts himself, while making the argument from Christ's example, v. 28. to suit the discharge of ambition only, not of inequality (the terms in which he impertinently states the difference and opposition, as to what is discharged and not discharged) for he grants there was to be no inequality among the Apostles; and when he thus limits his general answer [that all supeiroritie among Church men is not here discharged] he grants that some superiority (viz) among the Apostles themselves, was discharged, and consequently discharged upon this motive Christ's own example How then, I pray, will he make this argument from Christ's example, who was in dominion and principality above the Twelve, and their, and all the Church's monarch and head, suit his purpose of discharging Inequality, Superiority, or primacy among the Apostles? His reason he explains, thus further, that taking Christ only to speak against ambition, or a sinful desire of superoritie, which was Diotrephes fault, the reason from his own example suits well who, though above all, yet was, a pattern to all in humility. Ans. 1. We have heard that Christ's argument suits best in the sense we have propounded, which is the sense of all sound divines. 2. If it was only a sinful desire of a superiority in itself lawful, such as he says Diotrephes had (how rationally we shall after see) which our Lord dehorted from by his own example, than all our divines have missed the mark in pleading from this text against the object of this desire, not the sinful manner of desiring only, and the Papists gloss holds good against them, viz: that Christ's example will plead only against ambition. 3. Our Informer yet again falleth here into a twosold contradiction. 1. He makes the Superiority, the object of this ambitious desire, to be in itself lawful, and their fault only to lie in the ambitious or sinful desire; yet in answer to the nixt objection he grants, that Christ discharged dominium civil & despoticum; Now, he must either say, that this was the object of their desire, & consequently that it was sinful in the object, or else that our Lord's discourse and exhortation was not to the purpose; Again, this domineum civil & despoticum, is more than a mere superiority. But 2. the superiority here discharged was among the Apostles themselves, & this was the object of their desire; the ambition's question and debate was, which of them should be greatest, and highest above all the rest? Now he grants that there was to be no superiority, far less principality among them; How then can he say that Christ discharged only ane ambitious affectation of a superiority in itself lawful; such as Diotrephes had, whom we will find him after assert to have endeavoured to put himself into a lawful pre-existent office. Surely if there was to be no inequality among them, their desire of inequality was most sinful in the object, upon that very ground. Again, he grants that Christ speaks to the Twelve, and likwayes cannot deny, but clearly insinuates a concession with the text, that the Apostles were striveing about inequality, which he acknowledges was unlawful in them, yet in the second answer, he will not have this discharged; which how inconsistent it is, let any judge. Beside, since. Christ spoke this to the twelve, among whom there was to be [no inequality in respect of power] as he says, & consequently discharged this, since he is rebuking them for striving about a primacy, the highest degree of inequality in respect of power, how absurd & nonsensical is his 2d answer, which denies [that Christ discharged inequality;] could Christ discharge them an inequality of the highest pitch, and yet not discharge inequality? Or could [all inequality in respect of power] be unlawful among them, and yet not be discharged when our Lord discharged [a primacy of power?] he will prove a strange critic if he distinguish these. He tells us lastly here that humility & imparity can well consist. But can humility, & a forbidden imparity consist? can humility in a Churchman, & [Dominium civil and despoticum] consist? Both which he acknowledges were discharged to the Apostles here. So he insinuats that their desired imparity, was still lawful in itself, since it may be possessed even humbly, & thus heaps up inconsistencies. He objects to himself That Christ in denying to them, the Dominion of the Princes of the gentiles, discharged all superiority among Church men. To which he answers That he only discharges [Dominium civil, & despoticum] a princely Lordly power, such as they exercise: but the power of the Church is of another nature. Ans. 1. [Not to meedle with his making Dominium civil, and despoticum, adequat terms, there being a Dominium politicum, ordinately contradistinguished from despoticum, which is also a Dominium civil) He grants here, that it was more than a simple desire of a lawful superiority, which the Apostles were tainted with, forgetting what he said immediately before. Nixt, if Christ discharged this civil Lordly power to Churchmen, he discharged them to be Parliaments Lords, and to hold civil state offices, contrare to what he pleads from the instances of the Priests Numb. II. and from Eli & Samuel; and so he must grant the new Testament Church and its dispensation, to be in this different from the old, since he acknowledges that Church power was here allowed the Apostles and their successors, and civil power discharged. Thus our Informer must grant, that Christ did here rid marches betwixt these things which he before confounded, and their Erastian Prelacy confounds. Again, this is the very shift of Bellarmin to save the pope's supremacy: The Lord, saith he, In forbidding them, to rule as the Princes of the Gentiles, signified they were to rule, but not after that manner [viz.] Ecclesiastically; So he thinks it touches not the pope's Ecclesiastic supremacy, and the Informer in this stryks hands with him. For if our Lord discharged only here that kind of Dominion as he says; But allowed a Church power or dominion of another nature, surely for anything that is here discharged, ane Ecclesiastic pop or patriarch his mytrestands sure, and is never touched by any prohibition which the Disciples here got, against the sense and pleading of all Protestants. Moreover, will this Informer adventur to say that the pope's primacy, or ecclesiastic Monarchy, even as abstracted from his civil Dominion, is not here discharged; And if it be [as all our divines assert it is] then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Dominium civil, even all despotic or Lordly power, whither civil, or pretended ecclesiastic in Church officers. Besides, if he discharged Lordly power, he discharged that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over God's heritage. What? will he dare to say that it is only a civil Lordship which is there discharged & not rather ane ecclesiastic dominion, Which bath God's heritage or Church for its object: And if so, than the Prelates Dominion is expressly stricken against, since (as we have above cleared) his power is a mere despotic Lordship or rule; For to be the proper object & fountain of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocese, to have sole power in ordination & jurisdiction; the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories, is either a despotic Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing; and if the Church's power is of another nature than this civil Dominion, as this man tells us, of what nature is it? Only of another nature, because it touches spiritual objects; Then for any thing that is here forbidden, a papal ecclesiastic monarchy is never touched. Or is it of another nature because in itself Steward-like and Ministerial, not despotic or Princely, like that of the Magistrate (which is the sense of all sound divines, and must be his too, if he speak sense) than who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged? It being evidently of this nature. Yet again, it is in this apparent that he shifts and shuffles the question, and its terms here, anent the power of the Prelate and the power discharged in this text. For in saying in the beginning of his Answer, that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of only which civil Princes exercise, he must needs be supposed to contradistingush from this, ane ecclesiastic Dominion which is allowed, yet when he speaks of this he altars the terms, telling us [that the Church's power is of another nature] he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion, if he had spoken consequently, as that other kind of Dominion which he allows, and by the consequence of his discourse, holds that the Text will allow; In a word, that all sort of [Dominion] whither pretended ecclesiastic, or civil, is here discharged to Church officers, and consequently his offering violence to the Text, is apparent from the context two ways. 1. In that the strife among the Apoles, flowing from this desire of unlawful greatness, and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition under debate, was not about a civil despotic rule; properly, or only, but anent a Lordship & chief rule in the Church, and in matters ecclesiastic, under Christ as their head; So that though the Lord exemplified the greatness which he discharged them, in that of earthly princes, (there being no other than existent and apparent) yet it was not this primarily, but ane ecclesiastic Lordship or dominion, which he strycks against; Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature, And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastic Authority and Rule. 2. The positive part of his injunction touching a Ministerial service, or humble Ministry, excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken, and not a civil dominion only. Our Informer tells us, nixt. That sundry interpreters, interpret Christ's words, as discharging only Tyranny, such as earthly Prince's exercise. And in this he Informers us right; Only he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are interpreters beyond our line, that is popish interpreters, for this is directly Beauties shift, to which, since he stands here upon the same ground with him, I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer, which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants. Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles, not to the end they may fly ambition on'y (as this man shifts it) but to let them understand that they have nothing to do with a kingly rule.— For (saith he) though the words translated [exercise dominion or authority] which Matthew makes use of, doth sometimes signify immoderate dominion, yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words: But so it is that the simple verb, is attribute to these who obtain power and dominion, not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule; for all those who among the gentiles obtained principality did not reign tyrannically or unjustly, nay the Clemency of many such, and their justice is praised. Thus he, de pontiff: Quest: 1. To which I may add, that our Lord speaks of such Princes as were called Benefactoers or gracious Lords, a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrant's.  
How easy is it from the Informer reasoning here, and with his net to fish out a papacy. That which the Apostles here desired was in itself lawful, and the fault was only in the ambitious desire, as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office: This he clearly asserts: ay subsum: But that which they desired, and were striving about, was a primacy or papacy, Ergo that office is lawful in itself. The pope will thank our Informer for this.  
The nixt text objected by the doubter, is that pregnant passage 1 Pet. 5: 3. Be not Lords over God's heritage. And from this he makes him mutter out this slender argument, [is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden.] Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition, that we do from this and such like texts Impugn, Superiority among Church men, as he terms it, whereas we allow (as he cannot but know) with all sound divines, and scripture itself, superior and inferior degrees among Church officers: And he cannot show that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy; But he behoved to make the knot easy, since himself must lose it. Our Argument from this text, is this, That the Apostle here injoyneing Ministers their duty [both negativil and positively, he first dehorts from evils they are liable unto, such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment, covetusness and usurpation or Lordship and Dominion, whither over their fellows, which Dietrephes affected, or over the people, by taking ane arbitrary masterly imperious way with them, or a way of force and rigour, as these reptehended Ezek. 34: 4. He nixt, positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplary, Shepherd-like Method, expressing the word of grace in their practice. Now [I say) from this genuine sense and scope of the place, we argue against Prelacy, thus. 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their [fellow-elder] supposeing them his immediate Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinary Ministry, for he supposes them to have none higher over them now when he was shortly to put off his Tabernacle. 2. He enjoins them to feed and take the oversight, or exercise Episcopal authority over the flock, as Paul did likeways the Presbyters or elders of Ephesus, in his last farewell. (Act. 20.) a scrybing a complete Episcopal authority to them, both as to jurisdiction and ordination. 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over God's heritage, commending instead thereof, ane exemplary humble service or ministry, Hence we infer against the Diocesian Prelate. 1 That there is no higher officer than a Presbyter, left by the Apostles as their ordinary Successor, since the Apostle as their follow Presbyter, exhorts themas the highest ordinary officers, and therefore the Prelate, pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer, is Apocryphal. 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters, both as to ordination and Jurisdiction, and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop, and therefore the Prelate, arrogating this name solely to himself, & all the Episcopal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely, and denying it to Presbyters, is ane Antiscripturall Monster: Since these Presbyters had this in a complete parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks, therefore the Lord Prelates imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned, which he exercises over both pastors and flocks. Now, this being our argument from this text, let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity, while representing it in such a disguise, that he may seem able to grapple with it; Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength, are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmy. But what says he to the Argument as in his own mould. 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not discharged. By [Churchmen] if he understand in General, [Church officer's] (though the term be some what odd) we shall easily Admit that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them, but this will nothing help his cause, as is evident. If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters, or Elders, we have proved it to be here discharged, since the Apostle attributes episcopal Authority to these elders in common, and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them. Well, what is it that our Informer will admit to be here discharged? domineering and Tyranny, saith he, which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock. This is the old popish song made new again, to which I repon two things. 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the prohibition, and (as is said) imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful. 2. The positive part of the precept refutes this gloss, he says not, Not Tyrannically domineering, but using Dominion moderately (which ought to have been the other alternative branch, if this man's gloss were true, and the Apostle had allowed a lawful lordship) but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is enjoined being examples to the flock. Injoyneing thus to feed by example, and a humble Ministry; And this is opposite to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever, and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another; which is also apparent in the alternative branch, and positive precept of the above mentioned parallel texts. Besides we might here tell him, That the Episcopal pre-eminence, being so many ways cross to the Scripture rules in point of Government, may be truly called a most TyrannicalDomineereing. But the reasons of his gloss follows. He tells us; That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock, and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church men's carriage towards one another, or of their equality or inequality among themselves, but of their behaviour towards the people, who are called the flock, or God's heritage. Ans. This is a strange reason, and very hard to comprehend, only Tyrannical domineereing must be understood because it relates only to the flock. Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also? And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock, therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy; The quit contrare conclusion will better follow: If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks, who were subject to them as their spiritual guides, therefore, a fortiori, he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters, who were their equals in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks; And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelate over one poor flock, it must be much more unlawful to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastors and flocks. So that Ministers, or (if he will) Churchman's carriage towards one another, must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary consequence from the less to the greater, and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule, by he same topic strongly inferred from this place. It strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks, and yet allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks. But another wonder is, how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of God's heritage, which his party (from whom our Informer here proves a separatist) do often make peculiar unto [Church Rulers] one would think that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this denomination; Are they not the Lords purchase, as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singular manner such, and Christ's glory; Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94: 14. They are the stars which Christ holds in his right hand; nay, as being singularly dedicat to him, they are singularly his: as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a special way; So they were singularly his, set apart for him beyond all the rest of the tribes. And are not Ministers taken from among the people for his Priests and Levits— And called therefore men of God, stewards of God, Ministers, Servants, Ambassadors of Christ, because of their singular relation to him: And as this is a strong dissuasive from Lording over the people, that they are God's heritage, who therefore most not be the servants of me●…, So upon the ground of Ministers special interest in this denomination, the Apostles argument as to them, is the more forcible. Again, since he so expressly forbids any of these Pastoures to Lord it over God's Heritage (enjoining them a humble exemplary Ministry) and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another, he establishes by clear consequence (as I hinted) ane equality among them, in their pastoral official power and authority; Withal, the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them: and making their episcopal inspection relate to the flock (as this man himself pleads) both these grounds hold out their equality among themselves, and infers a discharge of inequality. This Informers likeways would remark that the Spirit of God here commands Presbyters to act the bishops, thus indentifying the Bishop and Prisbyter, but without Lording it over God's heritage, the prohibition not to Lord it, is remarkably joined with the command to Act the Bishop: And referring their office to the flock, he must confess the Apostle acknowledged no Bishops whose inspection was over Pastors themselves. Thus we see hisanswer to the Argument against Prelacy from this Text is contrare unto the scope and sense of the Words, yea and inconsistent with itself.   

CHAP. X.  
The Informers answers to our Argument from Act. 20. and from Tit. 1: 5, 7. Philip. 1: 1. Ephes. 4: 11. For the identity of [Bishop] & [Presbyter,] win nowed, the insufficiency, and inconsistency thereof, together with his begging of the question, discovered; and these texts at some length improven against him.  
THE Doubter in the nixt place objects [That in the new Testament, Bishop and Presbyter signify one and the same office bearer, that in Act. 20: the elders in the 17. v. are called Bishops in the 28. v. So in Tit. 1: 5, 7. And therefore Bishop and elder are the same in Scripture, and the word elder signifies no more than a Minister of a particular Congregation] Here he touches a part but not the strength of our argument from these texts. We argue not merely from the Samenes of the Names, but the identity of all the essentiales of the office, Duties, and Qualifications of the office bearer expressed by these names, when applied to ane ordinary office bearer; Particularly f. am Act. 20. We draw forth these weapons. 1. The Apostle speaking to the elders, tells them that the holy ghost had made them [bishops over the flock,] showing that the Scripture Bishop set up by the holy ghost, is the Minister or elder who feeds and rules over the flock. 2. The Apostle gives them not only the Name of Bishop, but also the thing, commanding these elders or Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which takes in all the power of order and jurisdiction, and whatever the Diocesian Bishop may pretend unto. 3. (Which is very remarbable) he gives this Charge so these elders before Timothy, who was now present with the Apostle, and after the first Epistle was written to him, for it was writtin when Paul was at Macedonia, and after this Paul having Timothy with him came to Miletum, and gave the elders of Ephesus this charge. Finally. This was Paul's last charge to them, for they were never to see his face more; So that we have here a pattern of the mould of the Gospel-Church in relation to Government as this great Apostle of the Gentiles left it, and consequently as all the rest left it; which is convinceingly apparent by comparing this with the parallel 1 Pet. 5. compared with 2 Pet. 1: 14. Hence we exterminat the Diocefian Prelat thus. 1. The Holy Ghosts Bishops were Ministers which he set up to feed and rule the flock immediately. These, and these only, the Apostle and the Apostolic Church knew, therefore he dissownes the Prelate, who pretends to be set over some hundreds of Pastoures and flocks, and is bound to feed no flock himself. 2. These who watch over the flocks immediately, and only, have all the Episcopal power, both the key of doctrine, and Government committed to them by the holy Ghost: Therefore the Diocesian Prelate, taking and arrogating to himself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, and leaving Presbyters nothing but the Doctrinal key, as his deputies, while he himself preaches to no flock, is ane Antiscriptural Sacrilegious robber. 3. The elders or Pastoures of Ephesus got all Episcopal authority as to order and jurisdiction, committed to them by Paul as the Holy ghosts Bishops, & the highest ordinary officers of that Church, in the presence of Timothy, without the least hint of any interest that Timothy had in or over them, as their Bishope or Overseer therein, or the least hint of any direction anent their duty to Timothy as in that Capacity, and this after he had gotten all his directions in the 1. Epistle written to him. And therefore Timothy was never set up as a Diocesian Prelate over that Church (as this Informer would persuade) and the inspection which he is supposed to have in that Epistle, was occasional, transient, and extraordinary, and by conseguence lays no ground for Prelacy. Finally, Paul's directions here were his last and farewell directions, therefore this Church was to continue thus governed by these elders or Bishops in common: and the Prelatists' Plea [that the Apostles set up Presbyters at first, keeping the reins of Government in their own hands, till towards the end of their life, and then set up Prelates over these Presbyters] is here convict of falsehood, since neither Paul, nor Peter, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, or the great Apostle of the Circumcision, do in the least hint any such Super-institution, but both of them in their last directions to the Churches, commit the whole power both of order and jurisdiction, to the Pastoures of the flocks, in common, as the only Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost.  
From 1 Tim. 1: 5,— 7. The great Argument is not only from the promiscuouse use of the Name [Bishop] & [Presbyter] but from the form and mould of the Apostles reasoning; which infers not only the identity of names, but of the office also. For the Apostle showing Titus how the elders are to be qualified, gives this reason for a Bishop must he blameless. This [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causal For] expressing the knot and connexion of the Apostles argument or reason, doth clearly Import that the office, expressed by both these words, is one and the same; for there is neither sound matter or form, in such reasoning as this [Presbyters must be so and so qualified, because a Bishop, of a Superior order and degree must be so qualified] So that from hence it is evident that the [elder] is the [Bishop], & vice versa, and that no higher bishops were by the Apostles constitut in the Churches. Here then, as in the preceding text, we have not only Bishops and elders getting the same designation by the Holyghost (who knew best the nature of the things themselves, and how to express himself thereanent) but likeways the same qualifications, work, and office; and so the office is supposed to be every way one and the same. Now let us hear, what he says to the argument. [He grants that the two words oftentimes do point out one and the same officer, but denies that the officer meaned by these words, is never understood above the degree of ane ordinary Minister. Or that the word [Presbyter, or elder] signifies only the Minister of a single Congregation, & no more.] The insufficiency and prevarication of which answer evidently appears. For 1. He grants that these two words Bishop and elder signifies one and the same officer, oftentimes, supposeing that sometimes they express divers officers, but where can he show us that the word Episcopus signifies one officer, and Preshiter another, when the Spirit of God is pointing out thereby the Churches standing Officers and Ministers, and not when either the one or the other is in a general sense applied to ane Apostle. 2. The state of the Question is [whither the scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 design a higher ordinary officer than a Presbyter] And this Informer should have adverted, that the drift of the argument from the texts mentioned, is to prove the Apostles promiscuous use of these words in describing the office of the highest ordinary office bearers in the Church. Moreover, the Diocesian [Episcopus] is ane ordinary officer, having the inspection over some handereds of flocks, and the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination in the diocese, & is by him held to be ane officer of God's appointment, & by this designation of Bishop, as the Characteristic of his office, is distinguished from Pastoures or elders. Now, if presbyterians do prove that wherever the word Bishop is used to point at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church, it imports a pastor or presbyter & no higher officer, they sufficiently over throw the diocesian Episcopus or Bishop of his mould, as having no scripture warrant. And if he grant that in the forementioned Scriptures, & other passages where the word Bishop is used to point at a necessary standing Church officer, it signifieth no higher officer than ane elder or ordinary Minister, he grants enough against himself, & all that the presbiterians desire: for there from it follows necessarily that their diocesian Episcopus or Bishop contradistinct from, & superior to the preaching presbyter, is apochriphal & anti-scriptural: Since the preaching presbyter & Bishop, are the same ordinary highest officer in all the Holy Ghosts expressions theranent. 3. Whereas he denies that we con prove [That the officer meaned by these words, is never understood of any above the degree of ane ordinary minister] Let him add this necessary limitation [when the words are applied to design ane ordinary standing officer (which he must admit, if he speak to purpose) and the proof is very easy] since the forementioned Texts, and all the parallels where elder or Bishop is thus used, do evince it. Again 4. Since this Informer with his follows have diversified the Bishop from the elder in the manner above expressed, we challenge him as the affirmer, to show in all the new Testament where the officer meaned by this Word Episcopus or Bishop, when pointing at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church, is to be understood of any above the degree of a Presbyter or Pastor of a congregation; This lies upon him to make good, else if Episcopuss denotte only a Presbyter, sure the cause of the Diocesian Prelate is lost. He fortifies his answer with two Reasons. 1. We find the name [elder] given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet: 5: 1. john. 2. 1. & Epist. 3: 1. And if Apostles be called [elders] why not also [Bishops]. Ans: 1. The point debeateable is [whether the word [Bishop] and [elder] do Import the same, officer, when applied to a constant standing officer in the Church.] His Presbyterian doubter offers the forementioned Texts to prove this, and he answers, That one of these names are sometimes attribute to ane extraordinary officer whose formal office is ceased. Now how impertinent this is to the point and Question let any judge? To prove that Episcopus or Bishop, imports ane ordinary standing officer above [a Presbyter,] and that the Word Bishop and Presbyter signify not the same ordinary officer, because sometimes the Word elder may be applied to ane Apostle, is a consequence, as we use so say, a baculo ad angulum, and known to no logik. 2. We told him already that we prove enough against him when we prove that the Scripture-Episcopus, or Bishop, is never found to Import any ordinary officer above the Presbyter, and that the Office, Work, Qualifications, & Duties of these officers, as ordinary standing officers, are one and the same. 3. The Instance of the Apostles assumeing the name of elder, doth in this further appear to be ane impertinent exception to the Argument adduced, in that the office of ane Apostle, is in Scripture both by a proper name, work, qualification, call, etc. diversified and distinguished from that of ane ordinary elder; so that though in a general sense the Apostles be called elders, their Specific difference from the ordinary elder is apparent: But this Informer will never show the least vestigies of the Diocesian Bishops distinction from the preaching elder or Presbyter in any of these respects? And therefore his reason added here viz. The Bishop may be called ane [elder] as well as ane Apostle, and yet be ane officer superior to him, is a begging of the Question, since he cannot show that there is a higher ordinary officer than a Pastor or Presbyter, appointed in the Word, nor can he show any designation, qualification, work, or ordination of his Diocesian Bishop, as distinguished from the Presbyter by the Prelatists; And therefore the Apostles being called elders can no more ground a distinction betwixt the Bishop and the elder, then betwixt the Pastor and the elder, whom he acknowledges to be one and the same, or betwixt the Minister and the elder. I suppose one should allege the Pastor to be a higher officer than the preaching elder and Presbyter, notwithstanding that in Scripture their names, and qualifications are one, as of the Bishop and Presbyter, and should ground his opinion on this Informers reason here, (viz.) [that though the two words are promiscuosly used often times of the same officer, yet the officer meaned by one of these may be sometimes understood of one above the degree of ane ordinary Minister] what will he say to his own reason, pleading for this foolish distinction? Would he not say that the [Apostle] and [elder] are elsewhere clearly distinguished on Scripture, not the Pastor and the elder, which answer he must here bestow upon himself. Sure this man will not deny but that the various Church officers both ordinary and extraordinary have their proper formal office is deciphered, and distinguished from other offices and officers, As Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors: and particularly he will not deny that there is such ane ordinary Church officer as the Pastor or Presbyter, distinguished by his proper designation from others, notwithstanding that the Apostles took this name in a general sense: So that from this it follows that if the Bishop's proper designation, work, ordination, qualifications, as distinct from a Presbyter, cannot be produced, he must be always understood in that sense (viz.) ane ordinary Pastor and no more: And not as the Apostles when termed elders, whose distinct Superior office, and proportioned designation, is clearly extant in Scripture.  
His 2d. Reason and exception to the Argument is that with us the word [elder] signifies both the preaching, and ruling elder, and that he can, upon as good, and better ground say, that it signifies the [Bishop] & the [Minister] both being elders, but of different degrees Ans. 1. When he shall make as evident from Scripture, the Diocesian bishops distinction from, and Superiority unto the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop or Minister of a congregation, as we have shown the superiority of the preaching elder, abov●…●…he ruleing elder, and the distinction of the one from the other, than his parallel will pass current, but till than it is a mere nonsequitur. The Scripture clearly distinguishes, as we have seen, the elder that rules only, and the elder that both labours in the word and doctrine, and rules also, clearlydiversifying the offices, and allowing honour to the one above the other. Now, let this, or any thing like this, be shown as to the Diocesian Bishop and Presbyter-Bishop; where will this Informer point us to such a distinction of Bishops, & their office and honour as there is here of the elders? Nay, since in all directions as to people's obedience to Pastors, their is not the least intimation of his supposed different degrees of pastors we strongly con-  
the contrare: So that we infer the distinction betwixt the preaching and ruleing elder, from the Scriptures clear specifying of different offices, Acts, and degrees of honour accordingly, among elders, but the sucks out of his fingers the different degrees of Pastors, and the distinction of the Bishop from the Presbyter without the least Scripture-warrand. 2. He grossly belies our princples and the truth, when he makes his Presbyterian doubter allege That the word [elder] signifies no more but [a Minister of a particular congregation] which he forged to bring in, and give some colour unto, this his 2d. Answer or reason. But saltem mendacem opportet esse memorem. A liar, they say, should have a good memory; He be contradicts himself, while suggesting in the objection, that we hold that elder signifies no morethen a Pastor, yet telling us for his answer, that we hold the Word elder to signify, sometimes the preaching, sometimes the ruleing elder. It is enough for our purpose that neither the word Bishop, nor Presbyter, do signify any ordinary standing Church officer higher than a Pastor or Minister of the gospel labouring in the word & doctrine (whither indiscriminatim, or in fixed particular congregations, in the Apostolic ●…s, we need not determine as to our defence here) an●… until he prove that either of the names do signify a higher ordinary officer (which will be ad calendas Graecas) the argument stands good against him. We may here mind this Informer that hereafter he alleges that 2 Tim. 4. The Deaconta or Diaconship is in a general sense attribute to Timothy ane Evangelist, yet he would reject it as ane absurd inference to conclude from this that there are different degries of deacons' allowed or appointed in Scripture Which notwithstanding is his own consequence here, and the strength of his answer to the premised Argument. As for what he adds. That Bishops were afterwards sometimes called Presbyters of their Churches, though unquestionably Bishops in his sense, in rembemberance of the indifferency of the names in the times of the new Testament, though they were ordinarily called Bishops, We say it is certain that the first supposed Bishops, named in the pretended Catalogues from the Apostles and Evangelists (of which afterward) were mere Presbyters; and if they were called Presbyters in remembrance of the new Testament times, the more guilty were they who afterward made the word Bishop (contrare unto the new Testament times and language) the Characteristic of ane office Superior to a Pastor or Presbyter, and the rather in that whereas the word Presbyter or elder is several times assumed by the Apostles in a general sense, the word Episcopus or Bishop always denots ane ordinary Pastor (if we except that Episcopatus in Act 1. Which our translators on the Margin renders office or charge in a general sense) so that when Prelates ambitious invention was upon the wheel, it seems they should rather have appropriate to themselves the word Presbyter or elder, a fit designation for Fathers of the Church, as this man calls them.  
The doubter, nixt offers ane Argument against prelacy from Philip. 1. [where the Apostle speaks of Bishops in the plural number in that Church, who were only Ministers, since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that ●…nChurch.] we shall take up here with this hint of argument, only adding, that by confession of Prelatists, there was never in one city more than one Bishop even when the inhabitants were all professed Christians, much more here where the generality of the inhabitants were Heathens and the Christians but a small remnant. So that the Apostles saluting here the ●…ishops in the plural number. Bishops of that one Church of Philippi, and contradistinguishing them from the Deacons whom he immediately subjoins to them, he must needs be understood of the Pastoures, and Presbyters, as the highest ordinary officers of that Church. To answer this Argument, the Insormer hathgathered together several scrapes and some very odd and inconsistent notions. 1. He tells us that Ambrose takes these Bishops, not to be the Bishops at Philippi, but certan Bishops present with Paul when he wrote, & in whose name he writs to the Philippians, joining them with himself. But this gloss, as it is cross to the current of expositores, so to common sense. Paul, who only was the Spirit of God's penman, joins here Timothy with himself in the inscription, as in several other Epistles, and having taken to himself, and Timothy, the designation of Servants of Christ, he doth nixt after this description of himself and Timothy, according to his usual Method, describe these to whom he writes, (viz.) [to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons] viz, there, at Philippi, not with Paul, they being ranked among these to whom he writes, who are contradistinguished from Paul and Timothy, the directors of the Epistle, and supposed to be with these saints at Philipp; Otherways there is no sense in the Text to read it thus, Paul and Timotheus, to the saints at Philippi, with the Bishops with Paul. Had the Apostle joined them with himself, as he doth Timothy, in the inscription, they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verse together with him, and not cast after the address, and the description of these to whom he writes. The Apostle in Gal. 1. After he hath described and asserted his Apostolic authority, he nixt adds, and all the brethren that are with me, to the Churches of Galatia. Thus he takes in many with himself in this inscription, before he describe these, to whom the Epistle is addressed. And should not these supposed eminent Bishops, have been after this manner joined with him; Besides, will any say that the Deacons, joined with these Bishops in the period of this verse, were not at Philippi, or belonging to that Church, but with Paul? But they are mean men, and their credit needed not to be saved by such a conceit as this. All the fear of that Father was, ●…east these Bishops at Philippi, be found mere Presbyters of that Church; And how to ward off this blow, hoc opus hic labour ease. Well, what further answers he? He tells us nixt. That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about, convened at Philippie, which Paul knowing of, salutes them with the Church: Since he first salutes [the Saints] as intending mainly to write to them; and then [the Bishops.] So we see the Prelatists sail every point of the compass, to save the credit of these Bishops. If Bishops cannot be gotten set beside the chair with Paul, when addressing the Epistle (this gloss standing clearly antipod to the Text) the nixt shift is, rather than these Bishops be degraded to mere Presbyters, to send for some other Bishops to Philippi at this time of Paul's Writing, that this casual Musteres of Bishops of other Churches, may ward off the deadly blow which the cause will get, by seating all these Bishops at Philippie, as officers of that Church; and to compass this design, they must be but occasionally saluted here, and not as fixed members or officers thereof; upon the Apostles Information (coming to late to his ears from our Informer and his fellows) that there were several Magnates there, besides the ordinary Presbyters at Philippi. But, which also odd, they must become so humble as to fall behind the Saints, the persons mainly written to. Had our Informer left out this clause (which notwithstanding his answer did require) Our Prelates Parliaments order, Who are before, because behind the most, would have saved their reputation still. But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous. Thodoret confesses that Presbyters are here understood, because their could not be many Bishops in one-city, on Philip. 1. Oecumenius, on Philip. 1. Tells us, That we are not so to understand it as if there were many Bishops in one city, but that the Apostle calls the Presbyters, Bishops. Chrisost. ibid. acknowledges, That they were Presbyters who were called thus, because the names were then common and the Bishop, himself was called Deacon, and that the distinction of names came afterward. This conjecture is sib to that other shift to take off the strength of our argument. from Act. 20. viz. [That these Elders were not Church Officers of Ephesus only, but the Bishops of all Asia met together at Ephesus, and sent for by Paul from thence] least if the Episcopal authority be found seated in these Elders of Ephesus, at Paul's last farewell, it break the Diocesian Prelate all in pieces. But as it is well replied that since Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church, it is a groundless conjecture to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he sent, and that there is no hint in the text of any other Elders there at that time So this fancy is as fond when applied to this passage, and may receive the same reply. What shadow of proof can be produced that therewere any other Officers there at this time then the Bishops or Ministers of this Church? And what Logic, I pray, or sense is there in this inference, that because the Apostle first salutes, all the Saints or the Church collective in bulk, and then the Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons, or the Church representative in special, that therefore he salutes these Church Officers as casually there, and not as Officers of that Church. Beside, had the Apostle saluted them as casually present, they would have been saluted with every Saint in Christ, Chap. 4: 21. rather then in the inscription. The English Annotations thus sense it [That by the Bishops and Deacons, we are to understand the whole Ministry at Philippi consisting of Presbyters, to whom the government of the Church was committed, and Deacons, who not only had the care of the poor, but also assisted the Ministers in their Ecclesiastic function.]  
But our Informer hath a third Answer, wherein, He grants that these Bishops and Deacons were [Officers of this Church] and asks where were the ruling Elders] here, and if we say they are included in the word Bishop, than he tells us that upon better ground he can affirm, that Bishops here signifies both the superior Bishop and the ordinary Minister, who may be called Bishop as well as Epaphroditus is called ane [Apostle.] Answ. 1. Our Argument from this place and such like, beside the Scriptures silence as to the Diocesian Bishop, is, That the Scripture Bishop doth therein stand so described and qualified, that it is impossibe to understand him of any other officer than a mere Presbyter, which is most manifast here, It being impossible that a multiplicity of bishops could be at Philippi, as is universally acknowledged. And if he grant that these Bishops were officers, of that Church in Philippi, he must either say they were mere Preebyters, which is all we seek, and the yielding of his cause, or he must prove that either here or else where, the word Episcopus or Bishop designs the diocesian Bishop, and place a multiplicity of such Bishops here against the old Cannons, particularly that of Nice. But 2. As to what he says of the ruleing elders, it is utterly impertinent and answered already. We proved the ruling elder office, as distinct from the preaching elder, by clear Scripture grounds, and did show that the Scripture points out two sorts of elders, giving them both this general name of elder, & then distinguishing them into such as rule, and such as labour in the word and doctrine: But this Informer will never prove that [Episcopus, or Bishop]. designs two sorts of Pastors a higher and a lower, or that there is any difference of degrees in the pastoral office: So that he cannot include here his Superior imaginary Bishop of whose office the Scripture is utterly silent. As we may, the elder in the Bishop. And till he make the Diocessian Prelate appear in Scripture, we must still hold that when Ministers are called Bishops, they get the proper specific designation, and characteristic of their office, & are not called ●…o in a general figurative, sense or Catachrestice, as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle, or messenger. But how? viz. their messenger sent to Paul, who ministered to his wants. Phil. 2: 25. So 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. Titus and others are called the Apostles and messengers of the corinthians viz (as it is there inumar) in that bussines of the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem, for which end they were sent to the Corinthians. So the Spirit of God in Scripture, both in holding out the distince office of Apostle properly so called (for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make different degrees of Apostles as he doth of Pastors) and likeways in the very manner of these designations, and their circumstances, when atribut to such inferior officers, doth state the distinction betwixt them and ane Apostle in his proper acception, clearly holding out that they had neither name nor thing of the apostolic office properly so called, but that Ministers are so improperly only called Bishops, He will never prove. But now what is his last shift? It maybe (saith he) their were no Bishops settled as yet at Philippie, & so it may very well be. But our Informer here supposes two things in Question which he will prove ad calendas graecas 1. That their were Bishops, superior in office & degree to Presbyters, appointedby the Apostles. The first and second Answer tells us of Bishops (he means diocesian Bishops) either with Paul when he wrote to Philippi— Or come from their dioceses (forsooth) and present accidentally there: And having told us that the diocesian Bishops were among the rest of the Presbyters Bishops in his third answer, His last shift is, that they were not it may be, yet set up at Philippy, But remark, that as all these proteus like shifts and answers contradicts one another, So they all lean upon this Egyptian reed, that the Diocesian Bishop is ane officer divinely appointed, and then existant. Now, how impertinent dealing this is, let any judge. We prove from this and many such like texts, that the scripture Bishop is a mere presbyter, they in all there answers do coin glosses of these Texts, which do suppose the Jus & existence, of the diocesian prelate, which is the very quaesitum, & the thing in Question. 2. He supposes that the Bishop over presbyters (the Chimaera of his own brain) though he was not settled at this time, yet was to be Settled afterward at Philippi. But how proves he that the Apostle was to settle after ward such a prelate there? This is another of their shifts, that the Apostles first set up prebyters, keeping still the government of the Churches in their owned hand, till at last towards their end they set up prelates, committing the government to them. But how doth he or they prove this after-institution of the diocesian Bishop? we have already abundantly evinced the Contrary, both that the presbyters were the highest ordinary officers established by the Apostles, & that without any such fancied reserve as this is, the whole power both of order & jurisdiction was committed to them, & exercised by them, & supposed by the Apostles to continow so in their last farewelles to the Churches: and therefore may conclude that the Bishops of Philippi were mere presbyters: and that Paul acknowledged, & knew no other.  
Arnold: in his Lux in Tinebr.: (on Act. 20. 17. He called the elders, etc. represents the Orthodox opinion, thus, Episcopos & Presbyteros, etc.— That Bishops and Presbyters are not names of divers gifts in the Church, but of one and the same office, because they who are here called Presbyters, verse 28. are called Bishops. The Papists object (saith he as this Informer that in these times the names were common, but yet the [office] of Bishops and Presbyters divers. he answers 1. This is to affirm, not to prove. 2. When offices are distinct, there also the names are divers, 3. there was one office both of Bishops and Presbyters viz. the office of teaching. 4. Upon the Papists supposition there can and aught to be only one Bishop in one city, but so it is that there were here many, therefore [Bishops] signify [Presbyters.] Thus Arnold. classes our Informer among the Papists in this point, and represents our principles as the Orthodox principles of the Protestant Churches, and so in several other passages as we may after show. Chamier, (de Oecum: Pontif: lib. 10. cap. 3.) Having represented the Papists glosses upon Matth. 20. 25 [the Kings of the Gentiles] etc. the same with our Informers, viz. That our Lord discharged only that sort of Tyrannical Domination, & having answered and confuted them, as we heard junius and Whittaker did before; and having prefixed to the 7. chap. this cirle, An jure divino etc. [Whether the Bishop be greater than the Presbyter by divine right] he represents the affirmative answer as Beauties, together with his arguments and confuts them, and having proved Presbyters power in ordination, from [their imposeing of hands upon Timothy], he afterward confuts the Papists, (& this Informers) pretences for Prelacy from the Government of the jewish Church, & the Apostles Superiority to the seventy disciples: and adducing Bellarmin's argument from this passage (act. 20: 28.) to prove that the Holy Ghost set up Bishops, he answers thus- locus exactis alienus est, etc.— that place of the acts is impertinently cited, for from thence it is evident that Bishops and Presbyters are the same, Witness jerom. and others, for they whom Luke before called elders, or Presbyters of the Church, those Paul afterward affirms to have been made Bishops by the Spirit, and indeed for feeding, and (as the latin Interpreter) for governing the Church.] So we see Chamier: classeth also our Informer among the Papists in those his prelatic principles and glosses upon those Scriptures. Calvin upon Tit. 1: 7. Collects the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, from the Apostle's calling them Bishops, who were before called Presbyters, and (as we heard above) reprehends, upon this ground, the distinction placed betwixt them, as profane and anti-scriptural. The same he infers upon Act. 20. where the Presbyters of Ephesus are called Bishops, making our Informer's great topic anent the calling of such Ministers Bishops, qui primas tenebant in singulis civitatibus, or had a precedency in every city, a corruption and sin of those times. The Dutch annot: on Act. 20: 28. observe that those termed Bishops in this verse, being called elders in the 17. verse [it doth then appear that in the Holy Scripture there is no difference made betwixt elders and Bishops.] referring us to Phil. 1. 1. verse, upon which passage they assert the same thing: and especially from the plurality of such Bishops in one and the same Church, conclude this, referring us to 1 Tim. 3. 1. verse. and Tit. 1 chap. 5, 7, v. upon which places they observe, that by Bishops and Elders one kind of Ministry is signified, viz. the labourers in the word and doctrine, citeing 1 Tim. 5: 17. 2 Pet. 5: 1, 2. and from the Apostles description of the Bishop in the 1 Tim. 3. they conclude that by Bishop we are to understand all teachers of the Church without difference, referring again to the forementioned places. The english annot. express the same sense of these places under debate, and upon Acts 11. 30, v. adduce both fathers and counsels to prove this point.  
The Nixt Scripture argument which the Doubter bings against prelacy, and the Last too, is taken from Ephes. 4. 11. [where the Apostle reckons up Church officers, & makes no mention of Bishops]. Our argument from the Scripture enumeration of Church officers here, and in the parallels 1. Cor. 12: 28. Rom. 12: 6, 7, 8, Is this [That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposely the various kinds of Church officers, and speaking of the office of the pastor, makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastor, nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelate, although both ordinary and extraordinary officers, be enumerat, even the ruleing elder and the deacone: from which silence of the Scripture, as to this imaginary Bishop, we conclude him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting, by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such. To this our Informer answers. 1. That it is ill reasoning, that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place, or, enumeration, that therefore he is no where to be found in scripture, for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place, a cempleat enumeration Ans: he is guilty of a palpable forgery here, whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only, as if we held, that there is here a full enumeration, whereas he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelates, as also protestants in opposition to the papacy, do, together with this passage, join the parallels. 1. Cor. 12: 28. Rom. 12: 16. In which places collated, there is found a complete, enumeration of all Church officers ordinary, or extraordinary, and adiscoverie of their duties, and gifts who are ordinary officers, even of the very Deacon. Lykwayes, we take in with these Texts, the several descriptions of ordinary officers, and particularly of the Bishop, & his gifts and duties, found in any other places of the new Testamament. And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles, or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated (Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found) our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelate in all these places, stands firm by his own Confession, until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary. 2. We might tell him also, that upon his own ground, even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelate, will prove our point; for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrious excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church, for her growth and edification, as his royal mediatory Donations upon his ascension into heaven: and upon the other hand, the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration; as the Pastor, and teacher, whom this man holds to be officers inferior to the Diocesian Prelate, Certainly upon both these grounds, he would have mentioned him in order to this scope, had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed. And as for this Text, it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a complete enumeration of all, yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church, amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this man's Judgement. How then (I pray) can he be here ommitted, and ane inferior officer named, His 2d. Answer is. That Bishops are comprehended under [pastoures] and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures. Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher, is certan, but that the Diocesian should be so, is Impossible, and by him gratis dictum. For. 1. he cannot show that in these enumerations, the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior, now he holds the Diocesian Prelate to be ane office and order Superior to the Pastor. Nixt this were no proper enumeration, as he acknowledges there is here, of distinct & officers offices, if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations. And since Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, are proper designations of distinct officers; and offices, why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet, and to have come in between the Evangelist, and the Pastor, for this was his proper Class as the higher Church officer. Again, This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope, for they answer our divines Argument from this Text, that he is included in the office of the Apostle. But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him, he ought to have had a more peculiar designation, So we may say to this Informer here. Besides, may not patriarchs, and all the rabble of the pope's locusts have this pretended for them, that they are included in some of these officers? Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus, This man would tell him, that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising, & then allege they are included in some of these scripture designations, which answer suits his own case, Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture, And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it. Lastly. Hetels us [That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers, we must comprehend [ruleing elders, and deacons'] in some of these words, and why may not he do so with [Bishops.] Ans. 1. We need not, in order to our scope nor argument from this text, allege either a full enumeration of all officers, or go about to includ [elder] and [Deacon] under some of these words, It being, enough if we con show that the most eminent Church officers given for the Church's edification, are here enumerat, & that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelate, in this man's esteem●…, down from ane Apostle; which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable. 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon, in one of these words, we should but include therein inferior officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior, which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture. But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing: and likeways, if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher, ane including and comprehending of a Superior officer under the designation of ane inferior, both which differences do cut the sinews of Reason and answer.   

CHAP. XII.  
The Informer offers Scripture warrant for Bishops. His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament, and from the Apostles superiority to the seventy disciples, examined. The first Argument concludes, a lawful subordination of Church-offiers; in general, but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop. The second begs the question in supposing Prelates to succeed the Apostles immediately, and Pastoures, the seventy disciples; and from a Superiority among officers of different kinds groundlessly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind. No Image of our Prelacy in the jewish-church-government, or in the Apostles superiority above other Church-officers. The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause and himself also.  
THE Doubter over come by this Informers mighty Answers (forsooth) [Confesseth Episcopacy not to be unlawful, and only pleads that it may become inexpedient, and a better put in its place] Whereupon he promises [That if we will not stand out against light, he will let us see warrant in the word for Bishops] and so he may easily do. But the Bishop he must let us see the warrant for is the Diocesian Erastian Bishop, having sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, bound to preach to no flock, and deriving all his power from the civil Magistrate. Now, when he hath given us Scripture warrant for such ane ordinary Churchofficer, as is of this mould under the new Testament, erit mihi magnus Apollo. We see he still walks in darkness as to the State of the Question, and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the present Bishop now existent, when he offers to produce Scripture warrants for him. His 1. Warrant is; that under the old Testament (setting aside the high Priest who was a Typ of Christ) there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests, mention being made of chief Priests 2 King 19: 2. Ezr: 8: 29. etc. Matth. 2: 3. Act. 19: 14. And over these again a chief priest under the highest priest, who only was Typical, since two high priests are sometimes mentioned, Luc. 3: 2, So there was a subordination among the Levites Exod. 6: 2. Numb. 3: 18, 19 with 24. 30. v. Neh. 11: 22. One is set over the Levites, called by the Greek, Episcopus, and another over the Priests v 14. From all which places he concludes, That subordination among Churchmen is no such odious thing as some believe] Ansr. 〈◊〉. If this be all the Conclusion which this man draws out against us from the premised trite argument of Bellarmin and others, viz. that there is a subordination among Church men, It will never help him, nor wound our cause in the least; for as we grant without the least prejudice thereunto, that there is a subordination, both of Courts and Church-officers under the new Testament, Pastors being above ruleing elders, and they above Deacons. Presbyteries also being above Kirk Sessions, Synods above Presbyteries, National assemblies above Synods, as the jews had there Supreme Sanhedrin, Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19 And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue, a middle Ecclesiastic Court called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pre●…bytery Luk. 22: 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudicatorie, wherein was both ruleing, and censures. Act. 26: 11. Compared with Act. 9: 1, 2. And with Mark. 5▪ 35, 36. Act. 18: 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions. which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie, Aar. rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this (I say) is clear, so it is evident, that it is much more than a mere subordination of Courts or officers, which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us, viz, The Prelates sole decisive power, and negative voice in judicatories, and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrate as his deputs, in their administration. Now, from the subordination of Courts, or officers, mentioned under the old dispensation, to conclude [the lawfulness of a Prelate (a pretended Minister of the new Testament) his taking from other Ministers all the power of Government, contrary to our Lords express command, his laying, aside the preaching Talon, and giving up all the ecclesiastic authority which he pretends unto, to one who is not, Qua talis, so much as a Church member] is a wide and wild conclusion: yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point, is beyond all Question.  
2. Giving, not granting to him that there was under the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleads for, and such a difference of degrees among Church officers, as he represents, how will he prove this consequence [that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded, and have the same degrees of Ministers, as the Jews had of Priests and Levits] this Connexion he supposes here, and offers afterward some smattering in proof thereof, but with what success we shall see with in a little. Will he say that it is lawful to bring into the christian Church every point of the jewish policy? Bilson, ane English Bishop (even in pleading for Prelacy) will give him the lie if he say so, and show him the disparity betwixt their Church government and ours: Perp: Gou. Chap. 2. [for the tribe of Levi (saith he) was neither subjected to the Government, of another tribe, nor without manifest confusion could it want all Government, wherefore as all the rest, so this tribe also had its proper Magistrates, to wit, it's, Pinces' Elders, judges etc.— He adds, that the Jews Law contained in the books of Moses, comprehended the mould of their civil Government, and the Priests and Levits being most skilful in this knowledge, we need not wonder that they were placed in the same benches with the judges] (this we offer to our Informers observation, to snew how this Bishop Pulles his care in argueing from the Priests sitting in civil courts numb. 11, To Justify our Prelates civil rule) but now to our purpose in relation to Church government, he adds further [that the offices of the Sanctuary, and rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifices, from which all the other tribes except the Levites were restrained, were not of one kind; So that it needs be no wonder that these degrees of the administrators were distinguished according to the diversity of offices and services. But in the Church of Christ, the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers without distinction, as they are of one kind, neither admits any difference of administration, or celebration, so neither do they require different degrees of Ministers] Thus he. Sure had our Informer listened unto this information of this Father of the Church (as he speaks) he would have spared this Argument as not worth the repeating. The Ministry of the Levites who served in the sojourneing Tabernacle, is compared to warrfare Numb. 4. Because of the Military order which the Priests and Levits observed in their external Ministry. Where there was one common Temple, a common Ministry of the priesthood, a thousand administrators in every family (the twenty four families who served each their week in the Temple being called courses by Luke, & stationes by the Talmudists, the term being borrowed from warrfare, as Scaliger observes (in Canonibus isagogicis) it is no strange thing if in this Ministry, and Priesthood, their were such degrees of administrators; but the Prieststood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law, saith the Apostle Hebr. 7: 12. And the policy suitable to the state of that Church must by necessary consequence be changed also.  
3. The antecedent of the Argument from that policy, will be a harder task than he imagines, and this Informer would be quite out if put to draw us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacy in the Jewish Church Government. For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastic Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil, and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministry: But the prelates derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrate. 2. He cannot show that either the Highpriest, or any inferior priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastic Courts, or such a negative voice as the prelates exercise & assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries. The learned junius will inform our Informer (De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13.) That, par consortium honoris & potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes, sed ordine impari, qua familiarum, qua temperis respectu. Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is, Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power, though in a different order: partly in respect of families, and partly in respect of times, the ordinary ecclesiastic jurisdiction belonged to the assembly of the priests according to the Law. Thus he▪ Sure than it belonged not to the Highpriest alone, far less to any inferior priests, and therefore none of them all had our prelates negative voice in judicatories, or a sole decisive Suffrage, so that they were far from our prelates principality as to directive and corrective power. And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being obliged by the policy of the Jews, and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded, yet our present hierarchy is so different from it, that it will not help his cause in the least.  
But the doubter objects [that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament.] To which he answers, [That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintain order and unity in the in the Church, there is the same reason for it under the new, and stronger, because the Christian Church is of larger extent than the jewish, and the danger of schisms, and the necessity of preventing them, the greater: And what better way for this than God's way thus exemplary pointed out to us, although the New Testament gave no other ground, Gods own model being best for the Church.] I answ. 1. He must plead for much more than a mere subordination of Officers, if he speak to the point, as is clear from that is said. And his Doubter, (if he had dealt fairly) should have objected [that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had, and that there is a vast disparity betwixt their prelatic Erastian Hierarchy, and the Jewish Church-Government] Both which grounds do break the force of his argument. But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding. 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament (he should have said of that particular mould of government which the jewish Church had but his general one, to maintain order and union in God's Church (he should have said in that Church, under that special dispensation,) yet we have shown him some Reasons of their particular policy which do not reach us. And shall only resume to him that we have neither. 1. Such a distinction of tribes. Nor 2. A common Temple, and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal, or for any National Church, as they. Nor 3. Have we such types and shadows, from which (as upon the former grounds) this mould of government did flow. Nor 4. Such various sanctuary offices, and degrees, and varieties of administrations, requiring (as Bishop Bilson hath told him) such variety and different degrees of Administratores, the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction etc. Besides, hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage, Hebr. 7: 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why we are not tied to the same Policy, viz because that the Priosthood is changed, (i. e.) their particular frame of Church officers, & that therefore there is made a change of the Law, that is, of the legal ordinance, both of worship & Government. 3. Darene say that Christ's Church under the New Testament, may have every mould of government which may be in itself, or in respect of some circumstances, commendable, and subservient to these ends of order and union? Where is Christ's faithfulness as a Sun over his own house, beyond that of Moses? Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government, Officers, Laws, Censures, if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it, which may be in its own time and place good, and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation?  
4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter? Was not his office a special mean of order and unity in that Church, and to prevent schism▪ s and divisions? And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supreme Highpriest or bishop? What better way for this, than Gods own way? And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government, than this pattern? Surely the Pope will thank him for this. I know he sets aside (in contradiction to Saravia, as I shall show) the Highpriest in his argument, as a Type of Christ, the man foresaw that this would cast his argument in to ane entire Popish mould; but he is not so overseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason, & caught in the brieres of contradictions. For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union. Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught, and that God's way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church, is different from his way, and the means of preverving it under the Old, and that the Samenes of the end of God's ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations, will not plead for holding the same institutiones. Was not order, union, and the edification of the Church, the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and pedagogy. Were not the Jews for this great end of order and union to keep their solemn Feasts? To go up to Jesusalem solemnly and joynly three times in the year? To have one common Temple, one Altar, etc. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions? 2. How will he prove that the inferior Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest? Dare he say that their praying for the people, and their sacrificeing, were not typical of Christ's intercession and sacrifice, as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest, though not in the same degree of eminency? I grant that the Apostle (Heb. 5.) speaking of the authority and honour of Christ's Priesthood, presents the legal type thus; Every Hiepriest taken from among men, etc. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice in opposition to the legal, he says in the 11, & 12. Ver. And every Priest (simply, not every Highpriest) standeth daily ministering & offering the Same sacrifices, which can never take away sin, but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins, etc. It will be evident that the inferior priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his argument, or excluded together with him, the inferior priests upon the same ground. For majus & minus non variant speciem rei. If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices, but of their Government, which was not typical. Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the Highpriest upon this ground, since these are as well distinguishable in him, as in the inferior Priests? So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in point of his government as well as they. And for his single eminency, it drew along with it those degrees of inferior priests and Levits, (in his principles) which are mentionedso that if the one must vanish as a Type, in the same manner must the other. 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove, that the High priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ; Sure he will find this denied by his fellow brother in the cause, Tilen in his Parenes: (Cap. 2) in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice, non typi solum sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio conspicua &— [In the highpriest, the type is not only conspicuous, but the reason of order, for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in resspect of the kingly and judiciary power which Christ hath, who otherways should have had the dignity, both according to the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchisedeck, that is, both of a King and a priest.] junius, a greater than he, (de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6.) distinguishes these in the Highpriest. — in summo Sacerdote consideranda, non solummodo ratio typi, sed etiam ordinis & politiae,— [We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type, but like ways of order and policy, etc.] then he adds the abovementioned: reason; So that in this argument, and his way of pleading for prelacy upon the ground of the Jewish policies. He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church: Which will be convincingly clear, If we shall in the 4t. place consider, that our Informer in this argument having set aside the High priest, as only typical, tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him, and tells us in answer to the premised objection, that this method of the Jewish government (with this Chief or high priest; distinct from the typical priest) is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as God's pattern for moddeling the gospel-Church government. So that without all shadow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief patriarch over the Christian Church, as being a part of the Jewish policy obliging us, and exemplarly commended to us for our imitation. Moreover, I would know what he would say, If one should plead for retaining of all the judicial laws of the Jews upon his two grounds. 1. As not being typical. 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union, and commended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end, what better pattern for modelling our government and laws than this pattern? Likeways will he say that every piece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogy was properly typical: And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policy was not such. Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences, and state of that people, both as a Church under that old dispensation, and as a Commonwealth regular in its civil Laws immediately by God, which no found divines do call Typical, and yet do hold that they oblige no Church or state under the New Testament.  
For a conclusion of this argument, I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expressions (at least in the judgement of some learned) anent the Chief Priests 2. King. 19: 2. etc. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastic degrees among the priests in their spiritual function: these chiefness (to speak so) or principality among the priests, being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established: and that they were called Chief-priests, or Elders of the priests, did flow from this that this Tribe (subject to the same Princes as at the first) was afterward set apart for the priesthood, for Aaron and his 'Zounds were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole. Tribe was not assumed unto the priesthood before Numb. 1. Yet in the mean while the tribe of Levie (Exod. 6.) had the Heads of their families & their Princes. The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levy as a Tribe simply, ascribes to it the same policy with the rest of the tribes, & Princes of the several families by the right of primogenitur: Thus both priests and Levits had their chief men and precedents. But as a Tribe separat to holy things, it had its peculiar policy. One was chief priest only by God's appointment, at whose hand all the rest of the priests were. 1 Chron. 24: 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites, in their several services. David in distributing them in their several Temple offices, did not set the Princes over them as such, but only having numbered them after the Heads of their families, and by their lots or Courses, did assign to them their service of the Temple, upon God's command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan, the more to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe, their coming unto, and returneing from the Temple. The Chief of the families then, are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministry; for there was but one only high priest, all the rest as well the heads, as the families themselves, were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministry of the House of the Lord, 1 Chron. 24: 19 Where the Chief or head in matters sacred, had no more power than the whole body. So was it in the distribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23: 27, that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministry. So that none of his citations do amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions, or any other way then in their civil capacity as a Tribe; neither had the two high priests (mentioned Luc. 3.) The least warrant in God's institution, but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then crept in among other corruptions: and since he draws his first instance of the Levits' subordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was set apart at all to the Holy Ministry, that passage at least, and (as I said, in the judgement of some) its parallels also aftermentioned by him, do speak of the Civil Government and subordi nation of the Levites in that capacity; and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Episcopus, is a very poor argument to conclude their Ecclesiastic rule, it being notourly known that the best Greek Authores put his designation upon Civil Governoures.  
This subordination among the Levites in Exod. 6: 15. is unquestionably civil upon the ground assigned. And numb. 3. It is evident that the heads and princes of Families are numbered. And accordingly the heads and Chief of the families, 1 Chron. 24. and in Neh: 11: 14. He that is set over the priests, is the son of one of the great men (Haggedolim), or eminent in paris and place as many take it. 1 Chron. 24: 4. before the division and order is set down, it's said, there were more Chief men found of the sons of Eleazar, then of the sons of ●…thamar, etc. all which doth much plead forthis assertion, but we need not be peremptor in pressing this, since the weight of our answer lies not upon it.  
Our Informer comes nixt to his New Testament proofs for Bishops and produces first, the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy Disciples. Where 1. We see, He is still in the clouds of a general superiority, which is far from the Princelike Arbitrary, and Erastian superiority of the Diocesian Prelate now existent, and whom he undertakes to plead for, which this Informer (Had he intended to have informed right) should have condescended upon. Had the Apostles such a superiority over the seventy Disciples? Were they subject to the Apostles as their Rectors and judges? Did the Apostles (as our Prelates) assume a Sole Decisive, conclusive suffrage, and a negative voice over Church Judicatories, notwithstanding of their extraordinary and high prerogatives? Did we not see the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apostles with ordinary Ministers, Act. 15? Had the seventy only a derived precarius Ministry under the twelve Apostles, as their Vicars & Substitutes in their Ministration? Had they no Interest in the Church-Government but upon the Apostles mere pleasure. As Curates are now in all these respects subject to their Prelates? Had not the seventy their mission, their institution, immediately from Christ as well as the Apostles themselves? Were they not consequently to exercise their Ministry upon this ground, without such a servile dependence upon the twelve as Prelates do arrogat to themselves ane arbitrary principality over Ministers? Were the twelve to rule only, and to commit the preaching work to the seventy as their deputes, as our Prelates now do? Or were they not rather to help forward the great harvest, and the work of the Ministry, together with the Apostles themselves? So that this Informer will never find the least shadow of ane Episcopal superiority here. But 2. Granting that the Apostles were officers in asuperiour degree to the seventy, which is the utmost Conclusion which he can draw from Scripture, how will this infer a superiority among officers of the same degree. We grant the Apostles were superior to Evangelists, they again to Pastoures, Ergo, one Pastor may be a diocesian Prelate over hunderds of other Pastors, is a consequence known to no logic. Christ appointed both extraordinary, and ordinary officers in their several degrees, as Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors: Ergo, he appointed different degrees of Pastors, hath no connexion imaginable. 3. That basis of his argument lies in this [that the Prelates are immediate successors of the Apostles in their degree of superiority to the seventy Disciples, and Pastors come after the seventy in their supposed subjection, and are not the Apostles immediate successors in the ordinary Ministry] but this, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the quesitum or question, must be proved, not begged and supposed by him. We did already evince the contrary, viz, That the Pastor to whom is committed the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and both the keys, immediately from the Apostles, are the highest ordinary officers, and the Apostles immediate successorus as to both order and Jurisdictione. But the doubter and I object further [that the Apostles superiority over the seventy, was extraordinary, personal, temporary, and to cease with themselves.] In answer to this, He grants that in some things their privileges were extraordinary, and to cease with themselves, such as their immediate cas. lings, their sending to all nations their infallibility, gifts of tongues, or whatever was necessary for the first founding of the obristian Ch●…rch. but in other things wherein they were superior to other Ministers, their power was not extraordinary and temporary, but still to be continued, such as ordination of Ministers, and governeing them by ecclesiastic authority; in which power the Bishops succeeds them, who are [the children in stead of the Fathers] as Augustin applies that of Psal. 45, v. 19 Ans. 1. Then it seems that with him the Episcopal office properly succeeds to that of the Apostles, and is a continuation of their power in ordination and jurisdiction over Pastors, which contradicts his second answer to our Argument from Ephes. 4 viz [that Bishops in that place may be comprehended under the the office of Pastors & teachers] For here he makes their office the same with that of the Apostles as importing ane authority in ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors and teachers, and so he should have said rather that it is comprehended under the Apostolic office 2. He yet again contradicts himself in this answer while granting [that whatsoever was necessary for the first planting of the Christian Church is a privilege ceased with the Apostles] and yet making their power of ordination of Ministers, and in governing them, to be still necessary, he must understand it as performed and done by them, since therein he imagines the pattern of episcopal power to lie: For other ways the Presbyterians do hold and prove that ordination by the Presbytery, and Government by Presbyters collegiatly, is still continued and necessary; This he will not allow, and so must understand it of the manner wherein the Apostles performed this at first. Now I say, their Apostolic power in ordination and Government as exercised by them at first, was necessary for the first founding of the Church. For 1. Their power of ordination was of equal limits and extent with their mission to all nations — Go disciple all nations, I hope he will grant was extraordinary, as being necessary for the first founding of the churches, Ergo, say I. so was their power in ordination and Government of Ministers, since it was of a like nature, and of the same extent; for to what ever nations they were sent together a Church therein, there they were to ordain Ministers, & govern them by ecclesiastic Discipline, which he makes to be the Bishop's office. 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government, here supposed, by him, did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri, whereof they were to be founders. First They were, as Christ's immediate extraordinary Ambassadors, to convert and bring in Churches, then to plant officers, & the Gospel Government in them; Now, who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches, and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired: Surely where no other officers were to concur, the Apostles of necessity behoved to ordain solely, and their Apostolic Inspection over them did necessarily depend upon, and flow from, their Apostolic extraordinary mission and infalibility, So that this power in so fare as Episcopal like, was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession, the nature and exercise of this power supposeing, and requiring their peculiar mission, infallibility, and gifts of tongues, which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges, necessary only at that time. Moreover, the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous roads and censures, & a power in coerceing the rebellious, thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolic Censure, put forth by his Apostolic authority at that time, Paul stroke Elimas' the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth; besides, their power in ordination at that time, included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands. 2 Tim. 1: 6 Act. 19: 1, 2, 6. Now, all these Apostolic privileges (which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinary) being necessarily included in, & essential unto the Apostolic power, the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also. We shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned junius, who in his answer to Beauties' argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power, from that word Shall I come to you with a rod, distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod, secundum illam, etc. (de Concil. lib. 2. Cap. 16.)— that is, according to the common ordinary road. Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary, he struck dead Ananias and Sapphira. In respect of this commonrode (saith he) Paul saith 1 Cor 5.— [You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus] but as to this singular one, he saith [Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4, 21] this common road he denies to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other, or that they had any sole or singular pre-eminence in Churches constitute. And this cuts the wind pipe of our Informers topic and argument here for the prelates power. Which leads to a 3d. Answer.  
3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal pre-eminence in Churches constitut, and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri, is not to the purpose by his own confession, since it falls in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches, which privileges the acknowledges are gone, That the Apostles exercised no such single pre-eminence in churches constitut, is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacy, where we showed that neither in ordination, nor excommunication, nor in Ministerial decision of controversies, the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut, but had the ordinary Church-officers Presbyterialy concurring with them. We likwayes proved in the 8. Argument, that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter, nor eminenter, contained in the Apostles authority, but is inconsistent there with, and contrary thereunto, there sole directive, corrective power over the diocese, as being the proper sole pastoures thereof, their sole decisive suffrage, and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories, besides their civil rule, like that of the princes of the gentiles; rendering our prelates power ex sua natura, & in universum, different from the very nature of the Apostles authority, and the authority of a Gospel Ministry altogether: and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles, to the Church, as any piece of the Gospel Church Government; and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church, or the Apostles brought forth, but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride. As for what he adds of the Father's making Bishops Successors to the Apostles junius will tell him (De cler. cap 14. Not. 15.) That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christ's institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur, because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree— And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili, non ex pari, a succession of similitude, not of parity and of a similitude secundum quid, or imaginary, according as Prelates were then moulded.   

CHAP. X.  
The Informers great argument for Prelacy, from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. Their Episcopal office disproved, from the office of Evangelist, ascribed expressly to the one, and by good consequence to the other, from many circumstances of the sacred text, and the judgement of Interpreters. The Informers plead from there power in ordination and jurisdiction, supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent; from the necessity of this power, the concernment of of after-ages therein, &c, examined. The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head, several ways discovered.  
THe Informer presents unto us Nixt, the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete, and the Douhter alleging [that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete, Bishops,] He rejoins That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward taken, that is, had a power in ordination and jurisdiction over and above inferior Ministers. This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, as also the nixt, taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels, hath been so fully answered and baffled by many, That it is, a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts. We gave already a hint in the St A●…gument; of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus, which is abundantly cleared by many, from their unfixed motion and officiating, their occasional transient employment in these places, Paul's actual revocation of them both there from, the condition of these Churches, as being but in fieri as to their organic settlement and constitution: Particularly, that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopal, I prove from these grounds. 1. In Churches already constitut, this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur, qui putant (saith Calvin, Instit: lib: 4. Cap. 3.) etc. that is, they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure, they were set over the people (no word of their being set over Ministers) to go before them in good and wholesome Counsels in relation to the placing of Ministers, not that they might do as they pleased excluding others. Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicate alone, and since (as I said above) a whole college or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio, but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedure Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal pre-eminence, who were inferior to any of the Apostles, therefore their power in this was not episcopal. 2. That authority which was entrusted to the elders and Ministers in common,/ was not entrusted to any one officer, such as Timothy; But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and completed in its organic being, and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus, Paul committed the whole episcopal power to the elders (as is said) before Timothy's face in his last farewell, Act. 20. therefore he entrusted him with no episcopal pre-eminence in or over that Church when completed in its organic being. 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches, that it excluds Episcopale pre-eminence, properly and formally such, their power in ordination and jurisdiction, cannot be prelatical, nor ground ane argument for prelacy: but such is the power of Timothy and Titus. For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinately and designedly set and fixed there, as the officers of these Churches, but the contrary appears in the text [I befought the to abide at Ephesus] and again [I left thee at Crete, and to set in order things that are wanting] which words point at ane occasional transient, employment there, not a fixed instalement. 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing. 3. If their power was Episcopal and ordinary, then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successors, their power and authority ought to have been described, and rules given touching the gifts, Call, ordination etc. of the diocesian Bishop, but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher than a Pastor, & supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer, in all his directions as to Church government. 4. Add to this, That Paul never calls Timothy, or Titus, Bishops, though frequently making mention of them, but Ministers, Soldiers of Christ, workmen, the Church's messengers etc. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolic function; Their accompanying Paul in his Travels is largely described by the divines at the I'll of wight. 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul, Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then, hav●…ig been at Macedonia with Paul, he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus, and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19 22. Whither Paul, went after him, and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum 17. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the bishops of that Church. And after this, he is found either in journeys, or absent from Ephesus. Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome, being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome; as that to the philippians, Philip. 1. to philemon. 1. 1. and to the coloss. 1. 2. and he is never found again at Ephesus, & near the end of the Apostles pilgrimage, he is sent for to Rome. So Titus is found at jerusalem, before he came to Crete, Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis, Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth, than he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia. 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent again to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. & after this, near the time of paul's death, is found at Rome, from whence he went not to Crete, but unto Dalmatia, 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture. So that from their various journeys, the order of them, the time spent in them, the nature of their employment, which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolic function, and negotiate the affairs of the Churches where the Apostles travelled, and the Scriptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church, These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops.  
Others do remark severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text, specially relating to Timothy which do evince him to be neither Bishop at all, nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense. As 1. That paul stirs him up to diligence upon this motive, that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ, not a Bishop of Christ, 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop, but nothing else. 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him, he was but newly entered into the ministry. 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. etc. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop. 3. He is commands to entreat elders as Fathers. 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well, therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery, which could not be ane episcopal function. 6. That Paul appoints him to reside there only until his own return from Macedonia, to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him again 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15.— 7. That assoon as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus, he sent Timothy into Achaia, himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season. Act. 19 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia, and through it unto Asia, accompanied with Timothy and others, after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus. 8. That Timothy was sent to many churches to confirm and strengthen them, as, to Macedonia Act. 19 22. To Thessalonica. 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi. chap. 2. 19 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure. 9 That though he is joined with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles. Collos. 1. philip. 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to several Churches, 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is [altum silentium] of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians, his own supposed diocese. 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacy. That as Timothy was sent to confirm. Instruct and Comfort other Churches, as Philippi, Troas. So Paul writes to him. 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this same end. sent to Ephesus: and that he wrote the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome, whom the Apostle (chap. 6. 21. v. of the Epistle directed to that church) sent to them as a faith full Minister, who therefore looks liker their Bishop then Timothy. That the same is supposable of Titus is also apparent, both in that he is called (as Timothy), not Bishop, but Paul's fellow helper, and that concerning the Corinthians, not the Cretians, and likeways in that he is employed to the church in corinth, after he was left by Paul at crete, as his fellow helper in that church, 2. Cor. 2. 13. and was fixed to no one place of residence. That being charged to come to Paul at Nicopolis, his stay is found very short at Crete, so that after half a years residence there he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia etc.  
But the Doubter acknowledging [Timothy and Titus, their power over Ministers at Ephesus and crete, since they are taught how to ordain them, what qualifications are requisite, how to proceed in their trials and censures, alleges that this they had, as evangelists & companiones to the Apostles in their labours and as appointed to settle and water these Churches which they had planted.] In what respect these things are attribute to these Church officers, will be after examined, when we shall consider how our informer pleads for their episcopal power upon these grounds. But to this exception of the Doubter, he answers That this supposes them to be extraordinary officers, whose office was not to continue in the Church. And the Doubter affirmeing this. [Because Timothy is called ane Evangelist 2. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not be a Bishop] To this our Informer rejoins That in a large sense, he was ane Evangelist or a preacher of the gospel, but that he was ane Evangelist in astrict sense, can no mor be proved from that scripture; then that he was a deacon: Because the Apostle in that same place says, fulfil thy deaconship, as the Greek signifies. Or that Philip was ane extraordinary evangelist, because he is called ane evangelist Act. 2. 8. for he was a deacon Act. 6. and Act. 8. 5. did preach the gospel, but was not therefore one of these extraordinary evangelists whose office was to cease in the Church. And Finally, He tells us that ordination and jurisdiction is properly no work of ane Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the gospel] Ans. 1. This man casts up but a mist of Insignificant words in this distinction, whereby he endeavoures to elude so clear a scripture. Timothy's Evangelistick office, we see, is a gripping argument which our Informer would fain Elude, but with what success shall presently appear. He grants he was ane Evangelist in a large sense or a preacher, but not in the strict sense, but what that strict sense is, in which he denies Timothy to be ane Evangelist, he doth not clear, and so his strict sense is left without sense, and his distinction must fly with one wing. He knew that his assigning ane explication of his strict sense, would have so palpably included Timothy, that his evasion would be presently shut up: therefore he left the other branch of his distinction, a mere mute under the clouds, and gives us a distinction which stands upon one leg. 2. If he will take Eusebius sense (Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33. o●… 37. with some) he will tell him [that this title is taken but two ways, either for such as wrote the Gospel, (in which sense we grant that none of them were Evangelists, or such as taught the Gospel, and these again were either such as had ordinary places or gifts, or whose places and gifts were extraordinary, that is, who were not settled upon any one charge, but were Apostolorum vice, having a vicarius care of all the Churches, as the Apostles had the principal care.] The Evangelists (as Ambrose phrases it) did Evangelizar sine Cathedra, or preached without a fixed charge. Here, by the way I cannot but admire the inconsistent subtlety (may I call it so) of Saravia (de divers. grand. minist. cap. 6.) who, in answer to Beza, pleading [that the appellation of Evangelist is given not to every on who preached, but to the Apostles temporary coadjutors in watering the Churches, not yet fully constitut etc.] tells him that Apostolus nunquam Timotheum— Euangelistae nomine compellat. That the Apostle no where puts the Title of Evangelist upon Timothy, and that this title was given to none but Philip. Yet immediately addes-Evangelistae nomen non nego Timotheo, quem Paulus Evangelistae ●…pus sacere jubet, I deny not the name of Evangelist to Timothy, whom the Apostle bides, do the work of ane Evangelist. If he deny not this name to him and the thing therein imported, how can he quanel the Apostles not putting this title upon him, or deny him the title, and the peculiar office therein imported. Calvin takes the word hereto Import that special extraordinary office mentioned. Ephes. 4. Now that Timothy was such ane Evangelist, is already fully proved and by consequence that the objection stands untouched and unanswered by him. viz. That he was ane unfixed extraordinary officer, and not to continue, and therefore any authority which he is supposed to have over this Church, lays no foundation of Prelacy. For he says nothing to this consequence, but admits it upon the supposition that Timothy was ane Evangelist in a strict sense, and ane extraordinary officer. Cartwright answering the Rhemises upon this place, takes it in the strict sense mentioned, telling the Jesuits that Paul's calling Timothy once ane Evangelist, hath more pith in it then all denominations of Pishop that others can give him.  
3. The Informers reason of denying the special office of Evangelist to be here imported, viz That he might be as well called a Deacon, as being enjoined to fulful his Mivistery or Deaconship in the Greek, is very poor. For 1. It being clear that the Scripture holds out such ane office as that of Evangelist, specifically distinct fromother offices. Ephes. 4. (as this man acknowledges) and it being equally certain that this or any other office and relation hath a work and duty proper andpeculiar thereunto and likeways that the office lays ane obligation upon the person who carries it, to perform the duties thereof. And Finally. It being evidently the Apostles Scope, from the consideration of the office, to exhort to the duties suitable thereunto, its destrable by its own light that Timothy is here stirred up to the duties of that peculiar station & office which we have proved he sustained; & thereforit cannot be understood of a general Ministry or service. Will any doubt what the sense of such phrases is, [do thework of a parent] [do the work of a Master] [do the work of a Pastor] who knows what the office and relation of a parent, master, and Minister is, and that this phrase imports, this precept enjoins the duties proper to such relations and offices. So the case is here, which none will doubt of but this Informer who starts needles doubts, when he cannot answer his presbyterian Doubter. 2. The Deacons office having in Scripture its limits drawn, the circumstances of the place where the word Diaconia stands, discovers when we are to take it in a general sense, and when this inferior officer is pointed out. So it were absurd when Archippus is bidden fulfil his Ministry, or when the Apostle calls himself a Minister, to imagine that the proper formal office of Deacon is ascribed to the one or the other: But the service there meaned is ane Apostolical and Pastoral service, not the service of Tables. Now, fulfil, or make full proof of thy Ministry (as our Translatores do weill render it, giving the deacon a peculiar Inglish term according to the greek sound of the word to avoid confusion) is exigeticall▪ the Ministry he is to fulfil, is his Evangelistick Ministry, the latter expounds the former, so that in the very phrase itself, the evangelistick office is asserted and the deaconship denied. The phrafe of Evangelist, & especially the workof ane Evangelist, determins his peculiar office; there being no other Evangelists in the scripture sense, but either those that wrote or published the gospel in that extraordinary way, and Timothy being clearly one of such, it must needs import the Evangelist in a peculiar sense, and is distinct from the general phrase of Ministry in the latter branch of the words, which stands limited and restricted by the first part as Isaid. Again, since he includes in the general term [Episeopus] his diocesian Bishop, as distinct from a presbyter, in philip. 1. and Act. 20. We may with far better evidence take in the peculiar evangelist here, the office properly taken, being both a scripture office, and likeways so clearly applicable to the person to whom this precept is given, none of which he can say in his case. Moreover, I wonder whither he would admit this his gloss, if this phrase were directed to a Pastor as it is here to Timothy [do the work of a Pastor, make full proof of thy Ministry] would he think this a good argument or reason to deny him to be a Pastor, because the latter branch of the sentence expresses a deaconship? Sure he would not: or had the Apostie expressed the first branch of the precept thus, do the work of a ●…ishop, would he have taken this answer from us, that Timothy might be as well proved a deacon from that place? Sure, he would here tell us that th●… fi●… r●…trictive phrase, determines the subsequent general one, and that different offices may well share in general names.  
3. The phrase of doing the work of ane Evangelist, if we compare scripture with itself, will appear upon Two grounds to import a peculiar Evangelist. 1. Such a sense must needs be admitted in paralleel phrases where the Syntax and construction is like ●…o this, As [the signs of ane Apostle] 2 Cor. 12: 12. [commands of Apostles] 2 Pet. 3: 2 [foundation of Apostles] Ephes 2 20. who will deny but that the word Apostle is here peculiarly designeing the office, & why not also [the workeof aneEvangelist] especially it being his scope to stir up Timothy to diligence from the consideration of the office, and others to the greater reverence of him. 2 The term of Evangilist occurring only thrice in the new Testament (viz) Act. 21. 8 Ephes 4. 11. and in this place under debate: since the first Two places, do ●…yond all question speak o●… the Evangelist in a strict and proper sense, h●… (I pray) & why doth it change its signification here? Extraordinary functions communicats with inferior offices in the general names, as when the Apostles are called pres byters in a general designatione, but extraordinary names are not made use of to point at ordinary functions, at least when the office is so distinctly pointed at as in this place  
4. He stumbleth yet again here into a material contradiction, whil telling us, That Timothy was ane evangelist in a large sense, that is, One who proached the Gospel, which he contradistinguishes from ane Evangelist in a strict sense, denying Timothy to be such, and that strictly termed Evangelist had it for his work to preach and spread the Gospel, as he seems to insinuat in the close of his answer, if at least he mean it of his strictly called evangelist (for his way of expressing it is very indistinct.) But however he will not say that Timothy was no otherways ane Evangelist then in the sense wherein any ordinary Minister is such. And if he understand him to be ane Evangelist as having a more large unfixed or universal office of preaching the gospel with extraordinary gifts, and as coajutor of the Apostles, as Hooker himself, together with Eusebius do take it, as being thus contradistinct from writers of the Gospel, how comes he only to acknowle●… h●… ane Evangelist in a general sense, as a preacher of the Gospel simply? I would know what this Informer calls ane Evangelist in a strict sense, sure he will not say that it is merely preaching the Gospel which makes up this office, for that he makes the large sense; is it preaching and spreading the gospel with extraordinary gifts ad unfixedly? (as he seems to insinuat by making this the proper work of ane Evangelist) then surely he will not deny but this was Timothy's work, and so he must be ane Evangelist in the strict sense, against what he first asserts. He acknowledges the ordinary Evangelists or preachers, were to preach and spread the Gospel within their Sphere, and so the strict Evangelist must be distinguished from them by unfixed preaching and spreading the Gospel: which (besides what is mentioned) will bring a new inconvenienc upon our Informer and dash him against his principle of fixing Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. Yet again, though Philip preached the Gospel upon the dispersion and spread it unfixedly, yet he denies him to be one of these extraordinary Evangelists whose office was to cease: So that he doth (as to this) distinguish preaching and spreading the Gospel from the proper work and characteristic of the Evangelist strictly taken Thus it is hard to know what he calls ane Evangelist or how he understands it: For neither will he admit power in ordination and jurisdiction to be ane ingredient in this office, and thus it is neither fixed nor unfixed preaching or government either, that with him will make up this office properly taken, if we consider the whole structure of his reasoning.  
5. As for what he says of philip, That it will not follow, he was ane extraordinary Evangelist, though termed ane Evangelist, since he was a Deacon. I answer, that Philip was not ane Evangelist properly so called, is by him poorly and gratis asserted, and worse proved; Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function, then expired, because otherways it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria; And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office, but as one who had a more excellent office entrusted to him, Which two grounds will put fair to prove that he was not a deacon still. Then he adds [Evangilistae meo judicjointer Apostolos & doctores medii erant, munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent, nec praeficerentur certae Stationi— That is, Evangelists were set in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctors, had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles and Doctors, had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles, that they might every where preach the gospel and were not fixed to any Station. He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist, Because, (Ephes. 4.) the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles, as he shows that they had a more enlarged office of teaching entrusted to them then to Pastors whose work was tied to certain places. Hence he concludes that Philip's deaconship at Jerusalem, was only temporal. And for some time there exercised by him, and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist. In which words we see. 1. He doth upon weighty grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist. 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken. Eph. 4.— 3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinary teachers or pastors, and in this distinct from them (in the judgement of this great divine) that they were fixed to no certan charge, as they, but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinite unfixed Ministry; all which is cross to this man's blunt confused discourse of this mater, and cuts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy.  
Lastlie, Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper work of ane Evangelist, but preaching and spreading the Gospel. 1. I urge him thus, if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristic of the Evangelist (He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastors if he speak sense) then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches, as is cleared above. Whence it follows by his own Confession. 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased, for he affirms that the office of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church. 2. That he had no Episcopal authority in ordination and jurisdiction, He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher, and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession, not being his proper work who is ane Evangilist. So that Paul's calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelate, and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him, is frivolous and vain. For in his sense he could not Act both the work of evangelist and Prelate, these being according to his pleading, inconsistent. But nixt, the wonder is, how this man comes to divide [preaching and spreading of the gospel] from [the power of ordination jurisdiction] since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these, and affirms that their office was episcopal, as we heard above. And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawn from the Apostles, and by jerom, from mark the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria. Then it seems this power in ordination (wherein, with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishop's office lies) was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed enlarged preaching and spreading of the gospel; The Apostles unfixed preaching & spreading of the gospel, sure he will not deny: nor can he deny to mark, the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine: so that both are with him compatible. Thus we see in withstanding the truth, he is still in the briers of Contradictiones.  
The Doubter excepts against his reason [That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist] To which he answers [That by the same Reason Timothy and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists] I answer 1. We have shown already, That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist. 2. Supposing he were yet the Informers answer and parallel, is naught. For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office, holding still ane inferior, which is eminenter included in it, as he will grant, but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superior officer, to ane ordinary inferior.  
2. As ane Evangilist properly so called, his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly, as a Bishop, his work he will say, was ordination and jurisdiction, which Two we heard him affirm to be incompatible.  
Besides, in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction, from the Evangelistick office, he is contradicted by Saravia, who in many places mantaines the contrary (degrade: cap. 1.— and Cap. 16. and cap. 23) And here I shall show our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate, that it may appear, what babellike builders our prelate's Advocates are.  
Upon that passage (Matth. 20) I find he is a little more ingenuous than this is Disciple, and plainly speaks out what he but mutters (exam: tract: de episc: tripl: quest: 1. pag: 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke, he adds. Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. jesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum? & non potius docuisse quid eum deceat, qui in Ecclesia primus & princeps futurus erat &c that is, From these Words I demand whither any that is sound can judge, that the Lord jesus did take away primaci and principality, and did not rather teach what becomes him, who was to be first and Prince in the Church— and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did show what sort of primaci it is that the allows in his Church, so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christ's pritcipality over the Church, & what harmony this keeps with the judgement of protestant divines upon that passage, any may judge. The Informers holds That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles (although he is not consistent with himself in this, as is already observed) but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them.  
That the Bishops, saluted with the deacons', (Phil: 1.) were mere Presbyters, he is forced to acknowledge, and so condemns our Informers shifts, about Extraneus Bishops accidently there, or with the Apostle himself, or that the Diocesian is included in the word [Bishop] — in epistola ad Philippenses salutem dicit Episcopis & diaconis, unde quemadmodum intelligitur Philippensium ecclesiam habuisse Presbyteros & diac●…nos &c. (de Grad: cap. 8.) In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul salutes the Bishops and deacones, hence as we are given to understand, that the Church of the Philippians had Presbyters and Deacons, etc. Again, the Informer lays aside the Highpreist, as a type of Christ, when he pleads for prelacy from the Jewish Church-government. But in this Saravia gives him the lie for't. He holds the inferior priests to have been in there administration types of Christ as well as the high priest. And 2. That the Government, whether of the inferior or high priests, is not abolished as typical (de honour: praes: & prysb: deb: cap: 10, & de Divers: grad Miniser: cap 14.) Besides, the Informer holds that that place 2 Tim. 2: 4. Commands Churchmen to be as Abstract as possible from public civil employments, and not entangle themselves therein. But Saravia adstricts the affairs of this life spoken of in that Scripture, unto the endeavours which belongs to the nourishment and mantainance of this life, and holds that it doth not at all speak of nor discharge Churchman's holding of public state employments under Princes. He minces not the matter as this man. Vitae negotia (saith he] sunt ea quibus, quae ad hujus vitae victum pertinent, comparantur, non quae sunt principis aut civitatis publica. And [de ●…on: praesul. & Presbit: deb:] he praefixes this title unto: cap. 26. As that which he undertakes to prove — Idem Homo tanquam episcopus curam ecclesiae Domino jesu, & fidem ac obsequium regi tanquam ipsius beneficiarius reddere potest. That the same man may perform his duty to Christ as a Bishop, and attend the Church, and also render faith and obedience to the King as his vassal etc.  
The doubter nixt excepts to better purpose That they could not be Bishops, because they were not settled at these places, especially Timothy, had he been Bishop at Ephesus, he had been fixed to his charge, but he was left only there upon occasional employment, and for a season, 1 Tim. 1: 3. To this he answers 1. That they were rare and singular persons useful for the Apostle at that time, and therefore it is no wonder that they were called from their particular charge when the Churches good required it. Philip. 2: 19, 20 2 Cor. 8: 23. As with us a Minister may be called from his charge for a season when the good of the Church else where requires it. To which I rejoin 1. This answer supposes the thing in Question (viz) [That Timothy and Titus were once fixed as Bishops in these Churches] But the ground of the exception is, That because their occasional transient Employment in these places, is so clear & express, therefore they were never fixed to these Churches as their particular charge, but had it for their charge to water all the Churches which the Apostles planted, and attend their planetary motion from Church to Church. So that they cannot be in their work and duty paralleled to a Pastors transient Employment from his particular charge for the Churches greater good, whose fixed charge is supposed. But we have proved that Timothy and Titus their ordinary Employment was this transient and unfixed Ministry: which is clearly holden out in scripture both before and after their officiating in these Churches. 2, It is also cleared above, that as the scripture is utterly silent of their return to these Churches again, after Paul's recaling them from the same, and after their transient Employment therein: So we have made it likeways appear, that they did officiat thereafter in many other Churches, performing to them the same duties of Evangelists as in Ephesus and crete. And that in Ephesus, elders were called Bishops, and had the whole Episcopal charge before Timothy, committed to them in paul's last farewell. In a word, it can never be made good that any who were fixed to particular charges, did so travel up and down as these Evangilists are proved to have done. Again he t●…lls us That Gerard thinks they were first Evangelists, than made Bishops by Paul at Ephesus and Crete. Ans. If he think so too, he must quite all his plea for their Episcopacy from these Epistles: for Paul calls Timothy to do the work of ane Evangelist here, and Titus work was the same: And he must understand this in the strict sense (if he offet Gerard's exception to any purpose) which, according to him, secludes power in ordination and jurisdiction. So that a work and office being enjoined Timothy in this Epistle, which hath nothing to do with ordination and jurisdiction, he was not yet made a Bishop, and if not yet, it will be hard to find out his commission and patent afterward in scripture, since he was in perpetual evangilistick Employments, and sure if Paul ever designed him Bishop over Ephesus, he would not have called the elders of Ephesus, bishops, before Timothy in his last farewell. We heard Saravia plead that Paul entitles not Timothy an Evangelist [non compellat nomine Evangelistae] how did he not see that [that Paul, numquam compellat nomine episcopi, never puts upon Timothy or Titus, the title or name of a Bishope, neither in the inscriptiones of the Epistles written to them, nor in any place of these Epistles, or else where in scripture, nor enjoins any of them to do the work of Bishop. As he enjoins one of them expressly to do the work of ane Evangelist. And since the Apostle, disertis verbis, in 〈◊〉 these elders of Ephesus, Bishops, and (to use Saravia's phrase) compellat nomine Episcoporum, and that with the signal emphasis, of being made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, his reason from epi●…hets and compellations, will the more strongly evinc them to be such. 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelist, and derogatory to his high function, to make him a Bishop. The Council of Chaldecon judges it sacrilegious to degrade a Bishop to a Presbyter, such must he acknowledge this degrading to be, and therefore that being once Evangelists, of necessity they behoved to continue so. Next, the Doubter objects, what we have been saying, that Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus the Charge, not to Timothy, which he would not have done, had he been Bishop, since it is probable he was present at this time, for v. 4. He was in Paul's company. Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument lest it prick him, omitting these pregnant circumstances of the context. 1. That this was Paul's last and farewell exhortation. 2. That he not only gives these elders the Charge over that Church before Timothy, and not to him, but also the whole Episcopal charge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to feed and rule as the Holy Ghosts Bishops set over the same, which comprehends both ordination and jurisdiction. But what says he to this Argument. 1: It may be he was not ●…et settled Bishop as Gerard thinks. But sure he had all the 〈◊〉 as Bishop which the first Epistle afoords him, from which this man derives his Episcopacy, and power in ordination and jurisdiction: and if, for all these, ●…ur Informer will grant that he might have been not ●…s yet Bishop, but ane Evangelist. Then 1. he must acknowledge that all his pleading for his Episcopac in the nixt pages, from the power he is supposed 〈◊〉 have in the first epistle, is but a beating of the air an impertinent, since it might be Antecedaneous to h●… Episcopacy: and by the Informers confession, he mig●… have had yet no more Episcopal relation to the Church, than any who was never Bishop there. Henc●… 2. Not being yet Bishop, but ane Evangelist still, (a●… Gerard takes him) in a travelling posture up and down with the Apostle (as also Bishop Hall, Downam and Hooker acknowledge him) I wonder how this man will sustean his denial, that he was ane Evangelist in the proper and strict sense, such as his was. Sure, if this his supposition, or [may be] will hold good, timothies office, as suc●… ane Evangelist, was to cease in the Church, as he expresseth it, and Paul's bidding him do the work of ane Evangelist sufficiently Unbishops him at lest pro tunc, which notwithstanding we heard him deny. 2. He tell us] that Irenaeus who lived not long after the Apostles thinks there were Asian Bishops mingled with the elders of Ephesus, and with Timothy their Bishop to whom in common Paul made that exhortation comprehending the [Bishops] under the name of [elder] as Apostles were sometimes called] Ans. We may be much in love with this scripture in the present debate, since it forces adversaries upon such simple incoherent shifts. First, it may be he was not yet made Bishop— then lest that concession prove too gripping, there must be other Bishops of Asia, minglcd with these elders, and Timothy of necessity must be now▪ Bishop, or hardly well after, and their own Bishop and the extraneous ones, must be all shuffled up unde the name of elders, and exhorted in common, a he shifts the argument from Philip. 1. But th●… text itself sufficiently discovers the folly of this poo●… shift. For 1. Paul called the elders from Ephesus, an●… the elders of the Church there, not imaginary elders or Bishops from other places. 2. He sent for the elders of the Church, in the singular number, not of the Churches, and so all he sent for had a particular relation to that Church, for had there been elders of other Churches there, It would have been expressed elders of the Churches: If other elders or Bishops of Asia had been there, they would have received the Scripture denomination of provincial Churches, which are expressed in the plural. So we read of Churches of Asia, Revel. 1: II. Churches of judea Gal. 1: 22. Next, This answer still supposes [The existence of the diocesian Bishop over Presbyters at that time] which is a poor begging of the question. We prove from this and such like texts, that the Bishops of Asia, and Ephesus were mere Pastors, who had in Common the Epicopal charge over the Church, and that the Holy Ghost set up these, and none else. Infine, This is but a mere shift in the judgement of Chrysostom, Hierom, Theodoret, and the Current of Interpreters, who take these elders for mere Presbyters, and is contrare to the Syriack translation, which reads it, Presbyteros ecclesiae Ephesinae. So the Concilium Aquisgravense.  
But now comes his proof of Timothy, and Titus, their Episcopacy from these Epistles. His first Reason in general, is That in these Epistles more fully than any where else in the new Testament, Paul gives direction to Timothy and Titus how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction, which Two comprehends the Episcopal office. Ans. 1. With him there is a possibility, or may be, that forall these directions, Timothy and Titus were evangelists still, and not yet Bishops; and so these directions might be given to them as extraordinary officers, who, according to him, were to cease, and consequently though comprehensive of the Episcopal office, yet the office might cease with their persons as exercised in that manner, and the power of ordination and jurisdiction be deryved to different recipients, to be exercised in another manner, (viz) by presbyters in common. 2. By what consequence will he infer ane Episcopal authority and inspection, from the Apostles prescribing rules to them anent ordination and jurisdiction? May not all Ministers be herein directed, as well as Timothy and Titus? or will his giving directions to them in this point infer their sole and singular authority therein? Surely not at all in Churches constitute: and as for what they did in the frameing and constitution of Churches yet in fieri, as to their organic being, is not to the purpose. 3. We did show above that the prelates power, and their way as to ordination and jurisdiction, is in its very nature, different from that which either Apostle or Evangilist exercised, as being a dominion and arbitrary power, yea including in it a civil dominion, and derived from the civil Magistrate. None of which can be said of any authority which Timothy and Titus are here supposed to have: In a word, as it is clear that the elders of Ephesus, at Paul's last farewell, were entrusted with the whole power of ordination, and jurisdiction, and as the Episcopi were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to feed and rule with out any respect to Timothy: which clearly demonstrats that he (and consequenly Titus) had no Episcopal power of ordination and jurisdiction, over these Churches, established in their persons, by any prescriptions here delivered; So it is as evident that the same prescriptions might be delivered to any Moderator of a Synod, or unto a transiently visiting Minister, though even in relation to a province, which being necessarily to be understod Salvo jure Ecclesiae, would import no Episcopal or sole authority, and thus the case is here.  
But what were these directions importing this power? He instances 1. [In the qualifications which they must require in such as were to be ordained-not suddenly to lay on hands, which respects ordination, next, the rules anent government, how to rebuke offenders, not to receive ane accusation, but before two or three witnesses, how to deal with heretics, etc. Ans. 1. These Apostolic directions in point of Government, are good & excellent, but how doth he prove that the adressing of these directions, to Timothy, will infer his Sole and single authority in all these, so as to seclude Presbyters from their share therein? And if he prove not this, it will say nothing to evince ane Episcopal authority. What if such directions were addressed to a Moderator? would that infer his Authority over the Synod? Nay, since a Presbytry laid on hand's upon Timothy himself, Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus, had the Episcopal power in Common, committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops, Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicate the incestuous, we may clearly infer, that these directions, though immediately addressed to Timothy, yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches, as well as him. 2. Supposing that this address will give him a special Interest herein, yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way, and in any other Capacity, then of ane Evangelist, which he says it might be, he yet was, and not a Bishop? He dissallowes not of Gerard's opinion, who says, that he was not yet made Bishop; Now, if these Rules were to be observed by him, and this his supposed singular Authority exercised [as ane Evangelist, whose office was to cease,] It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power. Surely upon our supposition, that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul, in his Apostolic function, and had a transient occasional Employment here, as is clearly held out in the Text, these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity. Besides, these Directions are for instruction of every man of God, or Minister, in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3: 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6: But doth not give them Episopal power. Or will he say that every man hath the formal office, or place, in the nature whereof he is instructed? The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man, or suppose him, either King or Governor.  
In the 3d. place. As to these Directions themselves, particularly as to Timothy's direction, as to laying on of hands, 'tis Answered, that laying on of hands in ordination, is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Act competent to mere Presbyters, which (as I said) they exercised upon Timothy himself, though Paul was present, 1 Tim 4: 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefore Timothy could have no single, or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point. Nay, this addressed direction mainly respected them, as the proper subject of this power, and the Presbytery received their lesson here (not to lay on hands suddenly) rather than Timothy. Nixt, As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures. I answ. That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative, for either it is meaned of a Private rebuke, and this every Christian hath authority in: Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Levit. 19: 17. Prov. 9: 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke: and this is competent to every Minister of the word, Isa. 58: 1. 2 Tim. 41, 2. Ti●…. 1: 13. 2; Sam. 12: 8. And besides, Institutions and reproofs of Church officers, will not prove a fixed Episcopal power. Prophets rebuked, but had no jurisdiction over Priests, nor Paul over Peter, though he reproved him. As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder, It is answered. That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders, since Ruling & Government attribute to them in Scripture, doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations, and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures, Matth. 8: 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated ecclesiae, to the Church, or the juridical Court, not to one Prelate, as is above cleared; and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation, respects them who were to judge upon it, and not the Prelate. Compare this with 1 Cor. 5: 4, 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent, Gal. 6: 1. The Church officers, or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother, 2 Thess. 3: 14, 15. To which I may add, that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder, and positively enjoined [doubly to honour them, when faithful] So, the receiving ane accusation, is no more than that which every private Christian and Minister is capable of, even against the superior, whither in state, or age, in relation to admonition, Counsel or Comfort accordingly. Levit. 19: 17. Gal. 6: 1, 2 Joh. 10, 11. None in whatever capacity are exemed from this precept, not to receive accusations lightly. Hence the 4th. Council of Carthage (cited by Blond. Apol. Sect. 4) enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergy, and that without their assent, the sentence should be void. where was the negative voice here. Whittaker, thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text, and our Informers too (controv. 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2.) That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation, proves not that he had dominion over Elders, which according to the Apostles mind is to bring a crime to the Church, to bring the guilty into judgement, openly to reprove, which not only superiors may do, but also equal and inferiors. In the Roman Republic, the Kings did not only judge the people, but also the Senators and patricii; and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a ●…sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church, what this authority was may be understood by that which follows, [those that sin rebuke before all], which equal also may do. Thus bishops heretofore, if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report, referred it to the eeclesiastick Senate or, Synod, and condemned him if he seemed worthy, by a public judgement, that is, did either suspend, excommunicate, or remove him, the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons', not by his authority alone, but with the judgement of the Church and clergy— & in case of appeals, even to the Metropolitan he could do nothing without the Synod & what they did was ratified. The same is the answer of Bucer de ut & usu, Sacr. Minister: Willet. Sinops. Papis Contr. 5, Ques. 3▪ part 3, In the appeudix Eucer. de Gub. pag. 300. to 398.  
The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after, ages and are of ordinary use: and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts— that in calling Timothy and Titus, extraordinary officers in these Acts, we lead the way to their error, who call ordination and jurisdiction, extraordinary. Answ. As we have proved, that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such, but that any power he had above Presbyters; was by his special Evangelistick Legation, so the concernment of after ages in these directions, and their being of constant use, is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner. Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies, all the acts & directions given to extraordinary officers, both under the Old and New Testament, of perpetual use in after ages? But are they therefore to be imitated and retained? What will he say to the Papists, pleading for the anoin●… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept [let the elders anoint the sick with oil, and pary] this is ane Act enjoined to ordinary officers, viz, to elders, and joined with with prayer, a constant standing duty: and he will not say that this Apostolic precept is to be ex punged as useless. What? must we therefore retean anointing? would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant duty, and a temporary concomitant and appendix. Acted not the Apostles extaordinarily in their very preaching, both as to its extent, its confirmation by miracles, their gifts of tongues, and are not the Acts of preaching and baptising of constant use in the Church? Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolic Acts of preaaching and baptising are perpetual, though the mould and manner is extraordinary and gone, in so far as their extraordinary Apostolic power interposed therein. Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral, but the modusrei, is extraordinary, in so far as their Evangelistik authority, and special legation, interposed therein. He must either acquiesc in this, and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril, or he will contradict what he said before, anent the Apostles extraordinary Privileges, which are gone with them, viz, infaillibilitie, their immediate call, sending to all nations, and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church. Now, is not that which was thus necessary, of perpetual use? Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets? Are not the ordinances and Ministry received from them, of perpetual use? And their most extraordinary Acts, if we mean it of improvement. Nay, did not the new-Testament Church receive the Law of God, and ordinances from the Jews? Must we therefore Judaize? 2. How will he prove that the asserting, that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act, will give ground to say, that the Act itself, is extraordinary, or the ordinance touched by that Act, expired? Will his asserting, that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased, in their preaching unfixedly, by ane immediate call, and confirming their doctrine with miracles, and strange tongues, give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptising are expired also? I trow he will not grant this. How then will our asserting, that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination, and jurisdiction infer, that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction, or these ordinances themselves, are expired? can he not distinguish betwixt the power itself, and the different subject, and manner of its exercise, ordinary or extraordinary? can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived, and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels, and diversly exercised? Says he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power, of both ordination and jurisdiction, and both the keys. But I trow he asserts that, there are different recipients, who bring down ane ordinary power by succession. Some (Prelates forsooth) have the key of Governmant, others (viz,) Presbyters, have preaching for their work, but no rule properly. And says he not that the extensive authority, in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry, is gone, and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them. If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles, hath derived from it a Ministry and ecclesiastic authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world, who succeed them not into the same office, let this Informer show me, why may not Timothy's Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction, be deryved by, and seatted, in a Presbytery, though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary, and (as such) not succeeded unto. The service, and work of teaching, and governing to continue in all times, doth not render the Apostolic mission or commission, ordinary, nor infer their being succeeded in idem officium, & eundem gradum, the ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers, by a new warrant and commission, according to the Scripture rules of ordination. The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary, because many works of Government exercised by him, were recommitted to the Elders of Israel; and so the case is here. The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission (necessary, as that of the Apostles, for the first founding of the Churches, and watering and building them up in their organic being, & for settling all their ordinary officers) is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiate power of ordination & jurisdiction; which we find was in the Apostolic Churches exercised, and even in this of Ephesus.  
His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops, is, Because their commission at Ephesus & Crete, was n●…t voided upon the first settling of Ministers in those places, therefore their office was to be constant, since if merely as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there, than they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained: but they did not so:— ●…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city, if some few ordained might ordain the rest. Ans. 1. This is a poor argument, and hath no twist of a connexion [their commission at these places was not voided upon the first settleing of Ministers,] ergo, [they were not extraordinary officers, but had a standing Episcopacy there] which is a mere rope of sand. The Apostles office and commission was not voided over all Churches when settled, Ergo, they had no extraordinary inspection, office, or commission, towards all these Churches. What consequence is here? So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles, their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired, though they were never so much settled, but they were prore nata to visit and water all the Churches, and bring Apostolic instructions to them, and reports from them anent their case. We have proved that Timothy and Titus exercised their extraordinary office, and commission, towards many other Churches, after their return from these of Ephesus, & Crete, so that their commission towards these or other Churches, could be no more voided whil the Apostles Employed them therein, than their office. Beside, this Informer should advert, that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the mere settling of Ministers, and supposing some already settled. 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops, over these several Churches, where they might reside some time, and have Employment therein, even after they had officers of their own? did they not visit and water many other Churches, were they therefore their Bishops? if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches, after they were Bishops here: & exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them. 3. Their Evangelistik inspection, direction, and assistence, even after some ordinary officers were settled, could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers, than the Apostles extraordinary inspection, and infallible universal directive power, could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority, in ordination and jurisdiction. The Apostles power (which could not be voided, nor expyre, whil they were alive) being Cumulative unto, but not privative of, the Churches ordinary power, so it is here. I would ask our Informer, was Paul's apostolic commission to Crete and Ephesus, voided, after Bishops were set up there? Nay, he will not say it. But did this Null the Episcopal power of Timothy and Titus, over these Churches? I trow not. Well, no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make void the ordinary power of presbyters. 4. We told him already that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there, they were to do nothing pro imperio, and were not to lord it over the presbyters. 5. Although elder once ordained, have power to ordain others, yet the bene esse, did call for the Inspection and direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary officers herein, as these were. And Moreover, in that Infant-state of the Church, Apostolic precepts and rules in reference to Church government, and the exercise of both the keys, were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers, & consequently might call for, & protract their continuanc therein, even after ordinary officers were ordained. Infine. He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places, to the further prosecution of their employment in other Churches, and that their transient employment therein is held out, after their return from Ephesus and Cret; as likwayes their occasional employment in both these places, which will in so far void their commission in relation to them, as clearly to refu●… the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alleges they exercised. Next, from the Authores of jus divinum Minist: evangel: [concluding against the people's power of ordination, upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordain elders] The Informer infers against them thus, why was Timothy or Titus left to ordain elders, after some were ordained by Paul, If Ministers so ordained could ordain the rest? and after some were ardained by Timothy and Titus, they were left still upon that employment. I answer, his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least. The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beve esse, even after some elders were there, and the further directing and completing of these Churches in their members and officers, did require ane Evangelistick inspection, though the ordinary power of ordaineing, remained with the ordinary elders and Church officers, as the scripture doth clearly hold out. Paul having after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whole power of government. But the scripture gives not the least hint of the people's power to ordain, but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them. So that this Inference stands good in the general [though some were converted to Christianity there, yet they could not ordain officers, but Church officers were sent upon that Employment] ergo. Church officers must ordain, and not the people: but the special inference will not hold, ergo, Biohops must only ordain for the reasons already given, no more then from Paul's ordaining the first elder, it will follow [ergo Paul, or ane Apostle only, must ordain] which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admit, else he will contradict himself. It is a good consequence [Paul, a Church officer, preached and baptised] ergo [none but Church officers must preach and baptise] but [ergo, none but ane Apostle must preach and baptise] is bad logic. So his inference is neither logical nor theological.  
His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop, is taken from Paul's solemn Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep. what he had commanded him, till the appearing of jesus Christ. That presbyterians (particularly, jus divinum Minist. pag. 74.) hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church, making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christ's promised presence to the end and 1: Tim. 5. 7, 21. Anent Paul's Charge to observe these things. Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office, and were not extraordinary officers, since these divines say, page 160. [That Apostolic examples in things necessary for the good of the Church, and which carry a perpetual equiry and reason in them, have the force of a rule] and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus, over these Churches, is ane example Apostolic for the good of the Church, and hath a perpetual reason and equity in it. Ans. 1. We have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will amount to demonstrat any episcopal dominion over this Church, and that he had no sole or arbitrary power either in ordination or jurisdiction, & consequently that the charge of [keeping that which was commanded him] will Import & infer no keeping of ane Episcopal charge. 2. We have also showed what a bad consequence it is, to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions, given to extraordinary officers, in relation to extraordinary acts, towards the Churches imitating of these acts, and retaineing these expired functions, which is palpably a nonsequitur, as this man can not deny, else he will swallow horrid absurdities. Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement, is not likwayes for our Imitation. Again, 3. I would ask this Informer, if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joined with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every piece of the Apostolic and evangelistik office? Sure he cannot deny this, and yet he acknowledges there were several pieces of their work temporary and expired. Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epistle, was confined within Ephesus, or reached him only as oversieing that Church, and not in relation to his Evangilistick office throw all the Churches? and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordinary Apostolic Acts; So that himself must distinguish (unless he be inconsistent with himself) betwixt what is moral, and extraordinary, in this command and charge, and accordingly reached by the promise. 4. His citation from the Ius divin. Minist: &c Cuts the throat of his cause: for argueing thus against private persons intrudeing into the ministry [That the scripture lays down rules for calling men to that office] they instance in the qualifications of the person, Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2, 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter. Then they add [That the Scripture directs as to the manner of his calling, viz, who are to ordain, how he is to be ordained, citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz, that the presbytery is to ordain, and ordain by the laying on of hands— adding, that these directions are for all ages, and citeing. ●…1 Tim. 6: 13, 14.] Now, if these perpetual directions for all ages, be touching no other Bishops but these in 1 Tim. 3: 1. And anent ordination by the hands of the Presbytery, surely those are Presbyterial not Episcopal directions, and do palpably exclude Timothy●…s standing Episcopacy; So that he did not well to raise this Ghost. Next, ane Apostolical example for the good of the Church, is not that which they hold to have the force of a rule, as the Informer belies them but ane example in things necessary for the good of the Church. And as this, so the next citation out of that book, burns his fingers. For the authores having cited. 2. Tim. 2: 2, In order to their scope of pleading for ordination as a perpetual standing ordinance, Timothy being in that place enjoined to commit those things which he had heard from Paul, to faithful men who shall be able to teach o●…hers. They infer. 1. A necessity of setting apart some to be teachers in Christ's Church. 2. The qualifications of such, viz, they must be faithful men, and able to teach. 3. That Timothy is enjoined to commit what he had heard to faithful men, which they understand of ordination of ministers, that there might be a perpetual succession of teachers. And comparing it with the former citation, it appears that they hold these precepts to import the deryvation of the ordinary power of teaching and Government to ordinary Ministers. And when the Antiministerial party object [that these are but examples, which do not amount to make up a rule] they give. this answer [that Apostolic examples in things necessary for the Church, and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them, have the force of a rule] now, this example is anent the committing of ane ordinary power of ordination, and jurisdiction, to faithful Ministers and teachers, which quit justles out the prelatical power. For since they hold Timothy's singular way in this, as ane Evangelist, was to cease (which they must needs do upon the forementioned ground, the Presbyterial, and the singular power being inconsistent in the same subject) they must needs place this Evangelistick power among these examples which do not obleidge, and it is ordination itself, and its continuance in this manner by ordinary teachers which they expressly plead for, as the Apostolic example, which hath a perpetual reason and equity, and the force of a rule; not Timothy's singular power herein which they hold to be expired. So that the Informers assumption viz; That Timothy's Evangelistick Inspection by the Apostles appointment over this Church, as also that of Titus, is such ane exemple, as hath a perpetual reason and equity in it. He might have found to be rejected by these divines (had he read that piece attentiuly) as no way following from (yea contrare unto) their assertion and it is still left at h●…s door to prove and make good.  
His Last Reason, to prove the Episcopacy of Timothy and T●…us, is taken from Testimonies. That Polycrates and Eusebius affirm Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus.— That Leontius Bish: os Magnesià in the general Council of Calcedem Act 11. points out a Series of Tuentie Seven Bishops in Ephesus, from Timothy &c: Ans: Since the scriptures do clearly hold out his extraordinary Evangilist●…k function, and there is nothing therein which can in the least infer his having ane ordinary episcopal power, The Informers pleading upon this head being found frivolous and leaning upon that known fallacy viz, to argue from [The singularity of ane extraordinary officer] to the [Singularity of ane ordinary perpetual officer] in Church government which will as well set up (upon the ground of the Apostles universal inspection) patriarches, or pope's as prelates: Surely the improper styles and designations which the Ancients put upon Timothy or Titus, who spoke in the language of their own times, is a very insignificant proof to Counter balance Scripture light in this mater. Tertullia's saying (cited by park, l 2. C, 7.) is here remarkable, Si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis &c: that is truest which is first that is first which is from the beginning, that is from the beginning which is from the Apostles. Their opinions who call them Bishops, are for most part borrowed from Eusebius, of whose hallucinations Scaliger gives large prooses, and yet all that he says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is reported; and this report he had from a fabulus Clemens. The ancients likeways call the Apostles themselves Bishops, peter of Rome, James of Jerusalem. Yea Theodoret Calls Timothy and Titus Apostles of Asia and crete, which the Informer will not justify. Yea some call them Motropolitanes, Arch Bishops, patriarches, and this because (saith Walo Messalinus) they did these Acts which afterward by human Custom, were appropriate to Bishops, which (saith he) they did as Evangelists, as one of them is expressly called. As for jerom, it is certain that he both mantaines and proves the Bishop and elder to be one in Scripture, when disputing that point in his Commentar upon Titus: and therefore when at any time he gives these evangelists such appellations he doth it allusively, and improperly, according to the degenerate custom of his time. As for the Catalogues of Bishops, from Scripture times, they are found to terminat upon Apostles or Evangelists, as that of jerusalem, comes up to james the Apostle: that of Antioch, to peter: So that of Rome, to peter, and Paul: that of Alexandria, unto mark &c: Now, they were not ordinary officers, nor succeeded in eundum gradum. And beside, there are ecclesiastic customs traced up by some to the Apostolic times, which not with standing are acknowledged not to be of divine oppointment. Some first Bishops were but primi presbiteri (as we shall after show) How lost they the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, which their first founders had, in so short a time? This sole power in ordination and jurisdiction (which our prelates now acclaime, and this man pleads for) will not be found till Three hundred years after Christ, if at all then. The gross mistake of many ancients in their constituting of Bishops, appears in this instance. That many fathers affirm peter to have been Bishop of Rome, and to have continued Bishop there for many years. Yet Marsilius patavinus pars: 2. c: 16. Carolus Molinaeus, Scene: Consult: franc: contr: abusus &c: Paparum) proves by scripture and reason that peter was never at Rome. In a word, the ancients call them ●…shops, as likwayes Apostles such, not properly (saith Bucer. de Gub: Eccles: p. 432. So fox, Act mon: p. 11465) but in a large or general appellation, because they first preached the gospel to these Churches— and to this end, To prove a perpetual succession of sound preachers, and sound doctrine, in those particular Churches from the Apostles time to their own; nameing the eminentest Ministers for parts and gifts, the Bishops of these Churches: which Method & scope of Catalogues, appears by Irenaeus, Tertullian, cited by Mi●…prin. (un Bish: of Tim: and Tit: p. 34.)  
The Doubter objects against Timothy's Episc. That he was ordained by the layingon of the hands of the presbytery 1. Tim 4. 14. and therefore could not be a Bishop, Since a Presbytery which is a company of Ministers, cannot make a Bishop. To this the Informer returns, 1. That Calvin thinks that by presbytery is meaned the office. I answer, Suppose Calvin think so what will that say to the argument itself? Again Calvine upon the place, doth not wholly dissoun the ordinary comment, which takes the presbytery for a company of elders, but thinks it may well sustean Presbiterium qui hio (saith he) Collectivum nomen esse putant, pro collegio presbiterorum positum, recte Sentiunt meo judicio. Such as esteem the presbytery here to be a collective word put for the assembly of elders, do rightly judge in my judgement. Besides that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytery, especially as it stands here constructed, cannot in any tolerable sense import the office, for the office hath no hands to lay on.  
2 The Informer flies to his old shift of sh●…uding the diocesian Bishops under the lap of these presbyters, which he tells us we need not think strange of since he hath showed that the [Apostles] are called elders or [presbyters.] Ans. We have already disproved what he alleges from the Apostles being called elders (in agenerall sense) here, as before, he but begs the Question in supposing his imaginary different degrees of preaching presbyters or Pastors to be at this time existent, which (until he make it appear from Scripture) is as easily denied by us, as affirmed by him. What a pitiful cause must that be which needs the support of such vain shifts? In phillip 1. and Act. 20. Bishops (diocesian Bishops) must be set up among the presbyters. So here they must be brought into this presbytery, whereas the very Question is anent the being and existence of any such Bishops at all at this tyme. Next, If hi-man were posed upon it, why he makes the presbyters here to be of his imagined highest class of diocesian Bishops, and not also in all plac●…s where they are mentioned, as Dr. Hamon doth: And how it comes that there were so many Bishops so early here before Ephesus, Crete, and other Churches had even his inferior elders or ordinary Ministers? He could give no answer but what would render him ridiculous, in his running the Circlestick, and begging the Question. Besides Timothy was yet no Bishop, for he was advanced to this office when set over Ephesus in the Informers judgement: and he was now only (with him) a sort of unfixed preacher of the gospel, or ane Evangelist in his large sense. And Hooker says the Evangelists were presbyters of prime sufficiency assumed by the Apostles to attend them. This resolver will have him to be no other ways ane Evangelist, than Philip, who, he supposes, was still a deacon when so termed. Thus it evidently appears that Timothy, according to him, and upon the sequel of that answer, received at the utmost but a mere presbyterat in his ordination; and then I wonder what needs a number of Bishops be mustered together for ordaining him? Might not Paul and the Inferior presbyters ordain such ane one? Thus we see he is still inconsistent what himself in all his shifts. But he hath a 3d. Answer taken from the laying on of pauls hands, mentioned 2. Tim. 1. 6 which (he says) gave the substance of the ordination, although the presbyters might share in the Ceremonial pare of is. Ans: 1. If it were denied that the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 6 affirms That Timothy was ordained by the laying one of his hands since hementiones only [the gift conferred by the laying on of his hands which] Paul might confer upon him antecedaniously to his ordination, since he laid on hands in order to gifts of the Spirit abstracting from ordination as other Apostles did Act. 8. 17. And also because the different manner of expression in 2. T●…m. 1. 6. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other, diversifies the conferring of gifts, and the ordination, or at least will plead that Paul's laying on of hands was in order to the Conferring of the gifts, and not necessary for the ordination itself, which he received entirely by the laying on of the presbyteryes hands, even supposeing that they were both contemporary; If I say, Some presbyterian Doubter should suggest these difficulties to our Informer, he would be puzzled to come liquid off with this his answer. Surely [the Charisma] the gift, is a differing thing from the office. And the Apostles laying on of hands as ane Apostle, being in a special way in order to the end mentioned thouh contemporary with the presbytryes' action, yet mig●…t be temporary and expired. 2. What Calls he the cemonial part (distinguished from that substantial pat of his ordination, which Paul gave) which he admits the presbyters unto, if we will. Nay Sir, we will not; 'tis known your party are much in love with ceremonies, and we quite them unto you, where they want substance. Was it the Ceremonial part to lay on hands? Then I would propose to our Informer. 1. That since this was neither in order to the gifts, which Paul gave, nor any part of the sacred authority and mission as a Church officer, which Paul only gave according to him, what signified their laying on of hands at all? Was it only to signify their consent? Where can he show in all the scriptures, where laying on of hands is mentioned, that it Imports only consent, and not authority? this Ceremony, borrowed from the old Testament, doth always present a badge of ane Authoritative blessing, flowing from Prophets, Patriarches and others, to which though there were many assenters, yet none of these assenters laid on hands. Next, since this Ceremony was used by our Lord, towards his Apostles, and thereafter by them, and particularly in this work: & withal, since it must needs Import here a solemn blessing of, a setting apart unto God, and sending out into his vineyard, the person thus ordained (not to debate whither this Ceremony be of the essence of ordination, as some judge, yea or not) let our Informer show me, why it may not, upon all these grounds be looked upon as a badge of Ministerial authority, and supposing this authority inherent in the presbyters. I would ask him, 3. Since Paul commended the whole official power of ordination & jurisdiction, to the presbyters, Act. 20. & Peter. 1. Epist. 5. Ch: Imputs ane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or actual exercise of Episcopal authority, to the elders, who were (as himself acknowledges) set over the flocks only, and so none of his imaginary Prelate elders? With what sense or reason, can he or anyelse say that they could not share in the substantials of ordination. many no doubt concurred with the public blessing at Timothy's ordination: for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly, But did any of them lay on hands? Besyds, we might here tell him that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or presbytery, doth always Import a juridical authoritative Court, so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likeways the word [presbyter.] Imports ane officer clothed with authority, so that this Court of elders, must needs have ane interest in much more than the rituales of ordination.  
His Last Exception, is, That upon our supposition, That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist, he could not be ordained by ordinary inferior officers or Ministers. Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince, that though Major Singulis, greater than every single person, yet he is, Minor universis, less than the whole body, so it may be said, that though Timothy, as ane Evangelist, were superior to any mere elder; yet ane eldership, the juridical Court, the Church representative, might be above him; if at least such a superiority was here necessary; else let him say, whither the Prophets at Antioch, were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul, and Barnabas, and send them out upon a gospel legation. Himself is bound to answer this, whither these Inferior officers, in that act, were greater than he, yea or not, and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless, and lay hands upon ane Apostle. And when he hath cleared this, he will easily exped our difficulty in this point. 2. Though it were granted, that a presbytery, consisting of mere ordinary officers, could not ordain ane Evangelist, yet I hope he will grant, that a presbytery, where such a one as paul was, might do it, who as ane Apostle, might ordain alone. If he say, what is then become of our presbyterial ordination, which we draw from this text? I answer, it is much confirmed, but not weakened by what is said, for if the Apostle Paul took along in this high Act [the ordination even of ane Evangelist] the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery, therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now, in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters, when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased. 3. If the ground and topic of our Informer's argument [They who ordain must be greater than he who is ordained] were denied, he would be more puzeled to make it good, than he Imagines. Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority (as a learned man distinguishes here) God and Christ alone ordaining thus, whose servants and Ministers, both the ordained and ordainers are. Ephes. 4: 11, 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9: 37, 38. 2 Cor 4: 5. 1 Cor. 3: 5. 21, 22. Act. 13: 1, 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained, then people's blessing of God will make them greater than He, Jacobes' blessing of Pharaoh, will make him greater than Pharaoh, the people's blessing of Solomon, greater than Solomon. The King's Acturney (saith he) who draws the nobleman or officer of state, His patent and commission, is not greater than he, But the King who is the original of temporal honour. So Ministers in this work do only draw out the King's patent and apply it, but Christ only is the original proper ordainer. As for that text, Hebr. 7: 7. He says i●… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type, blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power. 2. Admitting that the ordainers, behoved to be greater than the ordained before the ordination is execut, yet it will not necessarily follow, that they must be still greater after the ordination is past & finished, the very end of it being to confer upon the ordained a like Ministry with that which themselves have. He instances Mathias and Paul, who were inferior to the Apostles, before they were called and ordained: But being called, they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolic power, dignity, degree, etc. We might exemplitie this in other instances, (if intending to Press it) As the army Creates the Emperor, which of the two is greater? Three Bishops create a Metropolitan, the Council of Cardinals a pope etc. But enough is said to rectify our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto h●…s next Argument.   

CHAP. XI.  
The Informers plead for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels, discussed. That the stile of Prophetic writings, and of this book, do strongly conclude a collective sense of the term Angel, fully proved. The admitting the Angel to be a single person, will not help the Informer. his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding bishops in these Churches, frivolous and vain, as also his new Argument taken from [diotrephes love of preeminence,] wherein he embraces Beauties evasiones, and offers violence to this, and parallel Texts.  
OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy, is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel. 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops: Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to; and when increased there is but one Angel addressed, and commended, or blamed, according to what was well, or amiss in the Church: And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended, is directed to one Angel, who by his place and authority, was mainly concerned therein. Ans: This man, if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate, as he would appear, might have found all this, and much more than he hath offered, fully removed and answered by many Godly learned. But they must still tell over and over, their old baffled arguments, to which satisfying answers have bein often returned. But to the point, the weakness of this proof; is many ways evident. 1. It is grounded upon a Mysterious Metaphorick term of Angel, and stars; Revel: 1: 20. the mystery of the Sevenstarrs, so must the expression of Angel, be likwayes a part of this mystery. The Maxim is known, ●…heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa. Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures, as are produced for Presbyterian Government. Besides that, the word [Bishop] is no where in John's writings, made use of; who calls himself a Presbyter, and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another, but in condemneing Diotrephes. He calls Christ the word, and the Sabbath, the Lords day; these are expressions not found before in Scripture; Surely he should have made mention of a new office, as well as of a new phrase, had any such thing as a Bishop, been allowed by him. Besides, the Metaphorical terms of Stars, or Angels, do import the qualities of light, heavenlines of frame &c: which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel: and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar pre-eminence of a Bishop over many Ministers. 2. The great topic of his argument is [that one is named, though many are spoken to, and where many Presbyters are supposed to be, as at Ephesus, who therefore must needs be a Bishop.] but this ground will not hold good. Because, 1. This is no more than what is suitable unto the stile of this book, which is by mystic visional representations, to include many individuals as one singular: So all the individuals of the Church, both members and officers, are represented by one candlestick: and why not also all the Ministers, by one angel, which is a term that of itself, and in this place, imports no jurisdiction properly, but is immediately referred to the qualities of Ministers, above expressed. 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book, as it is epistolar, the address may be to one, but it will give no Authority to that one, over the rest, no more then ane address from the King, to a speaker of the Parliament, will give to that person, jurisdiction and authority over them? Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly, not to the rest of his fellow disciples, I will give unto thee the keys etc. Will conclude that he was Prince or primate over the Apostles, and that they had not equal authority with him, in the use of the keys. Our Informer and his fellows here, do justify the Papists pleading for the Pope. 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetic writings, and to this book, as such, to represent many individuals by one singular, The four beasts, and twenty four Elders, are not four individual persons, or twenty four single Elders. The singular names of Woman, Beast, Whore, Dragon, signify a collection of many individuales. So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits, in the 1 Chap: With reference to his manifold operations. Dan. 8: 20. One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians. He that will not hearken to the Priest. Deutr. 17: 12. That is, the Priests, in the plural. So the Priest's lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2: 7. That is the Priests. Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord etc. that is, those servants. Particularly, as to this term Angel, It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly, that is, many Angels. 4. It is suitable to Scripture, and to this book, To represent ane indefinet number, by a definite. Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four ho●…es, Zachr. 1: 18. All the Godly, and the ungodly, are represented by the five wise, and the five foolish Virgins Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book, The Seven Angels standing before God, represent all the Angels. Fo●… in the 7 Chap: Mention is made of all the Angels who do thus stand. So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number, as the Seven pillars which wisdom hews out Prov. 2. The seven Pastors or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr, 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks, Lamps, and vials, Revel, 4: 5, 15— 5. As we find the scripture, and this same Apostle first naming a multitude, and then contracting it into a singular, as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world— then — this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist. And sometimes the individual in one sentence; turned into a multitude: as 1. Tim. 2: 15 She shall be saved, that is, the woman bearing Children— if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General, as Beza tells us all writers do take it: So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book, and spoken to in the plural, as when it is said Revel. 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira. and in Revel. 2: 10. we find John changing in one sentence, the singular Angel into a multitude: fear none of these things which thou shall suffer, Behold the devil shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tried &c. as in 2 ●…oh. 2: He changes many into One. Finaly, We have proved that the Scripture allows of no Angels Standing-Church officers or Bishops above the Pastors or Presbyters, who have in Scripture the whole Episcopal power given them. So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Characteristic of this Angel, we find it applicable to Presbyters. 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptise? This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastors. 2. Is it the power of ordination? The Scripture shows us that this is Seated in a Presbytery. 1. Tim. 4: 14. with Act. 22: 5. Luk. 22: 66. Matth. 18: 17. Or, 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power? Surely all Ministers are such Angels, All that watch for the people's souls have a joint rule over them, Hebr. 13. 17. And therefore none can challenge it solely to himself. In the Church of Thessalonica the labours in the word and doctrine, joytlie and indiscriminatim fed, jointly censured and admonished, and were jointly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rulers, to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim (or with out any difference of one of them from another) to submit themselves, 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruler, but this Prostasia or ruleing power was in many. So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this, or any man's serious thoughts, whither it be suitable to divine rules, to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a metaphorial mystic expression: and to expone them in that sense, rather than to explain the Metaphor and mystic expression by plain Scriptures. And whi●…her it be not more suitable to understand the Angel of Ephesus, of the Ministers: to whom in a plain Scripture, the whole Government is found entrusted, rather than to expound that plain text, (Act. 20) by a Metaphor, and contrary to that plain text, to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction.  
But the Doubter objects what have been saying, viz, That the Angel is to be taken collectively, and not for one single person, but for all the Ministers. To which (in a piece of petulant folly) he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply, that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore, when we fly to such a shift— That Scultetus, a learned Protestant, affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus, and that without offering violence to the Text, it cannot be otherways understood. Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively. To which we may add, that although the Lord Jesus (the best interpreter of these Angels) doth expound the Seven candlsticks, to be the Seven Churches, yet in expounding the Seven Stars, he losses the number of Seven, and calls them not the Seven Angels (as he should have done according to this man's meaning) but indefinitely the Angels of the Seven Churches; from which it is convincingly apparent that though there were Seven Churches written unto, yet there were not Seven diocesian Bishops, according to the number of the Seven Angels: but that all the Ministers or Angels are thus collectively understood. And whereas this man professes (in the dipped of his wit for sooth) to wonder at this answer and takes it to be a shift. He should wonder at Augustin (Homil. 21. upon this book,) who thus takes it, expounding the Angel of Thyatira, the proepositi ecclesiarum, the governoures of the Churches. He should wonder at Aretas, lib. 1. cap. 1, 2, 9, 10. Wonder at Primasius in Apoc: C: 2. At Ambrose, Anbertus, To: 1, 6 p: 1. Anselm, Pererius, Victorinus, Tirinus, Haymo, Beda, perkings, Fox, in his Meditationes upon the Revel. p: 7, 8, 9, 17. who citys also many Interpreters thus expounding him. Yea more, he wonders at King james and the Episcopal clergy in England, under and by whom, in the contents annexed to the Bibles of the last translation, the contents in the 2. chap: are represented [what is to be written to the Angels, that is, to the Ministers of the Church of Ephesus, Smyrna &c] Its pity they had not this grave dictator to correct their mistake, and to present them with his new spectacles, to discover therewith, the Bishop in these Epistles. He should have wondered at Pilkington Bishop of Durham (in his exposition upon Hag: Chap. 1: v. 13.) who expounds the Angel thus collectiuly. See Gers. Buc. de Gub. Eccl. p. 1. 205, 393, 408, 419, 422, 433. Now, what pinched all these Authors to embrace this Silleptick exposition of the Angel? As for Scultetus, although a Protestant, yet he is a high Prelatist, and a partial witness in this point, & cannot conterballance these Authores mentioned.  
But next, what will our Informer gain though it were yielded that this Angel is ane individual or single person? Some learned men do so take it, as Beza, and Reynolds, who notwithstanding were far from thinking him a Prelate. Because I. He may be the Angelus Prese, or the moderator Angel, not the Angelus Princeps, or Lord Angel, yea, and the Prese and Moderator for the time, as a speaker in the Parliament. Ephesus had many elders. (Act 20: 27. 1 Tim. 5: 17.) of equal authority, who were made Bishops, and they are spoken to in the plural, though the Angel is named in the singular number. 2. This Angel is said to have no jurisdiction and superiority over the rest of the Ministers. And we challenge our Informer to show where this Angel is spoken unto, with reference to Ministers, as subject unto him, which notwithstanding is his supposition, & petitio principii, all along in this Argument. 3. The Parochial, and Diocesian division of Churches, were long after this and not until 260. Years after Christ. 4. Nothing is required of this Angel, but that which is the common duty of all Ministers. Finally, Suppose it were granted to him, that a superiority were imported in nameing this Angel, It may be a Superiority of Order, Dignity, or Gifts, not of power and Jurisdiction  
But the Dcubter Object's [That (Revel. 2 24.) Christ by john speaks to the Angel in the plural [or You '] and that therefore he means all the Minist●…rs.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this he answers That Beza by this phrase understands the precedent and the company of Ministers with the rest of the people, tabing the Angel still for a single person, and h●…lds that more than the Angel are spoken unto. He tells us, that the words are ane Apostrophe, wherein the speaker amplifies his speech, turning it to some others than those who are first spoken unto. Ans. 1. We have already shown that this, and the other parallel phrase mentioned, do strongly plead for the Angels being understood Collectiuly: since the Lord makes a Plural of the singular Angel, as 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved if they continue &c. especially the above evinced equal power, and authority, of the Angels or Presbyters, who where in these Churches, being pondered. Besides, how doth this remove the objection, that Beza understands it some other ways then collectively, what says that to the reason and argument itself? But 2. If Beza understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or you, the moderator or precedent Angel with the rest of the Ministers, wherein (I pray) is our argument infringed? viz, That this Angel is not a Diocesian Prelate, since other Ministers are taken in with him here as of equal authority in this compellation. In Beza's sense this is no other language then what might have been said or written to a presbyterian Synod with its Moderator all being equally concerned therein, and supposed equally Angels in this Church. And if this Cutt not the sinews of this man's design and argument here, let any judge. 3. Non can rationally call it a turneing of the speech to any other than such as were first speken to, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to you I Say is a continuanc of the speech to the same persons, with ane exegitick explication of the [Angel] by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or [you,] especially since they are distinguished from [the rest] or the ordinary Presessores, by the Copulative, and. In our ordinary language, we usually reinforce our speech to the same persons, and to the same purpose, with ane emphatic [I say] as it is here. Some Prelatists have a Knack (which I wonder our Informer stumbled not upon) in alleging that some copies leave out the Conjunction— Reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, to you, the rest in Thyatira; making the term [you,] all onewith [the rest in Thyatira.] but the plain reading of the 23. v. confutes this.  
But that which the Informer thinks should put it out of question which us, That these Angels were Diocesian Bishops, [Is the Testimonies of the Ancients, who came immediately after them, and condescend upon some of their names. Then he repeats to us again the story of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, borne near the Apostles times, who, numbers Se●…n of his Predecessors before him and tells us That Leontius Bishop of Magnesia, Numbers Tuenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy. That these Seven Bishops of Asia are at the Council of Niece designed by their styles Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. That Eusebius, Tertullian, Irenaeus assert that john made Policarp Bishop of Smyrna. That he is thought to be the Angel to whom John wrote. That Ignatius writes to him as such, etc. These he thinks as acomment upon this and such like scriptures, should convince us.] Ans. 1. He forgot one main point of this argument from Antiquity; before it convince us, he must condescend upon the mould, and power, of the Bishops which these Ancienas speaks of; he holds that the word [Bishop] is variously taken in Scripture, and why not also by the ancients? But if he had offered us Testimonies speaking of sole power of these Bishops in ordination and jurisdiction, leaving nothing to Presbyters but the key of doctrine, of Bishops with a negative voice in judicatories, having sole Dominion over a diocese, the only proper Pastoures thereof; and Prelates of Erastus his Cutt, Then I should confess there were early such Bishops as he pleads for: and we should acknowledge their power to be a commentary upon the Scriptures he pleads from; But with this proviso, that he could quiparat them with their first progenitors, and show us these privileges in the scripture-Escutciones of their founders. But till then, I think our conviction must be suspended.  
That Presbyters have the key of Doctrine, he will not deny, That they have the power of ordination, and jurisdiction, and that key likeways entrusted to them, hath been proved from Scripture. 1. Tim. 4. 14. Luk. 22. 66. Act. 20: 28. 1. Pet. 5: 2, 1. Cor 5. 5. Now let him say, did these first succeeding Bishops (in their supposed dioceses) always take this power in ordination and jurisdiction from the first Scripture Bishops, and stood invested therewith in after times? How then comes jerom to say [That even in his time] elder were subject to the Bishop only by Custom, not by Dispensation from the lord (In his Comment: on Tit:) and, (on Isa. 3.) That they had even in his time, a caetus presbiterorum, a meeting or Court of Presbyters, and ane Apostolic senate.] How comes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytery to be mentioned, Councancyr. Can. 18. How comes Ambrose, (a father of the Church) upon Ephes. 4. to assert [That after the Church was enlarged., Cepit alio ordine Gubernari. It began to be governed after another manner then at first,— and that non per omnia conveniunt, etc. That the Government then in the Church, was not every way suitable to the Apostles appointment] me thinks these assertions might convince the Informer of the folly of this argument.  
But 2. What if some of these first successors, be found but mere Constant moderators? What is then become of his Series of a Succession of Diocesian Bishops from Timothy; and Titus, and the Asian Angels? saith not jerom (ad Evagrium) Alexandria Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu Collocatum Episcopum nominabant, &c That the Bishop at Alexandria was only a Presbyter Chosen to preside. etc. Ambrose says that this distinction betaixt Bishop and Presbyter; come in by Couns●…l (Cubi prius) therefore he holds it was not derived from divine 〈◊〉, (and therein gives the lie to our Informer:) for that he says was different from their present custom. Augustin (Epist: 10.) says (with jerom) that by Custom of the Church, Episcopatus, was; Major presbyterio, the Episcopacy was greater than the presbyterat. How comes ●…irmilianus (apud Cypr. ep: 78.) to assert that the presbyters, possident ordinandi potestatem, posseses the power of ordination, and these presbyters he calls praepositi, the precedents or rulers. jerom says, quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod nonfacit presbyter. what does the Bishop except ordination, which the presbyter doth not,— yet even in this, presbyters than concurred with them, and shared in that power. Saith not Chrisost: upon 1. Tim: inter Episcopum et presbyterum, interest ferme nihil-between the Bishop and presbyter, there is almost no difference. As for his lines of Succession, they will say nothing until he prove these Bishops to be Episcopos principes, Prince-or Lord Bishops, and nor Episcopos presides or Moderator Bishops, which will be a hard task, since he must answer Blondel, who largely proves, that before the year 140▪ there was not a Bishop over presbyters, even the Constant precedent, far from the power of the present dioces●…an. Policarp himself, his supposed Bishop of Smyrna, makes but Two orders of Ministry, Bishops and 〈◊〉, in his Epistle to the Philippians. Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart, proves that the first Bishop who came in after the Apostles, was nothing but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Moderator of the presbytery. In a word, as many learned men do prove the discrepancy of the ancients among themselves, and their variety of names, and speech in relation to these first supposed Bishops, and that several authores are Spurius and counterfeit who are Brought in to give Testimony in this point. So it is certain that this man and his fellows in pleading thus for Timothy's Episcopacy, do put the blot of dread full Apostasy upon him, in making him fall (as the Angel of Ephesus is charged) from his first love; so that, if they will not run on this inconvenience, and stage this eminent Saint for such ane Apostate, contrary to the Scripture account of him, they must wholly quit this plea. As for what he adds [of Several writers acknowledging the Angel a Single person] we have shown how vain a reason this is, to prove his point.  
But the Doubter objects to some purpose [that Beza and others might take the Angel to be but Moderator.] To this he answers [that the Angel must needs be a Bishop, because he is chiefly commended or discomended, as having a chief hand in what was right, or amiss, in these Churches. That the power found in Timothy and Titus, proves it was so with these Angels.— That Beza says these Angel's power was more eminent than the rest of their fellows.] Ans. 1. As for Beza, its true he expones [the Angel] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [to the precedent]— but adds — [Sed hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus &c:— that is, But that Episcopal degree, which was after ward by human invention brought into the Church of God, nether certainly can nor aught to be hence concluded, nay not so much as the office of a perpetual precedent, should be of necessity, as the thence ariseing oligarchical tyranny; (let our Informer mark this) whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certan ruin, not of the Church only, but of the world also, makes manifest. And this also is all which Dr. Reynolds acknowledges. Now I think he will find no advantage nor credit here to his Diocesian Bishop, since Beza makes him but a human invention, yea and the poisonous egg out of which Antichrist was hatched. 2 As for his Reason [That this [Angel] is chiefly reproved or commended, as having the Chief hand, in what was right or amiss.] He must prove, (before this Reason will pass current) that one single person is Chiefly reproved or commended, and likeways that his having the commendation, or reproof addressed to him, will evince a Chief authority, or Chief hand, (as he calls it) in government. We told him that in Beza's, and Dr. Reynolds judgement, the [Angel] is only the prese Mor●…derator receiving the Epistle or address. Now, will ane Epistle containing commendations or reproofs of a Synod, and addressed to the Moderator, make him Chief as to what is commended, or taxed, in all that Synodall assembly or Church? Surely not at all. The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein, and possibly less, than any of the meeting: Or will the King's Message or Charge to a parliament, addressed to the speaker, containing reproofs and commendationes of that great body and assembly, fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker, or precedent? He will not say it. As for Timothy and Titus, we have proved that they had no such power, as he pretends, and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick, which cannot with any show of reason be said of these Seven Angels. As for Beza [his acknowledgement of a more eminent Authority in government, which these single persons had] this man cannot with any show of reason allege Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the eminency of his Episcopus divinus, which with Beza is the Pastor, among whom jure divino, he will not a●…mit so much as a perpetual precedent, far less a Bishop: for the perpetual precedent or Moderator, is with Beza, the Episcopus humanus, which he distinginshes from the divine, or scripture Bishop; and the diocesian prelate (pleaded for by this Informer) who hath the Chief, and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, is the Satanical Bishop. (In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu;) So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren, or ascribe to them any other eminency, than what the eminency of a Moderatorship will give, If Beza do not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort, who rule only, as some would readily admit, who take these Churches to be Congregational. As for Mede, it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectiuly, or for Single persons, if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Episcopal Authority, which this Informer proves not, in telling us, [Tha●… the Tuentie four Angels about the Throne, do with him, represent the Bishops] unless he can show that he means his Diocesian Bishops: for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely, according to the genuine scripture acceptation. He holds there are Seven Bishops of Asia here only written unto, where are the Tuentie four Bishops, if Mr Mede take them in his sense? As for Mr. Brightman, his exponeing ordinarily the Angel, of a single person, as the Informer alleadges. Let us hear Brightman himself. [To the Angel etc.] The Epistles are entitled (saith he) one by one, to the Pastors, Because the safety of the Congregation depends upon the soundness of the Pastors: for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus, but many, Neither yet any prince among these, as is manifast by Paul, who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus,— adding, that nothing is spoken of their obedience to any one Chief Bishop— That a Prince hood came after the Apostles, and was not yet borne, save only that Diotrephes gave some show of it. hence he concludes thus [therefore under the name of one Angel, the Epistle is written to the whole order of Pastors &c:] And by this account of Brightmen acce●…tation of the word Angel, Let any judge of our Informers fidelity.  
But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy (which surprises not only his Doubter, but I believe, Most, if not all else, who have seen it) taken from [Diotrephes his loving to have the preeminence, 3. Joh. 9 who (he says) ambitiously loved to be first, and to have the Chief place: and that this ambition only John speaks against,— he adds, that ane office may be good and lawful, though ane ambitions seeking of it, be sinful.— That Beza renders it, qui primatum ambit— that our Inference of the unlawfulness of the office he aimed at, will not follow from his seeking of this chief place, but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church, and now void, into which he meaned to put himself, or had already done so, out of ane ambitious desire to be great, which was a sinful end: that, he looked after himself, not the good of the Church.] Ans. 'tis long since we had this answer, and gloss from Romanists, though not as ane argument. We see popri and prelacy in despite of all con●…radiction will strike hands. When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion, or primacy among his Disciples, is objected to Bellarmin, he resolves it just as this resolver. viz. That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church, than removed it: And commanded his vicar to preside, but not as the Heathen, who seek themselves, and their own glory and commodity. de Pontif, Ques. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3.) Ye shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles (saith he,) Imports, that he admits one to preside but not after that manner. He presses the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Prince or Captain (just as this man doth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or loving of preeminence) to show that such a Prince or primate was designed, de Pontif. Lib: 1. Ch. 9 Thus the Papists gloss generally the Text under debate. Tilen [in his Not. 67.] answering him [That if it were so, then Christ rather inflamed then quenched their ambitious thoughts, which they ●…hil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or loving preeminence, entertained] makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theirs which the Lord reprehended, viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawful forbidden primacy. Adding, [That the Lord said not, he who by my appointment shall be Chief●…, but he who from his sinful desire would be Chieff. Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions, and old exploded evasions, we see stands these men in much stead: And do furnish useful materials to dress up Prelatic pamphlets. But what will this man say? Will he indeed own this popish Argument and answer upon Luke 22. Which the topic of his argument here will necessarily infer? Was their a lawful primacy supposed among the Apostles, & the ambitious desire only forbidden? Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannical only was forbidden since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned (which this man also takes hold of) which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition, but there is no such restriction in this place under debate: So that he is cut off from Beauties' evasion. We heard before he admitted a lawful Church Dominion as not discharged in Luk. 22. And here he admits a lawful primacy over this Church, and in his pretended antiquity we will find him not to di●…owne a Chief patriarch if not directly to plead for him; And then I see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument, in relation to a moral standing primacy in Church-Government, and merit a co●…l in some Popish order ●…r it be long. Now it is evident that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of preeminence, and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired. And the Informer himself (though, as I observed before, he is not one with himself in it) acknowledges that the Lord discharged all inequality, and especially a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or primate, among the Apoles; and therefore, why his scholer John censured not likeways a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or primacy- affecting Minister; seeking the same principality over his Brethren or fellow Ministers, which our Lord discharged among the Disciples, will puzel him to show the disparity. Surely, when our Lord said, [It shall not be so among you,] and when he discharged a protos or Chief among the Disciples, recomending to the desirer of this to be their servant over whom this was affected, he spoke to them as Ministers, and in that capacity: and therefore discharges this among all Ministers. For aquatenus ad omne— I wonder if this man will say that if any of the Seventy Disciples had affected to be a protos over the rest, our Lord would not have given them the same injunction. Or if he will say that they did not hold themselves concerned in the same rule, and the prohibition which the Disciples here got. Surely he cannot deny this, and therefore it is Certan that John discharhes the very protos or prostacy self for what reason will it: he invent wherefor a preeminence or primacy should be disgarged to the Apostles, and allowed among the Seventy (who he thinks represents the Pastors) or any Inferior order of Church officers? Besides, what was it which Peter discharged to these Bishops 1 Pet. 5. Was it not a preeminence, or masterly primacy, and to be a protos? learned he not this prohibition of his Lord? and will it not be a Critical distinction to distinguish lordship from preeminence? Now the first we find universally discharged to Pastors, even over the flock●…, as this man acknowledges, and therefore why this preeminence, is not likewise in itself and simply stricken against, will be Impossible to show the disparity. I must presume that the Apostle understood the sense of this prohibition of his Lord, much better than our Informer: and we see he applies to inferior Pastors and Bishops, that which was discharged to himself, and the rest of his fellow disciples. And, (as I said before) if none of these scripture-Bishops were to lord it over the flock, far less over their fellows. So that to be a protos or Chief over them, was inhibit, as by the lord before, so by the Apostle here, and consequently this lover of preeminence is simply condemned. The Inglish Annot: make the two places of Peter & John, parallel, & the same evil to be discharged in both. So do the dutch annot expressing that which diotrephes sought, in the Apostle Peter's terms, of lording it over his brethren. Now I hope he will not say, that when Peter discharges Ministers to be lords over God's Heritage, he discharged only ane ambitious affectation and Supposed a la●…ll Lordship over the flock●…, abstracting from this ambitious affectation. Surely then this Prohibition of the Apostle john, where Diotrephes is supposed to be practising, what is by Peter discharged, can admit of no such evasion either; unless he would make these Apostles to interfere together in this matter: for it were strange clashing of weapons, and contradiction of the tongues and pens of these Apostles, if Peter should discharge all Lording even over the flocks, in any Pastor, and yet john should allow unto a Pastor, a preeminence, and primacy, both over the flocks, and his fellow Ministers and labourers with him in the Lord's vineyard. Infine, If to be a primate or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a lawful office, to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lover of it (which is all that the word will Import) could deserve no censure. The Informer knows who said [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work] but our Lord who spoke this by the pen of Paul, said also himself immediately to the Apostles, & by the Apostle john in this place, he that desires to be a protos or Chief, must quite that desire. Hence these are different objects of desire, to be a scripture Bishop, and a protos or primate. To affect the office of a scripture Bishop, and a primacy, are Antipods: so that it was not a lawful, nor consequently preaexistent office in the Church, allowed by john, which this man desired, and therefore he is simply condemned by the Apostle, both as to the desire itself, and the object of it. He who thus affects to be first, deserves to be called least in the Kingdom of God, and who thus exalt themselves, shall be abased. To all which I might add, that diotrephes Imperious lordly carriage in casting out and censureing, and not admitting into this Church, such as the Apostle appointed to be therein received, is a lively effigies of an●… Episcopal primacy or preeminence, and of that arbitrary prelacy, that sole power in ordination and censures, which this Informer pleads for. Against which disorderlines of this early primate, the Apostles threatening of his holy censure, is a thunder-clapp which may terrify all who carry this usurped office: and may make his Supposed Angels or Prelates, for this their aspyreing, fear the stroke and punishment of those Angels, who keeped not their first estate, but left their own habitation.  
I shall dimiss the Informers last argument, with one remark further, which is this, if the affecting to be a protos or Chief, tainted the Apostles themselves, while the Christian Church was in its first Infancy, if in Paul's time the mystery of Iniquity, and of propry, was working (the monstrous embryo of a papacy, and consequently of a Prelacy) If peter found it needful to disscharge Covetousness and lordship, to ministers, If the holy Apostle John was contradicted and counteracted by ane aspiring primate, Surely we need not wonder at that universal Change of the Apostolic Holy, humble Church Discipline and parity among Ministers, which overspread the Christian Church not long thereafter. And to our prelatists ordinary question [When began the Change of preshyterian parity among Ministes]? We may answer, That the bitter ●…ootes of a Primacy or prelacy, were sprouting in the Apostles times; and therefore it is no strange thing that this destroying weed grew up so quickly thereafter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or evil one, did quickly sow his Cocle among the wheat, and blew up this fire of ambition, primacy pride and (his own proper sin) till it came to the flame, first of a human proftasie, then of a Hierarchy, and unto the Culmen or tope, of a chief universal primacy at last. For that which he adds of Blondel his granting [That diotrephes sought to be first Presbyter, & such a precedent as had authority over the rest.] Surely none who ha●…e read Blondel can but acknowledge, that he distinguishes all along the Presbyters set over others from the Episcopus divine jure institutus, So in his 1, 2, 3. and 4t. Arguments, page. 190: 191, 192, 193 etc. So that he makes the very constant fixed precedent (much more such a precedent or primate as diotrephes affected to be) distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop; And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that time, he must needs, upon this ground, interpret it to be a recess from the divine appointment, and in so far a Corruption. As for what our Informer repeats here again ad nauseam [That Bishops were immediately the Church before all the Apostles were gone and immediately after, which is a commentary upon Timothy, and Titus, and the Asian Angels, and Diotrephes.] I answer, I believe indeed, as to his last instance, that there were Diotrephesies, early enugh, and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed precedent, but that there was either in the Apostles time, or ane hundred years, and more afterward (I speak far within compass) his Diocesian Prelate, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocese, he will assoon join the poles together, as prove it by any faithful and authentic Testimony.   

CHAP. XII.  
The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy. That antiquity is at most, testis facti, but not judex veri, may witness matter of fact, but is no judge of what is right therein, proved from the Testimony of Scripture, and the fathers. The Informer's reasoning on this head, reduced to a formal Syllogism and discussed. That in the first purest age the Church was governed by Presbyters withtout bishops, proved by Testimonies of the fathers, particularly of Jerome. His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer.  
OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straits of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy, and his pretended replies to Scripture arguments against them. Wherein we have seen how pitifully he lies been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster, The Diocesian Prelate! Now he will launch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes (and not altogother amiss) that this Leviathan can swim much better. And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet, with a tedious legend of human Testimonies in relation to Bishops. But in this his argueing from antiquity, he plays the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofs. For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own brain, and dare not state the Question, as to the Prelate now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould, like to whom if he will show me but one Prelate among all his ragged Testimonies, I will yield the Cause to him. So that we are not concened in his Testimonies, They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate. We shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head, and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cut the sinne●…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers, and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity.  
〈◊〉 I Suppose this man (if he will not renounce his protestant profession) cannot but grant, that it is not Antiquity as he call it, or human Testimonies, but the Scriptures of truth, which most judge in this debate. So that I hop I may suppose that he looks upon his Antiquitity as ane accessory appendix only to his Scripture arguments, and that the Scripture is not for him, but against him, I hope it is convincingly apparent from that is said above; we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith. Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity, deserves not the name. Id adulterum quod posterius, id verum quod pri nium, said Tertullian. That is adulterate which is Last, and trere which is first. I am the way, the truth and the Life, said Christ, but not I am Custom And Cyprian tells us, that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris; Antiquity without truth, is but a mouldy error. Our Lord himself rejected this argument [it was said of old] and apposes unto it [but I say] Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's [it was said of old] and by our Lords warrant, reject his pretences from Antiquity, to warrant any thing which the word condemns: and for this we have good warrant of antiquity itself: for the fathers universally do hold that only the Scriptures must judge in points of faith. Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus, utrique credimus (there being in them all things to be believed and practised) utrique servimus, ibi quaeramus ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram, is great Augustins' advice. The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent, which we both believe, To which we both submit, There let us seek the Church, There let us discuss our Cause. Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scriptures authoritatem non habet, eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. That which derives not its authority from Scripture, the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered, and (on the 1.) Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate & Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out & forge upon pretence of Apostolic tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures, the sword of God strikes throw the same. Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate: Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto, but de jure, not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact, introduced into the Church of old, or of late, but by what warrant and right they have possessed their places? We allege and prove that the present Prelate now existent stands condemned by Christ, the great lawgiver, his rules in point of Church Government, set down in his Testament. Now, to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies, as to Custom or practice of the Church, (even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact, viz, That our present Prelate is exemplified in the ancient Bishops) what is it but to oppose, humane corruption to God's ordinance, The practice of men to God's rule, and men's Testimonies who are liars, to the divine Oracles of the God of truth.  
This man thinks it a Herculean argument, when he draws his human Testimonies, as to prelacy near the Apostles time (as if he had traveled to Hercules pillars) and wonders how we can suppose, that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions. But I pray, how long was it after God's Holy law was proclaimed from heaven, by his own terrible voice, that the whole Church of Israel, together with Aaron himself, set up and worshipped the golden Calf, contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command? Now, suppose that idolatry several hundred years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity, or ancient Custom of the Church of Israel, (after frequently imitated, and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to worship God, for the seasi was proclaimed to jehova, and to have a visible sign of his presence) Will the Informer say, that this had been a good argument to warrant the breach of the Second command, though this Practice was but forty days younger than the promulgation if self. So the case is here, Though he could show us human clear Testimonies, nay more, even Scripture Testimonies, as to the factum, that the diocesian; yea, and Erastian Prelate, had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time; yet if we can from our Lord, and his Apostles doctrine, and practise, prove this officer to be a plant not of a divine plantation, and contrary to the divine institutiones, He must needs grant (that though esteemed golden) it ought to be Nehushtan, rejected and plucked up by the roots. The Papists, who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule, made up by traditions, yet will not dare to own (professedly at least) any principle, or practise, condemned in the Word. suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers, touching his Prelate he pleads for; they are but h●…man Testimonies, and therefore cannot beget a divine faith, which is founded upon the word only. Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare, quam c●…nsuetudo non nooit▪ nam si nosset non-esset, saith Tertullian. Arise o! truth itself, and expone they Scriptures, which custom hath not known, for had it known them, it had not been. The Informer's Testimonies may induce to believe that there were Bishops in the Church; but whither the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold, be of God, yea or not; this question must be brought to a higher tribunal; and God's Oracles must determine therein, before the Conscience can be satisfied, as to the owning of such a Church officer: And if God dissowne him, I may be ane Athanasius contra orbem, in withstanding him, It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most, but not judices veri & recti, Attesters of matters of fact, but not judges of what is right and equal therein.  
Thus we have seen, that though all our Informers pleading from antiquity, were granted, his cause, profliga by Scripture weapons lies grovelling in the dust. whereas he alleadges [Testimonies as to the existence of Prelates in the Christian Church, near the Apostles times, or contemporary with them, & that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelates, down from Apostles and Evangilists, have been kept in Churches, which he thinks speaks convincingly for the Episcopacy of Timothy, and Titus etc. ay Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity, yet when tried, it will be found many ways defective, and unsound. For clearing whereof I shall offer some things, both to the Major, and assumption of this argument, which will be found quite to break the force of all his pretences this way. For thus the argument must run.  
If Diocesian Bishops, by the Testimonies of the ancient fathers, did exist in the primitive times, and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients, from Apostles, and Euangilists, than I must believe these Bishops to be of divine institution: but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers: Ergo, I must believe Diocesian bishops to be of divine institution.  
Now this being the argument in its genuine strength, this pitiful pleader offers not a jott in proof of the major proposition, whose connexion he cannot but know, the we all deny. All that he offers is in proof of the assumption, which is also denved, & will be found very maimed. I. To the Major, I say, that it is of very dangerous consequence, to make that which men call antiquity, or [ancient custom,] the infallible rule, and commentary, as to the nature and office, of Church officers, mentioned in Scripture. Because 1. If men's practice must be the key and comment in this case, so as we must not contradict or counteract it, then why may not also human practice, and profession of succeeding ages, determine as to every Scripture truth, and duty therein held out? 2. This were to set up a higher rule, and tribunal, than the Scriptures, and to make our faith to stand in man's wisdom, not in Gods, and to make the Scriptures of a private interpretation, as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man. For if I must believe no otherways anent the Scriptures relating to the offices of Timothy, and Titus, then according to the practice of supposed Bishops, their successores, and that they held no other offices, but such as these supposed successores are said to have had, than the Custom and practice of fallible men, becomes to me, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ratio a priori, and the chief ground, why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other; and so I give men a dominion over my faith, and my faith herein resolves ultimately into a human practice, and Testimony of fallible men, which is a principle no protestant will allow.  
Next, as to the asumption of the argument, I would demand of this informer, how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgement and practice of the ancient Church, and of this true succession; and how he will instruct the universal harmonious judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point, (viz.) [That such prelate's as we have now, were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government, from the Apostles and Evangelists, as their only immediate & ordinary successors.] The topic of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact. But to clear this will be found a hard piece of work. Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing; many of their writings are lost; many writings going under their name are counterfeit, & most especially to this debate. It were possibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some writings here cited; to be mere countersites. How shall I know, that the Testimonies of those who have written, are not contradicted in this point, by such men of their times, who either have not written, or whose writings are perished? 2. There are many things, which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles, and have had ane universal consent (as far as the knowledge thereof hath come to us) which are acknowledged to be contrary to the word of God and the Apostolic doctrine; as, the error anent the vision of God, [that the Saint's sie not his face till the last day.] the error of [free will,] which until Augustin opposed it was universally received▪ the [Millenary error,] anent Christ's personal reign upon the Earth a Thousand years; called by Lactantius, [the doctrine of the holy prophets, and christian wisdom, which christians follow.] justin Martyr, holds them to be no christians that dissown this▪ and this is owned as ane Apostolic tradition. So [children's partaking of the Lord's supper;] and [the necessity of baptism] was by Augustin and others owned as such a tradition (lib: 1. de pecc: mer.) Basil names four Apostolic traditions, signeing with the cross; praying to the east; anointeing with oil; praying in the standing posture from Easter to whitsuntyd. See the Appendix to jus divinum minise. Evan (prop. 2.) The informer and his fellows, make a great bustle anent the condemneing of Aerius, for holding that Bishops and presbyters are all one. But Beza could have informed him, de grad: (346.) that Epiphanius (Haeres: 75) imputs to him, as great heresies, these Tenets, 1. That he held it unlawful to offer and pray for the dead. 2. That he held that Saint's departed were not to be invocat. 3. That there were not fixed fast days to be kept. 4. That the jewish pascal was not to be observed, because ourpassover is already offered. Now, if our Informer condemn him for these also, we weed care the less for his condemning him in the point of prelacy. 3. It is certain, that the account of the first times immediately after the Apostles, is, as to mater of fact, very dark & uncertain, & consequently a very slippery rule. Hegesi pus (apud Euseb: lib: 3. cap. 28.) tells us, [that immediately after the Apostolic age was gone, tunc impii erroris conspiratio, per seductionem eorum qui alienam doctrinam trad▪ ant, initium caepit— Then the conspiracy of wicked error, but the seducing of those who delivered another doctrine, took its beginning. Eusebius himself the prime writer, (from whom in a manner is the whole of all that is delivered anent Church Government and Bishops, and who presents these fragmen of writers out of which our episcopal men ga●…her up their proofs) in the proem of his History acknowledges that he is in that work entered into a dark desert, therein he hath no footsteps of any going before him, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some little occasions, or some pity narations, which every one in their own time hath left and delivered. let any read haumer (ane Inglish Bishop), his translation of Eusebius, wherein this will be found very clear. Scalliger (prolegom in Chron. Euseb.) Saith, Intervallum illud ab ultimo capite actorum etc. the nterval from he last chotter of the Acts of the Apostles, until the midst of the reign of Trajan, in which tract, Quadratus and a Ignatius flourished (let our informer observe this as to Ignatius) may be truly called with varr●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscur, wherein nothinthat is certan, hath come to our hand concerning the affairs of Christians, except some very few things, which the enemies of godliness carches up by the way, such as Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Plenius Cecilianus, which gap that Eusebius might fill up, he drew some things without discretion and choice out of the upotiposes or exemples of I know not what Clement (for he is not that learned Clement who wrote the Stromata●…●…nd out of the fyve books of hegesippus' a writer no better. Tilen himself (a great pleader for the Episcopal cause) yet tells us (Contr: 3: l. 2: c. 2: Not. 39 and c. 3. Note. 6) That, the history of these first times hath great blacks and gapes, which the Spurius Clements and other writers of the same stamp, filled up with petty fables drawn from their own brain.— That from the end of the acts of the Apostles, until Traian's times, thereiss almost nothing extant which is certain: hence (he saith) occasion was taken by men of bad dispositions to make hold to feign anything, whom even the Apostles times wanted not. Not to insist upon the many things written and observed of Eusebius, which may invalidat the credit of his history, and his many gross errors therein, and in other points, observed by Scalliger and others. How fabulous is that history of Christ's Epistle to Agbarus, rejected even by pope Gelasius in a Council of Seventy Bishops at room. That which Philo the jew wrote of the Essae Ans, a Sect among the jews, Eusebius affirms that he wrote it of Christian mmks, which Scalliger shows to be false out of Philo himself (in elencho tribaeresii.) He proves peters crucifixion at Rome by a tomb proof:— In the computation of times, Scalliger observes his gross errors. Nay, which is more considerable, he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture, in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul, was not the Apostle peter, but another of the number of the Seventy disciples. Besyds, many things in his personal carriage and qualities, which may weaken the Credit of his History, as his presideing in the council of Tyre against Athanasius, and standing upon the Arrians side. Scalliger (in his Thesaurus temporum. Animad: p: 268) Sets down the testimonies of the Ancients concerning his errors & Arrianisme, wherein some affirm that he died. When he wrote the history he was ane Arian. Moreover, Admit his Testimony were abeve all exception, yet that his history hath been corrupted by some ignorant impostor, is demonstrated from this by Didocl: (cap. 4. p. 119) [that he makes mention of Sozomen, who was born ane hundred years thereafter.]  
Lastly, As to the Catalogues of bishops, which our Informer, and his masters before him, exhibit to us from the Apostolic times, he might have found them abundantly invalidat by many of the learned, whose judgement and Testimonies are collected by Didocl: (cap: 4 p. 121: 122, 123, 124, etc.) Which we may well challenge this man to answer. Therefore we shall dismiss it with these observes. 1. That Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others, who make use of this Argument of Succession, against heretics, design only to show a derivation of true doctrine from the Apostles against them, and that the Church had the Traduoes Apostolici Seminis, a derivation of the Apostles Doctrine, but never meaned it of a Succession of men of the same office every way. Tertullian saith, [Arise o truth and expone they Scriptures etc.] Iren●…us in his time, speaking of this Succession from the Apostles, & pressing adherence to the truth which they delivered, makes mention of Presbyters [opportet adhaerere iis &c: We must adhere to them who keeps the Apostles doctrine, and with the order of [presbytery] mentain the word. And again, therefore we must obey these [presbyters] who are in the Church, who have their Succession from the Apostles, as we have shown. Then he adds qui cum Episcopatus Successione, charisma veritatis certum, Secundum placitum patris acceperunt. That is, who with the Succession of Episcopacy, have received from the father the sure gift of truth.] thus he, (l. 4. c. 44.) And because this Informer singes their old song who before him, will still Shuffle in Bishops, when the Ancients speak of Presbyters. Let him remark what he says (lib: 3. cap. 2.) Speaking of the contumacy of the adversaries of truth [quum autem ad eam iterim traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per Successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos &c:— But when we apeall them again to that tradition, which from the Apostles, is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches— They will allege that they are more wise than the Apostles themselves or these Presbyters] dare this man say, that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolic truth.  
That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediately in the power of the keys, is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers. ●…gnatius (about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet) in the Epistle ad Trallianos, calls the caetum Presbyterorum, the Assembly of Presbyters, Con●…unctionem Apostolerum Christi, a meeting of Apostles of Christ. ●…rinaus, (lib: 4. Cap. 43) holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere, that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles. Cyprian (lib. 4. epistol. 9) asserts, omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere, that all overseers (so he calls Presbyters) succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination. Jerome, on 2. Chap. of mica, (cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap) speaking of himself a Presbyter, saith si in Apostolorum loco simus, non solum sermonem eorum imitemur etc. If we be in the Apostles place, let us not only imitat there doctrine, but also their conversation. Augustin (serm: 36. to the fratres in Eremo) and these too Pre●…byters, call them sal terrae, Apostolorum successores, the salt of the earth and the Apostles successors.  
2. As it is certan, that these Catalogue-drawers, did not understand veri nominis ep●…copos, or diocesian Bishops properly suoh, though speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name: So it is equally certain, that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patch●…d up, are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another (as the divines at the ile of Wight, and many learned men have made appear) and still the nearer the Apostles times, the Catalogues are the more dark and various. They make Peter Bishops of Rome (a fable contradicted by many of the learned & proved to be such) but whither Clemens was first or Third, and who or in that order next after Succeed them, whither Linus, or Anacletus is never yet cleared, Some make Titus' Bishop of Crete, some Archbishop. Some Bishop of Dalmatia. Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time. Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna. Some make him succeed one Bucolus. some make Aristo first. Some give Alexandria one Bishop, some tuo at once. See appendix to jus. divin. min. Evangel.  
And whereas our Informer replies [that notwithstanding of this, yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was, and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession itself, no more than difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History] I answer, if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called, or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession, this evasion might have some Show of truth, but it is certain that they did not. Patres cum jacobum Episcopum vocant etc. the Fathers, saith Whittak. (de pontiff. quest: 2. c. 15 se: 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter, take not the name of Bishop properly, but they call them Bishops of these Churches, wherein they stayed for some time— and again— [if spoken of a Bishop properly, its absurd to say the Apostles were bishops, fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle, Because the Bishop is set only over one Church, but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches]. After he tells us, that non procul distat ab insania etc. it differs little from madness to say that Peter or any other Apostles were bishops. And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large (Q: 3. c: 3. Sect: 9 [proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission, who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called. Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground. So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam, if he mend not this information, and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists, and the Succession of Bishops from them. The learned junius also (Contr: 3. lib: 1. cap. 23. not. 3.) mantaines ane aequivocal acceptation of the word [Bishop] in this matter, so that his paralleel holds not, as to a difference about the Succession of Kings, when a Monarchy all a●…e Supposed such, but here the difference and equivocation is, as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops. When he shall read Scallig. (Animadvers: 277.) The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James; yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him. Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better. likwayes jerom (: Catol: Scrip:) is a Counterfeit, not the true jerom, since he mentions pope hilary, who lived long after jerom was in his grave.  
And whereas the Informer makes a great outcry of jerom [that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark, in the Alexandrian Catalogue, which our w●…itters leave out in their citations] its easily answered that it needs not be put in, since the Author, says [A marko, from, or after him, the Presbyters choosed▪ out one whom they made precedent] wherein it's evident, that he speaks of this custom, after Mark and excluding him, who was ane Evangelist before, and needed not be set up by the Presbyters. And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist, the rest were very heterogeneous to their first pattern. Besides, in that jerom says Presbitiri a marco unum [ex se] electum, etc. He clearly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter, no Mark that it, for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up, he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion▪ Should one say, in Scotia, a regimine presbit: Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti, Ergo, ab isto regimine introducti, were ●…t not a bad consequence. Here I will offer to him the remark of a learned author (Repl: to Dun: 143.) anent the Circle, which he and his fellows do ride in this argument. Timothy and Titus etc. had ane Episcopal authority, why? because their authority was not Evangelistick. Why so? because it was not to die with them, why that? Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary. And how is that proved? Because, if the Apostles being alive, they behoved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority, much more being dead, this was necessary to the Churches. But when it is inquired, how this Episcopal authority is proved, it is fairly assumed again, as if it were granted, [that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete.] So the last medium is still that which is in Question. Let him ponder also what Didocl: (p. 125. and 139▪) hath produced, anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession. Tilen himself (de pontiff: l. 1. c: 24. not: 1.) acknowledges that [De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs, nihil ex Scriptura, im●…ne ex patribus quidem, qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt, quicquam certi demonstrari potest, That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginnings of the Church of Alexandria from Scripture, no not from the Fathers who flourished before the council of Nice. Baronius (Anno. 44. 11: 42.) saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia, etc. — Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name, & since what is related by true writers, remains not incorrupt, it may make one despair to reach that is true and cer●…in. So much is the great popish historian forced to confess.  
The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter, Joseph Scalliger, his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem. (Related by Didocl. cap. 4: p. 123.) Wherein he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lord's prophecy anent the destruction of Jerusalem, and to Josephus his History. To this I add, that he will find many learned men do hold, that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues, were mere Presbyters, [who according as they were more eminent in the Churches, and consequently their memories referved therein, whose Natales (as junius speaks) that is their days of banishment, martyrdom, or death were kept in the Church's records; accordingly they were culled out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues, though they were contemporary, & those they named [Bishops], in conformity to their own times. For this I recomend Franciscus junius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3: l. 2: c. 5. not. 18▪ — [errori causam prebuit, &c, the cause of the error (he means in those contradictory confused Catalogues of Bishops) was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches etc.] It's then evident (which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premised) 1. That the Ancients without examination having from their progenitors received many fabulous stories, delivered to the posterity such things as can neither be reconciled to Scripture, nor with themselves.  
2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops, and conform the first ages to their own, they culled out the most famous Minister for zeal, piety &c and put them into their Catalogués. 3. Whom they thus put in, they called them [bishops] in conformity to their own times, though they were [mere Presbyters.] For (as we saw upon Phil. 1.) himself acknowledges, that the Fathers used the names indifferently. So by this time we suppose it is convinceingly evident, that ou●… Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost.  
There is a great consent of the learned in this that for the first purest age, the Church was governed by Presbyters. without Bishopsblondel (Apol: Sect: 3: p: 3: 14. 3: 5— p. 308: 378.) Shows the consent of the learned heerin. For this Church of Scotland, we have the Testimony of joanes' Major (de Cest. Scot: l. 2.) of Fordon (Scoto-chronicon, lib. 3. Shap. 8.) likewise of Blond. (Sect. 3.) All showing, that this nation (having embraced the Christian faith Anno. 79.) till the year 430. (When the pope sent Palladius as our first Bishop,) was governed only by Presbyters with out bishops; so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy. Clemens, of the first century, in his Epistle to the Philippians, makes but two orders of Ministry, Bishops and deacons', these only he says the Apostle set up to propogat the ordinances to believers. And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy. (page. 57 etc.) The same we heard of policarp (in his Epistle to the Philippianes) we heard of Augustins' Testimony (Epist. 19 to Jerom.) Dr. Reynolds (in his Epist. to Sir Francis Knolls) citys Chrysostom, jerom, Ambrose, Augustin, Theodoret, and many others ancient and modern, to prove, that in Scripture, Bishop and Presbyter are all one. Jeroms Testimony upon Titus, is famous for this point, who assertes, and proves at large; from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13: 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by God's appointment, and in first Apostolic times & afterward, the government was by Presbyters, communi concilio Presbyterorum, [by the common council of Presbyters.] that by divine appointment, Bishops & Presbyters are one, that the difference betwixt them had no better ground than contudo or Custom. That divisions by Satan's instinct occasioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bishop and Presbyter. That their equality was not his private Judgement, but a Scripture truth. The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius.  
But now let us hear what ou●… Informer hath Scraped together from his masters, Saravia, Dounam, Tilen, etc. To infringe this Testimony. 1. He ●…ayes [That jerom speaks only of the first gospel times, when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, when the Apostles did by their own presence & industry Supply the room of Bishops, but as they began to fail by death, or their bussines called them elsewhere and upon the Church's enlargement, & the Schism that arose upon the Presbyters equality, Bishops were set up over Presbyters. This he proves, because, jerom says, that from Mark the Evangelist. The Presbyters choosed out one, and called him Bishop, even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionysius, but Mark died before Peter and Paul. Then he compleans of Smectimmuus as dealing defectively in leaving out this in their Citation— And of Mr. Durham (on the Revel. pa●… 225. and thatMr. Durham takes no notice of jeroms similitude in speaking of this Election of Presbyters in relation to their Bishop, viz, As the army doth choose the Emperor] Thus far we have our Informers first great defence, Which brings to mind a remarkable saying of Marcus. Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb. 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae, ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit quod ab Apostolis jure divino, est factitatum, aliquantum certe deflexit— neque in hoc aut excusari potest, aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus, neque aliam Sententiam neque defensionen neque excusationem, admittentia sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum: &c Some would (he saith) draw jerom to a contrary mind against his will, but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesiastic Custom, and the Churches human deccree, what was done by divine right, he went out of the way, and in this he cannot be excused, nor can his words admit of any other sense, or meaneing. So much was this man's ingenuity beyond that of our Informer. But to the point, I Ans. 1. We have nothing here but the old Song, which hath been answered by many. junius [decler: c. 15. Not. 16.] tells him [That tria distinguit tempora Hieronimus. Primum, quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur. Secundum, quo studia in religione facta sunt, ac dictum est in populis, ac non corinthisolum &c: nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur, adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur, ut patet ex icor. 5. & 2. cor. 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus. Atque haec singula tempora suam, ut cum vulgo loquar, latitudinem habuerunt. jerom distinguishes, Three periods of time. 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters. The 2d. Wherein there were divisions in religion, and it was said among the people, not at Corinth only; I am of Paul &c: for when these things were said at Corinth, the Church (saith he) was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters, as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last, wherein one chosen out from among the presbyters, was set over the rest. And every one of these times (saith he) that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud. here in this one judicious account of this learned author, our Informer might have seen his error, and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom draws his proofs for the first period from many texts of Scripture, from Phil. 1. Act 20. &c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church, never to see their faces more. Yea he draws his proofs from John the Survivor of all the Apostles, for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Council. And as to the choice of the constant precedent he adds quod autem postea unus electus, that their was one afterward chosen to preside, for the remedy of Schism &c, and to be Episcopus prese, this period he fixes after john's time, and so after all the Apostles.  
2. Whereas the Inform●…r (following Downam defence. lib. 4. cap: 3. Sect: 10.) alleges That the Presbyters in jeromes' senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches [Modo privato], in a private way & [in foro conscientiae] feeding with the word and Sacrament; the Apostles themselves, by th●…r own presenc supplying the room of Bishops; and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters. I answer. He will assoon squize water from a flint, as this meaneing out of jeroms words. Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government, yea a divine frame, which postea and Paulatim, afterward and by degrees, came to be altered and changed: but this private government of Presbyters in foro interno, was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed, and by degrees, proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Disp●…sitio divina, or a divine appointment. Now I beseech him, did the Apostles first practise a divine f●…ame of Government, and then changed it into a human custom? (which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in.) will any of common sense or discretion, say so? Far less so learned a man as Jerome was.  
3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops, before the change which Jerome speaks of, than Jerome could not say of that period of time before the change, that, communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur, the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters, but according to this gloss of his words, before the change, the Government was episcopal. But so it is, that jerom says, idem episcopus & Presbyter, the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same, by divine right, and that before the change which came in by a human custom (which he distinguishes from that dispositio divin●… or divine frame, which first took place) the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel, according to divine appoiniment. 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing, or the increase of Churches, set up Prelates, let the Informer show me why and how jerom could draw his proof for the identy, of bishops and Presbyters, from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches? was he to supply the room of a Bishop by his presence with them, when never to see their faces more? how could Jerome plead for the divine right of, Presbyters Episcopal, Scriptural, GospelGovernment, from Paul's calling them Bishops at his last farewell, and committing the whollGovernment to them, if this had been his meaning? Besides, were not the Churches increased a●… this time? why then were no●… Bishops set up, since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy? Nay, since Jerom draws his proofs against the Prelates divine right, from the 1 Pet. 5, And from John, could he suppose that this was but the beginning, while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand? Again, our Informer would do well to resolve this doubt, how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to God's appointment, a human custom opposite to the Lords appointment? Or how could this answer Jeroms scope, [to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops] to say that the Apostles first governend them, episcopally themselves, and then set up Bishops over them? And how will he make this corres●…ond with what Jerom says as to the original of this change viz. the studia in religione, or factions in Religion? Will the Informer say (which is his own argument afterward) that the Apostles immediate episcopal Government, had influenc upon this Schism? Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth, (from which this man draws the change in Jeroms sense) long before several of Jeroms proofs from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John, for the divine warrant of this common Government of Presbyters? And was this the change which jerom speaks of, as toto orbe decretum, & postea, or a change afterward through the World? Appage inneptias.  
3. As for what he adds, That jerom draws the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Mark, which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of. Ans. We have shown already, that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter, and any notice can be taken of it, makes rather against him, then for him for if Mark was ane Evangelist in the strict sense, as jerom calls him, he doth (as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point) cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called. The Informer must grant this, or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc, in on and the same person; for he said nothing against this consequenc, Timothy is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense, ergo He could not be a Bishop. Now I say jerom calls Mark ane Evangilist, for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist, the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one to preside. Ergo he speaks exclusively, and cannot put Mark among the series of them, for Mark was ane officer of a higher nature. Moreover, the Informer tells us, that Mark died before Peter and Paul; hence I infer against him, ergo, jerom could not reckon Mark among these Bishops of Alexandria: for jerom draws his proofs for the Presbyters divin right of governing in Common, from Act. 20. phillip 1. 1. Pet. 5. And from john the last of the Apostles, and makes this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apostles time, and tells us that the Bishops who were set up, came in by custom, and afterward, and by degrees when it was toto orbe decretum, decreed through the world; to put the power upon one; ergo these Bishops of Alexandria behoved to be set up long after Mark was in his grave, according to jeroms calculation. And whereas he compleans that Mr Durhame leaves out that Clause [Where jerom makes use of a simile anent the armies choosing ane Emperor— That he may make the Bishop's power when brought in, as little as can be.] It's answered, that passage will as little help him as the other, for jeromes' scope is, to show That the Bishops first rise and power over Presbyters, was by their own free election, not by divine disposition, as the Army chooses the General. Now no simile must be strained and hold in every point, else it were not a simile. Scripturparables themselves must not be strained beyond the scop. And besides, jerome cannot be supposed to give at that time, even de sacto, far less jure divino, an Imperial or Lordly power to these Presbyters thus chosen out by their brethren, and made Bishops over them, unless he would Cross his own doctrine, since he makes this choic and Election of the Episcopus●…reses, to be the hum●…n Custom, posterior unto, and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity, which first took place. Likeways jerom says in his own time quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter. What doth the Bishop except ordination which the Presbyters doth not. So that they had not then arrived at any imperial power.  
And because this man tells us even ad nauseam of this passage, a Marko Evangilista. I will turn here the weapons point upon him, and demand, Since Jerome make these Alexandrian Bishops from Mark, to have been set up by Presbyters free election, how comes the Prelates he pleads for, to be Elected and set up at Court, while the poor Creatures, the Curates, over whom they are set, to play the little emperors, have no more Interest as to their choice and Election, than the silliest Monk in choosing the pope I add here, that this supposition of his [that jerom holds the Apostles to have supplied the Bishop's room for a time, though no fixed ordinary Bishops, until the Church's growth, and their necessary absence, did necessitat to set them up for preventing schism,] will Cross what himself and Downam also do plead, defence. l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 3. (If at least they will not make Jerome oddly to contradict himself, viz.) that jerom [in Catal. Scrip. Eccles]. holds that james immediately after the Lords suffering, was Constitut Bishop of jerusalem. Besides that neither of them will prove that to be the true jerom.  
But now the Informer will resolve the great doubt against what he hath said, viz. That Jerome proves from Scripture, Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and that schisms by Satan's instinct, gave occasion to change the government from the Common Council of Presbyters, to another mould of setting up one over the rest, to whom the whole Care should belong etc. To which he answers, that jerom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time had come unto beyond what the first Bishops had, viz. That at the first Presbyters had a hand in government, but after, omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum de lata, that is, the whole care was put upon the Bishop. But if we take jerom to speak of the first introduction of Bishops, than he must be understood as speaking of the Apostles own times. Ans. 1. Upon this ground the Informer must grant, that in Ieroms sense, Bishops who only in ordination, were superior to Presbyters, had a greater power than the Bishop's first set up by the Apostles; which will clearly exclude his diocesian Prelates, who have sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, as no divine Bishops. And Next, it will follow that the ishopes set up a Marco, or after Mark, were mere precedents, or Moderators; since they were less in power then these Bishops, who only in ordination, differed from Presbyters. So we see the rebound of this answer will strike his cause dead. And he must feel another rebound of his own blow, as to his Complaint of our leaving out what makes against us in Ieroms words. For I ask why he lea●…es out here Ieroms scripture proofs, evincing that Bishops & Presbyters are one jure divino? Why leaves he out Ieroms Collection upon all these scriptures (which runes along the through Apostolic age) viz. That the Bishops are more by Custom, then by any true dispensation from the Lord set over Presbyters? for although he after brings in this as ane objection, yet it ought to have been set down here, as the main conclusion of Ieromes arguing: and his testimony is very blunt without it. Again, how comes he thus to disguise what Jerome says of Presbyters governeing [Communi Councilio], or by common Council, as if it Imported no more, then having a hand in government, which he makes Compatible with prelacy, whereas jerom makes it distinct from, and anterior unto, even the first human prostasy. Beside, their governeing, Communi Concilio, Imports particularly, their joint decisive suffrage in government; which he doth but meanly express by their governing in Common. 2. What a ridiculous conceit is this That jerom speaks of the power of Bishops in his time, beyond the first Bishops jerom speaking of Presbyters expressly, as contradistinct from Bishops, and of the Presbyters existent in the Apostolic Churches, while the Apostles were alive, as himself just now explained i●…, in saying [that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presbyters.] So that he compares not the Bishops in his time, with the first Bishops who came in by Custom, but these human Bishops who thus came in, with the first scripture Bishops. we know not where to find this versatil proteus in his answers here, and may truly allege, that this Testimony pinches him and his fellows.  
Next, will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words, which he here offers, viz, [That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to govern with them, and the after Bishops in jeroms' time, governed alone.] Then he must grant, that the first and second Bishops, were of very different cuts; and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues, all in pieces; and must grant that the word episcopus, or Bishop, is variously used by the ancients, And that our present Lord-prelats can receive no Pratrociny from Bishops of the first ages, wherein Presbyters governed by common Council, and had a decisive suffrage in Government, whereas the Prelates now are beyond what their predecessors had come unto, even in Ieroms time: For then except ordination, the Bishop did nothing, beyond what the Presbyter might do, whereas our present Prelates are sole both in ordination and Jurisdiction, and assume a negative voice in Church Judicatories, Yea a decisive suffrage in Parliament: which he dare not say that any of these Bishops did ever pretend unto.  
Well, But if we shall say that jerom speaks of the first introduction of Bishops into the Church, than (he tells us) jerom must understand it of the Apostles times. What means he by the first introduction of Bishops? Can he give the least shadow of reason for it, that jerom speaks of any other introduction than that introduction of human custom, which he distinguishes from the divine appointment of Presbyterian parity? But how proves he [That jerom makes bishops to have been introduced in the times of the Apostles] (yet I must tell him by the way, that introduceing them in the times of the Apostles, is one thing, & by the Apostles, is anotherthing. Diotrephes sought his primacy in john's time, but was disowned by him therein. So that if we can prove that what jerom citys for the parity of Bishops & Presbyters jure divino, will conclude the point, these Bishops are in themselves, & in jeroms judgement, condemned by the Apostles.) his 1. Reason is [That jerom makes the thing, which gave occasion to this Introducing of Bishops, to be the people's saying jam of Paul and I of Apollo, and this was the Schism spoken of I Cor. I.] But this notion of Saravia, and others, he might have found long since answered. Ieromes scop is evidently, to prove that by Scripture warrant, Bishop and Presbyter are all one, which he clears by many Scripture Testimonies, even to john's time; and therefore he could not be so brutish, as to make this Schism at Corinth, the occasion of the Change, so long before John's Testimony, yea before Paul's farewell Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus, from which he draws another of his proofs. But he speaks of a human Custom coming in Paulatim, postea, piece and piece and by degrees, long after these times: and but alludes unto that Division I Cor. I. Expressing it in the Apostles words, not of their times; for the Apostles never appointed this prelatik excrescent power of Bishops over Presbyters as a remedy of Schism, among all their prescriptions of the Cure of this evil. Rom. 16. 7. I Cor. 3: 3. 11, 18. Moreover famous whietaker will tell him, that this remedy is worse than the disease. The mystery of iniquity was then working; the Apostles therefore would not lay a step under Anti-christs' foot, to get in to his Chair. Besides; these factions in religion were not at Corinth only. junius (de cler. Cap. 15. not 16.) will Inform him that [jerom asserts not, that it was said at Corinth, I am of Paul, etc. But among the people, etc. malum non Corinthi solum, etc. It was a Public evil— Paul himself prescribed no such remedy (saith he) unto the Corinthians.— and afterward [Not. 17.] Jerom saith, after it was said among the people, he saith not that this human Prostasia, began at that time, viz, of the schism, but after that time. Compare it with Wittaker, (the pont. Q. 1. c. 3. Sect▪ 29. [he saith not, it was decreed by the Apostles, that one Presbyter should be set over the rest, this he says, was by the Church's Castome; not the Apostles decree— Then he adds (jerom, viz,) Let the Bishops know, that it is rather by Custom, than the divine appointment, that they are set over Presbyters. Had the Apostles changed the first order, and set Bishops over Presbyters, and forbidden the Churches to be governed by the Cammon▪ Council of Presbyters, truly that had been the Lords appointment, because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ, unless we will ascrib to Custom, not to divine appointment, what they decreed. But the Apostles being alive, there was nothing changed in that order, for this Epistle was written when Paul was in Mac donia, etc.] Let our Informer read this learned author, who at large will cure his error in this point, if it be not incurable. Whereas he adds [That Ierom●… comment upon Tit. I. Imports only his opinion, anent the Community of names of Bishop and Presbyter not of their office at that time] I beseech him what will this say to Ieromes scope, which is to prove Presbyters superiority to Deacons? for the deacons' name was in a general sense, attribute both to Apostles, and to the Evangelist Timothey, as himself pleads. Besides, what signifies Ieroms in ferenc from all his Citations, viz, [That Bishops had not their superiority over Presbyters, by divine appointment] If only a community of names, was his proof from these texts.  
The Informers 2 Reason, to prove that jerom makes Bishops, to be introduced in the times of the Apostles, is [That had the decree which Jerome speaks of, been after the Apostles, it would have been extant in antiquity, where, and in what Council, it took place, but this is not found. Ans Jerome by, toto orbe decretum, or prospiciente concilio, cannot mean any formal Council, either in the Apostles times, or afterward. But the meaning is, that when through the world, it was said among the people, I am of Paul, etc. It was decreed among the people, or in, and among particular Churches, through the whole word, that is, distr●…butively, though all places of the world, not representatively, in any aecumenick Council of the whole world. Decreed through the whole word, is all one with, Decreed by the whole world, which is distributily to be taken. Ieroms words convince this, for the Councils decree, representing the world, would be all at once; but jerom says this Chance came not in Simul & Semel, but paulatim lie degrees; And that the Prostasia came in by Custom, which points at a gradual coming in. Besides, the Apostles changing the first mould of government, to prevent Scism, will say they made themselves wiser than the Lord.  
His 3 Reason is [That this will suppose the world's universal defection, from the Apostolic Government, against which there is, no footstep of a Testimony.] Ans. we We have seen (as he cannot deny) as great, and more sudden changes of the divine institutions, exemplified in Scripture; and that ane universal defection, hath been through the Christian world, from both the Apostolic Doctrine, and Government, he will not deny: and many Testimonies there might have been against this, though they have not come to our hands. He knows how our divines answer such a Question of the Papists, as to the beginnings of their Corruptions, and their universal spread. Moreover, this mystery of Iniquity, and affectation of primacy, began in the Apostles own time, and therefore we need not wonder that it spread shortly thereafter. Jerome tells us that this change was Paulatim, by degrees, and upon specious pretences of order and union, and therefore it is no wonder that this monster in its nature and dreadful effects, was not seen at first.  
His 4t. Reason is [That jerom makes this change to have been for remedy of Schism, and it is absurd to say, that the Government of the Apostles was liable to this evil But this inconvenience is salved, if we say, that the Apostles for preventing Schism which parity breeds, set up Bishops over Presbyters.] Ans. 1. To begin at his last part, he eschews not this inconvenienc himself; for he makes the Apostles to have Governed the first Curches Episcopaly, keeping the Episcopal reins of Government still in their own hand (in Ieroms sense) till their absene and Schism procured that change which jerom speaks of. So that, with him, the root of Schism was sown in that Church which they Governed Episcopally; the Presbyters with him, ab initio, yea first or last not having a power of ordination, and jurisdiction; and he makes jerome to reflect upon the Apostles, as if they had bettered Christ's appointment, as to Government: I pray him, how grew up the Corinth Scism while Paul acted the Bishop over that Church? as he and the rest of hisparty do plead. The men of his way say that the Apostles kept the reins of Government in their own hand, until they were about to die, before which time there were schimes in their Churches. Did not the Apostles foresee this? and if the Apostolic Episcapacy was by liable to schisms, much more that of their substitutes. 2. It is too gross ane Inferenc to say that [Because Jerome holds that for preventing schisms which were at that time, the Government was changed, therefore Jerome charges it upon the Apostles Government,] he may as well say, that a man's asserting Corruptions to be in the Church, will infer his imputing them to the ordinances. Was there nor discord among the disciples, under Christ's own immediate Government? but did that reflect upon his Holy Government that this recorded? Did not Paul and Barnabas divid & part asunder? but did Luke in relating this, Charge it upon the holy Apostolic Government. 3. The absurd [reflection upon the Apostles Government] which he speaks of, lies upon his party, and these who first brought in, and now (after its evil effects are discovered) uphold this hierarchy, which is so cross to the Apostolic parity. jerom says [they brought in this imparity for remedy of schism] but leaves the charge of [reflecting upon the Apostolic government] upon the Authores of this innovation, and upon its promoters still it mustly.  
His 5t. Reason is That jerom in his writings derives Episcopacy as high as from the Apostles, making james Bishop of jerusalem, Titus of Crete, Mark of Alexandria: and Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons to be that which Aaron and the levites were in the old Testament. Then he adds, that if we make him contradict himself, it must be with advantage to Bishops. Ans. We have heard already, that it is past doubt with many godly learned, that the Fathers used the term Bishop, in a various and general sense, and spoke of the Apostles, and of extraordinary officers, after the mode and custom of their own times, wherein these offices and designations were prevalent. It is this Informer, who puts a contradiction upon Jerome, while he makes him assert Episcopacy to be set up by the Apostles, upon occasion of the Corinth Schism, in contradiction to his Scripture proofs of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostles doctrine, and brings him in here as asserting the Apostles, to have been formally Bishops from the beginning. Whereas our answer hath none of these inconveniences; and though it were granted, that it is the true Jerome who asserts this of the Apostlés (which we put this Informer to prove) yet we accommodat this with his other doctrine, by what is said of the aequivocal sense of the word. Aaron and the Levits' authority might, in Ieroms judgement, be as to Church government in general, derived in the n●…w Testament, and also as to a distinction of Church officers therein. But if he should allege, that jerom assimilats here, the one government and the other; he will make him plead for a gospel Aaron and pope. In a word, Ieroms judgement, as to the divine right of Presbyterian parity, being so clear, and by him founded upon the Apostles writings; aught to preponderat any other general, or ambiguous expressions, anent Bishops; and as a rule, to expound the same, in the sense most suitable unto this his judgement: especially since the Father's usage of speech, as to Bishops, is thus general and ambiguous as is said.  
But the Doubter objects to purpose [That Ierom let's the Bishops know that they have their power, more by Custom, then by divine right] To this the Informer repones his recocted cram again viz, [jerom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time were invested with, beyond the first Bishops— And that jerom in that same Epistle expones [Consuetudo, or Custom] by [Apostolical tradition]— That if we understand him of Consuetudo, or custom after the Apostles, this will fastten upon him a contradiction. That he says of the first Bishops, who governed by commoune Council with the Presbyters; that they differed only from them in ordination, but of these in his own time, ad unum omnis cura delata, the will charge was put upon one.] Ans. As for this conceit, of Ieromes distinguishing here only [Bishop's of his own time,] from [these of the Apostles time,] we have confuted it already, and shown its absurdity, and that it is most cross to Ieroms scope and words, who proves a complete parity among Ministers, and ane identity of Bishop, and Presbyter, in Name and thing, all alongst the Apostles times, and writings, even to john, the survivor of all the Apostles, So that it is most absurd to fancy him to speak of Bishops in the Apostles timet. The Informer offers but a gross distortion of his words, for he says of the Bishop who differed only in ordination, from Presbyters: quid facit, what doth the Bishop except ordination &c in the present time, but of these who have all the Care, he says Paulatim ad unum cura delata, the whole care was put upon one, in the preterite time, pointing out these who came in upon that schism, which, with the Informer, was in the Apostles time: The objection tells him, that jerom applies the Bishop's mould whom this man calls [first Bishop's] to [his own time] when he says what doth the Bishop, except ordination &c: And having proved bishops and Presbyters to be all one, he says Sciant, that is, let the present Bishops know, that they have their power more by Custom, then divine appointment. 2. As for Ieroms expounding Consuetudo or Custom, by Apostolic tradition, it receaves the same answer with what is said, as to his calling Apostles, Bishops. For with Jerome, Apostolic tradition, and Ecclesiastic Custom are all one; as that instance clears anent the observation of lent, which he calls Apostolica traditio, or Apostolic tradition, writing to Marcellus, and yet writing against the Luciferians, he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo, o●… a Custom of the Church: therefore by Apostolic tradition, he meaned not Apostolic appointment, for this were ane implicantia in terminus, a flat contradiction, since he denies this to these Bishops, but only Ecclesiastic Custom, upon which he says their office was founded. The Informers 2d. Answer o this exception is (with Davenant) That by [tru●…h of divine appointinent] jerom meaned Christ's express command, by [Custom] the Apostles practise, begun by them, and after continued. For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given, anent jeroms' making [Apostolic tradition], and [Ecclesiastic Custom], all one. Hence he thus senses the words, That Bishops were brought into the Church, not by Christ's express command, but by a Custom, introduced by the Apostles into the Church, and continued in their Successors. Ans. 1. This fine conceit makes jerom reflect oddly upon the Apostles, as if they taught one thing, and practised another; for Jerome proves from their writings, that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one, Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters, what Harmony makes this? 2. He thus makes him reflect upon Christ's express command, in relation to government, as if it were altered; and opon his government Apostolic, in saying that it was the ground of schisms. How will this man guard against this, which he imputed to us before? 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse, observed by learned junius and others, to clear his words. 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time. 2. Schisms arising. 3. Paulatim and postea, in process of time, and by degrees, a new mould of government projected, and immutata ratio, the order changed, as Ambrose saith to the same purpose. Now this gloss of his words, will make the Apostolic government and practice, not only the rise of schisms, but to be Changed, for a change its sure jerom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles; and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue, the answer contradicts itself, as well as Jerome. As for the instance adduced, it cannot quadrat here in this place, when jerom opposes th●… consuetudo or Custom, unto disposition of divine truth, for the Apostles practise, seconded by their Doctrine, (as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy) is most formally a divine appointment, and their giving unto the Churches what they received of Lord in their commission; and therefore cannot with any show of Reason, be opposed unto a divine appointment, as Jerome opposes this Consuetudo, or Custom. In Fine. How will Davenant or he, separate and distinguish that which Jerome citys [Act. 20.] for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter, and to prove Presbyters their common joint government, viz, [That Paul gave the whole Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops, not noticing Timothy in the thing.] How will he (I say) distinguish this from ane Apostolic practice and a practice to be continued? So that here was (in Ieroms sense) a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle, a practice founding that Government and to be continued so.  
But the Informer dismisses this discourse of jerom with some remarkes. The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolic right, as in many other his writings, in relation to prelacy. Ans. we have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned (the clearest account of his judgement in this mater, since he is disputing this point ex professo) do evince the contrary. his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter than the Apostles, yet he makes them needful to prevent Schism. Ans. jerom only Narrats' rem Gestam, or the mater of fact, viz. The ground that moved to bring them in, but gives not his approbation of it. Besides, the Informer would take home his own argument here, and beware of making jerom reflect upon the Apostolic Government, and contradict himself, in approving of a government as a remedy of schism, which he disputs against from Scripture. His 3d. Note is [That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy; and that Mr. Durham says that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union.] Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wi●…h the visible Church in his time (tainted with this Corruption, and which was but then are embryo of that grown Monster now among us,) is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest (and in so far the most considerable) part ●…f Ministers and professo●…s in this Church, heir complying with a Schismatic backsliding par●…y, introducing this Corruption after it hath been universally cast out and vowed against, and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict we jerom in this, for he makes not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme, as we have alteady told him, and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse than the Disease. Before ●…e can mke either Ieroms practice heranent, or Mr. durham's assertion as to Aerius, bear any conclusion against us, he must prove that the prelatic party are the only visible organic Church of Scotland, else Ieroms practice will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him, for breaking down the wall of God's house, and separating from the Presbyterian Government of this national Church. But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue.   

CHAP. XIII.  
The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances. Hence all the Informers plead from Antiquity for our Prelates, is found a beating of the Air and impertinent.  
ALthough this Informer would make the world believe, that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops, yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other, which renders all his pretences from antiquity mere words and wind.  
1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned, that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolic age was nothing but Episcopus prese or Moderator, and had no power of ordination and jurisdiction above Presbyters. This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita, during life; And Endued with a higher honour upon this ground, is Beza's Episcopus humanus, or human Bishop, whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of God's appointment. Ambrose in his time, acknowledges [on 1 Tim. 3.] [That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essential office and ordination.] Dr Reynolds, in his conference with Hart, proves, that at first the Moderator or precedent among Ministers in their meetings, is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop. So he holds that the Bishop at his first rise was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery. Blondel at large mantains the same, only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead. Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alleged by Jerome, proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one▪ adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedency, one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb. And lest our Informer or any else allege, that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schism. This eminent light of the reformed Church adds. but whither that device of man profited the Church or no, the times after could better judge, and that the effects issueing upon it, dicovered, that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schism, but Satan's project to destroy a faithful Ministry. The same saith Sadael viz, that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedy Schism, opened a gap to ambition. So Dr Whittaker having out of Jerome showed [That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolic parity among Ministers,]— adds— That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious than the disease itself, which though at first it did not appear, yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoke upon the neck of the Church. See the appendix to jus▪ divin. Minist. Evangel. In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things. 1. That they admit the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators. 2: That even this much they do condemn as a deviation from the first appointment, and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny. Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator, and our present diocesian erastian prelate, is so plain and obvious, that nothing further needs be said to clear it. Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who took place in the Church, is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Church's approbation of our Prelates.  
To clear it further, its evident (if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient bishops themselves in point of Church Government) that 1, They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters, Episcopi & Presbyteri una & eadem est ordinatio. [That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination,] we heard is Ambrose assertion.  
2. No delegation of external jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients. As it is by our new hierachical pleaders. The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the [Pastor of the whole diocese,] and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him▪ so D●…wn. (defence. lib, 2. c. 4. p. 67.) Field. (of the Church 56. c. 27) Sarav. (de trip. epis. p, 87.) Spala●…. l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose [on 1 Tim. 5▪ And Chrisostom [Hom. 17 on Matthew] calleth Presbyters expressly Christi vicarios, Christ's vicar's. Cyprian. [lib. 4. Epist. 8.] says, Dominum sacerd●…tes in sua ecclesia— etc. That the Lord condescended to elect & constitut to himself Priests in his Church. 3. The Ancients held that the power of external jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters. Ignatius (in his Epistle to the Trallians,) Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei, God's Court, or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum, sed & assessores Episcopi. not Counsellors only (as are our Curates, and scarce that) but the Bishop's assessors. Irenaeus. (lib. 4. cap. 44.) Calls them Principes, Princes or Chieff. Augustin. (Serm: 86.) Calls the Brethren ineremo, Patronos rectores terrae, Patroness and Rectors of the Earth. Chrisostom expressly shows (on 1. Tim. 1, Hom: 11.) Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi, &c: That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops, and received together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church.  
The homily begins thus, postquam de Episcopis dixit, eosque formavit, quidnam illos habere conveniat, a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans, ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit. Cur id quaeso? quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil. quip & Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est: & quae de Episcopis dixit, ●…ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt: that is, after he hath spoken of bishops and form them, enjoining what things it becomes them to have, and from what it is necessary they should abstain, omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters, he passes over to deacones. Why so, I pray? even because that betwixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference. Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed: and what he said before concerning bishops, the same things also do agree to Presbyters. I know he adds — sola quip ordinatione superiores illi sunt, atque hoc tantum, plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur. That the bishops only in ordination are superior to Presbyters, according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam, and Bilson, and by Bellarmin before them. But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greek will bear a far other sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere. that is, that only by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended, (viz to this power) and in this only they seem to do injury to Presbyters. The learned junius (de cleric. cap. 7. not. 611.) tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (hic) Presbyterorum non Episcoporum; quod si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ordinatio, ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio. The hand suffrage, is here the Presbyters. but if it be meaned of ordination, than ordination belongs to them. And having proved this construction & sense of the greek from Suidas, he shows that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter, but in this that the bishops ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters— although, because they step up by their suffrage, they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves, who upon the ground of order, not of power, (saith he) are set over them by there own suffrag. He also tells Bellarm. (de cleric. ca 15. not. 29.) That granting his sense of Chrysost. Words, yet the Bishop ordained only signo & sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained, but not ordinatione veritatis, or by the true ordination which that sign represented. Some add, that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sense of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators, he did not rightly expound his text, while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one & the●… same▪ Jerome tells us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops; from whom Gratian (in decretis cause. 16. Quest. 1 cap.) shows that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum &c: That the Church hath a senate of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can do nothing.  
2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were set up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopal power from their free choice and election. And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters, they ascribe it to Custom, and to the Presbyters own choic, consuetudini., non dominicae dispositionis veritati, to Custom not the truth of divine appointment, as Jerome speaks. Irenaeus, (who lived ann. 180; lib 4. cap. 43) tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis acceperunt.— Who have succession from the Apostles, and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity. Ambrose (in cap 4. Ephes.) affirms that — non per omnia conveniunt etc.— [the government in his time agreed not in all points with scripture] he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters. And Augustine ascribes all his difference from jerom (who was a Presbyter) unto Ecclesiae usus, the Church's Custom, and grants that in this only Episcopatus Presbyterio major est, the Episcopacy is greater than the Presbyterat. (Tom. 2. operum. Epist. 19 ad Hieron) And Jerome holds (in his Epistle to Evagrius) Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse etc. That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria, and, postmortem Marcae Evangelistae— after the death of mark the Evangelist. And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Marks personal practice and appointment while a live. he tells us also that it was [paulatim] & by ●…ent degrees, that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata, The episcopal care was put upon on. Sozom. (lib. 1. cap. 15.) calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custom wh●…ch prevailed with other citys▪ 'tis remarkable, that by Ephiphanius confession (Haeres 87.) non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes. Alexandria had not two bishops as other cities. But the Informer will not dare to say, that our Prelates now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient bishops  
3. It is also clear, that in these first times when the Episcopus▪ praeses was set up, and for some ages afterward, not only the Presbyters but the people also had a great interest in their choice. Cyprian (epist. 68—) speaking of the choice of Bishops says That pleb●… maxim habet potestatem, the people have mainly a power— and that [plebe present,] that is in the people's presence, they were set up: Which he says was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate▪ that is, from the divine Authority. And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spain as to Election. Athanas: (epist. ad Orthodox.) condemned the coming in of a Bishop without the people's consent as a breach not only of ane [Ecclesiastic constitution,] but ane [Apostolic precept.] See Smect: (page 26.) proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people. Cyprian. (lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi africanae) videmus, de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer▪ does plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur etc. [That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present, and approved as fit and worthy by a public Testimony.] This (he says) we see descends from divine Authority, & (ibid.) diligenter de traditione divina & Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere & per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur present etc. [That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolic tradition, as almost through all provinces it was observed, that that the Bishop was chosen in the people's presence over whom he] was ordained etc.] He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome (lib. 4 epist. 2.) Grat. (dist. 62. Can) nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clero sunt electi, nec a plebibus sunt expetiti. No reason permitts that they should be holden Bishops, who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desired by the people.] So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Milan, Flavianus by those of Antioch, Chrisostom, by the Constantin●…politans. This Custom was so rooted, that when Emperors afterward obtruded Bishops without the previus election of the clergy and people, the most famous Bishops much stomached it. Ubi ille Canon, (saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes) ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus. Where is that canon, That he who is to be Bishop, should be sent from the court? Let our court prelates mark this: And our curates answer this quere. Now I hope our Informer will not allege that the people have any the least Interest in the choice of our Prelates, so that they are but novel & none of the ancient Bishops in this point.  
4. Non of the first Bishops could ordain alone. This is beyond debate as to the first [Episcopus prese.] But even in after times also when Bishops power was farther advanced they could not thus ordain.  
That their power of ordination was not singular appears from the 4th Council of Carthage (Can. 22) which decrees that the bishops ordain not without the Clergy; and [Can. 3.] they are not to impose hands without them.  
The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bartisandi, of baptising, manum imponendi, or of laying on hands, & ordinandi, that is, of ordaining. (epist. 78.) and in Egypt, in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone. see Smect. (p. 27.) upon this ground Ambrose said, that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference. Now have not our prelates power to ordain alone? and have they not the facto frequently done so? so that upon this account also they are new minted Gentlemen.  
5. The power and Government of the ancient Bishops in Church judicatories was [not sole and singular,] as that of our prelates, [nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage] as they do, who are Princes in all the present Church meetings which must only give them advice, and not that, unless this high priest judge them of known loyalty and prudence, and may do with their advice what he pleases. Whereas Cyprian (Epist. 6. and 28) professes that he neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy. And the 4●…. council of carthage condemns the Bishop's decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergy (Can. 23.) where was the negative voice here? see Ruffin. hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9 Smectim. proves from Canons of ancient Councils & the Fathers, That neither 1. In censuring presbyters. Nor 2. In judging of the conversation or crimes of Church members. Nor 3. In excommunication, nor receiving of penitents, Bishops could do any thing without presbyters. And that there was no delegation of their power. Downam himself confesses in reference to Ambrose time, and long after it. So that for 400 Years our prelates present Prince like power was not known in the Church. The ancient Bishops made themselves sole in no point of ecclesiastic discipline as our prelates, who have excommunicate alone. Tertull. (Apoleget.) shows that the exhortations, castigations, and censuradivina, the divine censure among which he takes in excommunication, were performed by the probati quique seniores, all the approved elders. Before him Iraenus [haeres: lib: 4 cap. 44.] Will have these Presbyters obeyed. Qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, have succession from the Apostles— And that ad correctionem aliorum, for censure of others as well as for sound doctrine. Basilius magnus Archiepisc. Caesariens. affirms, that jus ligendi & solvendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex aequo, omnibus pastoribus & doctoribus &c. That the power of binding and lousing is equally and together given by Christ to all Pastors and Doctors. Which even Lombard denieth not [sentent. lib 4. dist. 19] It is also demonstrated that elaborat piece that the oath ex officio is a Monster to Antiquity.  
6. Our Prelates Civil & State offices are also a Monster to pure antiquity, as they are Cro●…se to our Church's Authority; who in her general assembly hath condemned this. (Assemb: 38. sess: 25.) The forsaid author proves this also at large, to whom we refer the Reader, So that our Informer must acknowledge that our Prelates in this point also are different from the Ancients.  
Whosoever shall peruse the Canon's called Apostolic, and of ancient counsels, will find bishops meddling in state-affairs, and especially their holding of state offices, so harmoniusly condemned, that its a wonder that any who pretends to the knowledge of antiquity, and to plead for prelacy upon this ground, should have the considenc to justify it.  
The 6. canon of those called Apostolic passes the sentence of deposition upon bishops who assume secular employments. [Episcopus vel Presbyter, vel diaconus seculares curas ne suscipiat, alioqui deponatur.] Balsamon upon this canon, refers us to 13. cap. 8. Tit. Where there is exhibit a full collection of canons to this purpose. The 81 canon. diximus non oportere Episcopum vel Presbyterum seipsum ad publicas administrationes demittere, sed in Ecclesiasticis negotiis versari. Vel ergo ita facere persuadeatur, vel depon●…tur. That is, we have appointed that a Bishop or Presbyter must not stoop to, or debase himself with public (that is, civil) administrationes or offices, let him therefore be either persuaded so to do, or let him be deposed. ●…alsamon upon this canon, observing that it lenifies the first, refers to XVI Canon Carth. Syn.  
Again Canon 83. runes thus, Episcopus vel Presbyter, vel diaconus, exercitui vacans; & utraque obtinere volens, remanum scilicet magistratum, & Sacerdotalem administrationem, deponatur, quae sunt enim caesaris, Caesari, & quae sunt Dei, Deo. That is a ●…ishop or Presbyter or deacon who bears office in an arm●…, and will needs hold both offices, to wit the Roman magistracy, and the sacerdotal administration or ministry, let him be deposed; for ●…uch things as belong to Caesar must be rendered to Caesar, and the things that are Gods unto God. Balsamon upon this canon refers us to VII. Can. chalced. sin. — tales (saith he) anathemate ferientem si non penitentiam agant— Which strickes them with [anathema] (the last extremest curse or ex communication.) who assume military employments and repent not. And having moved ane objection, whether the formentioned clause [cesset vel deponatur, let him leave off this office, or let him be deposed.] is here also to be understood, he tells us in the close of his answer, that omnia publica eandem rationem habent, that all public civil offices falls under the same consideration as thus discharged. And begins his gloss upon this canon thu●…, diversi canones Apostolici prohibuerunt sacris initiatos publica negotia administrare. That is, divers Apostolic canon's have forbidden such as are entered into sacred functiones to handle or administer public (or civil) affairs. In the beginning of his gloss upon the 6 canon, he represents thus the crime of church officers holding of civil places which is censured therein▪ De hominibus consecratis qui seculares servitutes exercent &c: concerning men consecreate to god who exercise worldly slaveries.— such a Character do the Canons put upon our Prelate's state offices. That VII. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon puts the formentioned censur upon such as — [secularia negotia exercent divinum ministerium negligentes]— who manage worldly places and offices neglecting the divin ministry.  
The XVI. Canon of the second Council of Nice forbidding Bishops or presbyters to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, actores or procurators, doth it upon this ground. — debent enim ad id quod scripium est respicere nemo Deo militans seipsum implicat secularibus negotiis. For they ought to take heed to that which is written no man warring for god, or who is his soldier should involve himself in secular affairs, see Balsamon, comment. in Canon. Apost. council. & patrum, & in Photii nomo can pag. (mihi) 39: 108, 127, 178, 167, 319. Whenc we may collect. 1. how constant and sever the ancients were in their censor of this guilt 2. That they held this to be a debasing of the holy ministry, to which the pastor or Bishop most give himself 3. That upon the ground of that gospel precept (2. tim. 2: 4.) No man that warreth, entangleth himself With the affairs of this life, and that other ground of giving Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is Gods, they do condemn, not military employments only, in a Pastor or Bishop or taking farms (as our Informer would make us believe) but also also all secular and civil offices without exception. 4. That they held the sacred function of the ministry to be utterly inconsistent with public civil employments. And the civil office of a state-ruler incompatible with the ministerial office, in one and the same person; since they are opposed & contradistinguished as thus inconsistent, in the forementioned Canon's and the grounds thereof. So that there is not a shadow of defence for prelate's state offices. While these Canon's do sit in judgement, especially the scripture grounds hinted therein, and many others which have been adduced.  
7. What ever general expressions of the ancients he may plead, yet is it not certain, that in the first pure ages even after the [Episcopus humanus,] and the fixed precedents were set up, the archbishops, primats, metropolitanes, were Monsters and unknown, yea even the diocesian mould and cast of Churches, let any peruse Mr Bains, his diocesians' trial trial against Downam, and this will be convincingly clear.  
8. Where will the Informer show us our erastian prelacy in all his antiquity? A prel●…y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutely from the civil Magistrate, having no intrinsic spiritual authority, and in all its administeration, acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magistrate as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediately and solely as other inferior civil Governors. Dane he say that these Bishops in the first ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastic spiritual power, distinct from and independent upon the Magistrate? Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them, given up to be, pro libitu, disposed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian? Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastic independent authority, as being totally distinct from, and not a part of the civil Government? Was ever there Erastian Government heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidelberg brotched it? And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospel's Church Government? So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiasticocivil, or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned colours, never before seen, to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bishops of former ages.  
9 Let me add, how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages, any of the ancient Bishops did deny & wholly exclude [ruling elders] from Church judieatories. We have proved this officer to be juris divini from Scripture. And the full consent of Antiquity, & also of reformed divines is abundantly clear, & exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer. Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers (on 1 Tim. 5.) As a devation from the Scripture-patern, & proceeding from the pride & negligence of Doctors. Origin. his Testimony (lib: 3. contr: Celsum) is remarkable, who shows that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechumenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Non nulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam & mores eorem qui admittuntur, inquirunt, ut qui turpia committunt, eos communi caetu interdicant, qui vero ab istis abborrent. ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant. There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted, that such as commit these things that are vile, they may discharge them from the public assembly, and embracing from their heart such as are far from these things, they may render them every day better. Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church, though not Ministers, and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scandalous, and what are these but ruling elders? So Augustin (Epist. 137.) writing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus, clero, Senioribus, & universae plebi Eccle●…ae hippo ensis, To the beloved brethren, the Clergy, the elders, and the whole people of the Church of Hippo. So (Contr. Crese. Gramattic.) omnes vos. Episcopi, Presbyteri, diaconi, & Siniores Scitis. All you ' Bishops Presbyters, deacons' and elders, do know. Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one comma, who can be nothing else but ruling elders. For the same purpose, the learned in handling this theme, do cite Barronius (Ann: 103.) Where he enumerats Episcopi, Presbyteri, diaconi, Seniores. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Elders. So also Tertullian (Apolleget. adversus gentes c. 39) Cyprian (Epist. 39) (Optatus (lib. 1. p. 41.) and many others. See assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland. Christoph. justell. observ. & not. in Cod. Can. Eccles. afrique. p. 110, 111. jus divinum Regim. Eccles. Smectim. &c:  
10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole provinces, but city by city for most part, yea several Cities had more, which says they were not at all Bishops properly. Clemens (in Constit. l. 7. c. 46.) shows that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopacy over the Church of Antioch, and what was this but a mere Collegiate Ministry. Council. African (Cap. 21.) appoints that to examine the cause of a Presbyter, sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur, 6 Bishops from neighbouring places be adjoined. Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History. Nazianzon, a little town near Caesarea, yet was all the Episcopal See of Gregory Nazianzen. In Chrysostoms' time, the diocese contained but one city. Homil. 3. (in acta) nun terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator etc. [doth not the Emperor (saith he) Govern the World, but this man is a Bishop only of one city.] Sozom. (Hist. Bcclesiast. lib. 7. cap. 19) Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus, Bishops in little Dorps.  
11. The Ancient Bishops placed [preaching] among the chief parts of their office, and were not idle drones as ours are? Theophilact. on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse, that the office of preaching, which is the chieff of all others, its necessary that the Bishop be endued with it.  
As ours Court-prelats, so our non-preaching Prelates, are strangers unto, and condemned by the ancient Canons. Photii Nomocan. tit. 8. cap 12. [de Episcopis, qui non convertunt haereticos, & de Episcopis & clericis qui non docent populum.] he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks, and teach not the people. some of these Canon's are as follows.  
The 58. canon of those called [Apostolic], runes thus, Episcopus vel Presbyter, qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit, & eos piet atem non docet segregetur: & si in socordia perseveret, deponatur. The Bishop or Presbyter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety, let him be set aside: and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed. Balsamon upon this Canon, tells us that, Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit, & omnis Episcopus debet docere populum pia dogmata &c: The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching, and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end established to attend the people &c: thereafter he shows that the presbyters ought to be so employed, quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris, [because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats] they were not then the prelates underlinges as our curates are now; hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duty, were to be set aside, and if continuing, to be deposed.  
The 36. of these Canons puts this censor upon the Bishop who neglects this duty, Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium & curam sibi commissam sit segregatus &c: That the ordained Bishop shall be set aside sured who goes not about his ministry and the duty entrusted to him etc. Balsamon expoundes this part of the Canon, and sums it up thus. Decernit itaque praesens Canon, ut si quis Episcopus, vel Presbyter ad docendum pertinentem manuum impositionem acceperit, & suum munus non implea, segregetur. The present Canon discerns that if any Bishop or Presbyter hath received imposition of hands relating to teaching, and fulfilles not his office, that he be set aside etc. Where its evident that he makes the Bishop's ordination, or imposition of hands, relative unto the great duty and office of preaching the gospel, aswel as that of the Presbyter, and accordingly expounds the Canon.  
The XXXIX. canon entrusts the Bishop with the Charge of the people's souls, in correspondence with the preceding. In the forecited cap: XII. Photii, we are referred to the Syn. Carthag. can. CXXIII. Syn. VI can. XIX. LXIIII See also Syn. Sexta in trullo can. XIX. quod opportet eos qui prasunt Ecclesiis, in omnibus quidem diebus, sed praecipue dominicis— docere pietatis & rectae rationis eloquia, ex divina scriptura colligentes intelligentias &c That all such as are set over Churches, on all days, but especially on the Lords days most teach the oracles of piety and pure religion, drawing instructions from the divine scriptures &c: Balsamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus, Episcopi Ecclesiarum doctores constituuntur, & propterea dicit canon cis omnino necesse esse, eum cui praesunt populam semper docere, & multo magis in diebus dominicis &c: That is, The Bishops are constitut teachers of the Churches, and therefore the canon says unto them, that its absolutely necessary always to teach that people over whom they are set, and much more on the lord's days wherein all are almost present in Churches and artificers ceases from their work etc. So that our non-preaching, or seldom preaching prelate's, who by a new consecration (forsooth,) superadded unto their Presbyterial ordination to preach the gospel, get a bill of ease from this great duty, to act state games, except when their Lordships please to step into the pulpit, to supererogat, stands arraighned, stigmatised, and deposed by the ancient Canon's, as unworthy of any office in the house of god. Vide can. Apost. conc general & partic. Sanct. Patr. Photii nomocan. cum Balsam. comment. pag. (mihi) 39: 116, 117, 121, 207.  
Unto this account and censure of antiquity, and of the ancient canons, passed upon our non-preaching prelate's, I will here subjoin a remarkable passage of a learled divine whose praise is in all the Churches. Whittaker (de Eccles. contr. 2. cap. 3.) being about to prove that the Church of room is no true Church of Christ. Presents this for his first argument. Pontifex Romanus non est verus Episcopus: Ergo Ecclesia Romana non est vera Ecclesia. Nam Ecclesia non potestesse sine episcopo. The Pope of Rome is no true Bishop: therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church: because the Church cannot be without a Bishop. But least this last assertion cheer up our Informer and his fellows, he adds, disputo ex eorum placitis. That he disputs upon his popish adversaries principles; and thus classeth them among the popish party in this point. But how proves he the pope to be no true Bishop — propter praecipuum munus episcopi (saith he) quoth in illo desideratur, because of the Chief office of a Bishop which is wanting in him. And what is that, olim episcopi Romani diligenter docebant ecclesiam; & nulli facti sunt episcopi nisi qui in hoc munere fideles erant. Olim hoc ad se pertinere, & praecipuum suum munus esse putabant, ut populum sibi commissum docerent atque instituerent; adeo ut monstri simile esset, per Annos post Christum plusquam sexcentoes, episcopum aliquem in ecclesia esse, qui aut nollet, aut non posset populum docere. that is, of old the Bishops of Rome diligently taught the Church, and none were made bishops who were not faithful in this office; of old they looked upon this as the Chief duty incumbent upon them to teach and instruct the people committed to them; so that fore more than six hundred Years after Christ, it would have been looked upon as a monster, if any such Bishop were in the Church who either was not willing or able to teach the people. He adds, That all the Apostolic bishops were such. And that the Apostle requires it in a Bishop that he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apt to teach 1 Tim. 3: 2. hoc est (saith he) non ejusmodi, qui curet ●…antum, & det operam, ut alii doceant, & hanc authoritatem docendi aliis tribuat: sed qui ipse sufficiat alios docere. Not such a one who is diligent only to provide, others to teach, and gives this authority to others, But who is himself sufficient to teach others. This he proves because the Apostle is in that place showing, how the Bishop most be endued and gifted before he be chosen, and that therefore by [being apt to teach] we most understand a personal care and ability and not a deputed care, quis enim hoc praestare non posset? (saith he) who is he who may not perform this. This he further clears from 2. tim. 2. 2. where the Apostle enjoins Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithful men, qui essent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, themselves able to teach others. Reprehending Turrian (and with him our Episcopal men) in interpreting that first passage of a deputed care as to teaching. And shows that the old interpreter translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doctor, or teacher. And a doctor (saith he) is such a one as can teach himself. Thereafter he citys Oecumenius, and Chrysostom thus expounding the premised scripture, and even soom of the popish scoolmen, as Aquinas upon this text, who calls this the proper work and duty of a Prelate. And shows us that Aquinas pertinently applies to this purpose that passage, Jer. 3. 15. I will give Pastors according to my own heart who shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And that Cajetan, and Catharinus do thus expound this text. In all which we see with how full a consent of ancient and modern Churches and divines our non-preaching or seldom preaching Prelates are condemned, and how fully our scripture-argument against them upon this head, is fortified and confirmed.  
12. As in other points of difference, so the ancient bishops were as far from our Prelates fastuus pomp, and sumptuus grandeur which they assume. Ammianus Marcellinus (lib. 27. de habitu vitae beatorum episcoporum,) tells us of their tenuitas edendi, potandique parcissime, indumentorum vilitas etc. Their spare eating and drinking, their meanness of apparel, their lovely countenance, as that which commends them to God and his true worshippers. Paulus Samosatenus, his fastuus pomp and attendants, although a great Bishop, is highly condemned, as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred. Euseb. (lib. 7. cap. 29.) The Canon of the 4 Council of carthage (insert by Gratian in the body of the decree distinct. 41.) provides that, Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum, vil emsupellectilem, etc. That the Bishop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have mean household stuff etc. Et dignitatis suae Authoritatem fide & meritis quaerat, and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works. Sozom. (lib, 6. cap. 16.) Relats of Basilius Magnus, Bishop of Caesaria, that he answered the Imperours' praefect who threatened the Confiscation of his goods, thus, Horum nihil me Cruciari potest, equidem opes non habeo, preterquam laceram vestem, & Paucos libros. None of these things can torment me, truly I have no goods but a torn garment and some books. See the historia motuum [page 143. to 174.]  
Now from all that is said, I think common ingenuity will acknowledge; (and this Informer himself, if he be not ane utter stranger to it,) that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church, as east from west, and by consequence that this pleading from the ancient prostasie, or even the after Bishops to legittimat and patronise our present prelacy, is a most gross nonsequitur and notorious fallacy.   

CHAP. XIV.  
The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvine, Beza, Blondel, etc. For Episcopacy, Examined. Their anti-episcopal judgement, cleared from their writings. The Informer crosses Bishop Spotswood, and Tilen. His two absurdities which by way of Dilemma he offers to us, from our assertion of the unalterablees of Presbyterian Government, & our concession of a Proestos early brought in, Scanned, & retorted upon himself. The Authores of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici, vindicated at some length.  
WHereas the Informer is bold to affirm that Calvin●… Beza, Blondel, and other eminent divines who have written against Episcopacy, are reconcilable to it, yea to a hierarchy of the highest stamp. We answer 1. The full and harmanious consent of Ancient and modern divines and reformed Churches, for that which we plead for in point of Church-Government, shall be exhibit in the last Chapter. 2. As for Calvin's judgement in relation to Presbyterian Government, It is so fully known to the world in his writings, that we think there needs no more to put a brand of impudence upon any, then to deny it. And we do appeal to his judicious comments upon all the controverted places of the new Testament betwixt them and us; wherein all that we plead for, either as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, in name and thing, the Presbyteryes power in ordination and jurisdiction, the extraordinary Evangelistick Power of Timothy and Titus, the divine right of the ruling elder, the people's right in the call of Ministers, the unlawfulness of Prelates sole power and dominion over their brethren, the unwarrantablenes of Minister's state offices, &c, is clearly asserted. Let any consult him upon Matth. 18. 17. Matth 21: 22. Luk. 22: 25. Act. 6: 2, 3, 4. Act. 14: 23. Act. 20: 17, 28, 29, 30. 1. Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with Rom. 12: 6: 7. 2 Cor. 2: 6, 7. Eph 4: 11, 12. 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13. 2 Thess. 3: 14. Heb. 13: 7, 17. 1 Tim. 1: 3. etc. and 4: 14. 2 Tim 2 4: 2 Tim. 1: 6. Tit. 1: 6, 7. etc. and such like places, where he will be found to give sentence for us against the Prelatik party, and expounding them just as we do. 3. These adversaries do grant that the Government in this Church, which famous Mr. Knox owned, and all his days contended for, was Presbyterial Government. And it is as well known and acknowledged by themselves, that he had the sense and judgement both of Calvin and Beza in that great bussiness. Spotswood in his history tells us that [John Knox framed our rules of discipline in imitation of what he had Seen at Geneva.] Tilen▪ in his petulant piece entitled Paraensis ad Scotos Genevensis discipline Zelotas, makes this undeniable. He calls Calvin and Beza all along our Masters, and alleges that we can hear of nothing but out of their scool etc. But that they owned Presbyterian Government, as the only Government appointed in the house of God, he never took the confidence or had the forehead to deny. When John Knox was desired by some to write to Calvin, and others about a certain difficulty, he answered that he came not here without all their judgements in what he had done, and that they might think him unconstant in writing for a resolution in that matter. Now John Knox looked upon Episcopocy as a limb of Antichrists Hierarchy, and as having aliquid commumune cum Anti Christo. Something in it common with Antichrist. So that what the Informer mentions of Measson, and Bish: Andrews their asserting of Calvin and Beza's Episcopal Government at Geneva, and their preeminency in ordination and jurisdiction, is a gross calumny. The eminent parts of these famous divines might make their judgement have great influence in determining others, but that either Calvin or Beza, did ever encroach upon the decisive power of their fellow Presbyters, or acted any thing pro imperio or solely, is a calumny which any who ever read their lives can sufficiently disprove. Their labours and practise as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Government against enemies of all sorts. In the life of Galleaceus Caracciolus, It is reported, That Calvin being consulted by him in a case of conscience requireing secrecy (in a great measure) would give him no determinat answer (though a ruleing elder in that Church) without consulting his Brethren. As for that which the Informer citys out of Calvines Inflit. [l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 2.] where [He acknowledges that Jerom teaches that the proestos is ane ancient institution, and that he repeats what Jerome says, a Marco etc.] It's a pitiful proof to conclude thereupon that Calvin acknowledges diocesian Prelates as Ancient as Mark. For Calvine knew well that Jerome speaks but of the proestos first set up, and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or Jerom gave their approbation to the setting of him up. And for what he adds [That Calvin says ne ex equalitate ut fieri solet dissidi●… orirenter. That they were set up least from equality discord should arise as usually there doth.] granting that he acknowledges they were more than mere Moderators, that is fixed Moderators. What then? Are our Prelates no more? Or will his acknowledgement of the factum, prove his acknowledment of the jus? and though man's corruption abuse parity to discord, what then? our corruption will abuse the best ordinance of God. As for what he citys from Instit. (l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 11. Our Informer hath not proved. That Calvin by [Episcopi] and [paraeciarum rectorcs] doth understand divers Church officers of God's appointment, as he distinguishes the Bishop and Presbyter. That Calvin did not acknowledge the Episcopus distinct from the paraeciae rector his comment on Tit. 1: 7. makes it evident — [For a Bishop etc.] locus hic abunde docet nullum esse episcopi & Presbyteri discrimen, quia nunc secund●… nomine promiscue appellat quos prius vocavit Presbyteros. Imo idem prosequens argumentum utrumque nomen indifferenter eodem, sensu usurpat, quemadmodum & Hieronimus tum hoc loco, tum in Epistola ad Evagrium annotavit. Atque hinc perspicere licet quanto plus delatum hominum placitis fuerit, quam decebat, qui abrogato Spiritus Sancti Sermone, usus hominum arbitrio inductus, praevaluit. That is, This place abundantly shows that there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter because now again he promiscuusly calls them by the seccond mane, whom before he called Presbyters, nay prosecuting the same argument he makes use of both the names indifferently in the same sense, as also jerom both in this place and in his Epistle to Evagrius, hath observed. And hence we may perceive how much hath been ascribed to men's pleasure, & inventiones more than did become, because ane use brought in at men's pleasure hath prevaled while the language of the holy ghost is laid aside— and after he hath spoken of the first Moderators early brought in, he adds — verum nomen officij (N. B.) quod Deus in communi nibus dederat, in unum solum transferri, reliquis spoiliatis & injurium est & absurdum, deinde sic preve●…tere Spiritus sancti linguam, ut nobis eaedem voces, aliud quam volue●… 〈◊〉 significent, nimis profanae audaciae est. That is, But that the name of the office which God gave in common to all should be transferred to one only, robbing the rest thereof, is injurious and absurd. More over to pervert thus the language of the holy ghost, that the same words should signify another thing than he pleased is too profane boldness. Thus Calvin puts this censure upon our Informer, in making the name [Bishop] signify any more than [a Presbyter.] And upon Act. 20. 28. De voce Episcopi hic notandum, omnes Ephesinos Presbyteros sic vocari indifferenter, unde colligimus Secundum Scripturae usum nihil a Presbyteris differre Episcopos. That is, Concerning the name of Bishop, we must observe this, that all the Presbyters in Ephesus are so called indifferently, hence we conclude that according to the scripture language, Bishops do nothing differ from Presbyters. Now let any judge if Calvine make not the Name and thing of the scripture Bishop proper to every Minister of a parish, and if he judged a Diocesian Bishop, thus differenced from the parish Minister, to be a warrantable office which he holds to be so cross to Scripture. So that in the passage which this man hath above cited, he would have all Bishops contending for and reteaning the true scripture function, for none else he can call eximium munus, or ane excellent gift. So that those of these places will help our Informer. The Context and tenor of that 4 chapter obliedgeth as to think that this is really the meaning, that whatever titles these Ancients used, yet they designed not thereby to wrong that Presbyterial Government grounded upon Scripture, which, Calvin, is there defending.  
And moreover, even straniing that place [Chap. 5. par. 11.] to the out most advantage, it will Infer nothing but this, that Bishops, and Parishpriests in those days, had the essence of the Pastoral office; which is not denied, or that their Pastoral acts, when rightly performed were valid. The Pastoral office Calvin calls pium & eximium munus as the ensuing words do convince.  
As for his citation from Sect: 13. it were very absurd to think that Calvine by [the heirarchy which the Fathers commend as handed down from the Apostles] should understand the prelatic hierarchy which this man pleads for. Since 1. Many Fathers, as Jerome, never saw such a hierarchy set up, but by [Bishops] understand either the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at first set up, or the Bishops of whom we now heard, who governed with Presbyters jointly, and had no sole power in ordination and jurisdiction. 2. Calvin speaks of the Father's commending a Hierarchy, not like the papal, but he tells not what his judgement of that hierarchy is. 3. How could Calvin commend a hierarchy (such as the Informer pleads for) or so much as acknowledge it as handed down from the Apostles, who shows from their Doctrine that they owned no Bishop higher than a Presbyter, as is clear from what is said. To which we may add calvin's words on Philip: 1. Episcopi nomen omnibus ministris est common. Sunt igitur synon●…ma Episcopus & Pastor. Postea invaluit usus ut quem suo collegio praeficiebant in Singulis Ecclesijs, Presbyteri, Episcopus vocaretur Solus. Id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est, scripturae authoritate minime nititur.  
That is, the name of Bishop is common to all Ministers, Bishop and Presbyter then are one and the same.— Afterward the Custom prevailed to call the Minister whom the Presbyters set over their meeting, in every church the Bishops only, but this had its rise from men's Custom, but is not at all grounded on the Authority of Scripture.— And after he hath spoken of the advantage of one to preside for order's sake, he adds this limitation — de Singulis corporibus loquor, non de totis provincijs &c: I speak of single incorperations, not of whole provinces, adding, prestaret spiritum Sanctum linguarum autorem in loquendo sequi, quam formas loquendi ab ipso positas in deterius mutare, nam ex corrupta verbi Significatione hoc malifecutu●… est, quod per inde ac si non essent omnes Presbyteri collegae (N. B.) adeandem vocati functionem, unus, sibi pretextu no●…ae appellationis, dominium ●…n alios arripuit. That is, it were better in our speech to follow the holy ghost the author of languages, then to change into the worse the forms of speaking set down by him. For from this abused signification of the word, this evil hath followed, that as if [all Presbyters] were not Colleagues called to [the same function,] one hath usurped to himself a dominion over the rest under pretext of this new appellation.  
As for what he objects [p. 78.] from Calvin upon Tit. 1. 5. [That unus authoritate praeest &c:] I Ansr. After he hath said that every city had several Presbyters— and asserted that there are Two sorts of elders, and that these elders were the Bishops appointed to teach— He moves ane objection— Had Titus this Princely power and alone, and answers — Non permitti arbitrio titi ut unus possit omnia, & quos voluerit Episcopos Ecclesiis imponat, sed tantum jubet ut electionibus praefit tonquam Moderator. That is, It is not permitted to Titus' pleasure to do all things alone, and impose upon the Churches what Bishops he pleased: but he only bides him oversee the Elections as Moderator. Paralleling this with Act. 14. 23. where he saith that Paul and Barnabas acted not soli, & pro imperio, that is, solely and imperiously to put pastors upon the people who were not expetiti or electi, desired and chosen, but only probatos & cognitos, men approved and known. Now let this man say himself, doth not Calvin here clearly assert our principles, and kill the diocesian Prelate with the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction?  
So that nothing can be hence Inferred, but that Church consistories were not then without order, and that one did praeside among them; for Calvine sayeth on the 7. verse, porro locus hic abunde docet nullum esse Presbyteri & Episcopi discrimen. And he who presided here was Titus, whose Episcopacy we have abundantly disproved.  
As for that which he tells us Calvin adds, [that one was in authority over the rest at that time,] ergo, what? Had not Paul, Barnabas, & Titus ane extraordinary authority & commission? for he says, tunc, or at that time wherein these offices did exist; but will any think that Calvin could mean, a Diocesian Prelates ordinary power which; immediately before he was disputing against from the text? He adds presently nihil tamen hoc ad prophanum & tirannicum collationum morem. This hath nothing to do with the profane and tyrranicall Custom of Collations, long enim diversa fuit Apostolorum ratio, for the Apostles case and ground was far different from this. As for that which he adds [of calvin's letters to a Bishop in the Church of Rome, anent Episcopacy itself, as being of God] I can appeal this man's conscience, if Calvin thought the Episcopal hierarchy with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, far less the popish hierarchy, to be of God, and whither he doth not in his Commentaries Particularly in the places cited, speak against the diocisian Prelate as such. Besides, we shall here tell the Informer that this passage which he citys as in the volume of his [opuscul a page 72] upon a search of two several editions, hath not been found. As for his letter to the King of Pole, approveing all the degrees of the hierarchy] it is so grossly contrary to calvin's principles and writings, that the Informer must excuse us, not to take it upon trust from him, Especially since he exhibits no part of that letter. For his letter to the Duke of Summer set (citted by Durel, and the more to be suspected as coming from the hands of such ane enemy to his principles.) [anent some fantastic ones fludiing to bring in confusion under the name of the gospel] we think it a fantastic inferenc of our Informer, to conclude thereupon, that he calls the asserters of Presbyterian government such.  
Although in that Epistle there is no express advice to remove Episcopacy, what then? there is no express advice for removing several other Corruptions. But the Consequence that therefore Calvine did not disowne these Corruptions, the Informer himself will grant to be a gross non sequitur. And some Considerationes of prudence might move to wave the express touching upon this head at that season, when light was but dawning as to a Doctrinal reformation, and the scales of the gross cimmerian darkness of popery, were but beginning to fall off from the eyes of that people. Yet when the Informer shall peruse that Epistle again, he will find that Calvine Leaves it not altogether untouched, when heuseth these words, habeat sane hoc locum In rebus istius vitae— atqui alia prorsus est ratio regiminis Ecclesiae quod spirituale est, in quo nihil non ad Dei verbum exigi fas est, non est inquam penes ullum mortalem quicquam hic aliis dare, aut in illorum gratiam deflectere,— that is, let this truly have place in affaeires of this life— but the Church Government, which is spiritual, is of a far other nature, wherein there is nothing but what most be brought unto the touchstone of the word of God, here I say it is not in the power of any mortal to gratify any thing unto others, or to decline for their favour. A passage which compared to Calvi●…s principles in point of Church Government, doth fully Antidote the Informers waspish extraction from this Epistle.  
For his treatise to the Emperor Charles the 5i. anent embracing of a hierarchy tied by a brotherly society among Bishops and by the bond of truth, and united only to Christ] I see nothing discrepant in it to calvin's, or Presbyterian principles, If [Hierarchy] be rightly taken, and for this (if their be indeed such a passage whereof I have no certainty) I think we can in no reason suppose Calvine to own the popish Government, even as abstracted from false doctrine, since he holds the very Diocesian Bishop, to be contrary to the Apostolic Government, far more the Hierarchy; will any man say, that Calvin did own all the Locu●…s of the profane popish orders which are parts of this Hierarchy? so that Calvin by hierarchy, and spirituale regimen, doth indigitat the most simple and primitive Episcopacy which the fathers speak of; and withal since the embracing of the gospel simplicity and truth which Calvin there desires (as he says,) would quickly sned off all Luxuriant branches of humane invention in point of Government, and like ways since Calvin owns the Church Government set down in Scripture as our pattern (which doth as much reprobat the popish hierarchy, as the doctrine therein set down, doth their errors;) all this will preponderat towards calvin's meaning only a gospel Ministry, which is equally distinct from Bishops in the popish and prelatical mould. As for the difference [betwixt the primitive and popish Episcopacy] I think there is indeed a great difference, & we have proved our present hierarchy to be as much different from it, and soom what more if its erastian mould be taken in as the Informer must.  
The treatise to Charles the fifth, entitled the necessitate reformanda Ecclesia is so Generally cited by the informer, without quoting, either page or section that himself seems half convinced of the Impertinency thereof.  
For Saravia his asserting, that he defended calvin's opinion against Beza, he said in this as in the rest, more than he could prove. For what he adds of Hooker and Durel who assert [That Presbytery was settled at Geneva, because another Bishop could not be gotten after the popish was away, and that it was settled not out of a dislike to the hierarchy, but because they were in ane equality and stood so, being bend on reforming the doctrine] I Answer. His Authores in this assertion stand upon a very slippery and sandy foundation. What? Were there no able men to be Bishop after the popish Bishop was gone? and had they not leisure sufficient to do this after the doctrine was reform? Why lived they so long without a beloved hierarchy? and (which is yet more strange) why Employed they their pens and their pains so much for Presbyterian government, and not rather for the hierarchy? why were both Calvin and Beza so active in that which john Knox did here in opposition to prelacy? But stay, hath not the Informer told us, that Masone and Bishop Andrews do assert [That Calvin and Beza assumed ane Episcopal power at Geneva] How comes Durel and Hooker then [To suppose a complete parity among the Ministers to haut begun and continued at Geneva for want of a Bishop forsooth] He must grant that some of these accusers are ingrained liars and accusers of the brethren in this point, So he must deliberat whither he will bestow this upon Mason and Bishop Andrews, or Hooker and Durepl. For what he adds of these, that have written for Presbyterian government, that they designed only to prove it lawful, it is a gross Calumny, their design is to prove it a divine frame of government appointed in the new Testament, which I hope he will say is necessary as well as lawful, since Christ promises to the end his presence with those officers clothed with his commission. And himself holds that the end of that Government practised in the new Testament, and its grounds are Moral and perpetual. For Blondel his calling Episcopal preeminence an apostolical constitution, which the Informer citys page 84. no such words being in the printed copy, (as he acknowledges) who will be so foolishly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or durels bare word that it was in the written on, Unless we will admit the Informer (as the Papists do by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions) to add his unprinted patchments to any author, and thus to dispute pro libitu, and make his weapons from testimonies of authors, (as once a certain Chiftain's sword is said to have done) to wound and kill a great way before the point. He distinguishes the Government he pleads for, as divinitus institutus, or of divine appointment, from any other frame as humane only, which will say that this divine institution must stand, and all other frames of Government give place to it. The same may be accomodat to that which he citys out of Beza (pag 85.) who looked upon the very Episcopus humanus as he calls him, or the first proestos, as the first rise of all the popish Hierarchy and mischeiffs.  
That sentence of Beza de min. grad. Cap. 21. pag. 343. stands Entirely thus, imo C●…nctos sic [id est Archiepiscopos & Episcopos] hodie appell●…tos, modo sanctissimorum illorum Episcoporum [meaning Timothy and Titus, &c, whom Sarauta termed. Bishops; Beza allowing the designation in a sound & scripture sense] exemplum imitentur & tam misere deformatam domum Dei ad amussim ex verbi divini regula pro viribus in●…aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastors, cur non agnoscamus, observemus & omni reverentia prosequamur? Nedum ut quod falsissime & impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciwt eviquam uspiam Ecclesiae, etc. certainly there walking up to such rules and patterns as are here prescribed, as the provisoes upon which Beza Proefesses to reverence and own them, would so sned off the Episcopal heteroclyt excrescencies of our diocesian Erastian Prelates, and smooth them to the Scripture Episcopacy, as quite to destroy their power and office, pleaded for by this pamphleter.  
As his acting, so his writing for Presbyterian Government accordingly, was not to prescribe his own, (which Beza disclaims,) but God's example. How will the Informer prove, that Beza's denying his prescribing of their example of Church Government at Geneva, merely as such, will infer his not commending a divine frame of Church Government? This was not to prescribe his example simpliciter. And how will he prove that Beza looked upon a Government which he held to be [the egg from which Anti Christ sprung] as Dei beneficentia, or God's beneficence, He makes him a very gross ignoramus, for what man of the meanest capacity would say so? And if Beza held the first Episcopacy or proestos to be a recess from the divine institution, he certainly condemned it [in so far.] And the diocesian Prelate he holds to be Satanical. Therefore when he seems to condemn the desowning of all order of Bishops, he must understand it of a condemning scripture order, & the beautiful subordination among Church officers, or that divine order that is among them. But here again I must needs take notice, that in this passage of Beza in his dispute with Saravia, the Informer hath sned off that which wounds his cause to death, for the words following do discover another ground of this distinction of Bishops from Presbyters (viz Beza and Jeroms humane Custom) than what the Informer would persuade. For it follows immediately, neque hoc scelere tenentur, qui de episcopalis muneris sive prostasias finibus regendis, & de discrimineinter ordinem & gradum. postulant, ut ex verbo Dei decidatur. Whence it is evident that he does not understand Bishops set over Presbyters to be jure divino or speaks of them in this place.  
As for the passages of Beza's letters to Bishop Whitegift, and Grindal, which the Informer after citys, (pag. ●…6.) I say 1. That certainly Beza's principles so largely expressed from Scripture anent Church Government, and the contrariety of the episcopus humanus or humane Bishop, (far more the Diocesian Satanical Bishop,) to the divine rule in his principles, will necessarily infer, that in this great man's Judgement none of these Prelates had qua tales or as such, a lawful spiritual authority from God, 2. It is as certain that all Beza's pleading and arguments strikes against the diocesian Prelate or Arch prelate as in that capacity, and against this office and policy in itself, abstracting from its union unto the pope, so that he could own no authority that way committed to them of God. 3. It follows, that since he judged the episcopal hierarchy unlawful, he held the first parity unalterable, since he pleads for it upon moral perpetual Scripture grounds and institutions. And by these his solid Scripture grounds, when ex professo handling this point and theologically, we are more to determine of his Judgement then by Missives. Wherein the circumstances of time, and several exigences, might engage to some insinuations in point of a civil deference, and respect. But however that be, we are to look unto intentio and natura operis in his writings, or the native design thereof, rather than critically to scan or strain every practical conformity or disconformity thereunto. And the Informers answer to what we offer anent the assertions of Bishop Mortoune, Bilson, jewel, who write for the parity of Bishop and Presbyters by divine right viz, [That they held the Episcopal office themselves] charging them thus with a practical breach of their principles, most make him retract this argument, as signifying any thing against us, Since the retortion thereof is so manifest; and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy, whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations.  
Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal, the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz, quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir, ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti, quo majori etc.— and near the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth, as the fittest remedy for removing offences, ut in legitimo— caetu, ex uno Dei verbo, abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis, ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio, non quae huic vel illi adlubescat, non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine (—) sed quae— firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat, & in eternum perseveret; that is, that in a lawful A ssembly from the Word of God only, all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished, that Method of Church Government be established, not which shall please this or that person, not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh, but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God, may satisfy the consciences of the godly, and endure for ever. Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleads for, yea all the Prelates in Britain.  
For what he adds (p. 87.) It may be easily, and without prejudice to our cause granted, that God by his providence had made him a judge. The Informer will not own such ane Atheistical principle, as to deny that the Bishop's civil government in England, or pretended Ecclesiastic, is not the object of divine providence, or be so brutish as to conclude God's approbation of usurping Tyrant's, from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation, else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty, either to the King or his Lordbishop.  
That passage of calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadolet, after citedby him (p. 88) though admitted, is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable. Certainly Calvin held the scripture- parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae, or of the most ancient Church, for such no doubt he held the Apostolic Church to be.  
Beside, we must tell him that this passage upon search is not found, and as it is here expressed is very insignificant; since by Vetus Ecclesia, he may understand the Church after the Apostles time, which early began to Corrupt the Government.  
As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government, it will no more Impeach the truth itself which he asserts, than any other man's defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held. Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants, and from their writing for popery, that the protestant Doctrine were not sound? would he not say that their first practice, or writings for truth, will stand good and witness against them in their defection? Though it may be a question whither that retraction be real or not which Durel mentions, and the Informer out of him. (p. 89.) Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps (as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues) under the Clouds, pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton. We will not here stand to show how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions, having received no small sum from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that work, and several learned divines who best knew him, think his literature more Considerable than his divinity was solid.  
As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo. Mess. (c. 4. p. 253.) cited page 90. the Entire sentence is Epistolae illae viz; (quae Ignatii dicuntur) natae & suppositae videntur circa initium aut▪ medium secundi saeculi, quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit. Whatever time this was, it appears by what follows that place in Salmasius, that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted, and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ; and men began to plead a jus divinum for them; for Ignatius, (In Epistola ad Trallenses) asserts, Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt, that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ, as the Apostles have commanded, and he citys the Apostles words, but such as do no where occur in our Bibles.  
And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction, mentioned by that author, than their is solidity in that ground of it which he alleges, it is not worth the noticing. For the confusions in England cannot with any show of Reason be charged upon Presbyterial Government, which was never yet settled there. And this Informer dare not deny the blessed effects of truth and unity & godliness, which it hath had in this land, as is acknowledged by Churches abroad, and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he citys in the last dialogue, If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient, doth except the more ancient Apostolic times, which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity, he gives it but the spurious afterbirth of humane antiquity. The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin (p. 90.) and if something of the [humane proestos] were granted to have creeped in ere john went oft the stage, will that commend it any more than that mystery of Iniquity, and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paul's time and his? Surely by no means.  
Besides, we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes, since he hath neither noted book nor page.  
But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government, and our acknowledgement of the bringing in of a Proestos so early, the Informer will involve us (he says) in one of Two great absurdities. Parturiunt montes! What are these? the 1. is [That that generation who lived shortly after john, was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles mind anent Presbyterian parity, else they would not have adventured to change the government] But this absurdity is easily discussed, for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells' defection in worshipping the golden Calf forty days (sooner than 40. years or more) after the holy pattern of doctrine showed them upon the mount. How often do we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions? How quickly after joshua and the elders did all Israel depart from God's way and ordinances? How quickly did they relapse after deliverances, both in the times of the Kings and of the judges, yea and after solemn vows of Reformation? How quickly after Hezekias' death did they turn aside? How quickly after Josiahs' death? How quickly after Solomon's death did Rehoboam forsake the law of God and all Israel with him? I think these scripture instances of as universal, & far greater defections than this was anent the proestos, might have made this man ashamed to bring this as ane absurdity. Now what will he say to his own Question here? ay▪ it possible, is it probable that God's Israel could be ignorant of his mind, and adventure so quickly to change his ordinances? Herd not all the Church of Israel God's voice from mount Sinai? Had not these departers afterward known or seen his eminent seers, heard his word and seen his works? Could they be altogether ignorant of his mind who thus suddenly departed from him? How could they then adventure to make such a change? Alace! What a poor querist is this? I think indeed He and his party have given the Instance in our generation, that such a sudden defectione is both possible and probable. Was ever a nation more solemnly and universally engaged unto God, and had seen more of his greatness, power, and glory, than we did in the late work of reformation? How long is it since Scotland not only knew and embraced Presbyterian Government; but also solemnly vowed to maintain it? But he knows how universally this work and cause of God is now rejected, his Covenant abjured and disowned. And the Informer himself (who for what I know, might have seen our first beautiful house) is pleading for this perjurius change of God's ordinances and laws, and breaking his everlasting Covenant. Read he never the 106. Psal. 7. verse. They provocked him at the sea even the red sea, and vers 11. The waters covered their enemies and there was not one of them left— Then believed they his words, they sang his praise, they soon frogat his works, they waited not fr his counsel. The Informer bluntly supposes ane impossibility of a people's crossing light in apostazing changes, and that all that generation most needs give a formal consent to this change of government in order to its introduction; both which are groundless suppositions, and they render this horn of his Dilemma very pointless. Besides, this change (as we said before) was but small at the first, only a fixed Moderator, and far from his Prelacy, which even in Ieroms time was but come the length of taking from Presbyters ordination, or rather the ritual part of it. And the change had plausible pretexts of order, and union, as every innovation hath its own pretences, besides that this change was not all at once but by degrees. We must also here tell him, that the same very suggestion is his 3d. Reason to prove Ieroms bringing in Bishops in the Apostles time, and so a nauseating repartition.  
But if we decline this absurdity, the next he thinks is worse viz, That that generation went over the belly of light in changing the Government, and conspired against Christ and his Apostles Government, and none are found testifying against it. Answer 1. This absurdity doth like ways fall upon the former Scripture instances of greater, and more sudden, and as universal defections of the Church of Israel. What will he say to these questions in relation thereunto? Were all ignorant? Did all sin against light, and adventure presumptuously to change the divine ordinances? And as for a Testimony against these evils, the Informer himself and his party (for all their clamours against us) falls under ane obligation to answer this, in relation to many corruptions and errors, which as early crept into the Church as Prelacy; Whereof we gave Instances already, and no Testimonies are recorded against them. He seems to have forgot, or to be ignorant of our divines answer to this argument of Papists, calling for our producing of Testimonies against such and such evils, or dating their first rise, viz. That there might be, though we have not known them, and that it is bad arguing from the defect of the History, or the darkness of the first original of such a corruption, to deny the plain mater of fact, and the corruption itself to be such. How many Thousand eminent persons and acts of these times (which we told him, the learned do acknowledge, to be very dark as to matter of fact) have never come to our knowledge? And since we have often told him from jerom that this change was lent, and by considerable degrees, and intervalles of time, and Method of its procedor, some might be overtaken with weakness, others puffed up with ambition, and upon this ground the one might endeavour, & the other give way to this change, especially its first degrees being small in respect of what followed. Knows not this man, that the evil one sows his tares while men sleep? And this hierarchy being as in its nature, so in its rise, a Mystery; Mystery of Iniquity! Mystery Babylon! Yea and a Mystery which was working long before this change, even in Paul's time; upon all these grounds his absurdity evanishes, and reflects a greater absurdity upon himself, who would have us shut our eyes against Scripture light upon such pretences as these, & rather embrace 2 corruption contrary unto it, then acknowledge that the Church did err. We know very well what a wicket this notion hath opened for obtruding and retaining popish innovations, and these men are fast warping in to that Method. As for that which he adds of Blondel (p. 94) who asserts that the Presbyters made him proestos, or fixed Moderator, who was first ordained. We told him already that this fixed precedent, though a deviation from the Scripture rule, yet is far from the diocesian Prelates sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction, So that his confidence (some will be apt to say impudence) is strange in calling this a power episcopal now existent, since notwithstanding all its after growth, it was not in Ieromes time come the length of our present Hierachical power of Prelates, by many day's journey. Neither is it probable that Blondel could suppose this to be allowed of John, which he holds to be cross to the divine pattern.  
As for Blond (Apol: pag: 25.) the Informer hath been mistaken in this citation, no such words being found in that place. But in page 52. after that he hath abundantly proven this (thesis) initio Presbyter & Episcopus synonyma fuerunt, [that in the beginning Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same.] he begins the next sect. thus. Ubicumque Primum nascente Chistianismo Presbyterorum aggregari Collegium caepit, Antiquissimum (rectius Antiquissimo) inter Collegas Primatus Contigit ut concessus totius Caput, fratrumque tandem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jure quodam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieret. Which only a mounts to thus much, that first a moderator, among ministers being established, grew by peecmeal to a fixed prostasie and after he hath Confirmed this, he adds in the next sect: Cum itaque Collegium id est ordinatus ratione utentium caetus fine ordine nec institui, nec Conservari, nec agere, nec agi, (amplius dicam) nec cogitari potest; aequabilis inter ejusdem muneris Consortes, ac sese honore mutuo praevenientes sanctos paritas, divina propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & commune Consilium, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nequaquam degenerabant: stabant enim aequo (in eodem gradu & ordine) jure omnes sed suo quisque loco; erantque in familiâ quaque Ecclesiasticâ, post primo genitum secundo, tertio etc. Geniti, qui majorem natufratrem (secundum Patrem caelestem) colebant, eique nec ambienti nec poscenti (invidioso nunc) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In singulis communis regiminis actibus jure volentes cedebant, acprimas ubique partes deferebant; ut si quando novus Cooptandus esset Collega, Cleri totius jam consistentis plebisque Consentientibus suffragiis & judicio Comprobatis, (N. B.) totius Presbyterii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (praeunte tamen ac reliquorum nomine solemnia benedictionum verba pronunciante promotione antiquissimo) in possessionem muneris mitteretur, priorum per Consecrationem quoddamodo filius factus, qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratione aequo cum aliis omnibus jure (licet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) frater erat, ubi vero quaestionis in Ecclesiae regimine quicquam emergeret, consultantium in common fratrum disceptationibus (quasi naturae jure favore omnium firmato,) praeesset Senior; non gradu alio major (N. B.) non nativa gradus communis potestate potior, sed adventitiâ ob aetatis meritum delegata, superior.  
Which is this in sum [that though the college of the ordained were all alike as to their official power, yet lest their joint council should fall under anarchical confusion, the first ordained minister (although of the same degree & juridical power with his colleagues) had a sort of veneration and precendency as to some acts, but still in their name, & by their consent who were his brethren. Which will reach a patrociny to the diocesian Erastian Prelat, with his sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, his negative voice in Church judicatories, and his delegation of Ecclesiastic power to the whole synod, his civil state office etc. When east and west shall meet together. Then he adds.  
Hanc originalem Ecclesiasticae politiae formam sub Apostolorum oculis natam, non immerito putavit Hilarius, quid enim pietati, naturae rationibusque dictamini consonum magis, quam ut priorum canitiem reverenter habeant aetate posteriores? fac tamen Apostolis non modo nonimprobantibus, sed palam laudantibus ortam; ego sane libere ab initio observatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipulis traditam, sed ut mutabilem & pro usu & arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam (prout in causa consimili piae memoriae Crakanthorpus sensit) crediderim. In which passage he pleads only for this fixed moderator, and doth not positiuly assert the Apostolic institution for it, but comes near Bezaes' expressiones in reference to the [Episcopus humanus.]  
As for Blondels confessing this primus Presbyter to have had authority with his precedency, as the Informer is bold to assert, he had done well to point us to the place where these words are found [quis enim praesidentiamsine authoritate somniet?] for upon search they are not found; but it seems the Informer puts this sense upon his words which follow these cited above ac forte consistorialium omnium qui Pastorum Ecclesias quasque in common regentium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 urgent, calculos evertit, quod ab ipsa Apostolorum aetate collegii cujusque Presbyterialis singulare quoddam caput fuit. Qui vero? an nostrum ullus synedrium sibi (N. B.) vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hactenus somniavit? an non eodem inter nos jure modoque, vel per vices, pares inter compares, vel delegata a paribus ad tempus potestate praesunt, quo inter christianismi primordia ae●…o honoris inter conseniores primas fuit? Where he denies that this singular head of the consistory, or moderator his power did justle with, or evert the common votes or Episcopacy of the Pastoures, and consequently their joint Presbyterial government, because the consistory or meeting could neither be without a head, (or mouth) nor have many heads, which he assimilates to the then power of their moderators, chosen from among his equals and co-presbyters, either by turns, or a delegated power of presidency for some time.  
The Informers citation of Chamier (p. 35.) [acknowledging from the beginning a [primus Presbyter] with a [nova potestas and jurisdictio] ne esset Episcopatus mere titulus: Or a first Presbyter, with a new power and jurisdiction etc.] Burns his fingers, and rebounds a deadly blow upon himself; for in calling this jurisdiction and power, Nova or new, he makes it later than the first scripture patent anent that Presbyters Authority, which was the same with that of his Brethren before this humane supperadded power. And consequently he must look upon him only as Beza's humane Bishop, supposing ane anterior divine Bishop which is the Pastor or Minister.  
And here again the Informer puts us to tell him that this his citation of Chamier attributing a new jurisdiction from the beginning to the primus Presbyter, or first Minister, is so general, without pointing at either book or page, that it seems he resolved that in this (as in other passages) none should trace him, to know whither he cited true or false. However the place he means is, lib. 10. de oecum. pont. c. 5. Where Chamier grants primum Presbyterum accepisse novam potestatem, that the first Presbyter received a new power. But that it was so from the beginning, is our Informers incrusted eekement, which (as in another passage of blondel) we must suppose his lyncian eyes discovered in some written copy of Chamier, which the printer was so uncivil as not to put in, because this our great doubt-resolver was not overseer at the press. Any who looketh upon that chapter may discover that Chamiers scope is to prove that ab initio regimen Ecclesiae fuit Aristocraticum, that from the beginning the Church government was Aristocracy, and that the disparity which after came in use, was ane innovation.  
As for what he adds of Moulin, (pag. 76.) If he hold [The Episcopal power in ordination to be among these things, which, though in the Apostles time, yet were alterable] He may be probably supposed to include it among the Apostles extraordinary expired prerogatives, which this man must acknowledge will lay no foundation for prelacy. As for Stillingfleet, we are not concerned in his principles, or any debat betwixt him & them. For that which he calls ane evasion [Anent the alteration of some things in the Apostolic Church] As we disowne Stillingfleet, in making the frame of government which the Apostles established in the Church, versatile, various or alterable. So we disowne this Informer in resolving it solely upon the Church's decision, [what Apostolic practices are imitable or moral, and what not.] A dangerous popish principle, and wherein he will be found inconsistent with himself. But for the apostolic government by the Common council of Presbyters, we hold it moral and perpetual, upon the same grounds of the Church's union and edification which himself doth plead. As for the shifts and bad issues which he alleadges Presbyterian writters are driven unto, Neither he nor any of his party can make it appear, but his own pitiful shifts, and of others of his way, in pleading for this Hierarchy, we hope by this time are sufficiently apparent. As for durels offer [To get Episcopacy ane approbation from all foreign divines] we let it pass as a piece of prelatic pageantry fit to fill pamphlets. Ad pompam non ad pugnam— quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu. Durel and the Informer cannot stand before their evidences, who have made the Contrary appear. For what he adds anent our Superintendents, as having upon the matter ane Episcopal power, I refer him to the defence of the Epistle of Philadelphus against spotswood's Calumnies, printed at the end of Didoclavius page. 30, 31. Where he will find the difference betwixt them and Prelates cleared and stated in 12. Particulars to his Conviction, unless he hath resolved — Ne si persuaseris, persuaderis. So that worthy Mr. Knox gave no patrociny to prelacy in Countenancing the admission of Superintendents. How he hath deryved his Prelacy from Scripture, and through antiquity to reformed times, & Churches, in their confessions, Let the impartial judge by what I have answered from the beginning. As for the Authors of jus divinum Minist: Anglic: [Their proof of the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, at length cleared from Fathers, Schoolmen, & reformed divines, even from Episcopal divines in England] the Informer had done better not to mention that piece, then to have made such a simple & insipid return, [Anent the Scoolmens' notione, whither Episcopacy be a different order from Presbytery, or a different degree of the same order] for though this were granted that the scoole-men tossed such a question, dare he say that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latin, and late reform divines cited in that learned piece, in their clear and positive assertions of the parity of Bishop & Presbyter jure divino, entertained any such notion as this? Again, had he been so ingenuus and true to the learned authores of that piece, and unto himself, ●…s he ought to have been, he might have found cited therein a passage of Cassander in his book of Consul●…. (Artic. 14) Which breaks this his answer all in pieces, and because his squeemish eyes looked asquint upon it, I shall here set it down, that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings against these divines. An Episcopa●…us inter ordines ecclesiasticos ponendus sit, inter theologos & canoni●…as non convenit; convenit autem inter owns in Apostolorum aetate inter episcopos & presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse, sed post modum schismatis evitandi causa episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum &c: That is, Whither Episcopacy is to be placed among the Ecclesiastic orders, It is not agreed between the Theologues & Canonists, but it is agreed among all, that in the Apostles age there was no difference between Bishops & Presbyters, but afterward upon the ground of eviting Schism, the Bishop was set ever Presbyters, etc. Now whither these disputants did agree That always from the Apostles time, there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters, as this Informer is not ashamed to affirm. Let the greatest adversary judge by this account of such ane impartial witness. How could he say, that these Fathers might be of this mind, and likwayes these later divines, that always from the Apostles there were Bishops set over Presbyters. What a selfcontradicting tenet is this for any rational man to entertain? viz, Bishops and Presbyters, re & nomine, in name and thing, the same in the Apostles times, and in their doctrine: and yet [that Bishops were set over Presbyters by the Apostles, and distinct from them in their times.] What will he make of all Jerome Scripture proofs through the Apostles times, and writings, anent this complete parity of Bishops and Presbyters? of the saying of Ambrose [That, Non per omnia conveniunt seripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nun●… est in Ecclesia. The writings of the Apostles agree●… not in every thing with the ordinance or appointment (he means of government) which is now in the Church.] What will he make of Bishop jewel telling Harding, in his defence against him? [That in calling it a haerefie to affirm Bishops and Presbyters to be one, He reflects upon Jerome and other Fathers whom he citys against him, yea upon the Apostle Paul, and makes him also a Haeretick] What will he make of that assertion of Beza, Episcopus papam peperit. The Bishop brought forth the Pope. Of Whittaker [That the setting up the Prelate, yea the first proestos or precedent to prevent Schism, was a remedy worse than the disease.] Now if he will reconcile these sayings and assertions with their holding Bishops distinct from Presbyters, to have been in, and from the times of the Apostles, he will prove a wonderful Oedipus.  
But our Informer hath not yet done with these Authors, and hath another reflection upon them anent what they say page 64. [That Eusebius and Iraeneus were deceived themselves, & deceived others] he tells us 1. [They are hard put to it when seeking to relieve themselves by discrediting these authores] But this man is hard put to it, if he deny that which is so Noto●…ly true, & made good by so many of the learned. Were junius and Scalliger (who are approved herein by Dr Reynolds) hard put to it, who demonstrats Eusebius gross errors & mistakes. 2. He says Though in some things Eusebius was mistaken, most he be so in every point wherein he makes Bishop's superior to Presbyters, & draws their succession from the Apostles. Ans. For the Catalogues of Bishops from the Apostles, we spoke to it already, and for Eusebius speaking always in that strain, the reverend authors of that piece, (with others) do tell the Informer that all that Eusebius says, is that it is reported— that his learned censurer Scalliger, makes it appear that he read ancient histories parum attente, (not attentiuly,) & that he takes his measures in this point, & his relations upon trust, from Clemens fabulus, & Hegesippus not extant.  
3. The Informer thinks it strange [that they can suppose Irenaeus (john's contemporary and disciple) to be deceived as to Church government.] Answer. Had he but looked upon the 4. proposition of their appendix, he might have seen this objection fully removed. For therein they make good from many places of Irenaeus (which were tedious here to transcribe) that by Bishops he understood mere Presbyters, and not Bishops distinct from Presbyters. From which places of Irenaeus they collect. 1. That he calls Presbyters Successors of the Apostles. 2. That he calls them Bishops. 3. That he holds the Apostolic doctrine to be derived by their succession. 4. That what in one place he says of Bishops, the same he says elsewhere of Presbyters; which sense and account of him they back with pregnant Testimonies of Dr. Reynolds, & Whittaker, & other learned protestant divines, and lights in that Church. And in proposition 7. anent the pretended Succession of Prelates from the Apostolic times, they clear it that these Successions are drawn from mere Presbyters, viz, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Minister first ordained, as among the Athenians their were 9 Archontes or Chief Rulers, equal in Authority: yet the Succession of Governors in Athens, was derived from one of them who was the first Archo●…, ut compendiosior ac minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio, that the Calculation of times might not be hindered, but be the more compendious.  
4. He says it is more likely that jerom was deceived, If we understand him to speak of Bishops who were introduced after the Apostles times, then Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived before] Ans. That Eusebius was deceived, is not only alleged, but proven by the learned, and jerom proving so clearly from Scripture the identity of Bishop and Presbyter both in name and thing, doth convincing lie infer that the Bishops set over Presbyters, are discrepant from the scripture pattern. That Irenaeus by Bishops understood these first Moderators, is made good from his writings.  
Next, whereas these reverend authores (pag. 114, 115.) say that Irenaeus by Bishops meaned [Presbyters,] and (page. 65.) That the Fathers spoke of Church officers of former times after the stile of their own, and that the Bishops in the Catalogues are only the first ordained Presbyters, for the more expedit reckoning] this man thinks these Answers inconsistent; Because 1. they say that Eusebius & Irenaeus were deceived when they spoke of Bishops, And Next that by Bishops, Irenaeus meaned only Presbyters. Ans. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at, he would have keepd off this fantastic reflection. For they show that these first Proestotes or Moderators, who were in themselves, and upon the Mater, mere Presbyters, were by former times and writers presented under ane Episcopal notion, and the power of Bishops then prevalent, unto Eusebius and Irenaeus; whom Eusebius especially, too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them, occasioned the deceiving of others, and that he and Irenaeus speaking of them in that manner and stile in the Catalogues, might deceive others, by naming them so, who were upon the mater mere Presbyters; whom the succeeding writers following (as they show out of junius. Contr. 2. Ch: 5. not: 18.) and fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained, fell into these snares of tradition, because they supposed that according to the Custom of their times, there could be but one Bishop in a Church at the same time. And to clear it, that the persons whom Irenaeus speaks of, were upon the mater, Presbyters, in answer to that objection from Irenaeus (lib: 3. cap. 3.) where Bishops are named as set up by the Apostles, They answer that the word Bishop hath a various acceptation: and that Irenaeus names Anicetus, Higinus, Pius, Presbyters of the Church of Rome, the words being then promiscuouslie used. So that whatever impression Irenaeus might have of them according to the language and Custom of the time, yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only: and therefore they put the Episcopal party to prove that those whom they named Bishops, were veri nominis Episcopi, or hierarchical Bishops. They do not speak so much of the Impression which Irenaeus or Eusebius had of them, as of the true nature and State of these Church-officers, whom according to the Custom of their times they call Bishops. By Irenaeus his calling them sometimes Presbyters, according to the promiscuous use of the names, even handed down to him, they prove that his expressing them under ane Episcopal notion then received, or any such impression of them which he might entertain, was wrong: since according to the scripture language the Bishop and Presbyter imports no other office than a Pastor. What inconsistency will our Informer show in this, that Irenaeus and others were deceived in representing the first Proestotes under ane Episcopal notion, upon a Credulous report from their forefathers: and yet that the persons whom they thus represented were upon the mater Presbyters.  
As for what he adds (p. 102,) [from Bucer (de animarum cura) anent a Proestos, or the Election and ordination of one who went before the rest, and had the Episcopal Ministry in the Chief degree, even in the times of the Apostles, by the Testimony of Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, ancienter than jerom.] We say that any who knows Bucers' judgement in Church government, and are acquaint with his writings theranent, will acknowledge that the Proestos is the utmost length he goes as to Episcopacy; and a Proestos during life, hath no doubt something of ane Episcopal Ministry, and is above his Brethren: and we are to expone his summus gradus, or Chief degree, by the word praecipue or Chiefly, that goes before. Who will doubt but the constant fixed Proestos is in so far set over the rest? But here we must mind the Informer of Two things. 1. That this Proestos chosen by the Presbytery, is (as we said) far short of the Diocesian Prelate who owns no Presbyters in his election, & hath ane arbitrary power over them. 2. That it being thus defacto, is far from amounting to a proof of the jus, and who will say that Bucer could take the Apostle James to be formalie Bishop of jerusalem, or chosen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters, whose Apostolic office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have reached the whole world, in relation to the watering & planting of Churches. Next, if these words will plead for a Hierarchy, even in the Apostles times, and that Bucer took upon the Testimony of Tertullian, Irenaeus &c, the Apostle James and others for hierarchical Bishops, surely he was obliged to have taken notice of Ieroms proofs for the parity of Bishops & Presbyters in the Apostles times; which since he doth not, it's most probable that he means to assert the factum only, of exalting Presbyters to such a degree at that time, but not the jus as is said: else I see no consistency in the words if he reckon the Apostle James in this account. For he says Apostolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyteris electus. That in the Apostles times one was chosen from among the Presbyters. Now surely the Apostle James was not of the Presbyters merely, or chosen from among them; But to undeceave our Informer as to Bucers' judgement in this point, and to fortify the answer adduced, I shall present unto him that which Bucer asserts (De Gub: Eccles: p: 432.) viz, That the Fathers call these first Proestotes or Moderators, yea even the Apostles themselves, Bishops (N. B.) [in a large & general appellation] Because they first preached the gospel to those Churches, and that to prove a succession of the true doctrine, they named the most eminent Ministers the Bishops, to show that there was in these Churches a Constant tract from the Apostles both of sound doctrine, & faithful teachers thereof; Eminent, I say, for gifts, and zeal, or suffering for the gospel (N. B.) not in any Episcopal authority except what was in that prostasie often mentioned. Now whither Bucer was for ane Episcopacy in the highest degree even in the Apostles time, and the Episcopacy of james, Let any judge. And whither or not this Informer hath acquitt prelacy of being both a groundless, and godless usurpation in God's Church (as his now prosyleted Doubter says he was taught to call it) the appeal is likwayes made to the judicious and impartial, to judge from what is offered from the beginning hereanent.   

CHAP. XV.  
Mr durham's citations of the Fathers for evincing the identity of Angel, Bishop, and Presbyter, vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer.  
Mr Durhame in his excellent commentary upon the revelation (pag. 223.) having gone throw the Epistles, and embraced the sylleptick sense and acceptation of the word, Angel, presents in a digression several weighty and unanswerable arguments, both from these Epistles, and parallel texts, to prove the identity of angel, Bishop, and Presbyter. Which this Informer passes over sicco pede, finding them no doubt pills of too hard a digestion for his stomach. But Mr. Durham adding to his scriptureproofes of this important truth, Several clear testimonies of most eminent Ancient fathers, asserting the very same thing, than Seria res agitur with our Informer, and he bestirrs himself amain to take these weapons out of Mr durham's hand, offering several exceptions against his testimonies, which (in vindication of the memory of so great a Seer from this pampleters imputations, and for the more full confirmation of this truth) we shall now examine and repel.  
Mr Durhame says That not only Jerome, but likewise others of the Ancients, such as Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, were of Aerius mind hereanent. To this he answers [That Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's assertion, as he is cited by Bellarmin. But knows he not that Medina is cited for this by many others, as Dr Reynolds particularly. And likewise why would he not examine these Ancients cited by Medina, and examine what truth is in his citations, if he intended to repel this Testimony. Well, but what says our Informer to these Testimonies offered by Mr Durhame. He answers.  
1. That though these fathers be of Ieroms mind, i●…is n●… great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops, as he hat●… already cleared. Ans. We have made it appear tha●… Jerome makes the first Bishops, mere fixed Moderators, and likewise ane humane invention or custom, discrepant from ihe first divine Bishops, who are proved by him to be in Scripture the same with Presbyters. And i●… this be no prejudice to his Diocesian Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, let any judge.  
2. The Informer wonders how Mr Durhame coul●… cite Augusti●… as of Aerius mind, since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground. (Haeres. 53. A●…s. Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augusti●… cited by Mr. Durhame, as he pretends to answer to som●… of the rest of these fathers. What says he to Augustin●… words? are they not his? Or do they not clearly assert the identity of Bishop & Presbyter? To say that Augustin accounted Aerius a heretic for this, while he offers not to remove Augustins' clear assertion of the same thing, is but to set him by the ears with himself, not to answer his Testimony. Next, as for Augustin's accounting Aerius a heretic for this, he should know that the learned do Consent that Augustin in this follows Epiphanius, who first imputed heresy to Aerius, and made but very simple-insipid answers to Aerius arguments for his opinion. And moreover that Augustin relates his opinion anent the parity of Bishop and Presbyter, or rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclesiastic constitution anent their difference, as that which Epiphanius put among the roll of heresies, himself not positively determining, that this was a heresy. For (as is consented unto by the learned, and particularly by Dr. Reinolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls, touching Dr. bancroft's Sermon about the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter) Augustin aknowledges himself ignorant how far the definition of heresy doth extend. He enumerats the heresies which he found noted by other writers, but applies not the definition of heresy to every one of them. Far less could he do so in this point, which was his own judgement, as the passage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince. That jerom and Augustin were of Aerius mind as to Bishops, is the judgement of very many: sane cum Aerio sensit Hieronimus (saith Whittak. Contr. 4. Q. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30.) jerom truly was of Aerius mind, on which ground we need care the less that Aerius is so oft objected to us by blockish men. See how rude Whittaker is again to our Informer. Saravia himself (de Grad. cap. 23.) acknowledges that Ierom dissented from Epiphanius in this. Dr. Reynolds in that Epistle to Knolls about bancroft's Sermon, asserting with the Informer [That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of heresy by the whole Church] proves from jerom and other writters who were contemporary with Epiphanius or flourished after him. That Augustin Presents that assertion anent the identite of Bishop and Presbyter, a●… heretical, only as he found it related by Epiphanius, whereas himself knew not how far the name of heresy was to be extended, as he testefys in his preface concerning heresies. But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right, there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, he proves from his words Epist. 19 he citys also — jewel against Harding the jesuit (asserting likewise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretic) who proves that Jerome, Augustin, Ambrose, were of the same mind. Thus we see Augustin made in this point consistent with Jerome, & also with himself, whom this man makes to speak contradictions, so as he may come fair off.  
3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms' Testimony will not come Mr. durham's length, Because, Though Ambrose [or one Hilary] says that Episcopi & Presbyteri una est ordinatio, that they are both priests, yet the Bishop is the first, So that every Priest is not a Bishop, for the Bishop is the first priest. Ans. The Informer hath left out wittily (whither honestly or not, let others judge) in his translation of this sentence, the inference which Ambrose Draws from this identity of the office, viz, that they have both one ordination. He makes the office one, and the ordination one consequently, and gives this reason why they have one ordination, viz, because, every one of them is a priest or Minister, uterque enim Sacerdos, saith he: Their ordination, is terminat upon, and relative unto, one and the same office. Now what greater length would he have Ambrose assertion come then this? That there is no diff●…rent ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter, and consequently no official differences doth he not plead for ane official specific difference? betwixt Bishop and Presbyter? Makes he not the Bishops succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their official power, and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy Disciples or mere ordinary Pastoures? Are their not many essential differences, which this man's principles, & the present practice, fixes betwixt the Bishop & Presbyter, whereof we have spoken above? How can Ambrose then assert, that they have the same office and ordination? Where is the Consecration? Where is the Bishop's sole power in ordination and jurisdiction? Where is his negative voice among the Presbyters, making them in all their official power certain deputs under him, if their office be one, and their ordination the same with his?  
2. As for the difference here assigned, viz, That the Bishop is the first priest, and that every Presbyter is not a Bishop in Ambrose sense, this will nothing help our Informer; Because 1. This is fitly applicable to the Proestos then in use, yea to the Moderator of a Synod, who (as such) hath a sort of Prostasie while the Synod sits, and every Minister is not Moderator, though the Moderator be no more than a Minister in his official power; nay, this is applicable to the least accidental difference Imaginable. Every man is not white or black, yet every such is a man. Every Parliament man is not speaker, though the speaker is a Parliament man only as to his authority. Blondel his first ordained Minister, who, with him, is the first Bishop or Proestos, hath this properly applicable unto him. 2. He must be minded, that Ambrose says, when speaking of the Scripture- parity of Bishops and Presbyters, non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia. That the writings of the Apostles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church. Now this preter- scriptural or new order of government, what is it but that anent the primus or first among the Presbyters? so that this very primus or prostasie (though far from the present Hierarchy of our Prelates as is said) yet comes after the scripture appointment— with Ambrose, and is unlike to that parity betwixt Bishop & Presbyter, which is therein held forth.  
The Informer Next offers something in answer to Chrisostoms' Testimony, who asserts That almost there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter. And his great Answer is That notwithstanding these Fathers acknowledge a difference, and themselves were Bishops] Ans. If the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter come to a farm nihil, or almost none, Surely it decays and is ready to vanish away. And what this difference is, and wherein placed, we have already heard; and surely that prostasie in Chrysostoms' time; behoved to be very in considerable, since it came to make upno greater difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter than a farm nihil, upon the borders of a non ens. As for what he says of their being Bishops themselves. I answer, they are the more impartial witnesses in this mater; They tell us oft that Jerome was a Presbyter, and therefore no friend to Bishops. Now here is a Testimony of eminent Bishops for this very truth which jerom asserts, and which this man would make us believe, was condemned as a Heresy. And surely we are more tender of their reputation, who interpret any Prostasie or Episcopacy which they held, to be according to this their judgement anent Episcopacy, and assert that what overplus of power they had or might possibly exercise, beyond that of a Presbyter, was by them looked upon as founded on Ecclesiastic Custom or Ecclesiae usus, As Augustin speaks, but not to flow from a divine right, Then this Informer and his fellows, who make them maintain one thing and practise another; yea and contradict themselves so grossly in maintaining as high a jus divinum, as Apostolic doctrine, and practise, in relation to the hierarchical Bishop, and yet assert a farm nihil as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter.  
But the Informer adds, That they might think Bispop and Presbyter to differ Gradu, not ordine, in degree not in order, which is still a debate in the Schools. Ans. This assertion is so improbable, that he dare but lisp it out, and faintly asserts it with a might be; But sure he must needs acknowledge this distinction of the Schools to be much later than these Fathers, and any gradual difference which they place betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, it is clear, that they found it upon Ecclesiastic Custom, as we heard both Jerome, Augustin and Ambrose assert.  
But how long will this man involve himself in contradictions, and these Fathers also? Told he us not (page 15.) That Augustin upon Psal 45: 16. affirms, That the Bishops are properly the Successors of the Apostles unto their office. And saith he not immediately thereafter, That Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 12: 28. affirms of the Apostles first named in that Class of Church officers, that ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro, episcopatum, ejus accipiat alter. That the Apostles are the Bishops by Peter's assertion, let another take his Bisheprick. Tells he us not likewise here that Augustin makes James the first Bishop of jerusalem, and Peter, the first Bishop of Rome? Tells he us not, that they transmitted ane Episcopal power in that train of Successors, proved by Catalogues of Bishops? Did we not hear him plead, that the seventy Disciples, placed in ane inferior orb to the Twelve Apostles, are properly succeeded by Presbyters; that Mathias behoved to be ordained ane Apostle, though one of the Seventy disciples, is his great argument to prove this. Now I beseech him per omnes musas, will he say that Apostles and Presbyters differ only ordine and not gradu, in order, not in degree? or that these fathers do hold this opinion? how come their successors then to coalesce into one, after such a manner as to differ only in a farm nihil, or almost nothing? Saith not Ambrose, Episcopi & Presbyteri una est ordinatio, the Bishop and Presbyter have the same ordination. But the Informer will not adventure to say that the Apostle and Presbyter have one ordination. For Mathias one of the Seventy must be solemnly by God ordained ane Apostle: And the Prelates must be solemnly consecrat by their fellows— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their new episcopal order. In a word, we heard from Cassander, that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question, do both accord, that as to a jus divinum or divine right, there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree. And so though it were granted (which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert) that the Fathers tossed this question, it will nothing help him, nor prejudge Mr durham's quotation, which speaks of a jus divinum.  
As for what he adds, That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion, Let him hear how Bellarmin (no friend to Presbyterian Government) represents his assertion (de Cler. Cap 15.) Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine & eminentia (Cap. 5.) Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse, neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse, sed etiam Ambrosium, Sedulium, Primasium, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum, Oecumenium, & Theophylactum, atque ita, inquit Medina, isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi, & Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi, quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio, deinde in Waldensibus, postremo in Joanne Wickleffo, damnavit ecclesia. That is, Michael Medina in the first book concerning the original and eminency of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgement with the Aerians, And that not only Jerome was in that Heresy. But also Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecomenius, and Theophylact; And thus (saith Medina) these men otherways most godly, and most expert in the holy Scrptures, whose judgement notwithstanding the Church condemned, first in Aerius, Next in the Waldeneses, And lastly in john Wickleff.] Let our Informer note here. 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least, all these Fathers were Aerians. 2. That his holy Catholic Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresy. 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses, these famous witnesses against Antichrist: And of John Wickleff, and such like eminent reformers. Afterward he adds [That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers, that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them, But contrarily in the Heretics always condemned.] So we see the Presbyterian Principles, are with him, one of the Heresies of Protestants. Peter Swav. (in the History of the Council of Trent, pag. 664. edit. Francfort.) relates. [That when the Authority of jerom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacy to be but ane Ecclesiastic constitution, Michael Medina answered— That it was no wonder that Jerom, Augustin, and others of the Fathers, fell into that heresy, not having throughly searched the matter, & that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion.  
Finally, to make these Fathers one with themselves (whom this man enforceth in his next passages, cited page 71, 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacy from the Apostles and higher, to speak palpable contradictions) we must say, with Whittaker, that they call the Apostles so, because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did. And because their power quadam similitudine, or by a certain similitude or likeness (as Junius expresseth it) was like to that of these extraordinary Church officers, whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office, nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned. Tilen. in his Specul. Antichr. ortum aperiens (Aphoris. 88) Tells us that [episcopos & Presbyteros re & nomine eosdem fuisse, non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti, sive positivi, ut vocant juris, est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio. That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office, Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach, Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under divers names is of human institution, as they call it, or of positive right] A fit lookingglass, this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote, his paraenesis, and changed his note. And likewise it is a fit looking glass for this Informer:   

CHAP. XVI.  
The harmonious consent of ancient Fathers, Modern divines, and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government, in all its essential points of difference from Prelacy, is exhibit.  
IT is clear that Presbyterian Government (the pure, ancient, and genuine Government of this Church) in every essential ingredient of it, as it stands in opposition to prelacy, is approved by, such a consent of antiquity, and modern divines, that it would take up almost as much room as this Informers pamphlet, to reckon up their names. That we may present them in 〈◊〉 compendious view take it thus.  
1. That jure divino, there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter, hath a very large consent of antiquity collected by many of the learned, whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin, edit: Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited (Petries Hist. part. 3. p: 469, 470, 471.) Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek, and Latin Fathers, for this point of truth. The Doctor in his conference with Hart, holds That the precedent chosen out at first to moderate, is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop, and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers, was by them thus appropriate to this precedent. Next for modern writers, the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle, that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years, have taught that all Pastors be they entitled Bishops or Priests, have equal authority and power by God's word. Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silu. hift. of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pitch. Hierarch. Ecclesiast. lib. 2. cap. 10. Marsil. Patavin. Defence. pacis part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff. in Thom. walden's. Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib: 2. cap. 60. and Tom: 2. cap: 7. And his Scholars hus and the Hussits, Aeneas Silvius Loccit. Luther. Advers. falso: nomin: Scot: Epise. & adversus Papat. Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess. Wittenberg.— Cap. 21: Bulinger. Decad. 5. Serm: 3. Musculus Loc. Com: Tit: de Ministerio Verbi. Then he adds Jewel, Pilkington, Dr. Humphrey in Campian. & Duraeum Jesuit. Part. 2. Ra●…: 3. Whittak. ad rationes Campian. 6. & Confut Durae. like. 6. Mr Bradfoord, Lambert, Fox (Act. Mon.) Fulk. (Ansr. to the Rhemeflits.) To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists. Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p: 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholic Apology Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add, that in the O●…cumenick Coun●…les of Constance & Basile, it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils, as well as Bishops, because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater than they, and it is expressly given them. Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil. Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore. 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture, that Bishops and Presbyters are equal; bringing the same texts that Aerius doth. To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add, the common judgement of Reformed Churches, viz. Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries, citing the harmony of Confessions. Yea their own Church of England (Chap: II. of the harmony.) Thereafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he says anent Ieroms (so often repeated) a Marco Evangelista— showing both by the decree of the 4t. Council of Carthage cap.: 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination (which, saith he, proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places, although jerom says, quid facit excepta ordinatione &c:) and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture, and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That jerom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopal power since Mark, about which the question is. Where also he vindicats Calvin (Jnstit: 〈◊〉: 4. c: 4. Sect: 2.) cited by Bancroft (as likwayes by our Dialogist here) as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacy since Mark at Alexandria. He saith [That Calvin having shown that Ministers choose out one to preside, to whom especially they gave the name of [Bishop,] Shows that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignity, that he should rule over them, but was appointed only to ask the votes, to direct and admonish— and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent— And having declared, that jerom shows this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds, that the same jerom other where shows, how ancient ane order in the Church it was, even from Marks time to Heraclius &c: In which words of Calvin (saith the Doctor) seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions, hath evident relation to that before described, and that in the describing of it he had said, The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them: It follows that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report [that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superiority over the Clergy] A contradictory Conclusion to that of our Informer. The Doctor proceeds thus. Wherefore to use no more proof in a thing manifest, which else might be easily proved more at large out of jerom and Mr. Calvin both, it is certain that neither of them doth affirm, that Bishops so long time have had such a superiority, as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them. To all this add, that Dr. Holland the King's professor in Oxford, at ane Act (jully 9 1608.) Concluded against Mr Lanes question [an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu, eoque superior jure divino. That is, whither Episcopacy be a distinct order from the Presbyterat & superior thereunto by divine right] That the affirmative was most false, against the Scriptures, Fathers, the doctrine of the Church of England, yea the very Schoolmen themselves, Lombard, Thomas, Bonaventur.  
A 2d. Essential point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacy, is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction, viz, that these are not in the hand of any single Prelate, but that Presbyters have ane essential joint interest therein. And this also hath a large Consent and Testimony of the learned both ancient and Modern. For this the 4t. Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile, anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council. Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch, Can●…: 10. of Aneyra. Can. 13. Ruffian's hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9 Sozom. l. 2. c. 23. and many such. Smectim. pag. 28, 29, 30, 31. citys many Testimonies for this. See Blondel. Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish: of Timothy and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced, such as joannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap: 13. the Wald●…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts. Monum. p. 210. Illyric. Catol. testiumveritatis. Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton, Arg. & Respons. par. 7. De Potest. Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large. Peizelius, Arg. & Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin. Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus, Loc: Com. de Ministerio verbi. Morn●…y Lord of Pless. de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves, Summa angelica ordo, Sect: 13. and Innocentius there cited. Filiu●…ius jesuit▪ de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract. 9 Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par. 4. Quest. 9 M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan. on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others. Likewise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters, and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority. Leo primus (Epist. ●…8.) on complaints of unlawful ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops, reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops, and among the rest Presbyterorum & diaconorum consecratio, the consecration of Presbyters and deacons'. Then adds, quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur. That is, All which things are commanded to be reserved to the chief priests by the Authority of the Canons. For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum. l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination, the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo. The latter confession of Helvetia (Harmon. of Confess Chap. 11. pag: 232.) asserts, That the holy function of the Ministry is givin●… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters, no word of Pre lats hands. So the 18. Chap: (pag. 236.) they are to be ordained by public prayer and laying on of hands, which power they say is the same and alike in all, citing that passage Luke. 10. he that will be great among you, let him be your servant. So Act. 15. and jerom on Tit. 1.— therefore (say they) let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God (so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination) and rather receive it then the Custom devised by men, (So they call the Episcopal Method). Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9 (Harm. Sect: 11 pag. 246. 247.) after setting down the qualifications of Ministers— As to ordination they say, that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands. So the Confess. Sax: Chap: 12. (Harm: Conf: par. 2.) affirm that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordain Ministers, lawfully elected and called. Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination, and the people's interest in the Call of Pastors, in opposition to prelacy. So the Confession of the French Church. Credimus veram Ecclesiam &c: We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ hath ordained, viz, that there be Pastors, Presbyters or Elders and Deacons. And again we believe that all true pastors wherever they be, are endued with equal and the same power under one head and Bishop Christ jesus, which strikes our Diocesian and Erastian frame of government stark dead. Which is seconded thus by the Belgic Confess. (Art: 30.) All Christ's Ministers of the word of God have the same and equal power and authority as being all Ministers of that only universal head and Bishop Christ. To thesewe might add many other Testimonies of reformed divines, as Calvin, Piscator, Marl●…rat on 1. Tim: 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu. P●…ccat. and Legal. in 4tum. praecep. Chemnitius Loc. Com. Part. 3. de Eccles. Cap. 4. Exam. Concil. Trid. part. 2. de Sacram. ordinis pag. 224, 225. proving also that Election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church. Antonius Sadael, Resp. ad repetita Turriani Sophismata, par. 2. lo●…. 12. Beza (de divers: Ministrorum gradibus.) junius [Controu. 5. l. c 3. N: 3.] Chamierus [Panstratia Cathol: Tom: 2. de Occum: Pontis: cap. 6.  
A 3d. Great point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to prelacy, is the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers. And for this there is as full a consent of divines, and Churches, both ancient and Modern. Several of the forementioned Confessions clears this, the people's election and call being taken in together with, Presbyters ordination, Cyprian (Epist. 68) is full to this purpose. Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi, quod & ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos sub omnium oculis, plebe presente deligatur, & dignus atque idoneus public●… judicio ac Testimonio comprobetur. That is, The people themselves have Chiefly the power, either of Electing, worthy priests, or refusing the unworthy: which mater we see even of itself to descend from the divine authority, that the priest be set apart under the eyes of all in the people's presence, and as worthy and qualified be approved by a public judgement and Testimony. So lib: 1. Epist: 4. is full for the Church's liberty and right in elections. The 4t. Council of Carthage [Can. 22.] Requires to the admission of every Clergy man, civium assensum, & testimonium & convenientiam, The consent of the citzens, their testimony, and agreement Socrat [l. 4. c. 25. says that Ambrose was chosen Bishop of Milan by the uniform voice of the Church. In the pretended Apostolic, but truly old constitutions of Clement [lib. 8. cap. 4.] The Bishop who must be ordained is appointed in all things to be unblameable, chosen by all the people; unto whom let the people being assembled on the Lord's day (N. B.) with the Presbytery and the Bishops there present, give their consent: And a Bishop asks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Presbytery, & the people●…, if they desire such a man to be set over them. The Helvetick confession told us, that the right choosing of Ministers is by consent of the Church. So the Belgic confession tells us [that Ministers, Elders, and Deacons, are to be advanced to their office by the lawful election of the Church.] Greg. Nazian. (orat. 31.) commends Athanasius his calling as being after the Apostolical example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the suffrage of all the people. Blondel clears this from a large consent of antiquity (page, 379. to 473.) And this is cleared also by a large consent of protestant divines. Luther (de potest. Papae.) Calvin (on Act. 6: 3.) Beza (confess. Cap. 5. Art. 35.) Musculus (in Loc. come.) Zanch. (on 4t. come.) Junius (Animadvers. on Bellarm. Controu. 5. l. c. 7.) Cartwright (on Act. 14. v. 23.) Wallaeus, Bullinger, Wittaker. See Mr Gilesp. Misc. quest. pag 18, 19 Our first book of Discipline appoints to the people their votes and suffrage in election of Ministers. (in the 4t. head.) And the 2d. book (Cap 3.) discharges any to intrude contrary to the will of the congregation— or without the voice of the eldership.  
A 4t. Essential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to Prelacy, is in relation to the office of the ruleing elder, as appointed by Christ. This we cleared from Scripture, and there is as clear a consent of antiquity for it, and of modern reformed Churches and divines, exhibited by our writers. For this Ignatius (Epist: ad Trallianos, ad initium pag. 66. edit. oxon. An. 1644.) is cited. Likewise Baronius (in his Annals Anno 103. in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani & Felicis.) Tertul. (Apolog. Advers: gentes. Cap. 39) Origen. (ontra Celsum lib. 3.) Cyprian (Epist. 36.) Optatus (lib. 1. pag. 41. edit: paris: An. 1631.) Ambrose (comment. on 1 Tim. 5: 1.) And for modern writers, Whittaker (contra Duraeum lib: 9 Sect. 47.) Thorndicks discourse of religious assemblies (cap. 4. pag. 117.) Rivet (Cathol. Orthodox, Tract. 2. quest. 22, Sect. 4).  
Finally. Presbyterian Government, as it stands in opposition to the present Prelacy in its Erastian mould, and maintains a spiritual authority in the hands of Church officers, distinct from, and independent upon the civil powers of the world, hath as full a consent of the learned. As Erastianism was first hatched by Thomas Erastus' Physician in Heidelberg about the year 1568.— And much catched up, and pleaded for by Arminians since, so it hath been impugned by a full consent of reformed divines, who have fully proved it to be contrary to the rules of Church Government set down in the Scripture both in the old and new Testament, and utterly eversive of the Gospel Ministry and Church. The eminent divines who have written against it, are Beza (who encounters with Erastus himself upon this point) Zachriasursin, Wallaeus, Helmichius, Triglandus, Dr Revius, Dr Voetius, Appollonius, and many others, Especially the famous and learned Mr Gillespy in that elaborat piece, entitled, Aaron's rod blossoming; wherein the consent of the ancient, and modern Church, as to this great point of truth, is exhibit. See 2. book. 1 Cap. p●…g. 167.  
Now, from all that is said, Whither Presbyterian Government hath not the patronage of the purest Scripture antiquity, and a full consent of the after purer times, and of reformed Churches and divines, in all the forementioned points of its opposition to the Prelacy now established: Both in holding, 1. The identity of Bishop and Presbyter, as to name and things 2. Presbyters right of ordination, and Jurisdiction. 3. The people's interest in the Election, and call o. Ministers. 4. The ruleing Elders office. 5. The Churches intrinsic power of Government, I leave to the Impartial to judge. And consequently of the vanity of this new Dialoguist, His pleading upon this point.   
  

A Confutation Of the Second DIALOGUE, Anent the Covenants Against EPISCOPACY.  
Wherein, the Informers reasonings against the abjuration of the present Episcopacy in the National and Solemn League and Covenant, and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto, are examined.  

CHAP. I.  
Atwofold state of the Question proposed, the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both these Covenants, the other concerning the obligation of these oathts against it. That Prelacy is abjured in the National and Solemn League and Covenant, proved at large. And arguments offered to evince their obliging force upon the present and succeeding generations.  
THE state of the Question in the Second Dialogue is twofold, 1. Whither the Prelacy now established by Law in this Church, be abjured in the national, and solemn league and Covenant? 2. Upon supposition that it is abjured in both the one and the other, whither the obligation of these Oaths stands against it, yea or not? We shall a little touch.  
For the 1. Our National Covenant, sworn by King james in the the year 1580, and by the Estates of this land, and many times thereafter, solemnly and universally renewed, both by our Church and State, doth clearly exclude Prelacy. The passages thereof pleaded against Prelacy, and wherein our obligation lies, are these. 1. In General, we profess to believe the word of God to be the only rule, the Gospel contained therein to be Gods undoubted truth, as then received in this Land & maintained by sundry reformed Kirks & States, chiefly by our own. Whereupon we renounce all contrary doctrine, and especially all kind of Papistry in general & particular heads, as confuted by the word of God and rejected by the Kirk of Scotland. 2. After a large enumeration of many points of poprie, disowned upon this ground and vowed against, as contrary unto the word of God, and the gospel of Salvation contained therein. We renounce the Pope's worldly monarchy, and wicked Hierarchy, and whatever hath been brought into this Church without, or against the word of God. 3. We vow to join ourselves to this reformed Kirke in Doctrine, faith, religion & Discipline; Swearing by the great name of God to continue in obedience to the doctrine, and Discipline of this Kirke, and upon our Eternal peril to maintain and defend the same according to our vocation, and power, all the days of our life.  
Now the obligation of this engadgement against prelacy is evident these ways. 1. All doctrines contrary unto, or beside the word of God, are here rejected and disowned: All doctrines contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel, received and believed by the Church of Scotland, and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against God's Word. But so it is that the present hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God, both in its Diocesi●… and Erastian mould, as hath been proved at large. And we heard that this Church of Scotland, since it received Christianity, did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government, and until Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine, never knew a Prelate, Ergo, Prelacy in its Diocesian Erastian mould is here abjured.  
2. Our Prelacy is condemned in that clause of the Pope's wicked hierarchy, whereby the Prelatic Government is most clearly pointed at, which is evident thus. 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelatical: this man will not deny, it is by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Primats Deans &c: and it being distinct from his Monarchy, for else the naming of his worldly monarchy had been enough: and moreover, it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God, and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the sense of it, that assemblies, and the body of this Protestant Church entertained; assemblies declaring that the Word [Bishop] was not to be taken as in time of Papistry. And john Knox (whose sense and Judgement herein was certain retained, and upon all occasions manifested by our Reformers) accounting Prelacy to have quid commune cum Antichristo. Ergo, Prelacy is here vowed against simpliciter and in itself considered. 2. If he grant a hierarchy to be here abjured, sure it must be abjured with the rest of the corruptions enumerat in that large list of them exhibited in this Oath. Now these are abjured in themselves simpliciter, as contrary unto the Word of God and the doctrine of this Kirke, ergo, So must a prelacy or hierarchy be in its self abjured under the same formalis ratio, as thus brought in, whither by the Pope or any other. 3. This hierarchy is supposed in this Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church, as well as the popish Doctrine is therein supposed contrary to her pure Doctrine. Now (as we shall show) the Discipline which this Church then owned, was Presbyterian. So that that Discipline or Hierarchy, which stands in opposition to Presbyterian Government, is here abjured: but so it is that prelacy ex se, & sua natura stands thus opposite unto it, ergo, by the hierarchy, all prelacy is abjured.  
3. Prelacy is abjured in that clause where we profess to join ourselves to this reformed Kirk in her Discipline, as well as her Doctrine, and vow and swear adherence unto both. Now that the Discipline then owned by this Church, was Presbyterian Government or discipline, Is evident these ways. 1. Discipline by general assemblies and Synods having complete parity of all Ministers, with a joint decisive suffrage, is Presbyterian Discipline; but this was that Discipline owned by our Church: For her first national Assembly (completely Presbyterial in its mould) was in the Year 1560. After which time until 1580 When this Covenant was sworn, there were many assemblies exercising their power. 2, That is presbyterian Discipline, which did judicially condemn prelacy as having no warrant in the Word, and owns no Church officers as lawful but pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons. But so it is that this was the judicial decision of our general assemblies, long before this Covenant; for the first book of discipline, containing the Basis of presbyterian Government, was approved and subscribed by this Church in the year 1560. And the Second book of discipline in Anno 1578. Which two books completely overthrow Prelacy, & lays down a mould of Presbyterian government. And thereafter in the assembly at Dundie (Anno. 1580. Sess. 4.) The office of a Prelate was particularly condemned by a solemn act, and abolished as unlawful, and void of Scripture warrant, ordaining under pain of excommunication such as brooked the said office to lay it aside, as ane office to which they are not called of God, and cease from preaching and administering Sacraments, under hazard of the same Censure; or using the office of a Pastor till they receive admission [de novo] from the general assembly. Now in the national covenant, this existent discipline being sworn to be maintained, who can say but that Prelacy is most formally abjured therein; Especially if it be considered, that in the same year 1580 This national covenant was sworn, at which timethese things were so fresh & recent. 3. That discipline which the takers and framers of this cov●…nant, at the taking of it, and in pursuance of its ends, did carry on and establish, that discipline it must needs include and engage unto in their sense: but that was Presbyterian-government. For (to omit many preceding discoveries heirof mentioned in the Apology) in the year 1580. The assembly after their judicial declarator, that Prelacy is contrary to the word of God, sent Commissioners to the King to desire the establishment of the book of policy by ane Act of Council, until a parliament were convened; and what this book of policy contained, we did already hint. Then in this same year, the national covenant and confession is sworn by the King and Council. In the assembly 1581. it is subscribed by all the members, and the Act of the Assembly at Dundie explained. And it was again judicially declared that the Church did thereby wholly Condemn the estate of Bishops as they were in Scotland. At which very Nick of time the Confession of faith (Sworn before in the year 1580.) is presented to the assembly by the King and Council, Together with his Letter to Noblemen and Gentlemen for erecting Presbyteries Completely through the nation, and dissolving Prelacies, all the three, viz, both the King, the Estates and the assembly, fully agreeing in this judgement as to Church government, and this oath for its maintenance. And according to this joint authoritative determination of Church and State, Presbyteries were erected. Likewise in this assembly according to the forsaid joint conclusion, the Second book of discipline containing the mould of Presbyterial Government, and likewise this National Covenant and oath for its preservation, are (as the two great Charters of our Church's government and liberties) insert into the Church's records ad futuram rei memoriam, And that posterity might not be ignorant of the discipline sworn in that covenant. Upon which, and many such like grounds, the Assembly 1638 did again judicially declare this sense of this National Oath, which accordingly was received with ane express application to prelacy, and the other Corruptions attending it, and taken by the whole land with a full concurrence of the civil Sanction and authority, Anno. 1640.  
The 2d. Great engadgement pleaded against prelacy, is that of the Solemn League and covenant: Wherein we vow the preservation of the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and government according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches. In the Second Article, We swear the extirpation of poprie and prelacy, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries etc. And all Ecclesiastical officers depending on that Hierarchy— of whatever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness. Which engadgement hath been likewise taken by all ranks, by Parliaments, Assemblies, and the body of the people. Now that the Prelacy at this time established is abjured in this engadgement, is these ways Evident.  
1. Prelacy being razed in Anno. 1638. according to our national covenant, and ane engadgement being framed of adherence to the Religion established in Doctrine, worship, discipline and Government, in opposition unto all innovations formerly introduced, and upon both grounds, Presbyterian government, in its exact parity being set up, and judicially enacted, both by Assembly and parliament: that the Solemn league must needs strike against Prelacy, is in this apparent, because this league is clearly referable to the great ends of the national covenant, as it stood then established, explained and Sworn by this whole nation; and therefore is ane accessory engadgement, commensurat unto, and to be explained by the preceding: and consequently none can doubt that it strikes against prelacy, and engadgeth to Presbyterian government, who knows how former engadgements stood.  
2. The preservation of the Doctrine, worship, Discipline and government then existent in Scotland, referring to the then establishment thereof, in opposition to the former prelacy and all its corruptions; It's evident that all sort of prelacy & whatever corruption in Government is inconsistent with Presbyterian simplicity and parity, is here abjured and covenanted against. As we engage the preservation of the Doctrine and worship as then reform, from Prelatic innovations, so likewise we swear to preserve our Churches ancient and pure discipline as it stood then recovered from prelatic encroachments. That discipline & government is here sworn unto, as the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland, which the Church and State of Scotland at this time established and owned: But so it is, that that was Presbyterian government, then fully ratified both by Church and State, Ergo, the preservation of Presbyterian government is sworn; and by further consequence that government which was by Church and state extirpate, as abjured in the national covenant, and contrary unto this Presbyterian frame, was likewise abjured and covenanted against in this league. But such was prelacy, Bishops, Arch-Bishops &c: ergo. Again.  
3. The great ground upon which our adversaries deny the national Covenant to strike against prelacy, is, that they hold that the then existent discipline, to which in that Oath we vow adherence as the discipline of this Church, was not Presbyterian government, & that King james did not own it. Ergo, (by ane argument a contrariis, and ad hominem) since its undeniable with them that de facto Presbyterian government was now enacted, ratified, established and set up, both by Assemblies and King and Parliament, that government we must stand obliged unto by the solemn league, as the reformed discipline and government of this Church, and contrarily that government which was then the facto by assemblies, King and Parliament razed as inconsistent with Presbyterian government, and as abjured in the national Covenant, that government we cannot deny, but the solemn league strikes against. But so it is that prelacy was at this time razed by Assemblies, King and Parliament, as inconsistent with the national covenant, and Presbyterian government then established, ergo this solemn league strikes against Prelacy.  
4. The word preserve here used— and the expression of common enemies clears this further: preserving ●…relates to that which one is in possession of, the common enemies of this possession, in the sense of all, both Imposers and engadgers, are the Prelates and their Malignant Agents, so that the holding fast of what was attained in point of reformation &c: Presbyterian government in all its established privileges against Prelates, Prelacy, and all the incroachements thereof, is here most evidently engaged unto.  
5. That engadgement and oath which they who have set up prelacy in our Church, did Cassat and remove, as inconsistent therewith, that must needs, by their own confession strike against it: but so it is, that our Parliament and Rulers did wholly Cassat this solemn league, in order to the establishing of Prelacy. Ergo, by their own confession it strikes against it. They cassat the national covenant only as interpreted against Prelacy, supposing that it will not in its self strike against it, but the league they simply abjure, and disclaim its obligation as to a change of this Prelacy: Ergo they do upon the mater acknowledge that it strikes against it.  
Finaly, Our adversaries do grant that it strikes against Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Deans &c: That we are bound thereby to extirpate such officers, though its only that specific complex form expressed in the Second Article, which they think is properly abjured. But 1. Is it not a prelacy inconsistent with Presbyterian government (which we engage to preserve in the First Article) which we abjure and engage to extirpate in the Second, and under this formalis ratio, as thus inconsistent, in the sense and judgement of our Church and State (the Imposers of the Oath)? And are not Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Deans &c: contrary to Presbyterian government, then in being? 2. Dare this man or any of that party deny but that the former prelacy which we had in Scotland was intended to be abjured by our Church and State, and the Imposers and renewers of this oath, and do not all engagements bind according to the sense of Imposers, in the judgement of Casuists? 3. Is not our Government now by two Arch-Bishops and twelve Bishops? Have not these their Deans, Archdeacon's, Chanters & c? 4. Are not our Prelates restored to all their pretended privileges, taken from them by the Parliament who Imposed this oath? Nay redintegrat to a more absolute possession of pretended Spiritual authority then ever any before them possessed since our reformation? 5. Are we not engaged to extirpate all Eeclesiastick officers depending upon that hierarchy, as we are engaged against whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness not in bulk only, but every thing Sigillatim upon this ground, and formalis ratio? And dare any of them deny that in the sense of Imposers, a diocesian Bishop or Archbishop (especially as their power now stands enlarged and qualified) is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness? Dare he say that any of the Imposers judged ane Archbishop, or Bishop, especially in such ane Erastian mould as he is now, to be consistent with the word of God? Sure he were very Impudent who would assert it.  
This being clear then, that these engadgements leavells against the present Prelacy, let us point out Next, their obliging force.  
This will be clear, if we consider these oaths. 1. In their form or formalis ratio, or nature and essence. 2. In relation to their subject whom they affect. 3. In their mater and object. 4. Their end and design.  
1. In their Form, and that either in relation to several sorts of ties included in them. Or 2. The Qualifiations of these ties. For the 1. They are oaths wherein God is invocked as a witness of our sincerity, and as a swift witness against us if we break. The Scripture is full in pointing at the Sacred nature of oaths. The Third command of that fiery law which Gods own voice pronounced from Heaven; and which his finger wrote upon the Tables, and which he commanded to be kept within the Ark, is, thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, and with this severe Certificate, that he will not hold them guiltless who thus profane his name. He threatens to be a swift witness against the false swearer. [Thou shalt perform to the Lord thy oaths,] is amongst the grand and moral precepts frequently inculcat in Scripture. See levit: 6. 3. 19 12. Numb. 30. 2. Psal. 15. 4. In this egagement the debt accrues to God, and the absolution consequently must have his special warrant. Quia religio juramenti pertinet ad forum divinum. Hence the Scripture is full of Instances of the Lords dreadful punishing the sin of perjury, witness that of Saul and Zedekiah whereof afterward. Now in both these engadgements, there is express mention made of Swearing by, and unto God. 2. These engadgements are promises or promissory oaths, whererein we express our purpose, and resolution, as to important duties both to God and man, invocking themselves as a witness of our sincerity: we have opened our mouths to God, and to one another in reference to great and weighty duties, relating to the first and Second Table. O what strong bonds are promises, especially of this nature; what conscience did even heathens make of them, where of instances are abundantly adduced in the Apology (pag: 334, 335. etc.) 3: These engadgements are vows unto God, that is promises made to God in the things of God, such as public and personal reformation: God here is not only invoked as a witness, but is the proper Correlat and party in this engagement, and O but it is a fearful thing to fall into his hands, to be punished for the breach hereof. The Scripture is full as to commands and precedents to pay and perform our vows, see Numb: 30: 2. 1. Sam: 1, 21. Ps. 76, 11. Ecc: 5, 4. 5. 4. They are Covenants, and that both with God and man, viz: engadgements to God for performance of duties revealed in his word, such as the people made, when upon the law's promulgation, they said, whatsoever the Lord commands we will do, Exod. 19 8. cap. 24: 3, 7. Deut. 5, 27. and 26, 17. and therefore are so often charged with breach of Covenant in their after disobedience. We have engaged to God (in these vows) speaking to us in his word from heaven, touching national and personal reformation. Here is also a mutual stipulation betwixt the nations, and with one another touching important duties of the 2d. table in relation to there mutual rights. Now, the Scripture is full in pointing out the weight and importance of such engadgements, see Ezek: 17. Jos. 9: 18, 19 Neh: 9: 38. Jer: 34: 18. So that in these Sacred bonds there is the tye of an oath, from the reverence we owe to God, whose name we must not take in vain. The obligation of a vow, from the homage and fealty we owe unto him, the strength of a promise, both to God and man, from the influence of truth and righteousness, all concurring to render the same Sacred and inviolable.  
The binding force of these engadgements does further appear in their qualities, as 1. they were solemnly taken on: It's a Maxim that the obligation grows▪ with the solemnity of ane engadgement; and the Scripture aggregeth the breach from the solemnity, such as the cutting the ealfe in twain, and Zedekiahs' giving of the hand etc. For this imports deliberation and resolution in the engadgers, and renders the breach more scandalous and infamous. These oaths were taken by solemn assemblies, and Parliaments, after conference, prayer, fasting &c. 2. These are holy and most weighty engagements in the great concerns of God's glory and our own salvation, the crown and kingdom of Christ against Anti-christ. 3. They are large and extensive, including duties of the whole word of God, all duties we are tied to in his holy law. 4. They are universal engadgements, all were given up to God in them, representatives and members of Church and state. 5. perpetual and real, as that betwixt David and jonathan 2. Sam: 9: 7: 21: 7. That betwixt joshua and the Gibeonites, joshua 9: 18, 19 And that Covenant Dent: 29: 14, 15.  
Secondly the binding force of theseengadgements appears in the subject they affect, as first, our Church in her representatives, and in their most public capacity, the solemn assemblies in both nations. 2. State representatives & Parliaments, thus all assurances are given, that either civil or Ecclesiastic laws can afford, and the public faith of Church & state is plighted with inviolable ties: So that they must stand while we have a Church or state, in Scotland; both as men and as Christians, as mmbers of Church & State, under either a rereligious or civil consideration, we stand hereby inviolably engaged: and not only representatives but the incorporation of Church and State are under the same.  
Thirdly their binding force appears in the matter and Object, 1. The immediatformall object is the Word of God & the Truths and duties therein contained, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of Godliness, under that formalis ratio, is here abjured, the eternal Truth of the Gospel as holden out in the Word, and received in this and reformed Kirks being the grand rule in this engadgement, whatsoever is approved by it, is embraced, and what is condemned by it, is rejected under that notion. 2. The more remote or material Object, are the public, necessary, great and important Truths and duties therein enumerat, both of the 1 and 2 Table, and the errors and sins therein abjured: To the observation, faith and obedience of the one, and abhorrency of the other, under the formentioned consideration as either consonant unto, or dissonant from God's eternal Word and truth, we stand perpetually and inviolably obliged: So that this Oath hath ane objective, as well as subjective necessity contained therein, a necessity of the matter in its own nature, prior to the engadgement, as well as a necessity of performance flowing from the engadgement itself, which may take place in things indifferent.  
Finaly the constantly obliging ends and scope of these engagements, joined with the importance of the Matter subservient to these ends, further discover their inviolable obligaions. There is here both necessitas precepti, necessitas medij, & finis. The matter sworn to be performed, falls under divine precepts, the sins and evils abjured, falls under divine prohibitions, and these engadgements are both in respect of the matter itself, and as to the professed scope of the swearers and engadgers, leveled at continually obliging ends, such as God's glory, the advancing of Christ's Kingdom, the public good of Church and State, the preservation and propagation of public and personal reformation, truth, unity etc. Now both these Oaths and Covenants are professedly entered into as perpetual engadgements, and in order to these great ends for ever to be promoted, as their tenor clearly holds out.  
If any say what is all to the special obligation for Presbyterian Government, and in opposition to Prelacie●…? the Oath may be temporary or cassat and made void as to that point, though there be never so great duties otherways engaged unto therein. Ans This particular engadgement in relation to the maintenance of Presbyterian Government, and in opposition to Prelacy, runs along in the forementioned particulars. 1. It falls under the obligation of the Oath, vow, promise, and Covenant, and under the forementioned qualifications of solemnity, universality, and importance. Again 2. the public faith of Church and State reaches this most evidently, and is engaged for it. And 3. as God's great ordinance holden out in his Word, Presbyterian Government falls within the compass of the object of these Oaths, and under that consideration is sworn to be maintained, and Prelacy as contrary thereunto is abjured, which contrariety hath been already cleaed. Again Presbyterian Government is here engaged unto as subservient to these great ends mentioned, and Prelacy is abjured as hindering the same, as both the Word of God and experience hath convincingly discovered.   

CHAP. II.  
The Informers arguments against the abjuration of Prelacy in the national Covenant fully examined. Some reasons of his against an Oath in general, or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity, weighed. The Apologetical narration, and the Assembly 1638, vindicated.  
WE come now to examine what this new sin-absolver or pretended doubt-resolver, hath presented to us against the obliging force of these great engagements. The defence which he hath patched up out of the survey of Naphtali, and that pamphlet called the seasonable case, consists of 2. parts. 1. He denys that the bond of either the national, or solemn league and Covenant, doth strike against the present Prelacy. 2. Upon supposal that the solemn league and Covenant doth strike against it, he denys its obligation. In both points we shall examine his grounds and trace his Method. I the doubter alleges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant, so that none may warrantably own the Ministry of such as preach under them, as being perjured. To this consequence he repones nothing, but seems to admit it, and therefore we need not speak unto it. Only he quarrels with the antecedent & tells us that we would act more Christian Like, if we were sparing in judging another man's servants, who stand or fall to their own Master. But the judging there forbidden, being a rash felfish judging of others in things indifferent, as meats or drinks, and (as Calvin paraphraseth the words) de hominium factis pronunciare extra verbum Dei de factis aliorum non licet statuere secundum nostram ipsius estimationem, sed ex verbo Dei. That we are not to judge of men's practices by our own opinion, but according to the rule of the Word, and not without its limits. Telling us further, that judicium quod a verbo sumitur, neque humanum est neque alienum that it is no human private judgement which is drawn from the Scriptures, the impertinent application of this passage & premised Scripture to our case, which is a practical disowning of palpable perjury, and turning away from such, whose instruction causeth to err from the words of knowledge, is obviously evident. This is no judging without God's word, but according to it, to say that perjury is perjury, sin is sin. Our Informer by this new knack would take away all christian judgement of discretion, yea by this his wide gloss, all judicial decisions whither civil or ecclesiastik. Besides, is not his pamphlet a judging of another man's servants, Ministers and people, as schismatics and what not, for disowning Curates upon the forementioned grounds. Doth he not and all his party judge, despise, and persecute the people God, for that which he calls indifferent, and a disputable point, at the foot of the page. But to proceed, his Doubter alleging [that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which do abjure them] he cries out at, all Bound! as a paradox, and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it, and asks if we think them bound. Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in God's covenant (Deut: 29.) who were not there, as well as these who were there, young and old, wives, little ones, from the hewer of wood, to the drawer of water. It seems this man either hath not read that chapt: or understands not the import of national compacts even among nations themselves; which do certainly oblige all members in the incorporation, although not personally sworn by every individual. Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majesty, but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supremacy or alledgeance. If so, than a man could not, be guilty of treason, which is certainly a breach of this fealty, unless he had personally sworn, which I know not who will assert.  
But the doubter alleging That it obligeth even the posterity, he tells us that this is a strange fancy, juramentum being with casuists, vinculum personale, binding those that took it only, that accordingly the Covenant says, [we every one for ourselves] and not [for ourselves and others]— That the father who was against Bishops, his swearing should not prelimit his son's judgement (who is for them) in a disputable point, or oblige him to act contrary, to his judgement. Ans: 1. That there are covenants and oaths real and hereditary, as well as personal, is evident in scripture; and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it, which is not only thus evident, but acknowledged also by Casuists. Was not that oath and Covenant, Deut: 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto (and by consequence engaging) their seed for ever. Deut: 5: 2, 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive, even that Covenant at Horeb, though they were all near dead with whom it was made. Neh 9 38. all entered into Covenant but only some sealed it. Was not that oath of joseph's brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan, the oath to the Gibeonites, such as did reach and oblige their posterity? So that oath betwixt David and Jonathan. 2. Sam: 9 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such, cannot be doubted, it being about matters of perpetual and everlasting importance, which no time can alter, evacuat or limit, and having the public faith of Church and state interposed therein, by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath: And likewise being in its nature promissory, in relation to duties, midses and ends perpetually necessary and obliging, it is palpably evident that it is real, and not personal only. 2. For that expression, every one for ourselves, it is very impertinently here alleged to exclude the posterity: for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be, the glory of God, the advancement of Christ's kingdom, the happiness of the King and his posterity, the true public liberty, safety of the kingdoms etc. wherein every ones private state is included; which of necessity includes the posterity and designs the obligation for them.  
Next, in the close of the first article, the posterity is expressly taken in, when the end and design of the matters therein contained is said to be, that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love &c: And in the close of the 5. article we engage to endeavour that the Kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity: and therefore his negative inference viz: for ourselves, and not for our posterity, is opposite unto the very sense, scope, and words of this oath: so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities, conditions, and relations, wherein, in order to the work of God, the then engadgers stood. 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the father's engadgement, is a poor shift. For this might be objected against any national mutual compact, in matters of a far lower nature than this. This might have been objected against Josuahs' oath to the Gibeonites. Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them, and might not Zedekiahs' posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon? I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawful Covenant and vow to engage for prelacy as now constitute, and oblige for ourselves and posterity, that it shall stand in this posture. Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this, since he looks upon prelacy as the ancient apostolic frame, owned by the primitive Church. But shall the son's judgement who is other ways minded, be prelimited by the father, or else must he act contrary to his judgement? let the Informer see to this. If he say it's not a disputable point to hold the present prelacy, and that therefore the son is obliged to inform his judgement and act rationally, the obligation to the duty carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it: surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant; and that consequently his objection is naught, and the horns of his horned argument are crooked, so that it bushes us with neither of them. We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to practise, in many things not indispensably necessary: will fall under the father's paternal power over Children, witness that case of the Rechabites: And that this will not in every thing infer a prelimi, tation in judgement as to the object simpliciter: Nay who knows no●… that the great moral precept [honour Thy Father and thy Mother] imports a very extensive obligation upon Children as such, in order to obedience to parents, and gives unto parents a large, and extensive authority hereanent. But shall the son be prelimit in his judgement anent all these, or act contrary to it? so this objection (in the Informers sense, and according to his scope) will blur out a great part of the 5t. Command. But what needs more, the matters here engaged unto, are important truths and duties, not disputable points, as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party would make them: and therefore we are under perpetual obligations to own and maintain the same.  
But if this man will abide a quere here, and a little retortion of his notion further, thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithful ministry and professors of this nation, in their judgement about his disputable points of the present conformity, by so many laws and acts, or else oblige them to act contrary to their judgement? Sure fathers have at least as great, if not a greater authority to limit their children, than the Prelates and their party to prelimit the Presbyterian Ministers of this Church. Especially (which is our advantage in this comparison) the children being supposed under no previous contrary obligations to that which in this case the fathers put upon them in relation to prelacy, as the non-conformists are under counter obligations to that which is now demanded of them by their persecutors.  
Mr Crofton. (in his analepsis, pag. 145.) tells us that considering the Covenant as made by the people of England, as a Kingdom and a Political body, professing the reformed religion, it looks like a national obligation, that the confluence of public assent and authority by the people collectively and distributively considered, the accession of Royal assent, makes it a Public and national Covenant, binding all persons of the nation (that swore, or swore not personally) and our posterity after us, in their particular places, and all that shall succeed unto the public places, and Politic capacities of this kingdom, to preserve and pursue the things therein promised, so long as it remains a kingdom, under one king, and in the profession of one reformed religion. He enforces this with the lord chief Barons speech, to the condemned traitors at the old bailiff [you were bound to bear allegiance to your king, yea though you may not have taken the oath of alleadgance yourselves, yet you were bound by the Recogintion of king James and his posterity made at his first coming to the crown of this Realm, by the whole parliament, being the whole collective body of the kingdom] hence he infers, that they and their posterity, must needs be bound, who themselves have [universally] by the authority of such who were entrusted for them engaged the faith of the nation: for I see not (saith he) how they can give away our estates or take pardons in the name, and to the security of the nation if they may not in our name make oaths, promises, and Covenants to bind us and our Succeeding generations and posterities, in sense whereof I cannot but desire all that wish well to England to consider the Covenant, the Solemn League and Covenant. So that with Mr Crofton it is an uncontrovertible point, that the obligation of this Sacred oath reaches the posterity, which he makes good from the sense and pleading of the Lord chief Baron in the point of alledgance and fealty to his Majesty which is the sentiment of all lawyers, and of the law itself. So that what our Informer calls ane odd fancy, appears to be a most solid truth, consonant both to Scripture, reason and the law of nations. As for the next objection of his doubter anent the father's obliging for the child in Baptism it is not our argument, nor is suitable to the state of this question, which is concerning a Covenant taken for our seed als well as for ourselves; and if he acknowledge that the father binds not, in the name and room of the child, than it toucheth not our point, for our question is about father's taking on engadgements for themselves and their posterity. As for what the Informer adds here, its good that he acknowledges that ane obliging force flows from the binding mater in that baptismal Covenant, and that the child's obligation is strengthened by his vow, which is enough in our case against him, since the matter of our Covenants, and vows fall under divine precepts, to which the obligation of the oaths and vows is accessary. So that having sworn to keep these holy engadgements unto God, we must perform, and here he contradicts his forleader, the author▪ of the seasonable case, who will have us either acknowledge the matter of the Covenant indifferent, or not plead the force of an oath or vow as superadded to that which was duty before.  
The doubter next objects That having sworn against prelacy we must not any more dispute, or question the obligation, citing, Prov: 20. 25. This objection he advantageously for himself, but foolishly propones, that he may make way for some discourse (forsooth) upon this Scripture. We acknowledge as well as he, that we are not forbidden to inquire into an oath and vow in what cases, and how far it is binding. Nay this is commanded, since we must both swear and perform in judgement, which requires a knowledge and inquiry as we said before; and when an oath of vow is found materialy unlawful, and vinculum Iniquitatis, it is no transgression of this precept to quite it. Such an inquiry as is in order to the understanding and performance of this vow in faith, we will allow whither to young or old. Only for what he says of many who were put to swear at schools and colleges, and engage in this Covenant, who could not do it in judgement, it is a calumny which he cannot justify, all being exhorted and instructed therein who were come to Years of discretion, so as to be in capacity to enter into this Covenant, with judgement: and if lesser young ones present in congregations where it was sworn, did signify a spontaneous consent, it was no more, than what Israel's little ones did by their presence before the Lord, Deut: 29. Well, but what is forbidden ehre to make inquiry (saith he) how the vow may be eluded. This is ingenuously said, and hereby his own lips condemn him and all his party, who have been now for many years, racking their wits to find out evasions how to elude this Sacred vow. Witness the many pamphlets on this Subject since his majesty's return, and this man's among the rest.  
But the Doubter alleading that upon enquiry we will find ourselves bound against prelacy both by the national & solemme League. He falls upon his impugnation first of the national Covenant, telling us as touching it [that the term of the Pope's wicked hiearchy will not include prelacy, as the survey of Naphtali fully proves] well, let us hear these proofs. The first is because king james and his counsel (the imposers of that Covenant, and the takers of it, Anno 1580) did in anno 1581.: ratify the agreement at Leith, made betwixt the Commissioners of the state and Church anno 1581. which was in favours of episcopacy. And would the king and counsel the next year have acted so contrary to it, if they had thought all episcopacy to be abjured therein Ans. Is this the great demonstration, which the Survever, and he have drawn out to prove this point, this being nothing but the old musty store of the Seasonable case, better propounded therein, then it's here. To this I say, first, it is a very weak or rather wild proof to conclude that such a corruption as prelacy could not be imported in that expression, Because the takers and imposers did some time after counteract and contradict their engadgement: must the sense of a promissory oath and Covenant be measured by the after practice of engadgers? Sure he will not dare to admit this rule, and yet it's the very topic of his argument. I would but ask him, if we could clearly demonstrat from the words of this oath, and from this expression, that episcopacy is therein abjured, must he not grant that this argument taken from their after practice who took it, will signify nothing, since it cannot stand good against the sense of the words, and the obligation natively resulting therefrom. Sure he cannot deny this, else he will swallow monstrous absurdities. And therefore unless he can disprove our arguments, which do prove prelacy to be abjured in that oath, and by the words in their genuine sense, he must grant that this practical argument will signify nothing. 2. He might have found that the Apologist outshoots the Surveyer and him, as also the Seasonable case in their own bow, and breaks this argument with a wedge of their own setting: for whereas they allege that about a year or less after this Covenant was imposed and taken, King James ratified that aggreement at Leith. He retorts that at the assembly 1581. which had declared prelacy utterly Unlawful, and without warrant in the word, the King's Commissioner presented to them (together with the Covenant subscribed by the King) a plot of presbyteries to be erected by him through the Kingdom, together with his letter to noblemen and gentlemen to be assistant therein, and for dissolving prelacies, to make way for these judicatories made up of Ministers and Elders. Hence (Saith he) how could King James intent prelacy by this confession since the self same day (a shorter time then half a year) wherein this confession (subscribed by him and his household) was presented to be subscribed by the assembly, he presented a plot of presbyteries to be erected through the Kingdom. Now let our absolver's Medium come in here, would King and counsel have acted so much for presbytery, and in opposition to Prelacy, in that very day wherein this national Covenant was presented by him, If he had not judged prelacy to be therein abjured, and presbytery engaged unto. And (if this assemblies carriage will have any weight in this argument) would they have recorded this oath as the Test and badge of this their national engagement, after they had immediately before judicially declared against prelacy, if they had not looked upon it as abjured therein, and understood this oath in a sense opposite thereunto.  
The Informers next reason is, that in their strive with the King to get prelacy away, they never used this argument; that it was abjured in the national Covenan●…, which they would have done, had they thought it to be included in that expression, of [the Popes Hierarchy.] This, our Informer hath very justly copied out of the Seasonable case. What? had the Surveyer in all these pages which he citys, no new notions to furnish him with, that this proctor is still feeding on the old store. But to the matter, first, how (I pray) runs this argument, [Ministers pleaded not this obligation at that time with King James: Ergo, There was no such meaning in the national Covenant] surely this is a wide consequence. 2. this is yet wider [we know not of any such pleading at that time: ergo there was none] besides, he might have found that the Apollogist tells him out of Petries hist: pag. 448. That Mr. Melvin in anno 1584. writing to divines abroad anent our Church, shows them that three years since, the discipline of this Church was approved, sealed, and confirmed with profession of faith, subscription of hand, and religion of oath, by the King and every subject of every state particularly. And that (pag; 570.) he shows that when some Ministers (anno 1604) were accused by the Synod of Lothian as to a design of overturning the government, the synod presented the confession of faith to them, as containing ane abjuration of prelacy, and a vow for presbyterian government, And that Mr. Forbes one of the impanelled Ministers for holding that meeting at Aberdeen in anno 1605. in his discourse to the gentlemen of the assize, showed that they were bound by the national Covenant to maintain the discipline of the Church, and having read it to them, he told them that they would be guilty of perjury, if for fear or flattery they discerned that to be treason which themselves had sworn and subscribed. Who also desired the Earl of Dunbar to show the King what followed upon the breach of the oath to the Gibeonites, and that they feared the like should fall on him and his posterity. The Seasonable case (pag: 13.) acknow ledges that Ministers at that time looked upon themselves as obliged against prelacy, by the national Covenant, as well as we by the League, in plain contradiction to this Informer. As for that which he adds [of Beza's intention in writing against prelacy] we spoke to it already upon the first dialogue. And seeing this man objects to us Beza here again, we will offer to his consideration, Beza his 79. epistle written to John Knox, and dated at Geneva, april 12. 1562. Wherein he says, This is the blessing of God that ye brought into Scotland, together with the sound doctrine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good discipline— he obrests him to keep these two, since if the one be lost, the other cannot long continue— thereafter he imputes it to this cause, viz the want of this pure discipline, that the gospel is preached to many in judgement, not in Mercy. Then he adds, I would have thee (my Knox) and the rest of the brethren remember (which is now as before our eyes) that as the Bishops brought in the papacy, so these false Bishops the relics of papacy, will bring Epicurism into the Church. Let them beware of this whoever wish the safety of the Church: and seeing ye have once banished is out of Scotland, receive it never again, albeit it doth flatter with the show of retaining unity, whereby many of the best ancients were deceived. See Petries hist. part. 3. pag. 376.  
The Doubter next enquiring what is meant by the Pope's hierarchy. He answers, not all Bishops, but these who actually depended upon the Pope, and that all Bishops can no more be understood, than reformed Presbyters, who renounce their dependence upon him; Presbyters and Deacons being a part of his hierarchy, as the Council of Trent determines. Ans. This is already removed when we did show that prelacy is here abjured simpliciter, and absoluty, abstracting from this dependence, it being here abjured as other corruptions are abjured, not mainly or only, because the Pope brought them in (as the assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638 clears it in their explanatory act, and likewise the Apollogist pag. 396.) but as a corruption, ●…ex se & sua natura of its own nature, contrary to the word of God, and the pure received doctrine of this Church. It is His wicked hierarchy as the rest of the corruptious therein enumerat, are called [his] such as invocation of Saints, dedications of altars etc. Because introduced by him, not to distinguish these corruptions, from a lawful dedication of altars, worshipping of Images etc. Doth this man think that these Reformers would have admitted such corruptions presented under another notion than the Pope's authority, and obtruded by this Argument; that their dependence upon him being broken off, they were no more to be accounted his corruptions?] or that they would have embraced extreme unction, or some other of his Sacraments, and the inferior orders of Lectors, Acoluthi, Exorcists &c: upon some other consideration than his Sacraments or orders? surely he dare not assert this, and so the case is here. 2. As for his reason that otherwise all Ministers and Deacons should be abjured. It is very impertinent, Because 1. Ministers and Deacons, are officers of divine appointment, so that the abuse being removed, this divine officer stands; but prelacy is, exse, or of itself, contrary to the word of God, as we have proved. 2. The Hierarchy is abjured in that Covenant, as contrary to the then discipline of this Church, but so are not Presbyters and Deacons. 3. We have proved that the Hierarchy, and the special prerogatives which prelate's arrogate to themselves, are originaly papal, and they in a special manner are looked upon by him as his creatures. 4. as the Papacy cannot subsist without prelacy, and any otherways then upon its shoulders, so neirher prelacy nor the Papacy can consist with Presbyterian government, and Presbyters divine right and power.  
The Doubter next objects [that all Bishops depend on the Pope, citing Appol: pag. 395. And that therefore all Episcopacy is abjured in this oath.] He answers, the Apology says they depend upon the Pope, in esse & operari, but asks how he proves it, and tells us that to say it is so because the Pope acknowledges they depend upon him alone, is a poor because, evident to any ordinary capacity, resolving this upon the Popes [ipse dixit] like a Papist, and gives the Papists that advantage over Protestant Churches, that a Bishop depends upon the Pope's supremacy, now and from the beginning, wherein he saith, protestants do oppose the Pope and prove that his supremacy was contradicted by Councils and Fathers. Anf: The silly Impertinency of this new agent of the tottering cause, is here very evident, in thus reflecting upon that Author, whose answers to these poor arguments of the Seasonable case, he dare not touch. For that Pamphleter alleging [that Prelates are not abjured in that Covenant, but as they depend on the Pope, as it abjures the five bastard Sacraments, as he makes them Sacraments, and that therefore the corruptions only of these offices which flow from him, are abjured, and as a part of his blasphemous priesthood.] The Apollogist taking this concession, infers thereupon, That if these offices be abjured as a part of his Hierarchy, and as confirmed by, and depending upon him, than Prelates are abjured, who depend upon him in esse & operári. The Prelate as such being no officer of divine appointment, as the Presbyter and deacon, which if they were, than this Casuists argument would hold good, that we were to remove the corruption, and retain the institution and ordinance of God. But since we do suppose the office it●…self to be a corruption, and he hath not proved the contrary, his paralleled as to the bastard Sacraments is naught. And to clear this matter of fact that they are a part of the Pope's hierarchy, by the Pope's acknowledgement, that Author citys Peter-Suave in his history of the council of Trent, where the Pope would not have it determined, whither Prelates were juris Divini, lest they should not depend upon him after this as formerly. Now the question here being, whether the Pope looked upon Prelates as a part of his hierarchy, as in the capacity of Prelates: in order to the clearing of this other question depending betwixt this reverend author, and the Author of the Seasenable case, viz. whither our Reformers intended to abjure Prelates in that Covenant, as a part of the Pope's hierarchy. To clear this matter of fact, what could be more pertinent than the Popes own acknowledgement, and judicial declarator; that de facto they depend upon him, and areowned as parts of his hierarchy, is in this convincingly apparent. That de jure they have no divine warrant, this author supposed it as his principle, the contrary whereof neither that Pamphleter, nor any other hath proved: So that the Popes [ipse dixit] in this, is sufficient to prove this matter of fact. That he made not the Popes, [ipse dixit] the rule to decide whither this officer be juris divini, or not, is in this convincingly evident (and by consequence this man's obvious folly in imputing to him such ane assertion) that he grants, that if this Casuist had proved the Prelate to be juris divini, and institute by Christ or his Apostles, than the abjuring [of the Pope's wicked Hierarchy], would import only the abjuring of [the corruption of this officer], whose lawful office might be still retained: but this casuist taking this for granted that he is so institute, and reasoning upon that supposition, the author had good ground, until his Antagonist as the affirmer shouldpro vehis supposition, to hold fast his own principle viz, that the prelates Episcopal being is papal: which is cleared by many of the Learned from convincing Testimonies. Let this Resolver read Leo (epist. 86.) and Swave (Tom. 4. pag. 465. of the Council of Trent, sess. 23. cap. 4. de Sacram. ordinis) where Anathema is pronounced upon any that denies Prelate's power of ordination. etc. over Presbyters. I suppose he were alleging against a Papist that some of the Popish orders are essential pieces of his hierarchy, and should prove it by the Pope's acknowledgement and constitutions, would he think the Papists rejoinder good, ergo, ye own the Pope's authority, and make his, [ipse dixit] judge. Say it were a question anent this Acoluthi or Exorcists etc. Whither they are a part of the Pope's Hierarchy? would he not think the Pope's acknowledgement and owning them for such, to be a sufficient argument to prove this? Since he supposeth (and rationally) that they have no other right either in esse, or operari. Do not all our divines draw Arguments from the Pope and his councils acknowledgement, to prove their owning of many corruptions, and that they are properly theirs. But do they justify the Popes [Ipse dixit] in proving this, or in this method of arguing? since they do suppose aliunde, that they have no divine right, as the Apologist in the point of prelacy rationally doth. 2. as for what he adds of protestant Churchet, or Prelates, their opposing the Popes pretended right and Supremacy hereanent, we say that they impugn his supremacy best, who lay an axe to its root [prelacy]. And to grant that prelacy is of its self a part of his Hierarchy, will no more justify his supremacy, than Paul's saying that the mystery of iniquity was working in his time would do it. And all though the first Proestotes or Bishops did not formally depend upon him, yet as a humane device they made way for him, and eatenus, are a part of his Hierarchy, which the opposition of some Bishops when he first attempted supremacy doth nothing invalidat. Besides that the question here betwixt the Apologist and that Pamphleter, was about prelacy as it appeared before the Reformers in its then being and would, but not of the first proestotes or moderatours. What he adds here anent Calvin [his owning of a hierarchy, and pronouncing Anathema upon them who would dissowne it, if cut off from its dependence upon the Pope] is answered already upon the 1. Dialogue. He●…e I shall only add, that if Calvin in that passage, opposed unto the [Popish Bishops] Such as take Christ for their head, what curse will he not judge them worthy of, who own and plead for such Bishops as pretending to renounce the Pope's headship, take for their immediate head a civil Pope, and make him as to all spiritual matters, a more absolute head then the Pope himself.  
As for his argument from these Ministers who reasoned with the Doctors of Aberdeen [their declaring that the Doctors might take the national Covenant, and yet debate and vote in relation to episcopacy in the ensuing assembly] I wonder what blurred this man's eyes, that citing pag. 395. of the Apology, he could not look back, to pag. 393. where he might have found this argument of his Master the author of the Seasonable case answered, which this casuist drew from that pamphlet emitted anno 1638. under the name of his Majesty's Commissioner; so that we have it here in the 3●… concoction, and yet it is as raw as at the first. The answer in short is (I remit it at length to his reading in that piece) that it was not the national Covenant itself that the Doctors scrupled to subscribe, and consequently anent which that debate was stated betwixt the Ministers and them, but the addition containing, the application to the present times, which as to prelacy was expressed thus [a forbearing the approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the Church] by this they thought they were expressly specifically bound against prelacy: this these Ministers denied, but never said that prelacy was not abjured in the national Covenant it self, or the negative Confession. Let this Sin-absolver read the answers of the Ministers, wherein this will be cleared.  
The Doubter next objects [that the decision of the assembly 1638. put it out of doubt that prelacy was abjured in that Covenant, and that all Episcopacy was meant by the Pope's hierarchy]. To which he answers. 1. That prelacy being of divine, or Apostolic right, that decision is null from the beginning. Ans. whereas he says he hath proved prelacy to be of divine or apostolic right, I will presume to say I have proved the contrary; so that the Covenant is so far from being null upon this ground, that it is rather an accessory tye to disown a corruption, to the disowning whereof, wewere before by scripture grounds preoblidged. But passing this, he next alleges that it was more than that assembly could do to declare this. Who so? 1. (saith he) how could they put a sense upon ane oath taken 58. years before, and few or none of the first takers alive, or if alive, few or none members of that assembly? how could they know that their exposition was according to the mind of the first imposers? But why will this Plageary tell us still over and over the arguments of the Seasonable case, without noticing the answer thereof already exhibit unto him? did not the Apologist tell him, that this reason supposeth the sense of that Covenant to perish with the first framers. And whereas that casuist added, to make the argument stronger (which this his disciple forgot) that the oath being vinculum personale, they could not give the sense of dead men. To this the Apologist answers, that there is also a vinculum real, as this national oath was, and that it obliging all the Land, and the posterity, we were accordingly in order to performance, bound to Search into its meaning, and that this was the proper work & duty of a general assembly. That that casuist himself acknowledged (which this borrower should have noticed) that this was the judgement of Ministers concerning its sense when prelate's were first obtruded upon this Church, so that its true meaning from hand to hand was come to them, and that they were the more in tuto to judge of it. And whereas the argument of the Seasonable case had a Limitation in it which this man forgot, viz: [unless that assembly could produce authentic evidences that this was the meaning of Imposers] the Apologist told him that they did produce authentic express evidences, that such was the meaning of the first takers. I would know how this man comes to descant upon the sense of ancient writers in this pamphlet, and to determine anent sentences of private writers, dead several centuries of years ago? He is very confident in fastening his Glosses upon Jerom's words. I trow that Author is dead more than 58. years ago. And for as clear as his words are against the divine right of prelacy, yet this man thinks he is Cock sure that this was not the meaning of Jerom's words, which presbyrerians allege. Quis talia fando, temperet a risu.  
But the Seasonable case goes on to object next (and this resolver follows up at his heels.) That all which that Assembly produceth (Sess. 16.) to prove this to be the meaning of that Oath, amounts only to this, that the Church about that time of taking the Covenant, and also afterward, was labouring against Bishops, but proves not that episcopacy was abjured in the words of the oath. Now why would he not do his Doubter such a small piece of justice, as to put into his mouth the large answer of the Apollogist to this argument, from (pag. 406. to 409.) But this would have made him too stiff a Doubter for this Resolver or Informer: but had he nothing in the Surveyer to resolve this? Well, the Apollogist here tells him and his Leaders in this argument, that the Covenant supposeth a Government then in being, to the defence of which it oblidgeth: that that Government was not prelacy, but presbytery, he clears by a large induction of our assemblies acts and procedure, as the Assembly 1638. did before; so that, that matter of fact being clear, there is No doubt but that the national Covenant binds to defend and preserve presbyterian Government then owned and existing; even as its engadgement to defend the King must needs be understood of King James who was then reigning. That this was the government then Existent and owned by this Church, we cleared in short already, and need not here repeat it. But 3. this Informer (passing over a more plausible objection of his Master the Seasonable case) inquires by what war and that assembly could put upon others their sense of the Covenant; they might declare their own sense (saith he) which possibly was not right, but how could they oblige others to their sense, who had taken it before, the first imposers having given them no such power. The Apollogist here told him, that this assembly put no sense of their own upon any who took it either before or after, but as the representatives of this Church gave a judicial interpretation of it, and by authentic evidences made it appear, that this was the sense of the imposers, and of the Church of Scotland when it was taken, and that such as swore it before with an explicatory addition [to forbear the approbation of prelacy, until the assembly should try whither it was abjured in that oath] did consequently commit this unto, and were accordingly depending upon the assembly to declare the meaning thereof; besides that the judicial interpretation of this national Church her oath, did of right belong unto this her supreme judicatory as is said. Here the Doubter objects [that those who took the Covenant after it was thus sensed by the assembly, have abjured Episcopacy]. To this he answers that the assembly did intend to put no other sense upon it, than the sense of the words, and of the first imposers. Very true, but what then? the first imposers having no such meaning (saith he) as to abjure Episcopacy, the assemblies ground fails, and their posterior meaning could not bind against the first meaning. This last is easily granted, but the great pinch lies in this, how proves he that the first Imposers never meaned it against Episcopacy. This he says is already showed, but where? we must wait it seems for a new pamphlet to get an account of this great proof.  
The Doubter next alleadeth to purpose [that we engage ourselves in that Covenant to adhere to this Church in doctrine, faith, religion and discipline, — and to continue in the doctrine and discipline thereof, which is Presbyterian discipline.] To this he answers. That by discipline, cannot he meant Presbyterian government. Why so? because (saith he) at the first imposing of the Covenant there was no such government in Scotland nor for a considerable time after. Ans. we have made it appear that Episcopacy was judicially declared unlawful, and that both the books of discipline were received, which overthrow prelacy, and asserts Presbyterian discipline, before ever that Covenant was taken; and that at the very time of taking it the old mould of prelacies were dissolved, and Presbyteries erected both by the King, and assembly. But how proves our Informer that there was no such government in Scotland at that time? because (saith he) the King, for all Ministers essays to introduce Presbytery, yet owned Episcopacy. But how proves he this, that at the imposing of the Covenant, he owned episcopacy? did he not own the assemblies power, and the power of Synods? presented he not to that assembly 1581., a plot of Presbytries, and his letter enjoining their erection, & to dissolve prelacies, together with the subscribed Covenant? how did this own episcopacy? let Royalists take notice what an ingrained dissembler this man makes King James, in saying that he still owned episcopacy, when so palpably disowning it to the sense of all reasonable men. And if king James came all this length as to the introducing of presbytery, surely Ministers essays with him for this end, were very effectual. Besides, it's a poor argument to prove that this protestant organic Church was not at that time owning Presbyterian government, or exercising it (and by consequence that the Discipline as then existent, sworn to be mantained in that oath, is not Presbyterian) to say that king James owned episcopacy. Nay, in granting these essays of Ministers for Presbytry, he grants that Presbyterian government was owned. For suit I am what was their sense and endeavours as to Presbyterian government from the beginning, the same were the sense and endeavours of the body of this protestant Church. But his 2d answer to the premised objection of his Doubter is ushered in with a therefor●…— what next? therefore the government meant in it must be Episcopacy, if any particular mode of government be understood. This is well stepped out, a piece beyond his Master the Seasonable case, who hardly comes this length. The man that will let us Episcopacy in this Church at that time, as the Government embraced by her, must have odd prospectives, and of a like quality with these of our Informer, which have descried Diocesian Bishops in Scripture. We heard that the Seasonable case grants [that Ministers than looked on themselves as obliged against episcopacy, both by the national Covenant, and by the word of God] pray Sir, be tender of these Minister's reputation, were they so principled and still owning episcopacy too? this is strange, yea and owning it and promising to defend it in this Covenant. Besides, how will he reconcil our Churches labouring now against Bishops, acknowledged by him pag. 118. with her practising Episcopacy, which he asserts pag. 118. But his answer hath a proviso [if any particular mode of government was understood.] But why will this latetudinarian Informer cast the mist of a hesitating [if] upon a clear and plain truth? strange! Speaks not the Covenant of an existent frame of Government embraced by this Church? What! Were they embracing a Proteus? was it an existent individuum vagum, or materia prima, some Embryon that had received yet no form? But how proves he that Prelacy was sworn unto in that Oath? Because (saith he) the Year after, the King ratified the agreement at Leith in favours of Episcopacy. This we heard before, and did show what an insignificant reason it is, from King James practice a year after, to infer what is the sense and intendment of this Oath, and the takers of it. A topic and reason which none who are solid and rational will admit. Yet the Informer still beats upon this Anvil. Besides, the Apollogist tells him (pag. 15.) that this treaty at Leith, anno 1571, was opposed and censured by the national Assembly, the very next year; So that this national Church in her suprem judicatory, gave no consent unto, but opposed that treaty, and whatever recesses from her Presbyterial Government, were therein begun; But this man's sqeemish eyes, still overlooks what he cannot answer. Now remark our Informers profound and subtle reasoning in this point. King James did not abjure episcopacy in the national Covenant, why so? Because the next Year he acted for Episcopacy. And when we allege that the Government to which that Covenant oblidgeth, was Presbyterian Government which was then existent; he tells us that the Government then existent was episcopal. And when he is put to the proof of this paradox against such clear evidences, he just recurrs again and tells us (for his proof) that King James then acted for episcopacy; fine circular reasoning this is, and the Informer shall thus never want a Medium, & knows exactly to answer the solidest argument against-him with turning, according to the Soldier's dialect, asye were.  
But what is meant by [discipline] in that Covenant? The substantials of it (saith he) and necessary policy as expressed in the first dook of discipline, 9 Cap. which is unalterable, though particular forms (as some think) may be changed. But 1. Why will this versatil Informer bemist his reader what dark and general expressions. Whither means he the [essential necessary Policy,] according to that phrase of the book, or a necessary Policy expressed and asserted in that book? If the first, I would ask him. 1. Why condescends he not upon that essential and necessary policy, and gives no account of its nature and extent, as it is contradistinguished from that which is not necessary, but mutable. 2. If by substantials of Government●…, he mean all Church-officers of divine appointment, according to the Scripture account of their qualifications, their authority, and its due exercise, with what sense or reason can he suppose, or any else, that this will not determine a particular form, & cansubsist without it? how can a particular form be more formally and explicitly described then thus? But, next, if by necessary Policy, he understand the Policy held out and asserted in that first book, I would ask him. 1. Why excludes he the second book, which was at this time extant and received, and which doth in several chapters viz. 5, 6, 7, 8. treat of the Pastor, Doctor, Elder, and Deacons office, which he will no doupt own as substantial pieces of Church-policy, being so clearly asserted in Scripture. 2. Why answers he not to the account & character of that first book given by the Apoll: (pag. 10.) who tells him that it overthrows prelacy in the establishing of Church-sessions, the way of election and trial of Ministers, and several other things contrary to the episcopal method; will he by this silence consent, that prelacy stands in opposition to the substantials of Church Government, and the utterly necessary Policy thereof? to a policy indeed unalterable; (to use his time phrase)? if he say, that he understands by this phrase, that policy which is necessary in either or both these books, but not the intir. Policy delineated therein; how will he prove that the Covenant-obligation in the Intention of the imposers, reaches the on and not the other? Next I would ask this Informer, whither thinks he that particular forms of Government are alterable, yea or not? if not, how comes he to distinguish them in this, from the essential necessary Policy which he calls unalterable? if he think them alterable, why doth he not positively assert this, but presents this opininion as the thoughts of some only, and censures Stilling fleets opinion herein (pag. 76.) Besides, if by [substantials of Government] he unstand [the discipline asserted in that book,] he justles and deals strokes what his reverend father B. Spotswood, in his character thereof exhibit in his History, pag. 174. For first, he says it was framed in imitation of the Government of the reformed Church in Geneva, which all know was Presbyterian. 2dly. He says it it could not take effect as being but a Dream. And did he call the [substantials of Government] but a Dream, thinks this man? Surely either the Bishop or our Informer dreams. 3dly. He wisheth john Knox had retained the old policy, and therefore in his sense this policy was distinct from Prelacy. On the other hand the framers (the Ministry owneing it) supplicat the Parliament after it was drawn up for [the restauration of the Discipline of the ancient Church,] and for discharging the Pope's usurpation, and of all that Discipline that did flow therefrom, as inconsistent with the Discipline of the ancient Church, and the Discipline contained in that book. How absurd is it to suppose that it was only substantials which was at this time existent, and no particular form; it being a form of Government and the Discipline of this Church, which the Covenant oblidges unto; and the Apologist as, well as the Assembly 1638. could have given him a large account and proof of a particular form at this time existent. In a Word, let us have all the substantials of Government, i. e. AllChurch officers divinely appointed, with their due power and Assemblies higher and lower, and it will quickly justle his prelacy to the door, and make him him and hisFathers seest he dint of the true Church of Scotland, her sword and censures for what they have done, if they repent not.   

CHAP. III.  
The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemn League and Covenant, vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer. Also Mr Crofton and Timorcus acquit of affording any Patrociny to his cause. Dr Sanderson stands in terms of contradiction to him in this point.  
BUt now this our Oedipus and doubt resolver who hath acquit himself so dexterously in absolving us from the national Covenant, marches up after the Seasonable case, to try how he can play the sin-absolver as to the solemn league. And his Doubter making a wide step to the 2d. Article [wherein he allegeth Bishops are abjured, and that Protestant Bishops are meant]. To this he answers, That it's not every kind of Protestant Bishops that is there intended, and that Timorcus (pag. 14, 16.) holds that all episcopacy is not abjured, but that they could in England freely Submit to the primitive episcopacy viz, the precedency of one over the rest; without whom nothing is ordinarily to be done in ordination and jurisdiction— that they assert its only the English kind of prelacy (expressed in the Article for that end) that is abjured, which we have not in Scotland. That Mr Vines and Gattaker assert, that its only that complex frame consisting of all the officers there mentioned, that is abjured— that the Assembly of divines was reconcilable to moderate episcopacy,—— That Timorcus holds that the English parliament & our commissioners were not against all Episcopacy, (citing likewise Mr Crofton pag. 70: 71.) hence he concludeth that the English preshyterians would not cry out against conformists as guilty of perjury. Ans. I. It is a very pitiful shift to measure our obligation in Scotland against Prelacy, by the 2d. Article of the league, which relates to the Church of England, wherein only that prelacy was existent. For since Scotland, from the time of our reformation never had such a Prelacy as the adversaries acknowledge, they must consequently grant that the prelacy which that article engadgeth to extirpate, is not solely or mainly the Prelacy which we stand obliged against in that Covenant, but a Prelacy inconsistent with Presbyterian Government (and under that formal consideration) which in the first article we are engaged to preserve. In order to which preservation of our reformed discipline from our own Prelacy, the 2d Article, which doth relate to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland, is subservient as a mean to its end. This is convincingly clear, for I. Extirpation and Preservation being opposite terms, and the last being made use of as to our Church of Scotland, must needs relate to Presbyterian Government as then established, in all its previledges, which clearly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein; And the extirpation, and reformation engaged to in the 2d. Art. must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland, and that by way of mids leading unto, and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation, engaged unto in the first Article. 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy, together with the solemn league, and restore Prelates to the sole possession of Church Government under the King, declaring clearly that the preservation engaged unto in the first article, cannot consist with our Prelacy. Again, as this duty of extirpation is engaged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation, by this Church principally vowed and intended, so that clause in the end of the 2d. Article, viz. [to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness] amounts both as to us and England, to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Prelacy, that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould, under this formalis ratio as thus opposite to sound doctrine etc. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue.  
Next, will this man deny that these officers, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, etc. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d. article, or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant? Says he not that it is only a fixed presidency of order which they are for? and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess? have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans and are we not engaged to extirpate these in the 2d. article? how then can he say that it is only that complex frame with all these officers which we are obliged against. Do not two remarkable clauses contradict this gloss? I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesiastic officers depending on that Hierarchy, what? is it only all in bulk, and not all and every one? this were equivalent to such a wild assertion, as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evils schism, heresy, profaneness,— which are thus Summed up, whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, this engadgement did only relate to all these evils complexly, and not to every one sigilatim or apart. 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles, is there abjured as I said: but such are Bishops, Arch-Bishops, and I add, whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government, is also here formally abjured. In the 3d place, Timorcus is clearly against our Informer, for in explaining what is that prelacy which is abjured, he distinguisheth a Prelacy of jurisdiction, and of mere order. The prelacy of jurisdiction, he saith is twofold, the first is, whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction (such as is our prelacy now in Scotland) in which government Timorcus saith that Ministers, do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti, to give him advice, which is all that our Curates are allowed by law, as is said above, and scarce that. The 2d sort of prelacy he calls paternal, wherein the college of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or Precedent, who must concur with them ordinarily in ordination and acts of jurisdiction. He interprets the Covenant expressly to strike against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction; which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concur with him in ordination and government. Now let this man say, since Timorcus (whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point) together with the parliament of England according to Timorcus, do disowne such a prelacy as is here described, and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof, doth not this articlé of extirpation according to their sense, clearly reach and cut off the present prelacy of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops, obtruded upon this Church? can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination & jurisdiction, that all the power which Curates have according to our Law, is to give the Bishop's advice, yea and not that either, unless he judge them to be persons of Known loyalty and Prudence. And surely if this precedency of mere order, here expressed, be the only primitive Episcopacy, it is far short of what our Informer pleads for, and will never come up to justify the prelacy now existent. And if in the sense of Timorcus, and the other divines mentioned, and in the sense of the imposers of that oath, the extirpation engaged unto, cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of mere order; it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense, the prelacy now existent is abjured.  
That Mr. Crofton, and the Presbyterian Covenanting party in England according to him, are not reconcilable to our prelacy, nor the Covenant in their sense, appears evidently by his plead for the Covenant, against the Oxford men and others. In his Analepsis (pag. 74. 75.) he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove [that the prelatical government in its formality is a plain and clear papacy, and that a Diocesan Bishop, and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limits, not in kind] citing, and approving of Salmasius and Beza's, calling episcopacy a step to the papacy; so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such, is as unlawful as the Papacy in Mr Croftons' judgement, it being with him a part thereof. Again (pag. 78.) whereas the Oxford men plead [that they cannot swear against episcopal government, which they conceive to be of divine or apostolic institution] he chargth them and Dr Gauden, with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti, and not describing of episcopal government: And tells him that episcopal government may denominat a government, communi concilio Presbyterorum, with a Moderator or Chaireman, ordinis causa, which he says is of divine institution, and exemplified act. 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority. This he says the Covenant strikes not against, and the prelacy which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministry above other Ministers, and is invested with Princelike power over them, enjoying an authority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop, of sole ordination and jurisdiction, unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject, and must swear obedience to him etc. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristic of our present Prelates, or affirm that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a mere precedency, ordins causa, which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture, and the Covenant according thereunto, will allow. Thereafter, (pag. 72.) He tells these Masters, that Christ gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another, or princely power over God's heritag●…; and puts them to prove, that the office of the Ministry, may in ordination be divided, or that there are more orders of the Ministry than one (which our Informer still begs a supposition of) viz. Bishop or Presbyter, or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ, or his Apostles by their apostolic authority. That the Presbyter (in whom are required the same qualifications, to whom is to be yielded the same obedience, subjection andrespect, who recives the same ordination, and is charged with the same duty, and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God, with the Bishop, and none other) is an order distinct from, and subject to the Bishop, to be ruled by him, and not to exercise his office but by the Bishop's licence, and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary. Which are the grand postulata and topics of all this man's reasoning in point of prelacy. The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintains as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy; he further describes (pag: 80. and 81.) the prelacy covenanted against, and anent which he challengeth these Master's proof of a jus divinum, to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors—— of a County, or many Counties making one di●…cess— who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them— that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop, to whom they shall swear obedience— adding, that if the Word of God conclude such superiority, over the Church in one Kingdom, it will conclude a Catholic superiority over the universal Church, and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops, as the Archbishops are above the Bishops, and the Bishops above the Presbyters, these not being differences of kind, but degree. Adding further, that no more is pleaded for Prelates divine or Apostolic right in the Church of England, but what is pleaded by Bellarmine, & the Council of Trent, for she Papacy. Now from what is said, I dare refer it is this Informer himself, whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentials of our present prelacy, and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant; the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes. And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy, arch-prelacy, and metropolitan primacy, to stand upon the same basis with the papacy, and to be equally with it, eccentric to the Scriptures; and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops (which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant) to depend (as such) upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy. Next (pag. 81) he says that it is not the first sort of episcopal government formerly described, wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity, are all of the same order, and govern by common counsel, but the specifical prelacy last described, which presumes itself to be a Hierarchy: So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacy falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemn league, and of the Pope's wicked Hierarchy abjured in the national Covenant— for he tells us in the preceding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne, etc. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus, Antioch, Phillippi, Crect, or the seven Churches of Asia, invested with the same ministerial authority which he then enjoined, he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein; so that he esteemed no Bishop there, but Presbyters. Besides (pag. 82.) he citys several writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopal and archiepiscopal chairs & metropolitan primacies, owe their institution to the Church of Rome, or politic constitutions of Princes. He tells us (pag. 84.) out of Cartwright and Whittaker— that the Church in respect of Christ its head (not his vicar, or superiority of single prelates) is a monarchy; in respect of the ancients and pastors that govern in common (all the presbytery) with like authority among themselves (not a superiority over them) it is an Aristocracy, and in respect the people are not excluded, but have their interest, it is a Democracy. The inserted parentheses are Mr crofton's; and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors, a Presbyterian frame of government opposite to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops. In his Analepsis, in answer to Dr Gauden (pag. 2.) he charges him (as before the Oxford men) with an uncertain proposal of the object, and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy, under the general term of Episcopacy (therein also las●…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity) telling them that by good demonstration [Bishop] and [Presbyter] have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers, and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers— adding, that the government of the Church by its Ministers— in their several assemblies, with a Moderator Ordinis causa, to dispose and regulat what belongs to order— is the primitive episcopacy— which he grants to the Doctor, that the Covenant will not strike against— then (pag. 3. and 4.) he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against. And pag. 5. summeth it up thus— that the Covenant cannot be accomplished by the removal of Prelates pride etc. Whilst the Preeminence, prerogative, Paternal power, and juridical authority assumed by them as distinct from, and above all other Ministers of the gospel, as the only immediate successors of the Apostles (So our Informer makes them) &c. — are continued. What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons' assertion? Have not our Prelates this preeminence above Presbyters, as a distinct order from them? and have they not a juridical authority over them, by our law and practice, and his pleading too? doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert, that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied until such be removed? are they no more in Church judicatores, but Moderators and Chairemen, set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting? doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting, and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice, if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyal.  
Again, whereas the Dr, (pag. 18.) did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead, must rise in another quality. Mr Crofton tells him (pag. 6.) That if it arise according to the Covenant, it must be in the establishment of Congregational, Classical, Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers, Communi consilio Presbyterorum (this phrase of Jerome he frequently useth) to debate and determine the affairs of the Church, and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastic power— each having a Prefident to propone questions, gather suffrages etc. and no more. Which mould of government, whither it would not smooth our prelacy to a complete Presbyterian parity, let the Informer himself judge. It is incontrovertibly clear from these passages of Crofton, that even in their sense whom our Informer alleges to stand on his side, the present prelacy is abjured.  
Finally, as for the authors after cited, and that declaration of the sense of the 2d article which he mentions, we say, as it is not clear (nay the contrary is evident) that such proposals in explication of that article, were either mad or approven by all, or the soundest Presbyterians there present, so it is als evident that if prelacy even as by them reserved, be found contrary to sound droctrine, and the power of godliness, that article of exti●…pation doth most clearly and formally reach it. Neither are we so much concerned in the problemarick glossings or disputes of any persons in England (they not having tendered that oath unto us) as in the obligation of this oath, and that of the national Covenant lying upon us, to preserve our reformation as it stood then established. Moreover this man would take Dr sanderson's advice here that an oath being stricti juris— the meaning is to be kept when clear from the words— but if it be doubtful, every one is to take care that they indulge not their own affections and inclinations, or give way to too large a licence of glozing, to the end they may with more ease lose themselves from the obligation, or give such a sense to others, or take it to themselves— as the unconcernd do see that the words will not bear, both for fear of perjury and ensnaring of others. Thus he, de jur prom. praelect. 2. parag. 9  
The Doubter objects next [that we are not concerned in the parliament of England sense, but in the sense of the Church and state of Scotland, who imposed the oath, and meant it against all sort of prelacy.] To this he answers, that it being a common league of the three Kingdoms, the meaning must be determined by all the three; and that Timorcus shows that the Parliament of England their sense mass with concnrrence of our Commissioners. Ans. 1. We have already made it good, that giving the Informer the advantage of the sense of the 2d. article which he alleges, it will notwithstanding clearly exclude our present prelacy. Timorcus telling us expressly (pag. 16.) that the Covenant, aperily oblidges against Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans etc. which terms he says are liable to no ambiguity, and particularly against all such exercise of prelacy, as is by one single person, arrogating to himself sole and single power in ordination and jurisdiction. Dare this man deny that our present prelate's have this legal prerogative expressly allowed them by our laws? is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only of such of the Clergy, as their Lordships (forsooth) shall judge loyal? so that the prelacy which Timorcus and the English are for, is point blank cross to the present hierarchy; and the three nations sense of that article will (as we have proved) never be reconciled to his sense and pleading in this point. 2. We told him also that it is not the 2d. Art. Whereby mostly or principally our obligation against prelacy is to be measured, it being that which relates especially to England, where Prelacy was then existent; and whatever sense any there do put upon that Article, yet they never offered to put any glosses upon our great engadgement to preserve our reformation then established, and never imagned nor offered the least limitation of our obligations both by the National Covenant as then particularly applied against prelacy, and likewise our obligation in the first part and article of the League, to preserve our established reformation, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, which consequently stands inviolable according to its native and necessary meaning, in contradiction to our Prelacy or any Prelacy whatsoever, as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the imposing did understand the same.  
Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell him [that we are engaged to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian, and that therefore in the 2d. article we swear against all kind of Prelacy, Prelacy and Presbytery being inconsistent.] To this he answers that if we are in the 1. Article bound to maintain Presbytery, and in the 2d left at liberty for some kind of Prelacy, and with all if Presbytery and Prelacy be inconsistent, than we have sworn contradictions, viz, to admit of no kind of Prelacy, and yet admit of some kind of it. Ans. 1. He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude (according to the Genuine sense of that Article) as to any prelacy, or whatever government else is inconsistent with Presbyterian Government, because, 1 the general obligements [to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God— and to extirpate what ever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness] will (as I have said) necessarily import, both as to us & them, ane engadgement against all kind of Prelacy under this notion and upon this ground. 2. As for [England's reserving a latitude for a proestos] which he here alleges, Timorcus will tell us (out of Doctor Sanderson) of this rule as to the interpretation of promissory Oaths that tho it's granted that promissory imposed Oaths must be interpret according to the sense of Imposers, as our private Oaths according to our sense, yet both these rules are to be limited, so that neither our private sense of our spontaneous Oaths, nor yet the sense of those who impose Oaths upon others, must be other than will comport, with the just signification of the words and phrases, in the Oath, vow, or Covenant, for this were to destroy [saith he] the simplicity necessary to every Oath, and indeed not to interpret, but to coin ane Oath or new obligation. Now the obligation of both Nations in this Oath, is to endeavour reformation according to the Word of God, and to extirpate whatever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness. If therefore a fixed Moderator, or any supposed moderate mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto, no man's glossings whatsoever, can (according to this necessary rule) prejudge the native import, signification, and extent of these general clauses. In the 2d. place, his contradiction here imputed to us, is but his own airy imagination, for it is not ad idem, and eodem modo. Wherein he imagineth the contradiction to lie. Our duty to preserve, and our obligation thereanent, being relative to the established Government of the Church of Scotland, and the extirpation engaged unto, being relative to another nation and Church, wherein that species of Prelacy particularised in the Article, was existent; so that there is no liberty left for any kind of Prelacy in Scotland; and for England's reserving, I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d. article, yet if the general clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kind of prelacy, their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuine sense of the oath, and therefore are not to be admitted. Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kind of prelacy is unlawful, dissonant to the divine rule, and repugnant to the power of godliness, the oath doth most clearly strike against it.  
Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost, objecting that in the Covenant, the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England, tells him that it is in relation to different acts, the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved, of England to be Reform; that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri, to swear the preservation of good acquired, before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better, to prefix the pattern to that which is to be thereunto conformed. He adds, that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England, since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicate the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England, citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers, that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation, who had first obtained it, and from whom Christianity itself was are first transmitted to them. Here let out Informer inform himself, first, that in the sense of the English Presbyterians, [the preserving of our established Reformation] is that article wherein our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included; and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri, relates properly to England. 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts, the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtained, the other to that in England yet in fieri, wherein they check this man's blunt measuring our obligation against prelacy first and principally by the second article, and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government contained in the first, and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles, to give some shadduw of his fancied contradiction which he would fasten upon us, viz. [That we are bound against all Episcopacy in the first article, and yet the second can admit of some.] For as we have before answered, so Mr Crofton tells him here again, that the acts and objects are different. The preserving of the Reformation, government and discipline of this Church (which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government, according to our two books of discipline, and opposite to diocesan prelacy as such) is a different act and object, from these of extirpating Prelacy out of the Church of England. And thirdly, that with Mr Crofton, and the English Presbyterians, it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to persuade us, that the Covenant obligeth them to Reform England according to our pattern, which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern. For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri, and our acquired good in point of government, the measure of their good to be obtained, and that the good they were to obtain (according to the Covenant) was the same with ours, and tells him in terminis and expressly, that our pattern is in the first article prefixed, to which they are to be conformed.  
From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant, and the sense of the English Presbyterians, who adhere thereunto, it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops; That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccls Didoclavius in his Altar Damascenum. Cartwrights Exceptions. Paul Baines his Diocesans trial. Smectymnuus. Mr Pryn in his public and positive challenge for th●… unbishop●…g of Timothy and Titus, cited by Crofton, pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces. Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton (to use his own expression) might not stand up a Peer to them in official power, though a simple Presbyter; so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy, and strikes only against that of England. Again, Mr Crofton in the Analepsis, (pag. 129.) answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of [the best reformed Churches] tells the Masters of Oxford, that the sense is [in endeavouring the reformation of England, the word of God shall be our rule, and the best reformed Churches our pattern.] Wherein he clearly asserts with us, that the obligation of the Covenant, reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacy is found contrary to the Word of God: But so it is that the Apostolic Churches (as we shall find Mr Crofton here assert) owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto, so that the Scripture rule, and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto, strikes against, and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish: of whatever Government doth admit of any Church officers, above Presbyters. And in his sense they are obliged to reduce England's prelacy or hierarchy, to a complete presbyterian parity. The Scripture makes (with Mr Crofton) the Bishop and presbyter merely Synonimons; So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted, can consist with the Covenant in his judgement; nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule, and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch.  
Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that piece entitled [The case of the accommodation examined, pag. 39 40.] who shows that in so far as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath, for extirpating an evil discovered, and yet for a further advance, rest upon the more general ties so surely cautioned, till God should give further light— so that the engadgement of both parties expressly only to extirpate that species, did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government, and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions— That, it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concur, with that Church convinced of evils, but not so enlightened as to remedies, in Covenanting against the evils in particular, and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God, and by virtue of this general oblidgement, become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things, not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath, and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable. So that no hesitation among them, doth hinder England and Scotland's respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary to that doctrine which is according to godliness. What inconsistency will the Informer show us in this, that one nation vow adherence to its own establishment in point of reformation and Church Government, and likewise vow assistance of another nation in the removal of a corruption therein, though the removal will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first, as will be every way like unto this establishment, both nations being notwithstanding obliged respective, under general clauses to make this reformation complete.  
The Informer next tells us, that it is doubted by the learned, whither in the first Article there be any obligation to maintain presbyterian Government. His first reason is, because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therein, but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government. Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed, is very insignificant. Our Church, after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship, which Prelates had introduced, and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up, in Presbyteries, synods, and Assemblies, and all the privileges of these her courts, authorized and established both by civil and ecclesiastic constitutions and laws, will any doubt (but the sceptic who will dispute that snow is not white) that the discipline then reform and established, is in that oath sworn to be maintained. He may als well allege that it is not the doctrine and worship then established, which we Covenant to preserve, as to doubt of the government, since this reformation then established, takes in all the three together, and in the same sense. Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist, grants that there was then in Scotland no such officers, as are enumerate in the 2d article, but an established reformed government was then existent. Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say, that it was not Presbyterian government, or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath. His 2d reason is, that Independents took that Covenant, and had a hand in wording that article, that it might not import any particular form of government.— That the words import no one form of government, but with this proviso, as reform. The Seasonable case said this already, to which the Apologist returned answer That the government of this Church at that time being Presbyterial (as he acknowledged) there could be no other government understood, than what was then existent, established and reform. That to say Indendepents understood it of their government, will no more reflect upon the Covenant, then upon the Scripture itself, which Independents do allege will plead for their government. Next, I would ask this man, why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine, and worship, viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this proviso as reform, but not the then established doctrine, and worship, is understood in that article, and so sectaries may lurk under this general also. Thus he may allege that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesty's authority will bind, except his name and Surname be in it, because some may entertain a chimaera of their own under his Majesty's general titles. Alas! what ridiculous conceits are these.  
The Doubter next objects [that the English parliament, who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that oath, did by [the reformed government] understand presbytery which was then settled here, and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it, whatever Independents think.] He answers, by denying that the English parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian government, for than they would have thought themselves bound to reform England according to our pattern, but on the contraire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners, that they could never find presbytery necessary by any divine right, and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawful Church government, but what they call so, and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government. This the Seasonable case also said before him, and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum, but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apology. To this I say first, that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us, nor is their sense thereof, principally to be eyed by us, as in his mould of the objection and answer, he seems to suppose. The parliaments of both Kingdoms imposed the oath upon their own subjects, framed by the consent of both according to their own condition, and exigence; so that we are to look mainly to the procedure and sense of our Church and state, for a discovery of the genuine sense and meaning of that oath. Now it is most evident that the design of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath, was to establish and preserve our Church government then in being, which, he who denies to have been Presbyterian, in its complete forms, and courts, he may deny any thing. 2. We told him already, that whatever defection or liberty of glozing any might be guilty of, yet the words and clauses of the Covenant, as to that 1. article, are clear and abundantly significant, and will admit of no evasion. And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacy out of that Church where it was existent, the 2d Article, is as clear and convincing. And therefore whither they looked upon themselves as obliged to follow our pattern yea or not, we have proved that they stood obliged, both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article, and also in the more general clauses mentioned, to extirpate Prelacy root and branch. This man will make a mere Proteus of oaths, if their sense and obligation must vary, turn ambulatory or ambiguous, according as men do shift or turn aside. We told him of Dr sanderson's rule, anent the import of the words of an oath, in their genuine sense in reference to its obligation, whatever liberty men may take to gloss, or interpret, which is the judgement of all sound Casuists. 3. Dare he say, that ever the parliament of England denied, that de facto Presbyterian government was completely established in the Church of Scotland, or will he make them so irrational as to deny this necessary consequence, that therefore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblige this Church to its preservation as the reformed Government then existent; and if his consequence cannot but be admitted, surely whither they looked on themselves as obliged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense, nor denied our obligation to maintain our established Presbyterian Government. And besides, they never denied their obligation to reform the Church of England according to the Scripture pattern; and that of the best reformed Churches, in conformity to that pattern. And that the Church of Scotland, and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent, were such, was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves, as from their confessions we have made appear.  
For confirming this further (because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton) let us hear how he will bespeak him in this point. In that piece entitled [The fastening of S peter's Fetters pag. 40.] He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotland's Philadelphian purity— in delivering in writing, and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation, acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps' 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford, and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox, exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland, together with the Doctrine. And (pag. 41.) he citys the corpus confess. (pag. 6.) Where the collector lays down this as the ground of that Church's purity of doctrine, and 54 years' unity without Schism [that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles, as it is prescribed in the word of God, was by little and little received, and according to that Discipline, the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be] which he prays may be perpetually kept by the King & Rulers of the church. These English Non-conformists, Beza, the Author of the syntagma, in Croftons' sense, and himself together with them, thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government, which Mr Knox introduced, to have been the government of this Church since the reformation, and which King james also owned. For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel, Hutton, and Matthews, three English Arch-Bishops, their approving the order of the Church of Scotland, he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James professed in the assembly 1590. that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world. Again (pag: 39) he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline, as the great badge and Test of her government; and in answer to the Oxford men's exception against that article of the Covenant, which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland [viz. that they were not concerned in, and had little knowledge of that government] he tells them, that he wonders how an university conversing in all books, could profess they had no knowledge of these books. So that in Mr Crostons' sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England, the government engaged unto in that article, is that platform of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline, which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an entire frame of Presbyterian government.  
Again (pag. 141.) he gathers from the tenor of the King's coronation oath at Scone, that the royal assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemn league and Covenant, and that, in his Majesty's most public capacity as King of great Britain, France and Ireland, for himself and Successors: and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation, he asks the learned in law [whither the royal assent by such expressions publicly made known (as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be passed here anent) be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and complete law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. etc.] So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant, and to reach all his Majesty's dominions. For he tells us in the preceding page, that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium, wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem, it is evident that his Majesty's ratifying the Covenant thus, hath rendered it national. Again Timorcus (pag. 70.) asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant (anno 1648.) sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacy. Which is point blank cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer, and doth evidently demonstrat (compared with these passages of Mr Crofton) that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England, both imposers and takers, parliament and people, understood that article of Presbyterian government.  
The Doubter here poorly grants [that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense, but allegeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry, we are bound to it in that sense.] Upon this he assumes, That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state, but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense, since the imposers themselves were not agreed as to its meaning. Ans. we have already made it good, both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant, the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacy expres●…ie, the nations universal taking it so, and the authorising thereof both by King and parliament, as well as by the recommendation of the assembly, from the total extirpation of prelacy, and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts, in consequence hereof, that that article of the solemn league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense, than a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent. Especially the league being framed and entered into by us, for our further security in relation to what we had attained. And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time, and this being also their scope and design, discovered in their treaties with England, when that Covenant was entered into, I dare appeal this man's conscience upon it, whither ever any demur here anent, or any other sense of this article, was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath? or whither, the imposers thereof in Scotland, would have engaged in that league with the English, upon any other terms then these, and in this their sense of that 1. article. Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business, that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church, that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league? Nay, when (as Timorcus tells us) it was debated branch by branch, phrase by phrase in the convention house, in the parliament, in the assembly of divines, was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started, that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland, Presbyterian government was not to be understood? in a word, dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England, did in the sense of this oath, and even in imitation of the Scottish, or rather the Scripture pattern, plead for, and had begun to set up Presbyterian government, and are closely to their principles to this day.  
But he adds, that it is irrational to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland, because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers, the authority of the respective rulers of both nations, in relation, to their own subjects being first and immediately to be looked unto, and their sense & scope therein to be mainly eyed, and each Nation being properly and immediately judges, as to their own national end in this stipulation. Thinks this man, that the then representatives of Church and State, did eye any other end as to Scotland, than the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine, Discipline, Worship and Government, as at that time therein established. Moreover, the sense and scope of the article itself being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government, it can admit of no other gloss without manifest distortion, and frustration of the imposers design therein. Next he tells us, that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article, yet the 2d will admit some episcopacy. What poor stuff is this. Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland, would comport with some episcopacy (which the Informer hath not yet proved) what hath that to do with Scotland? Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then established in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government? Because in relation to the extirpating of England's Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is completed and sworn to, we are to bear with the English Church in some remains of Prelacy, till God give further light, must we therefore be obliged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabric of that established reformation, and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate? Nay, this is too dull inadvertancie. As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kind of prelacy. I answer that the presbytery established and sworn to be maintained in Scotland, is, and Beza is so far from disowning this, that (as we heard) he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy, as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel.   

CHAP. IU.  
The grounds, upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth, although its obliging force for the time past were supposed, examined at large. As also his reasoning upon Numb. 30. Wherein his begging of the question, his contradicting of Dr Sanderson and other Casuists, and manifold inconsistencies are made appear.  
OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces, and the chief products of his invention, or rather of those who have gone before him, upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy, doth next (as a liberal bold disputer) undertake to lose the Covenant, even upon supposal of its pre-existent obligation against it. And therefore making his Doubter tell him [that he bears off the acknowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacy, either in the national, or solemn league, lest he fall under the charge of perjury]. In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants, and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now submit to prelacy. The Doubter thinks this strange Doctrine, and so do I. Because [to swear against episcopacy and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath.] To this doubt he returns a large resolution, but still follows up the Seasonable case closely, for fear of miscarrying. And first, he begins with a threefold partition, either prelacy (saith he) is an unalterable necessary Government of divine or Apostolic warrant, or it is sinful and contrary to the Apostolic Government, or thirdly of a middle nature, neither commanded nor forbidden, but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not. Here I must stoup him a little, and mind the reader, that we did upon the first Dialogue, disprove this indifferent Proteus-Prelacie, as a monster to Scripture, since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institution of officers, ordinances, Laws, censures; and (as we heard himself acknowledge) setting down all substantials of Church Government, prelacy must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant thereunto, and by consequence necessary or finfull, commanded or forbidden. So that he is to be limited to the first two, and any supposal anent the indifferency of presacy, is but his petitio prnicipii; and the gratification of his adversary for further clearing of this question: now proceed we. If it be the Apostolic Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church, he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it. This I willingly grant to him, but what then? Why, we must not cry out perjury till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered. Let this bargain stand, I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences, appear to be vain, and proven the contrariety of that prelacy now established, both to the Scripture and pure antiquity, and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point, we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgement. What next, what if it be sinful? Then he says we need not plead the Covenant obligation. No? may we not plead the Covenant obligation against Schism, heresy, and profanness? May not the Oath of alledgance be pleaded against treason, because before this Oath treason is a sin? Said he not already that the Baptismal vow is a superadded obligation, though the matter itself doth bind? did not the Oath and Covenant (Neh. 8.) contain an abjuration of many sins, against which the people stood before preoblidged? But he adds, its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger. Right, why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger? Especially against this man and his fellows, who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peter's fetters. Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus. Then he tell us, That the ablest champions for presbytery dar not assert episcopacy to be unlawful. What champions are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture, and yet dar not assert it to be unlawful? Sure they are very faint disputants. We heard that Beza (whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery) called episcopacy dia●…olicall and the egg out of which Antichrist was hatched. Was not that near the march of calling it unlawful? But how will he now absolve us? Why, it must be indifferent, neither lawful nor unlawful, and then the question is with him, if we could by our own Oath, make it absolutely and in every case unlawful, so that we can never after submit unto it. He adds, that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind. Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill goes upon this supposition, he should have traveled to Utopia with this resolution, since we do suppose and have proven Prelacy to be unlawful, and so are not in the least concerned in what he saith upon this point: Since he is still arguing ex ignoratione elenchi.  
But let us see how he will absolve us upon this supposition, which he must in pity be gratified with, before he can draw forth his weapons. Our Informer still strikes hand, with the Seasonable case and the Surveyer, telling us first, that the oath ceases to bind, if the thing sworn against, be a matter wherein our superiors have power to command us, they by their authority given them of God, may require obedience of us in any thing lawful, and so may in that particular, command us to do or use what we have sworn against, it being a thing in itself lawful, and in this case our oath ceases to bind. Ans. this simple notion, by our Informer poorly propounded hath no taste in it, and cannot reach our case, even though he had won over that insuperable mountain of the unlawfulness of prelacy, and had proven, or his adversary had granted it, to be indifferent, for 1. his supposition runs thus. That episcopacy is indifferent to be used in the Church or not as it shall be found expedient. Now, I beseech him, who is the proper judge, what frame of Church government best suits her condition? is not the Church representative, to whom is entrusted the power of the keys? by what warrant will he bring in the Magistrate primo instanti to alter and set up Church government as he thinks fit, even granting it were indifferent? he sought at first but a grant that prelacy was indifferent, but ere he can produce one reason for his point, he must have a further grant of Erastianisme, and that the Magistrate is the proper competent immediate judge in matters ecclesiastic. Who can stoup the mouth of this hungry cause of his, that must have multiplied concessions of the adversary, and yet cannot subsist, but starves with its own weakness when all is done. For 2dly, although this were also granted, what will he say in this case, wherein the superior hath bound and engaged himself with the same Oaths, vows, and bonds that the subject is tied with, and hath solemnly vowed to God against such a frame of Government? Sure this will tie up his hands if we may believe the maxim asserted by Dr Sanderson and other Casuists that juramentum tollit libertatem even in a thing indifferent. Had we not the ratification of the national Covenant with the band and explication against the Scots Prelacy, in plain Parliament by King Charles the first, under his hand writing 1641? Did not the King who now is in the Year 1650 and— 51, swear and subscribe both this oath, and the solemn league and Covenant, and gave all imaginable assurances for upholding Presbyterian Government, and in opposition to Prelacy? suppose he had power to command in this matter, sure his commanding power is tied up, when he hath vowed and Opened his mouth unto God, and lifted up his hand to the most high, That Prelacy shall never be allowed within his dominions, far less commanded. Whatever power God hath given to Magistrates over their subjects, sure he hath given them no power to lose themselves from his oath and vow upon them is. Thirdly, it is too lax a principle, to hold that in every thing, in itself indifferent, the Magistrates power reaches to supersede or lose, the obligation of an oath or vow of the subject. For a subjects freedom and liberty, as in that capacity, and the Magistrates authority, being coordinate, as the subjects liberty must not justle with the Magistrat's lawful Command, suited to the ends of government, so neither must the Command of the Magistrate encroach upon this reserved liberty of the subject, who hath many things in his own power and without the reach of any lawful command of the Migistrate. A Subject, and a slave, are quite distinct things. God restrained & set bounds to the power of Kings, and Magistrates whom he set over his people, so that they might not command such and such things. therefore in what things soever, the exercise of a subjects liberty, crosses not the design and end of the Magistrates power expressed in Scripture, his vow is without the reach of the Magistrates suspending or losing power. Naboth would not give Ahab his Vineyard, no not for money. What if a man in a parental capacity, interpose a vow as to his child in reference to some occupation or inheritance, which are supposed, before th●…s vow, to be things indifferent? Sure the Magistrates suspending power will not reach this vow. This will be clear, if it be considered, That the preservation of the Subject's liberty, is one of the great ends of the Magistrates Authority.  
The Second case wherein the Informer tellsus, that ane Oath in things indifferent binds no●…, is when the thing sworn is so altered in its nature, that it becomes sinful and cannot be lawfully performed. He tells us that Casuists say, That cessat juramenti obligatio cum res non permanent in eodem statu Ans. This other case generally byhim propounded here, shall be considered & spoken to, when we shall see how hereafter he explains and applies it. Therefore we shall in this place dismiss it with one word, That Prelacy is now the same, and worse than formerly, And therefore the premised maxim cannot reach his Conclusion in the least.  
His Third case wherein he tells us, that the Oath in things indifferent ceaseth to bind, is, when it is impeditivum majoris boni, which he says the Seasonable case and the survey of Naphtali, do apply to this Oath. And how he applies it we shall after hear, He tells us, they do prove; that supposing Episcopacy lawful, though i●… were meant in the Covenant, none should think themselves bound to stand out against it, our Superiors having commanded us to obey and submit to that government. And that he solidly repels what is brought by the Apology or Naphtali to the contrary. But how insignificantly either he, or these new Casuists, do loose the Covenant upon this Pretence, hath already in part, and shall yet further appear.  
What a lax Adiaphorist is this, who by his new divinity, first takes this great duty of vowing or swearing quite away; For, no Oaths must be pleaded in things necessary, in this man's judgement, They canno in things that are sinful or unlawful have place, and so all the subject thereof must be things lawful; and for this, there needs no more to make all Oaths and vows vanish, but a command from the superior, and then they are gone. Secondly, he makes the Magistrat's posteriour and supervenient command, no●…only loose all his subjects from the obligation of what is lawfully sworn, but also himself from his personal Oath: Though he hath sworn and vowed never so deeply, he hath no more to do but to make a Law against it, and then the Oath, as impeditivum boni, ceasethto bind either himself or his subjects. Thirdly, he makes all the reserved liberty of the subject (which Government is for preservation of) a mere nullity and Chimaera, so as this liberty itself, or any vow or Oath in things which are properly within its sphere, evanishes at every arbitrary command of the powers. Hence a subjects liberty resolves into a mere nothing or slavery. Fourthly, thus the Judgement of all Churches in Britain and Ireland under this Oath, must in relation to the expediency of this supposed lawful Episcopacy, and its present suitableness to her edification, be at the mere beck of this arbitrary command of the civil power, as the sole and proper judge of this matter. And so.  
First, the Magistrate is not only the immediatjudge of all ecclesiastic Government, or what is most suitable to the Church's State and edification in point of Government. But 2dly, all judgement of discretion is taken away from the people of God, in relation to this matter of so high importance, and their acting in faith consequently, in this supposed obedience. So that men are made absolutely Lords over their consciences. Yea 3dly, all regard to the eshewing the offence of the weak, and the Scripture Rules in relation to their scandal, and stumbling, are made void; the mere command of the powers determining that matter, in the principles of this Informer. Yea Moreover, all our Christian libetry in things indifferent, which Christ hath purchased with his precious blood, and which we are commanded so much to hold fast, is close swallowed up, so that both judgement & practice, in matters wherein God hath given a liberty, are tied unto, and only regulable by, the arbitrary command of the powers: And what monstruous absurdities these are, the meanest capacity may judge.  
As for what he adds here, that an Oath about matters not sinful, is always to be understood with this restriction, [so long as lawfully I may] which the matter thereof requires, because the taker is under prior and greater obligations (viz obedience to his superior and the like) then that of the Oath in a thing indifferent, and therefore when the prior obligation crosseth this latter of the Oath, its obligation must cease. Ans. This prior obligation the Informer makes relative to the Magistrates command interposing, which according to his lax and unrestricted supposals, makes all Oaths no stronger than a thread touched with the fire, and when applied to our case, is utterly impertinent, because; first, there are things in their own nature indifferent, yet within the sphere of the subjects reserved liberty; and Consequently not within the reach of any lawful command of the Magistrate, nor of any anterior obligation, to that of the Oath by further consequence; and that the matters in debate are not such, he hath not proved. 2ly, The Magistrate himself hath by his own Oath (in this case) superseded and tied up any right of commanding, which the Informer may suppose he had. 3ly, upon both these grounds, the performance of this great engadgement, can never justle with any lawful command of the Magistrate. And by further Consequence, 4ly, There is no greater or prior obligation in this case lying upon the Swearer, from the Magistrat's right, to break or cut short the obligation of this vow. All which is yet further convincingly clear, if it be considered, that this great supposition of the lawfulness or Indifferency of Prelacy (which is the grand Topick bearing the weight of his Argumentation) is but begged by him, and as an alms, given by his Adversary. But the contrariety of Episcopacy to the Scripture, which we have already proved, being once supposed, it follows, that there is an obligation Prior to all Oaths, lying both upon King and subjects for its Extirpation, but which is much more strengthened by the Supervenient Oaths and vows of God upon them, for this great end.  
The Informer adds further, that our obligation to our Superiors, is God's tye— our Oath a knot of our own casting, and that when two duties at once seem to require performance, and we cannot get them both satisfied, the lesser should give way to the greater. Ans. 1. The same God who hath enjoined obedience to Rulers, hath reserved the subjects liberty, and Christian liberty, and by his authority salved and authorized Oaths and vows which are within the compass of that reserved liberty, so the last knot is of Gods casting as well as the first. And such Alexander-like absolvers or Cutters as our Informer and his fellows, will find that they are hewing at divine cords, when the curse due to perjury shall enter into their houses and souls, if they repent not. 2ly, Hence in this case and question under debate, our obedience to the Magistrate (especially upon our true supposition of the unlawfulness of Prelacy, and of the Oath against it, lying upon the Magistrate himself) is sinful; and so the comparison is betwixt duty, and sin, not a greater and lesser duty, which this man must grant is ever to be preferred. And besides, the Informers supposition, that this Oath is a mere voluntary deed of our own, which had so full a ratification of the Magistrates Authority, is among the rest of his gratis supposita and Beggings of the question, which we must send back to him with a lash, until it be returned with a due Testimonall of better proof then of his Ipse dixit. 3ly, Even upon his own supposition, Dr Sanderson will tell him, that any law made against an Oath, which is but spontaneous, if the law be alternative, to obey or suffer, the Oath will bind against the active part, and oblige not to obey the power in that supervenient command or Law, which is contrary even to the private spontaneous Oath, de jur Promise. Prel. Sect. 9 But a fortiori much more will this oblige not to obey that Law, if the Oath be not only spontaneous, but hath been fortified by the Legislative power, yea and vow of the Superior himself, who Pretends to lose it by his after-Law. 4ly, Whereas he alleges, Gods putting us under the commands of the powers in this case, and his friend Dr Burnet in this Argument, tells us that [our Oath being a voluntary deed of our own (as he gratis supposeth with the Informer) cannot prejudge the commands of our superiors, which are Gods own immediate commands.] They should know (as Timorcus long since Informed them Chap. 6. sect. 35.) That the Topick of this Argument being, The dominion of the superior over the Inferior, if the command or Law be the exercise of a dominion in things wherein he hath no dominion, the Oath will bind against such laws. This man and his fellows are still talking of the prior obligation of obedience to the Magistrate, but they must know that the Magistrates dominion in this point must be instructed by a Patent from God the supreme Legislator, before we can acknowledge it. And if our Oath interferre with the exercise of a dominion which is without its due sphere, sure it interferres with no prior obligation which God hath laid upon us. Even Azorius (Mor. Quest. l. 11. cap. 6.) will tell him, that an Oath will bind Contra mores jure civili institutos, if the divine Law be in any thing crossed thereby. Nay, Casuists, even such as Abbas, Silvester, Azorius, Molina, Lessius, Leyman, Sanohes, Swares, do grant. That an Oath will bind against any civil Law, if it oblige ad paenam non ad culpam necessario, to punishment, and not necessarily to sin. And further most of them admit the binding force of Oaths against the Laws or commands of superiors, ubi materia legibus opposita sine peccato fieri potest, where the matter of the Oath, which is contrary to the laws, may be performed without sin it being non contra jus naturale aut divinum, that is, not against the Law of nature or the divine Law. See Timorcus ubi supra. 5ly, Even putting episcopacy in the category of things indifferent, this Oaths obligation against it, will countervail & oversway our obligation to obey the Magistrate, and submit to his laws, In such a case, wherein it is found inexpedient for the Church, and particularly for this Church, as by its apparent dreadful effects is evident; such as the desolation and wasting of this Church, the spreading of popery and Arminianism, the Casting out of many of the godly Ministry, the fixed division therein, the endless Confusions and broils, and thereby the wide door opened to all Popish invasions etc. For since the Magistrates simple Command cannot determine what Government is expedient or inexpedient for the Church, this must be supposed that Prelacy is best, before the Command can be, so much as supposed Lawful, else the Magistrate may enjoin an Hundred Oaths this year in such and such things as he calls expedient, and null them all the next year, though himself be engaged therein, upon pretence of inexpediency of the Matter, because of occurring circumstances, which will make mad work of Oaths, and hang them all at the Magistrates sic volo sic jubeo, as to their obligation. It's true that the greater duty (as is clear Math. 9 13.) counterbalances the less, but I Pray, shall the mere will and Command of the power, determine the greater duty? and be the sole and supreme rule to determine the Conscience, as to the expediency of a thing hic & nunc. And though (as he says) every positive precept oblige not ad Semper. Yet he must acknowledge, first, that it oblidges semper, and though not as to the act, yet as to the eshewing the Contrary thereof. And Secondly, to act semper, except when Gods command superseds it, as to other duties in their seasons. So that till he clear this in the point of prelacy, and that the renouncing of our Covenant, and presbyterian Government at the Magistrates Command, is in our case the greatest duty, this rule makes against him.  
The Doubter, as to his first rule, anent the authority of superiors intervening, objects, that its hard to say that man's authority can lose the Oath of God, since in this Case we must say, that we have opened our mouth unto God, and cannot go back]. To this he answers. 1. That the law of God in the 5th Command lays the first and primary obligation upon us to obey our superiors, which Command we cannot bind up ourselves from obeying. Ans. 1. the same God who gave that Command, did by the third Command oblige both superiors and inferiors, to be a ware of taking his name in vain, and therefore not to presume to break their Oaths and vows in any Lawful matter, unless insuch Cases as himself the blessed and supreme Lawgiver, excepts; which he hath not yet let us see as to this Oath, wherein both superiors and inferiors have entered, and thereby obliged themselves to God against what he pleads for. So that Gods reserved Supremacy, and Dominion, which (to use his own argument against him) is the primary and fundamental tye, upon which this 5. Command is bottomed, and according to which our obedience thereto must be Regulat, will cut short the obedience to the superior in this case, wherein we cannot obey him in the Lord, and without violating our fealty and alleadgeance to the God of Gods, and wronging his suprem dominion. 2ly, In this same 5. Command, God hath limited the Power of superiors, and tied them under many bonds of duties to their subjects or inferiors, which, in none of their Commands they must transgress, and if they do, their Commands oblige not Inferiors to obey. Now, that this Losing the obligation of these Oaths is in our case an encroachment upon the subjects right and reserved Liberty, as well as christian Liberty, and an encroachment upon God's sovereign right, is above Cleared. Next he says, this were a way to frustrate the superior of all obedience, and every man might pretend, I have sworn against such a thing commanded, therefore I cannot do it. Thus private persons might prelimit themselves from obeying in every thing. Ans. in our case there is no such hazard, for the superior hath prelimit Himself by his own oath, and this will not prelimit him upon such a pretence, from obedience in any thing that is Lawful, or which falls within the Compass of his Power As a Magistrate and is suitable to the great ends of his Power, to say, that he cannot Arbitrarly lose people from a Lawful Oath, sworn also by himself. But on the contrary, this pretended Informer his doctrine herein prelimtes and cuts short Subjects Liberty, and Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience, subjecting it, and all Gods rules theranent, all scripture Rules of Expediency and Edification, and all Oaths and vows superadded to matters subordinat to these ends, unto the Magistrates arbitrary disposal and laws, which is a prelimitation equally if not more dangerous.  
Our Informer in the next place for proof of this his doctrine, sends the Doubter to Numb. 30: where (he says) the husband or parent is vested with a Power to null and make void the vow of the wife or daughter, and by Proportion the King, who is Pater patriae, hath the same authority. Ans. it will be a harder task than this man can well manage to bring in the King here within the Compass of the father and husbands right, as to this absolving Power. For first, the Magistrates Power is far different from the Marital and Parental, and the relation betwixt King and subject is nothing so straight, as betwixt husband and wife, parent and Children, the one being natural, the other Political, the one changeable, the other not. A man may choose to Live under what Magistrate he pleases, but the woman cannot cast off her husband, nor the Child shake off his relation and duty to the father. Besides, subjects set up their Magistrates and Limit them: But so it is not as to the Marital and Parental relations. The husband's authority flows not from the wife her donation, nor the parents from the Children. So that a parallel argument can hardly be drawn from the Power of husbands and parents, supposed in this text, in relation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife, to that of the Magistrate in relation to his subjects. 2ly, in the beginning of that Chap. the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanction touching vows, seems to exclude the Magistrate from this absolving Power. For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows, viz. that the person vowing shall not break nor profane his Word as the Hebrew signifies, but do according to all that Proceeds out of his mouth. 1. The Case of the wife and the Daughter not forisfamiliat, is God's great and only exception (expressed in the Text) from his own rule, and Law, touching the strike observation of voluntary Lawful vows. So that, the rule and Law seems to reach all other Cases, as to free vows, except only this. 2ly, in the Beginning of the Chap. we find that Moses spoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes, but the text is silent as to his applying of this exception anent the father and husband's Power in absolving vows, unto these heads & Rulers, which should have been especially intimat to them. Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the observation of vows, stands fast in all other Cases except these here expressly excluded, by the Great Lawgiver. So that ere his argument can reach us, he most give in Sufficient proof that the Magistrate stands vested with this Power, and falls within the Compass of this exception, in relation to his subjects. Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove, that this Judicial statute, as others of the like nature, doth belong unto the Christian Chùrch. But in the second place, Granting that the Magistrate is here meant, it will never speak home to his Point, but much against him, for 1. the dominion of the Superior being the ground of this discharge, wherein the husband and Parent have Power, if the matter of our vow be found such as is excepted from the Magistrates dominion, the Informer must grant that this text will not reach our Case. And supposing the matter, antecedaneously unto the vow, to fall under divine Commands, this is evident beyond exception. But because he begs our concession, that it was before indifferent, I add, if it be within the Limits of our reserved Liberty as free subjects, or of our Christian Liberty, it's still on both grounds, beyond the reach of his dominion, and consequently excluded from this exception, and the vow must stand and oblige according to the Grand precept here set down; so that a hundred discharges of the Magistrate will never touch it.  
We heard him acknowledge, that by [discipline of this Church] in the national Covenant, the substantials of Government is understood, and that consequently it binds thereunto; So he must acknowledge that our solemn Covenant will inviolably bind to this divine Frame of Government, & no earthly power can lose therfrom, no more then from Scripture institutions. And Doctor featly acknowledgeth that people may Covenant, without their Superiors, to fulfil Gods Law. Now, give us all Scripture Church officers, and their Rules of Government, & Prelacy shall be quickly gone, So that upon his concession that the national or solemn league do reach the substantials of Government, or what is necessary for the ends of Government set down in Scripture, it will amount to that which we plead for; and he must grant it falls not under the Magistrates Dominion, and that his argument from this text is lost. 2dly, this dissent which loses the vow, must be both ane open dissent, and also presently in the very day he hears of it. Qui sero se noluisse significat putandus est aliquando voluisse. That is, he that declares a late dissent, may be presumed sometimes to have given his consent, saith Dr Sand. de jur. prom. This he cannot say as to our King. 3ly, It most be constant, the dissent suspending, but not losing the obligation. The obliging virtue being natural, and inseparable to the vow (as Dr Sand. tells us the jur. prom. pag. 3. Sect. 10.) when ever the consent comes, the obligation returns. Now have not our King and Rulers consented unto, and ratified all our vows both in the national, and solemn league and Covenant? 4ly, This consent of the superior once given, can never he retracted by a dissent again. Whither it be before or after, he can never make it void, as the Text doth clearly hold out. See Sand. 16. Prel. 7. Sect. 6. Now have not both the national and solemn League, the Consent & vows of all our superiors ratifying the same. So that this text every way pleads for the obligation thereof; for this their consent, once given, they can never revoke, far less their Oath and vows, but the vows of the inferiors, are thereby rendered for ever valid; as Casuists in setting down these rules do grant, so Aquinas, Filucius (Tract. 25 cap. 9) Azor. (Moral. inst. lib. 11. cap. 10.) Sanches (lib. 3. Cap. 9) Amesius (cas. lib. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 11.) Sand. (Juram. Prom. Prel. 4. Sect. 16.) But the Doubter objecting [this consent and ratification of our superiors, which therefore they cannot make void.] He answers, that by comparing the 12. and 15. verses it appears, that after the husband hath by silence confirmed his wife's vow, yet he hath a power of voiding it again, and she is exonered of her vow, and bound to obey her husband's Commands. Ans. Although this were granted (as the Text stands in clear contradiction to it) that the husband might null the vow, after he hath confirmed it by a silence or tacit confirmation, yet it will not follow that his nulling power will hold, after he hath given not only a formal consent positive, but also solemnly vowed and bound his soul to the Lord, in the same vow, which is most evidently our case. Have we not the solemn vows, subscriptions and Oaths of both King and Rulers, concurring with the vows of the subjects in this case? How then shall they lose their own vows. 2ly, this wild gloss is expressly cross to Dr Sanderson, and other Casuists, their sense of this case and text as we heard, who hold that if once the superior hath either tacitly or expressly, precedaniously or subsequently consented, he can never by his dissent again either discharge from the Oath or (so much as) suspend the obligation of it. Dr. Sand. saith (16. Prel. 7. Sect. 6.) it's a true rule, quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet, what once in this case hath pleased the superior, ought never to displease; God's Word declaring it established for ever. If he hath consented (saith the Dr) either before or after, be can never afterwards take away its obligation. 3. He makes the text contradict itself, for (ver. 7.) upon the husband's tacit consent, and holding his peace in the day he heard his wife's vow, the Lord declares that her vow shall stand, & the bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. And (vers. 14.) The husbands holding his Peace, establishes her vows and confirms them. Now then, God having declare that the vow stands, is confirmed, and established as soule-bond upon their souls, by this consent tacit or express how shall it be null, and not stand, by ane after dissent? Sure [to stand] is here opposed unto [not to stand] upon the terms of the present open dissent in the day he heard of it, which is the only exception. That which God declares to be confirmed, and to stand, upon the father or husband's consent, admits of no nulling afterward by them; but so it is, that the wife or daughters vow upon the first consent and ratefication, stands and is confirmed, as a soule-bond: ergo, it admits of no losing by ane after dissent. I prove the major two ways, 1. standing and Confirming here are opposed, to nulling and making void. And 2ly, this would make more Limitations than God makes, as to the Losing of the vow; for there is no exception but that one, of the husband's open dissent, or the parents, in the day he hearts of it. This is the only exception from the rule in the 2d vers. anent the binding of the vow. But this man's gloss brings in another limitation cross to the very scope and express sense of the words viz. the husband's dissent, after he hath by a previous consent ratified the vow. That God admits the vow to stand, upon this express or tacit consent, is evident in the text.  
As for the reason which he adds, viz. That the wife is under a prior obligation to obey her husband; it is absurd and ridiculous, for will he carve ou●… ane obligation in this point beyond what God hath so expressly limit and declared. This were to give the husband a power, not over the wife only, but over God himself, and his express declarator. As for that clause (ver. 15.) that if he shall any ways make them void, after he hath heard them, than he shall bear her iniquity. What a wild inference is it, from hence to conclude ane absolving power, in express contradiction to the text, and the limitations previoussie set down. To say that the vow cannot be loosed, unless the father or husband declare his dissent in the day he hears of it, And that if he hold his peace he hath confirmed it, and the bond and vow shall stand; And yet that after all this, he may lose it by ane after dissent, is so plain a contradiction, that none can be plainer. If we will make the text then consistent with itself, the plain meaning is, that he shall bear her iniquity, or the guilt which otherwise would have Iven upon the wife or daughter, if not hindered in the performance. That the guilt and punishment of the non-performance shall lie upon him who hindered the same, doth clearly import the non-performance of itself to be a guilt (which contradicts his pleading and argument.) But the poor votary being hindered, it lies upon the hinderer as I said. So that we strongly infer from this, the binding force of the vow, since the Lord terms the non-performance a guilt: as violent men hindering Ministers to preach, shall bear their guilt and punishment, which otherwise they were exposed unto if neglecting this great work. All do know, what these Scripture-Phrases of bearing his judgement, bearing his iniquity, being partakers of Other men's sins, do import. Which Confirms this answer. His comments upon this phrase are very vain [first he shall bear her sin (saith he) if a guilt] what is that? bear a guilt, if a guilt, sure a repugnantia in adjecto. His next gloss makes the husband ane expiator of the guilt because she did her duty in obeying him, who revoked-his Confirmation upon just grounds. What, upon just grounds contrary to God's command? this is ane odd exposition. Doth God give the least warrant here to absolve and null the vow, after it is ratified by his previous consent.  
Mr. Pool in his annotations renders thus the sense of this 15. verse [after he hath heard them etc.] and approved them by his silence from day to day, if now after that time spent, he shall upon further thoughts dislike and hinder it, which he ought not to do. Her non-performance of her vow shall be imputed to him, not to her: Where, as he doth clearly assert (with us) that her iniquity, mentioned in the close of the verse, is the iniquity of the non-performance of the vow, which is imputed unto the husband, so, that he ought not to hinder the votary, or stop this performance after that he hath confirmed the vow by silence; in plain contradiction to the Informers fantastic glosses and inferences. Wherein although he pretend a concurrence of Interpreters, expounding this verse of the husband's Lawful voiding of the wife's vows after his previous confirmation, yet he hath produced none of their names.  
The Doubter inquires next how he applies his Second rule, anent things sworn their not abiding in the same state, to the Covenant. He answers, that upon supposition that Prelacy is Lawful, and abjured in that Oath, the great change now is, that Prelates are again Established, and submission to them commanded. So that we are now bound to obey authority herein, and not to keep the Oath. And this is very suitable to his large absolving glosses, which we have already heard and refuted, and which is Likewise removed by what we have said, anent the matter of this vow, which is not capable of any such absolving trade as is now set up. These men's plagiary faith and divinity, makes all vows no stronger than straws. Though the Magistrates and subjects universally vow, yet a Law (if the matter be not absolutely necessary, though never so expedient and edifying) makes it ipso facto null and void. If he had let us see any greater good, expediency, or necessity of prelacy, then in keeping this vow, he had spoken to the purpose. But this neither he nor any of his party will ever do.  
In a word this lax rule as here interpret by him, will infer many absurdities, as 1. that the mere Law loses the obligation of the vow and Oath, though the matter thereof falls not under the dominion of the Ruler. Which, 2ly, it doth not if it be either expedient or necessary, and yet the mere Law (with him) robs it either of expediency or necessity. And thus, 3dly, man's law steps up above the divine Law, authorising the matter of the Oath upon the forementioned grounds. 4ly, He makes the expediency of the Law, and its being wholesome or no, cognoscible by no anterior or superior Rule, but its self, and the mere will and power of the Magistrate, and to be obeyed upon that sole ground. 5ly, hence the obedience thereof in faith, is excluded, and no acts of obedience can flow from spiritual knowledge.  
The Doubter next objects [that his Oath against Bishops had the first obligation, and therefore he cannot be loosed by the after Law.] To which he answers, that the 5th. command, and submission to the ordinance of man, had the first obligation, and that obedience to authority comes under the baptismal vow— that to say our Oath will oblige against the Magistrates Command to the Contrary, will elude the express precept Ecl. 8. 2. to obey the kings command in regard of the Oath of God Ans. This is nothing but what we have heard, repetitions ad nauseam, and still idem per idem. Our obligation in the 3d command, not to take God's name in vain, and to keep and stand to all Lawful Oaths, and vows, unless in cases which God himself excepts, is surly a very arlie, and a baptismal obligation, prior to any Law of the Magistrate, and such as no authority and Laws of men can evacuatand enervat; and our obedience to the ordinance of man, or the higher and Lower Powers, being for the Lords sake, that is upon the motive of his authority, doth infer, that we must not dare to cross his authority, under pretence of obedience to the powers, in breaking lawful Oaths and vows which he has commanded us to keep. Sure no Laws of men can supersed this obligation. That the Oath under debate is such, hath been already made good, and needs not be here repeated. As for that of Eccl. 8. 20. It makes clearly against him; the English annotations having upon that text, mentioned the mutual tye, oath, and Covenants betwixt King and subject, instancing 1. Chron. 11. 3. do tell us that this is not only ane enforcement of the duty of subjects, but likewise, that the clause contains a limitation, by which our obedience to men is bounded: And thus they sense the precept, keep the King's command, yet so that thou do not violate thine Oath and obedience due unto God. Our service to the one (say they) must be such as will consist with our fealty to the other. We are bound to God and his service by Oath and Covenant, and no subordinat obedience to others, must make us forget our duty to him. Which clearly crosses this Missinformers scope who would persuade to perjury and breach of Covenant with God, upon pretence of fealty to the Magistrate.  
Mr Poole in his annotations having told us That the first branch of the verse is not to be understood universally, but of such commands as do not cross the commands of God, expones this Oath of God mentioned in the second part of it, either of the Oath we are under to keep all God's Laws, or the subordinat Oath of fealty and allegiance. But adds, that this also may be understood, and is by learned Interpreters taken, as a limitation of their obedience to Kings, the words being thus rendered, as the Hebrew (faith he) will very well bear, but according to the Word of the Oath of God, obey the King's commands, with this caution that they be agreeable and not contrary to the Laws of God, which thou art obliged by thy own and thy parents Oaths oft renewed, to observe in the first place.  
As for what he adds (out of the grand case) anent jesuits' Oath in Rome to preach in England Catholic doctrine, and of a Law made in England against the same. It is, so palbablie impertinent and unsuitable to the point, that I wonder at the man's confidence in presenting to the world such poor trifling fopperies in so weighty a matter. Dare he say that the matter of our vows, which our Rulers themselves have taken, is in any measure like to this. Nay, doth he not suppose the Matte●… of this Oath to be Lawful, he must then confess this instance to be most impertinent. But the knack is, That abstracting from the unlawfulness of the Matter, it was declaired, that ane Oath cannot bind against a Law, although the Law be made even after the Oath is taken. This was no doubt a lax determination, And such as he dare no●… himself subscribe unto in every case; what, an●… Oath cannot bind against a Law in universum, and simply? what if the matter be necessary, or falling under divine Prescriptions or institutions? What if convincingly expedient in its circumstances? Will thi●… Law, yea and after the Oath is taken, overrule th●… divine Law determining the same? Well resolve●… Mr. Informer. You may go sell absolutions ano●… of a high rate.  
Come we now to his third case, anent the Oath hindering a greater good, than the performance it ill amount to and the dissolution thereof upon that ground. This the Doubter thinks [will furnish people with a ready excuse to free themselves of Oaths, by alleging that some greater good is hindered thereby.] To this he answers 1. That Casuists admit this rule with these limitations viz. when that greater good is certain, and no otherwise attainable, but by the discharge of our Oath, and a good to which we are pre-obliged before we took the Oath. Ans. We shall not much contend about these rules & limitations of this Maxim in thesi, or in the general, only I shall add some more limitations here. That 1. This greater, certain, & no otherwise attainable good, must be such, not in our apprehension only, but according to the Rule of the Word, for otherwise we are just where we were as to the hazard of perjury, if every man's [thinks so], or the Magistrates [arbitrary Laws] shall be the only Rule to determine this, as this Informer makes all resolve thereunto which he pretends in this case, in relation to that greater good, which he offers in breaking this Oath. Hence Gregorius Sayrus (clav. reg. l. 5. cap. 8. n. 15.) having determined that every man hath a power to commute ane oath for something better, is opposed by Silvester and others, who say, that the Pope must determine the good to be better. So rational and Consequent to their Principles are even Papists in this point. And must not Protestants be ashamed to refuse this limitation, that the Scripture (with us the only, and supreme rule) must determine this greater good. Next, Timorcus will tell him, that the Oath thus irritat, must be only made to God, for if it be to our brother, and for his advantage, we must have his consent as necessary towards the commutation. This he tells us, is agreed upon by Casuists, as well as the other limitations. To these we add Dr. Sand. rule (de jur. prom. Prel. 3. Sect. 12.) that, precise ob hoc quod videtur impeditivum majoris boni, obligandi vim non amittit. Id est, That the Oath loseth not its obliging force, merely because it seems the bindrance of a greater good, unless other circumstances also concur (as usually there do) which either evince it unlawful, or not obliging. His reason is because in all cases it is not true that every one is obliged to do what is best, he means, simpliciter, and abstracting from the present circumstances) since this would open a floodgate for all manner of perjury. As for that limitation (presented with an especially as the main one) anent the Oaths hindering the greater good, to which we were preoblidged, which this man foists in, to make way for his nauseating repetition, anent the Magistrates power, it may be alleged that it is not consistent with itself: for if we stood Preobliged to this greater good, it renders the Oath ab initio null, for the same cause on which it is loosed upon the prospect of that greater good. The greater obligation (as he says) still overruling the lesser, & ane Oath in prejudice of a greater obligation, and contradictory thereto, can lay on no obligation, for so we might be under contradictory obligations according to his way of reasoning about the Magistrates power. [I will have mercy and not sacrifice] is one of his illustrating instances. So that the obligation of the Oath, according to his reasoning in this matter, was like unto this inverted rule, viz. Sacrifice and not mercy, and being such ab initio, it could not bind. I know (as Dr Sand. saith) that which is abstractedly and simplicer a greater good, may hic & nunc, and in such a complex case become the lesser, consideratis considerandis all circumstances taken in. But this he admits not, for he adds unto the known rule anent the greater and certain good in its time and circumstances, that other limitation anent the vower his being preobliged unto it, which can no otherwise be understood then in opposition to the obligation of the vow, unless this his added limitation be redundant, or nonsense.  
But 2dly, let us come to the assumption, what is that greater good, attainable in breaking this Oath and vow rather than in keeping it. This he tells us is obedience to authority (that's the panacea curing allwounds the universal topic, and primum mobile) avoiding of Schism, Ministers serving God, in the work of the ministry to which they are called; these he says are greater and better goods then adhering to the Oath in a thing indifferent Then he adds, that Ministers should consider, whither is be better to lay aside their Oath, than their Ministry. (Especially ane Oath about a thing indifferent) and incapacitat, or do that which by consequence incapacitates them for the Ministry— that Ministers think that by their Oath they are obliged not to continue in their stations, as matters now stand, and yet divines hold that the lesser duty gives place to the greater, as David did eat the show bread rather than starve, Paul and those with him, did cast their goods into the sea etc. In Answer to this, we need not much enlarge, it being nothing but what is upon the matter already objected and answered. 1. If the Oath, for its matter contain important duties falling under divine commands, and unalterable obligations, if Prelacy be contrary unto divine prescriptions in point of Government, & the disowning of it consequently be a standing necessary duty (which we do suppose and have proved, and he cannot disprove) then this man himself will grant that all this tattle about the greater good in breaking the Oath, is to no purpose. 2ly, say prelacy were but indifferent, yet upon the supposal of the greater expediency of Presbyterian Government for this Church than Prelacy, and upon the certain supposition of all the Rulers engadgement in this Oath and vow to God against it, (the first of which suppositions he hath not disproved, and the 2d he cannot deny) it is certain, that both Rulers and Ruled their keeping the Oath, is a far greater & more certain good, than their breaking it. 3ly, let Dr Sand. limitation here again come in viz. That the Oath is not precisely loosed because it seems to contradict a greater good, unless Other circumstances do also occur, which either evince it to be unlawful, or not obliging, and that it's not true that in every case we are bound to do what is best, that is unless omnibus pens●…is, and caeteris Paribus, all circumstances duly pondered, it be found best; and then the Question is whither it were best for Rulers or ruled to keep this Oath for these great ends which he mentions, than to break it. Whither it be a greater good to keep a Lawful Oath, though I suffer under authority levelling against it, or break it to please men▪ or whither I shall choose the evil of suffering or sinning? (for he hath not yet proved that the interposing of the Rulers mere Law or authority, will make this Oath unlawful, & we have showed that Casuists mantain the Contrary.) Whither peace with God be a greater good in keeping his Covenant, than peace with men and with the world in breaking it? This Question was soon resolved with Elias. The children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant— and I only am left &c. 4ly, This greater good, he acknowledges must be such, as is no Otherwise att●…inable then by breaking the Oath. Hence the Question will be, whither the Gospel might not have been preached, schism avoided, and God served in the Ministry of the word, by keeping this Oath and Covenant with him? This man will come to a great height of impudence if he deny this. Nay, if he deny that this good might have been thus better obtained. He alleges we have now a great Schism by Presbyterian Ministers departing from their party, and he will not deny that many excellent preachers are Laid aside, the Magistra●… is displeased and disobeyed, all filled with confusion and disorder, popery like to creep in etc. Now, had not all this been eshewed by keeping our Covenant with God? The gospel had been preached by Presbyterian Minist●…rs, and he will not deny that all his party of Conformists too, had keeped their ownstations, this schism had been avoided, and the Magistrate obeyed while commanding for God. So that this rule every way makes against him. And in stead of obtaining a greater good by breach of Covenant, we have lost the greatest good, the gospel and peace with God, and incurred much sin and misery.  
I know he will say that he speaks upon the suposal of the Rulers disowning the Oath, and Establishing prelacy. But then I urge him thus, 1. Since he cannot but grant that the keeping of the Oath, or holding fast Presbyterian government, would have had the forementioned advantages following upon it, shall the mere pleasure of the Rulers cast the balance, and disprove its native tendency sua natura towards the formentioned effects? the matter of the Oath is still of itself, or of its own nature, more productive of these good effects; & Consequently the keeping is to be preferred to breaking of it, which is attended with evils counterballancing these apparent good effects, which he imagines to attend this breach. 2ly, if the Oath cannot be commuted or changed, but for a greater good, and all these good effects mentioned, might have been better, & more certainly attained, by keeping then breaking it, than the Rulers commuting the Oath, or altering or breaking of it, he must acknowledge to be sinful upon his own ground. Since they might have attained these good effects of obedience, preaching the gospel, and unity, by keeping this Oath, and might have more surely and better eshewed the forementioned evils then by breaking it. And then, let him in the third place seriously Consider, whither the Ruler's sin in commutting or breaking this Oath, for neither a greater, nor more certain good, will warrant my breaking of the Oath to follow them in that sinful course; and lose me from my obligation. 4ly, It will hence follow, that he plays the petty sophister here, in calling disobedience to the Magistrate, in this one point of a sinful command in relation to this Oath, (which on the formentioned grounds is proved Sinful) a disobeying of authority. For he dare not say that disobeying a sinful command can come under this character. And the true state of this Question is not, whither it be a greater good, to obey the Magistrate or keep ane oath? but whither it is a greater good in this particular to obey him, in Embracing abjured Prelacy, or to stand to the Oath; and the issue of this is, whither it be best for the Church of Scotland to have or want Prelates? which, from what is said is soon determined. 5ly, What if these pretended good issues, be countervaild by greater evils: such as persecution of many thousands, godly faithful Ministers and Professors, laying waste God's heritage, Blood, misery, confusion, schism, (the godly adherers to this Oath, being without all question this Pure Church) famine of the word etc. Nay, according to Dr Sand. rule mentioned, where is the Relaxation of all parties engaged in Covenant one with another, as well as with God? were not the Churches of both nations nay in all the three Kingdoms, engaged to one another in this Oath? now thinks he not that this prospect of a greater good in breaking this oath, should have been laid to the eye of the representative Church in the three Kingdoms, in order to the change of government. And should not all parties engaged in this Covenant, have dispensed with it, and with one another in contemplation of this greater good, and for obtaining this better government? thinks he that such a great question as this: What is this greater good in point of Church Government? And that other Question. Whither such great and solemn Oaths may be laid aside in order to the obtaining of it? Are Finally decided by the Magistrates Law without the least owning the Church representative? and besides, he dare not say that all are bound to obey the Magistrate in all things indifferent. Is not subjection (by the acknowledgement of most, and even of his Master the surveyer) different from active obedience.  
Finally, as for what he says of Ministers, the Apologist told him, and his master the Seasonable case, and I do tell him again, that God calls no man to preach the gospel by such ane unlawful mean as perjury and breach of Covenant, and that in this case Ministers suffering for truth, is a Confirmation of the gospel Phil. 1. 12. That in deserting and not preaching, they are merely passive: being persecute for their integrity; so the charge and guilt of not preaching lies upon their persecutors. Besides, the state of the question in truth, and in our principles importing a competition betwixt sin and suffering, and duty and sin, not a lesser and greater duty, the folly and impertinency of his instance, anent the lesser duty overruled by the greater (exemplified by that, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, repeated here ad nauseam) as also that instance of Paul and those with him, their casting their goods in the sea &c, is most evident. The sin and perjury of this course of conformity, being our principle, which he cannot disprove, even though we should grant all his pleading here (which goes but upon a begged supposition of prelacies indifferency, and the indifferency of the matter of the Covenant) what a flat folly is it, to tell us of preferring greater to lesser duties? whereas with us the question and case is, anent Minister's duty when the Magistrate refuseth to admit to preach, but upon sinful terms; which one consideration makes all his tattle here vanish in wind. Suppose the Rulers of a land discharge all preaching, but upon the terms that Ministers should commit some horrid act of wickedness, would this man admit any to plead as he doth for doing evil that good may come of it, and to tell what a weighty duty it is to preach the gospel, and that the lesser duty of forbearing that evil commanded, is overruld by the greater obligation to preach, etc. Well, he and his party (like the pharisaik teachers, 'twixt whom and us he insinuats a comparison) are sure blind Informers and leaders, and may be set to learn better (thou that teachest another teachest thou not self;) For they have vented such principles anent sacred Oaths, as some heathens would be ashamed of, and which banishes all faith out of the world. For what he adds anent the Rechabites, when he shall equiparat the matter of their vow, a thing merely civil, relating to their abstinence from wine, and the manner of their dwelling, with the weighty and great duties of a Covenant with God, for public and personal reformation, and withal prove that hazart will equally plead for the laying aside of the last, as in some cases it may warrant a dispensing with some part of the first, the parallel shall be admitted, but till then, it must pass among the rest of the Informers gratis dicta. The Dutch annot. (on Jer. 35. 7.) Show that jonadab probably put this ingadgment on his posterity, upon his foresight (by a prophetic spirit) of the judgements and desolations to come upon Israel, in order to their inoffensive walk, and for inuring them to parsimony. And as for their dwelling at Jerusalem in case of hazard they show (on. 11. V.) that the Rechabits, laid aside in this one thing their father's command, because it was but a humane ordinance, which in obedience to the law of God, they might in some cases wave, which was also jonadabs' intention, and acceptable to God. And that in giving this account to the prophet of their practice in reference to their dwelling now at Jerusalem upon the Assyrians invasion, they do show that their father's charge, and their vow was not to be extended to this case. So that in their sense there was no breach of the vow properly and strictly taken, but only the laying aside of a part of a humane ordinance, in case of extreme hazart, and this according to the nature and design of the vow itself, and the first institution thereof.   

CHAP. V.  
The Informers answers to our Argument for the Covenant obligation, taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites, and Zedikiahs' Oath to the King of Babylon, weighed. Upon the first argument after a foolish traverse about the consonancy of the Oath to the Law of God, he yields the cause in granting that the Oath did oblige the first takers, and their posterity. Upon the second he begs the question and admits its chief scope and nerves. Likewise his answer to Psalm. 15. 4. His reflection on the Assembly 1638, and his argument offered by way of retortion anent our owning of Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant, largely scanned.  
THus we have seen into what a fascination and labyrinth of absurd inconsistent notions this new proctor hath involved himself, while endeavouring to lose these sacred bonds of our solemn vows and Covenants with God, and that he hath run cross to the scripture, to Cafuists, yea to himself, in this enterprise. We shall now proceed to examine what strength is in the remnant of his reasonings upon this head; And how he acquits himself in his answers to some pregnant passages of scripture pleaded for the Covenant. The first that follows in this dialogue is that remarkable transaction of Joshua and Israel with the Gibeonites, largely and unanswerably pressed and improven by such as have written for the covenant; which this man thought he could not for very shame pass over; but sure he had better done so, then to have made such a pitiful and superficial return. Well, let us hear it.  
The Doubter now assaults him as to this notion anent the greater good in quiting the Oath, with that instance of the Oath to the Gibeonites, [whom God had commanded to make no peace with, but enjyond Israel to root them out, to whom Josua and the Princes might have said, God's command Loses us from our Oath, and it will hinder a greater good, yet in that particular they rather dispensed with God's command, then with their Oath; the acceptablness whereof to God, appeared in his punishing Saul a long time after for killing these Gibeonites, to whose predecessors Joshua & the princes had suorn.] In answer to this, he runs out a great length anent that transaction, to infringe this argument. Which I shall now examine.  
But before I enter upon this, I would premise two things, first, that this trifling Informer hath so moulded our argument from this text as quite to divert it from its true channel and scope, which is to prove the obliging force of ane Oath or Covenant (Lawful upon the matter) both upon the takers, and their posterity, notwithstanding of many circumstantial sinful aberrations from the divine rule, in the manner of entering into it. As is most evident in this instance as I shall after show. And this man could not be ignorant, that this text is thus Improven by Timorcus and Others, who have written for the Covenant, and this argument, and improvement of the text which he presents, is but a man of straw of his ownupsetting. Secondly, that we are not concerned in order to the evincing the premised truth for the proof whereof we adduce this text, peremptorly to determine this question, whither this Oath did contradict God's positive Law, and how far any piece or circumstances of the divine precepts anent the destruction of the Cannanites, making no leagues with them, justles with this Covenant and Oath, and are found overruled by its oblgation: for our argument stands good and entire, though we abstract from any positive determination in this point. So that in tracing our Informers extravagant discourse in answer to this objection of his own moulding, we shall rather discover the slippery grounds he walks upon, and the inconsistencies wherein he is involved by his answers, and confident assertion of the Oaths conformity to the divine Law, then positively to resolve and determine any thing in this debate, which this man hath no less ridiculously handled, then impertinently brought in. But to the point.  
First, he wonders that we make use of this argument to prove the obligation of our Oath against Bishops. But sure it is ane argument very Suitable, if ane Oath into which Joshua and all Israel were cheated, ane Oath to heathens, and which had at Leastwise a very apparent inconsistency with God's command, to root out these Canaanites, and not to pity or spare them, is found so highly obligatory, and even binding the posterity, how much more the nations Covenanting with God, and with one another for public and personal reformation. But he says, That we mistake this place. Why so? First, if we think joshua was forbidden upon any terms to make a Covenant with these Canaanites, but to root them all out, and yet because of this Oath spared them, than (he says) we run in a most wild and gross opinion. Severe censure! why so, what is that opinion? that ane Oath (saith he) can bind against a command of God, whither it be a moral or particular Command, it's all one. So that as we said before, that ane Oath can bind against commands of men in authority, now we go a greater length, in making them bind against Commands of God. But I answer, first, that there was a command of God to cut off these Canaanites, without pitying or sparing them, I hope he will not deny, and if he do, it is easy to be produced, Exo. 23. 32, 33. Exo. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2. Nay more, Gods command herein was so peremptory, that where he appointed his people to tender peace to other cities, before they proceeded to destroy them, there is ane exception made (as jackson observes upon Joshua 9 7.) of the cities of Canaan Deut. 20. 15, 16. thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the Cities of these nations. But of the cities of the People which the Lord thy God hath given thee for ane inheritance, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth. To this place Jackson points us to clear this matter. 2ly, It's as evident that these Gibeonites had their safety from this Oath and Covenant. For upon this we have the judgement of all the princes of the congregation, (Josh. 9 19) in determining that question about their safety, we have sworn unto them by the Lord, therefore we may not touch them, because of the Oath which we swore unto them. Yea more, when many hundred years after, the injury of Saul is mentioned in slaying them, the ground of their right to Live and dwell among the Lord's people, rather than the other Canaanites, is attributed expressly and solely to this Oath; 2. Sam. 21. 2. Now the Gibeonites were not of Israel but of the Amorites, and the children of Israel had sworn unto them, and Saul sought to slay them, wherefore David said what shall I do for you. Now the command being so express to cut them off, and upon the other hand, their safety being first and last attributed so clearly to the Oath, that which this man calls a wild and gross opinion, he must either impute to the Scripture-account of this matter, or resolve and accommodat this difficulty, which he is (in maintaining the Scriptures authority) obliged unto as well as we. 3ly, that which he calls a wild and gross opinion, is the Judgement of Learnt Divines, particularly of Jackson, who upon the twenty vers. of that 9 of Joshua, having moved this objection, that what the Princes swore was against the express command of God, who had often enjoind to destroy all these Canaanites. Returns this answer. That though one Oath or vow doth not bind men for doing of any thing that is absolutely unlawful, yet in this case it was not so, because the charge which God gave for slaying the inhabitants of the Land, was a particular command, and so far only to bind their consciences, as it might be obeyed without any breach of the moral Law, as in Rahabs' case it is also evident. But, here they could not obey that command of God concerning their destroying all the Inhabitants of Canaan, without perjury, which is against the Law and light of nature— he adds, that their perjury would have given great occasion to the enemies of God's people to blaspheme— So that (saith he) there lay a strong bond upon the consciences of the Israelites, though they were deluded by the Gibeonites. Now I think the account of this difficulty exhibit unto us here by this learnt divine, may make him ashamed of his assertion in this point, & we may retort his objected absurdity thus, if the moral Laws obligation in opposition to perjury, stood against and counterbalanced a particular command of God in this matter, much more will the force and obligation of ane Oath, in a matter of far greater importance, stand good against any positive Laws and statutes of men. And if even Gods positive Particular command, could in this case ground no dispensation with their Oath, but God would rather dispense with the particular command, than with it, how much more absurd must he be, who pretends a dispensation with, and a nulling of, such selemn Sacred Oaths and vows to God as we are under, and in such weighty matters, upon the arbitrary commands of men, especially men under the same Oaths themselves.  
In the premised distinction of Mr Jackson, the Informer might have discovered the folly of his bold unrestricted assertion; no Oath can bind against a command, no not a particular command. For Jackson distinguishes (which this man admits yea and positively asserts) betwixt that which is simply and absolutely unlawful, and that which is unlawful only upon the ground of a particular positive precept, which in some circumstantiat cases may-come to justle with the absolutely binding moral Law, as in the instances adduced by the Informer himself is evident.  
4Ly, His own rule anent the lesser obligation overruled by the greater or Prior, will plead for this, and his instances, of Mercy and not Sacrifice, of Paul and those with him, their casting the goods into the sea, david's eating the shewbread to keep from starving, do confirm the answers above set down. For here particular positive precepts, are overruled by the greater and Prior moral obligations of the 6th Command anent self Preservation. What absurdity then is there in this assertion, that the great moral precept of Not taking God's name in vain, did overrule a particular positive precept? Doth he not here see Gods great moral Commands (in the premised instances) binding against lesser positive precepts. And when he saith that whither the command be moral or particular which the Oath binds against, all is one as to his fancied absurdity, he discovers ignorance, and inconsistency with himself, for in all his formentioned instances, moral precepts do overrule positive, particular and lesser precepts. And why shall not also the great moral command anent not taking God's name in vain, overrule that positive and particular precept anent the staying of these Gibeonites, and far more our solemn vows, the present statutes of men. Sure, he will never be reconciled with himself here, or assign a disparity. Hence jackson having said that the bond of this Oath lay strongly upon the consciences of the Israelites to observe it, though they were deluded by these Gibeonites, addeth that in this the Rule holds good, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice, and from his own argument concludes that which he here denies. So that this case of the Gibeonites (according to jackson's solution of this difficulty, and that sense of this scripture followed by him and Other learned divines) strongly repels his rule, from the hindrance of a greater good to lose the Covenant, especially since this greater good doth with him still resolve into obedience of men's Laws. Had not the Israelites this ground more strongly to plead against the keeping of their Oath to these Gibeonits', since not only they were cheated into it (and dolus aufert consensnm say Casuists) but it seemed to hinder a far greater good viz, the obeying of Gods express command to root them out; yet Joshua & the Princes knew not this new knack for losing Oaths. But the interposing the sacred name of God in ane Oath, was with them so weighty a matter, that it overruled all these pretences.  
Thus we have seen how he acquits himself as to his first charge of [a mistake of this place] and that what he calls a gross and wild opinion, is the sense of the scripture embraced by learnt divines and consonant to his own pleading; so that in this charge he discovers too bold ignorance. What more hath he to say? he tells us 2ly, that we are mistaken if we thank, that joshua had no warrant to make peace with any of the Canaanites, but was commanded without once treating with them, to root them all out: because in Deut. 20. 10. he is commanded to proclaim peace indefinitely to any city he came to fight with, the Canaanites not excepted. Ans. How can this man say that the Canaanites are not excepted, from that offer of peace there enjoined, when as he doth not so much as offer to answer to these pregnant circumstances of the text, pleaded by jackson and Others to prove the contrary. For, after the Lord hath commanded them to proclaim peace to a city before they assaulted it, there is (verse 15.) a limitation. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations (viz: who were devoted to destruction) therefore in the 16. vers. after the Lord hath thus rid marches, as to the Canaanites they get this precept, But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for ane inheritance thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Can any restriction and exception be more peremptory? and that we may know, who these are who are thus excepted from mercy, and from these offers of peace mentioned, the 17. ver. clears it. But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizites, the Hivites and the jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. This additional motive of God's command is here remarkably inserted; which is the more remarkable if compared with the 2. of Sam. 21. 2. The Gibeonites were not of Israel but of the Amorites, and the Children of Israel had sworn to them. When the spirit of God, is reminding us of this story in pointing at Saul's guilt, we are first told that they were of the Amorites, a people devoted to destruction by God's command, but excepted from the rest that were destroyed, upon the ground of this Oath, and upon this ground solely.  
Jackson upon this passage, holds that the offer of peace, is not to be understood of any city of Canaan upon these grounds, first, because they were expressly charged utterly to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, to the end they might dwell in their room and might not be ensnared by their dwelling among them; and secondly, we do not read that ever Joshua tendered peace to any of the cities, though it be mentioned as a strange thing, and a sign of Gods hardening their hearts, that never any of those people, did of their own accord crave peace, save the Gibeonites Josh. 11. 19— Yet we never find that there was peace proffered them, and it seems that the Gibeontes did therefore seek it by craft, because Otherwise they saw it would not be granted them; and 3dly, it is expressly noted as a fault in the Israelites, Judges 1. 28. that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. Hence he concludes, that this is only to be understood of such cities as they should besiege that were not of the land of Canaan. And upon the 15. verse. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations, He adds, but these must neither have peace offered them, nor must their women and little ones and cattle be spared when their cities are taken by force; for the following reason (saith he) doth manifestly exclude them from both these favours (citing vers. 18.) That they teach you not to do after all their abominations etc. Sure it had become this Magisteriall Informer to ponder these reasons ere he had obtruded upon us his bold and inconsiderate assertions in this point. The Dutch Annot: on this 15. vers. expressly assert that the cities of the Land of Canaan are excluded from offers of peace, because the Lord had commanded them to be banned (that is devoted to destruction) as is related in the sequel. Mr Poole upon this 10. vers. asserts that this seems to be understood not of the cities of the Canaanites, as is manifest from vers. 16, 17, 18. who were under ane absolute sentence of utter destruction, Ex. 23. 32, 33. Deut 7. 1, 2. Whence they are blamed that made any peace or league with them, Judge's 2. 2. but of the cities either of other nations who injured or disturbed them, or commenced war against them, or aided their enemies, or oppressed their friends and allies or of the Hebrews themselves, if they were guilty or abettors of Idolatry or apostasy from God, or of sedition or rebellion against authority, or of giving protection and defence to capital offenders. Citing Gen. 14. Judges 20. 2. Sam. 20. The English annot. upon this 10. vers. do also assert that this offer of peace is not to be understood of the cities of Canaan, for they were to be more severely dealt withal vers. 16, 17. and for showing them more favour Israel is blamed Judg. 1. 28. but of cities without the land of promise vers 15. So that our Informer is here running cross to the plain sense & scope of the text, and the current of Interpreters.  
But he adds, that there was a difference betwixt these Canaanites and the nations a far off in relation to this allowance of peace to them. First, it was to be upon the terms of relinquishing their idolatry, yielding up their Lands, and becoming servants. That therefore leagues with them are forbidden, they reserving their heathenish worship. But where will he show us this restriction, or difference in Scripture? non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit. We have seen Gods peremptory precepts to cut them off, to save alive none that breatheth of these excepted cities and nations. We find also peremptory commands to make no leagues with them, no not for civil commerce, as they might with other heathens afar off, Exo. 23. 32, 33. — thou shalt make no Covenant with them— they shall not dwell in thy land, as these Gibeonites were permitted; so Exo. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2 we have the same precepts renewed. Now, where is this exception, as to these leagues? it lies upon him as the affirmer to prove and instruct this limitation, which he here affirms, out of the text. God who gives the law must himself also give the exception. And this man must be charged with malapert intruding into what he hath not seen, in presuming to put in his exceptions, unless he can instruct them, which yet he hath not done. I confess God who is above the Law might allow an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in certain cases, especially such as this anent their Oath, but looking to his own precept we find no such exception from it. 2ly; he says, there was this difference betwixt them and other nations, that if they refused peace, they were to be worse dealt with then any other city that was not of the Canaanites, because (Deut. 20. 16, 17.) in ease of their refusal, nothing was to be saved alive while, other cities were but to lose the lives of the Males only. verse. 12, 13, 14, 15. Now, the violence which he offers here unto the text, is obvious to any that but reads it. For after that (ver. 10.) the lord hath laid down this Law in general, anent their proclaiming peace to a city before they assault it, and shown (in the 11. ver.) That if the city yield, they shall be tributaries— (vers. 12, 13.) God enjoins that if the city refuse peace, every male must be cut off— and (ver. 14.) the Women, little ones, and the cattle must be saved, and its spoil taken. Then (vers. 15.) to rid marches, and to show whom all these prescriptions relate unto, and whom not. The lord adds — thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee which are not of the cities of these nations. And then (as I said) in relation to them the severe command follows (16. ver.) but of the cities of these nations which the Lord thy God gives thee, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth. And that these excepted cities and people may be known they are particularly named as in above expressed. He says, in the case of their refusal, nothing was to be left alive, and they were to be worse deal; with than others, who refused peace, who were to lose the males only. Whereas the text appears express, that the Law anent offering peace, and dealing thus according as it was accepted or refused, did not belong to them at all, but that they are very clearly and peremptorly excepted from it. As for his long confused parenthesis here foisted in anent the difference betwixt the peace and a league, and that joshua first made a league with the Gibeonites, but knowing them to be Canaanites-brake it, because contrary to the command of God (citing Josh. 9, 21, 22, 23.) and merely allowed them a peace. It is fl●…tly contradictory to the text, for (vers. 15.) it is said, he made peace with them and made a league with them (and this league was) to let them live, and the Princes of the congregation swore unto them. Lo here is the Identity of the peace and league, and the design and contents of it [to let them live.] The Dutch annot. upon 15. v. [the princes of the congregation swore to them] tell us, that they ratified by Oath that which Joshua had promised them, viz. that they should remain alive. The English annot. in stating the question and difficulty concerning the contrariety of this transaction to God's command, express it thus, whither joshua in making peace with them, and the Princes in confirming it by Oath, did Lawfully or not. And speak to the Lawfulness, or unlawfulness of both jointly without any distinction, but make no exception in the least of the league as if distinct from the peace confirmed by Oath, which certainly in statingthe question they would have expressly excluded, had they imagined any such distinction. That Joshua kept the peace and the league, and that this league & peace was to let them live, is accordingly set down in the same terms when the Prince's ratified it; and all along where the peace is mentioned, The Oath (and by consequence the league which was thereby confirmed) is proposed as its ground. They smote them not because they had sworn by the Lord (18. vers.) And (vers. 19) the Princes determine they must not touch them, because they had sworn to them. And (20. verse.) we will let them live lest wrath be upon us because we have sworn unto them. And (vers. 21.) the Princes said to the People let them live— as they had promised unto them. Lo all along the Oath is most consciencioussly observed, and that as accessary unto, and confirming this whole transaction, both the peace and league, the, scope and sum whereof is still expressed thus [to let them live.] As the text makes no distinction, betwixt the peace and league in this ratefication, so the intendment thereof is never extended byond their life and safety first or last. How then can this man say that Joshua broke the league, since the terms thereof were to let them live (ver. 15.) which is acknowledged by the Princes & faithfully performed. The league and peace and Oath here are still one, and fall under the same consideration as consonant, or dissonant to the command; if the peace was contrary to the command so was the Oath, and if the league was contrary to the command so was the Oath also. For it is most evident, that the text speaks of the peace and league indiscriminatim or without distinction in relating this transaction, and of the Oath as accessary both unto the one and the other; so that the Oath was unlawful, if either the peace or league was unlawful, and if either was broken the Oath was broken, and Joshua and the Princes were perjured: Whereas the text records their faithful performance of the Oath as ratefying all that transaction. But it is no strange thing to see men so notoriously blotted with perjury seek precedents in scripture Saints if they could find them. But this instance will stand in judgement against them if they repent not.  
Whereas he saith, that joshua broke the league as contrary to the command of God when he knew them to be Canaanites, giving this as a reason why he allowed them a peace only. It is such a flat contradiction to the text, and to itself, as none can be more plain. For according thereunto Joshua could not break this league without breaking his Oath which confirmed it, and could break neither the one nor the other, and allow them a peace. Since this peace was the import both of the league and Oath, and all that the Scripture mentions as their demand of Joshua, was peace and their life, and nomore; and this all along Joshua and Israel kept, and precisely because of the Oath. As any who reads the text may see. The Dutch Annotations upon Josh. 9 15. expone that branch that relates to the Princes swearing thus, that they ratified by Oath that which Joshua had promised them, viz, that they should remain alive. Wherein, as they clearly hold that the Oath was accessary to this whole transaction, so they make it entirely to terminate in this that they should have their life. And upon 2. Sam. 21. 1. Where Saul's guilt in slaying these Gibeonites is mentioned, they paraphrase it thus, that it was contrary to the promise made to them & ratified by Oath. Josh. I. 15, 18. And whereas we are put in mind in the 2. ver. that [the Gibeonites were not of Israel But of the Amorites]— they paraphrase it thus, that they were remaining of the heathen nations whom God had commanded to destroy — and the other clause of the verse wherein we are put in mind [that Israel had sworn to them and Saul is said to have sought to slay them in his zeal] they paraphas●… it thus, that it was irregular feigned zeal whereby he thought to mend what Joshua and other godly Governors, according to his opinion had neglected or ill done, but it was directly against the Oath made by God's name, by his special providence, for which thing God was now greatly provoked, as by this pleague upon the land, & God's answer appeareth. Wherein, how evidently they stand in opposition to this man's glosses and pleading upon this head, is obvious to themeanest reflection since only for thatOath they charge guilt on Saul. The English annotations upon (ver. 18.) say, that abstracting from the Prince's Oath it had been cruelty to have slain them seeing they had violate a lawful Covenant. Now how this aggrees with this man's gloss of [Joshuas breaking the league, as contrary to the commandment] let any judge. Jackson thus senses ver. 23.— the curse, which God had pronounced upon the people of this land requires that you be cut off as well as the rest, yet because of the Oath which we have taken this curse shall be upon you in bondage and not in death.  
His next instance to prove his supposed limitation of God's command to destroy the Canaanites is that of Rahab her being spared Josh 6. 17. Which clearly crosses his pleading & argument here; for 1. the spies upon very strike terms state their Oath: and told Rahab not only that if she should make the least discovery of their business, but likewise that if she or her friends, even so much as one of them, were out of the house when the city was taken; this Oath should not reach them, whatever submission she had made. And 2dly, All Joshuas ground when he commands the spies to secure her and her friends, is their Oath: they are commanded to bring out the Woman, [as they swore to her] and for no other reason. 3ly. I pray, what saved her friends and her relations as well as herself from this common destruction? Surely, they made no peace nor any such submission as this man supposeth necessary to exeem them from the commanded destruction, nor was there any assurance the spies could have touching them, and therefore they could not be upon any other ground saved, but because included in this Oath. Besides, what power had these two men to transact a peace without Joshuas advice and knowledge? the ground of, their transacting with her, is their necessity, and the Woman's offer of their safety. Now I retort his argument here against him; to prove that they were spared upon other terms then the Oath, he adduceth this instance of Rahabs' preservation upon the submission mentioned, viz. her making and accepting of peace, and hence concludes that she (and by consequence the Gibeonites) together with her friends, were saved upon other terms, then merely upon the Oath, and that abstracting from it Israel was obliged to save them. But one might argue thus, if Rahabs friends (at least) might have been Lawfully cut off upon the ground of God's command to cut off the Canaanites who made or accepted no terms of peace, and were only saved by the spies Oath, than the Oath (according to the Informers own principles) did bind in opposition to a positive precept to cut off the Canaanites: but so it is, that upon the ground of this Oath only her friends were spared, as this man cannot deny: ergo, the Oath did bind here in opposition to a positive precept. He dare not say that her friends were proselyts, or did in the least directly or indirectly submit. Nay for any thing that the spies knew they might be as cursed heathens as were in all Jericho (for what was Rahab herself before God extraordinarly touched her heart) and consequently by God's positive precept devoted to destruction with the rest. Yet this Oath, made even to another for them, yea an Oath which had a seeming extortion of fear in the spies hazard, saved and exeemd them from this stroke & curse, so that in this case himself must confess that the Oath did bind in opposition to the positive precept. And this one clear Scripture instance seems enough to prove the point that the Oath did overrule a particular, positive precept, though all that he says of the Gibeonites were admitted.  
He adds, that it is evident, from josh. 11. 19 that if other cities in Canaan, had submitted, as Gibeon, joshua might have spared them. I answer; the Text says that de facto they made no peace, and that God hardened their hearts that they might come against Israel and fall. But this will be too weak to bear the weight of his conclusion that joshua might have spared them all. For 1. How can this consist with the plain positive command as to their utter off cutting (often renewed) and with God's promise of giving Israel their inheritance, to spare them all. For the Psalmist tells us, that he did drive out the heathen with his hand and planted his people, he did afflict the people and cast them out. Psal. 44. 2. And Psal. 78. 54, 55. He brought them to the border of his Sanctuary, even to this mountain which his right hand had purchased. He cast out the Heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents. Hence as they were frequently enjoined to cast them out lest they should become a snare to them Exod. 23. 33. Deut. 7. 16. Ex. 34. 12. So Israel's sparing them when they were planted in that land is frequently reprehended as their great guiltiness Judges 1. 27, 29, 30, 31, 33. And Judges 2. 1, 2. Upon which ground the Lord threatens as a punishment that he will not drive them out: But that they shall be thorns in their sides. And this threatening we find execute, and the same very guiltiness presented as the cause of it, viz. That they did not destroy the nations concerning whom the Lord commanded them. Psal. 106. 34, 35. which confirms this assertion; and therefore this historical clause in that passage of Joshua, is to be expounded in correspondence with the plain and positive command, which we have already seen clear. 2ly. Jackson upon that 19 ver. [there was not a city that made Peace with Israel etc.] tells us, that this is added as a reason why the wars with the Canaanites lasted so long— because the Inhabitants did obstinately stand out— and attempted not to procure conditions of peace save only the Gibeonites— Which is far from coming up to his scope and design. For it is one thing to say that de facto ●…he wars lasted long— because none offered to yield but Gibeon, and another thing to say that joshua was not obliged nor commanded to cut off any but those who thus warred and resisted. Which will be the more weighty, if it be considered in the third place, that as in the command to cut them off, no such restriction appears, but upon the contrary the Canaanites are excepted from mercy, so we do not find that Joshua offered terms of peace (as this man alleadges he was obliged) unto any of these that were cut off, but assaulted them as those whom God had devoted to be destroyed, in obedience to his holy, though severe command, As we heard Jackson hath observed. This will be more clear, (and therein the Informers adversary might puzzle him) If we shall again reflect upon the remarkable circumstances of that transaction with the Gibionites. In the 6. ver. of that 9 of Joshua, they propose the matter thus, we are come from a far country, therefore make a League with us. Whatever they had understood of God's command to cut off the Canaanites, this surely was a strong argument with Joshua. Now remark the answer in the 7. ver. the men of Israel said peradventur ye dwell among us, and how shall we me make a league with you. Sure their offering terms of peace and submission, might have stopped this question and demur according to his opinion, who holds that upon their submitting to terms of peace, They might have been spared and even incorporate among God's people, as he tells us from Josh. 11. 19 that all these Canaani●…es might have been spared, had they thus submitted So that in his sense their first offer was a ground of peace. Especially since (as is observed by learned Interpreters from their offer in the 8. ver.) they sought peace from Joshua and Israel upon their own terms, and offered to accept any conditions proposed by them. Which was the lowest step of submission. And when they further answer that demur about the place of their abo●…e with this general, we are thy servants, i. e. We offer ourselves to thee & all that is ours, which was enough in this man's Judgement, to except them from the stroke threatened, and commanded to be execute upon the rest of the Canaanites. Yet this doth not satisfy Joshua, but again he particularly interrogats them upon these two points, who are ye? and next, from whence come ye? This their free and general concession (as some do judge) giving Joshua just cause to suspect that they were of the cursed Canaanites whom he was to destroy; and then they tell him that wherein the dolus lay, we come from a far country. Now, I suppose they had answered to these two Questions thus, we are Amorites, and we dwell here. Thinks this Informer that Joshua would have looked on himself as obliged by God's Law to transact with them. What needed then his peremptory Interrogations (after their declared submission) anent their stock and lineage, and the place of their abode? What needed the people murmur, and desire to cut them off, after the contrary of what they pretended was discovered, notwithstaning hereof? Nay thirdly, why is it, that again and again their safety is attributed solely to the Oath, without the least hint of their submission as having any influence thereupon? Finally that passage Joshua 11. 19 [no city made peace— For it was of the Lord that they might have no favour] seems to import no more but this, that favour might have been shown them had they submitted, but how? Even by God the supreme lawgiver (whose mercy is over all his Works) his dispensing with his own Law, and severe positive precepts, (as in the case of the Gibeonites he did) and in what Method it seemed best unto him, but it will be hard to infer from this a limitation of the precept itself for the reasons already given. So that all that seems to follow from this passage is, that had they submitted, God might have spared them by a special dispensing with his own Law, (For he will have mercy and not Sacrifice) and Joshua upon God's appointment. But not that the Law itself did dispense with them.  
As for what he adds in further confirmation of this opinion, anent Salomon's imposing bond service upon the remains of these cursed Nations, and their posterity afterward, whom the children of Israel were not able to cast out (which, in ane odd phrase, he calls a kindness) and anent these Children of Solomon's servants, mentioned Ezra. 2. 55, 58.] Jackson will tell him [That it contradicts not the Law (Deut. 7.) anent utter smiting them, and showing them no mercy, since, that Law may be meant of the inhabitants that were in the Land at their entering first into it, not of their posterity. Especially these who had their lives previously secured.] Which fully cuts off his argument from this Text. And this is also the answer of Mr Poole and other learned interpreters upon this passage. Besides, that the Nethinims were probably the Gibeonites issue, and were however all of them, by a long tract of time Proselyts incorporate among God's people and professing the true religion, which providential title might abundantly secure their lives  
The Dutch Anotations upon Josh. 29. 27. do infer from the nature and mould of that phrase which signifies [a delivering them over.] that hence it is thought they were called Nethinims i. e. given and delivered over which confirms the answer adduced. However the person who should directly impugn the Informer as to what he maintains in this question (which he hath impertinently brought in without any ground, to make some shift of answer) might further tell him that this being but a practice, cannot be pleaded against a rule, but must be measured by it, which is a principle acknowledged by all.  
And here I shall exhibit some remarkable inconsistencies of this man with himself upon this point 1. he supposeth that Joshua and the princes their Oath to the Gibeonites stood inviolable as to this transaction both now and hereafter; for he says (page 143.) that Saul's slaying the Gibeonites moved God to wrath, because it was contrary to joshuas Oath made to their fathers. Now Joshua & the Prince's Oath ratified all the Transaction with them, & was accessary thereunto as the text most clearly holds out, viz. both the league and the peace; yet he tells us (page 141.) that as soon as joshua knew them to be Canaanites, he broke the league as contrary to the command of God, and consequently his Oath confirming it according to his doctrine as being Likewise contrary to the command. 2ly, In that same page he tells us that no peace was to be concluded with the Canaanites, unless they became servants & renounced their heathenish idolatries, and that with the same proviso leagues were discharged with these Canaanites. Yet immediately after he makes a distinction in this point betwixt a peace, and a league, and tells us, that joshua had first made a league with them, but when he knew them to he Canaanites, he broke it as being contrary to the command of God, and only allowed them a peace. Now both the peace, and the league, were equally allowed and commanded upon their terms of yielding up their Lands, and relinquishing their Idolatry, and both were equally discharged if they did not so, according to the series of his reasoning, as is obvious to any Reader. How then (I pray) could Joshua break his league with them as contrary to the command of God, more than the peace, both which he holds to have been allowed them with this proviso. 3ly. He says joshua and the Princes swore nothing but what God commanded (pag. 142.) Now the text is most express that they swore the league ver. 15. and joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them to let, them live, and the princes of the congregation swore unto them. This league he says joshua broke as contrary to the command of God, in his second answer; yet in his 3d answer he tells us, that the Oath contained in it nothing contrary to the command. Again, he says God commanded to make no peace with them, But upon the terms of submission, relinquishing their idolatry, and giving up their Lands. To this only he restricts the Prince's stipulation, as falling under the command, yet acknowledges the command will include a league also upon their terms, which else where (as I said) he dstinguishes from the peace, which he holds was not to be allowed them even upon their terms. And likewise, in his second answer he tells us that they had peace only upon their submission, without mentioning these other terms. Likewise he says that on these terms he transacted to spare Rahabs' friends, but where was this assurance as to her friends?  
4ly, He acknowledges (pag. 143.) that God's wrath for slaying the Gibeonites was because of joshuas Oath, made to their fathers. Yet page 108. he cries out upon his Doubters assertion anent ane Oath binding the posterity, as a strange fancy, and tells us that Casuists say, that juramentum est vinculum personale, binding these only who take it. Now whereas this man wonders much at our argument from this text anent the Gibeonites, let any judge whether his own shattered inconsistent discourse be not rather an object of wonder.  
But to proceed, his third answer to the premised argument of his Doubter, from this instance of the Gibeonites, is that joshua did nothing contrary to God's command, which was to spare them upon their submission. Ans. (Besides what is touched anent his inconsistency with himself in this, and what we are to add, anent the impertinency of this unto the point, though granted.) I say first, that Joshua and the Princes were bound to spare them abstracting from this stipulation and Oath, is more than he hath proved, and appears contrary to the command above expressed, and the current of the context where this Oath and stipulation is set down; whether we consider Joshuas peremptory demands and demurs anent receiving them to peace, after they had expressed their submission, or the Oath its being again and again mentioned, both in setting down the stipulation its self (ver. 15.) and the reason why they were not smitten (ver. 18.) and the Princes judicial determination. (ver. 19) as the sole ground of Joshuas and the Prince's obligation to them, without the least hint of any other, which certainly might have been (and consequently if true would have been, might his impugner say) very pertinently and strongly pleaded by Joshua and the Princes, to quash the people's murmuring at the sparing of them. 2ly, I might say, that this stipulation and Oath, although cross to a particular positive precept, yet notwithstanding, as matters here stood circumstantiat, was consonant to a general moral rule of God's mercy, who loves it better than Sacrifice. And the sparing of these Gibeonites was grounded upon this great moral precept [of the reverence due to God's name, interposed by a Sacred and Solemn Oath.] Which answer is the very determination of Joshua and the Princes in this matter. His impunger might here add that it is utterly improbable, that in the Prince's determination of the question [whether these Gibeonites were to be saved, and the stipulation with them held as valid] their submission would have been omitted, if they had understood God's command with this limitation, which is a doubt that would much puzzle this Informer to resolve.  
His 4t, Ans. is, that God was angry at the slaying of the Gibeonites, because it was contrary to his command, to give them peace upon their submission, and unto joshuas Oath to their fathers, and not merely because it was contrary to the Oath. Ans. Joshua and the Prince's Oath is both in that 9 of Joshua, and the 2. of Sam. 21. mentioned as the only ground of their right to their life, without the least hint of any command anent their having peace upon their Submission, which notwithstanding this antiscriptural Informer (who will be wise here above what is written) sets in the first place, as the principal cause of their right. When the reason is rendered (2. Sam. 21.) why these Gibeonites had a right to live among the Israelites, though they were not of Israel, but of the Amorites, it is expressed thus, the children of Israel had sworn to them, and Saul sought to slay them. Again, since he grants that God was angry at the slaying of these Gibeonites upon the ground of Joshua and the Prince's Oath to their fathers, he confequently grants that this Oath, notwitstanding of the cheat by which Joshua and the Princes were brought under it, was still binding and did oblige the posterity, which is the Chief point that this instance is adduced to prove against him, as we shall presently show. For what he adds after, it is not much noticable. The reasons of the English annotations as touching this Oaths consonancy to God's Law, we are not in this point concerned to scan, since our argument stands good even upon their supposition. As for these who say, that joshua and the Prince's Oath, was contrary to God's Law, and do therefore assert that it did not bind. We have shown that as herein they are not ours, so in this assertion they clearly cross the Scriptures, as is evident from what is above touched.  
Here we shall again mind the Reader for a conclusion to this argument and instance anent the Gibeonites, that all this man's clamour, about the consonancy or dissonancy of this Oath to God's Law, is out of the way, and never meets our reasoning from this passage, even as it's moulded by himself, so that we may without losing our argument as to its main scope, grant all that he says anent the consonancy of the Oath to the divine precept about cutting off these Canaanites, and that it did admit these restrictions which he speaks of. But our argument for the Covenant is here twofold 1. That this Oath and Covenant with these Gibeonites though its matter were of a far lower nature than our Sacred Covenants, and vows, yet did not only oblige that, but all succeeding generations, And therefore much more our solemn sacred vows, so solemnly and universally sworn, and about the great concerns of Public and personal reformation, do oblige all the posterity. Now this being our main Argument, he is so far from denying it, that he grants it upon the matter, in asserting and yielding unto us, that this Oath consonant to God's Law, did bind the posterity; for thinks he that we do not suppose and hold the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to God's Law ' Why then wanders he out of the way, while pretending to answer this argument, and pleaseth himself, and leads his Reader off the way with unprofitable talk not to the purpose? The consonancy of our Oath to the Law of God, being even his own supposition in this argument. 2ly. From this instance we argue (as I said) for the binding force of the Covenant even upon the adversaries supposition anent the coaction, deceit, fear, or such like irregularities in the manner of entering unto it, (which they use to make a great clamour about) and from this text we conclude that all these will not lose the Oath, when once it is taken. Since here there was a notable cheat whereby Joshua and all Israel were brought under this Oath, taking away both a rational assent of the judgement, and the free suitable election of the will, quia dolus aufert assensum that is, deceit takes away assent, say Casuists, Yet all this did not irritat this Oath when taken. And even as himself states the objection, his Doubter alleges, that the pretence or appearance of a greater good in breaking the Oath, was not wanting,— and particularly pleads, that this Oath did bind the posterity. Now what his roving discourse anent the Oaths consonancy to the Law, says to all this, let any rational man judge; Since both his Doubter and he, do suppose the matter of this Oath lawful. He knew that his stating the question aright and speaking to it, would have made the vanity of his answers appear, and therefore he started this notion anent the Oaths binding against a precept, that tossing it a little upon his forked pen, the unwarrie Reader might believe, he had returned a full answer to this argument: Whereas he but beats the air in ane airy discourse out of the way, and yields the cause when he hath done.  
Next he says, we use to plead Zedekiahs' breach of Oath to the King of Babylon, which the Lord was so much displeased with. But how, and to what scope we plead that text, he durst not set down, nor put into the mouth of his Doubter any formal argument from it; Which if rightly propounded, he knew well his cause would quickly fall before it. This man could not be ignorant how Timorcus, and others, improve this text, viz. that Zedekiah who was of the King's seed, the son of Josiah (Ezek. 17. 13.) had ane Oath put upon him by the King of Babylon anent his, and the Kingdom's fealty and subjection to him (2 Chron 36. 13.) after he had overrunn the land, and made prisoner Jehoiachin his Brother, and kept Zedekiah himself under his power. That he could neither have the crown, nor his liberty without this Oath of fealty to the King of Babylon, which was forced upon him out of fear, and as a prisoner— yet for the breach hereof (Exek. 17.) he is threatened with the loss of all. Shall he break the Covenant and be delivered— as I live saith the Lord surely my Oath and Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompense upon his head. And in the midst of Babylon he shall die. Here was ane Oath, forced upon a prisoner, and a King of Judah, and upon the matter inconsistent with Israel's Laws, made that the Kingdom might be base, yet the breach of it was thus terribly revenged: Therefore much more dreadful is the breach of our solemn vows, whose matter is of such high importance, and their end so excellent, and the power imposing so native and Lawful etc. What says he to this Argument? he tells us, that the jews were commanded to submit to the King of Babylon (jer. 27. 6. etc.) so that the breaking of the Oath was disobedience to God's command. But who denies this, and what doth this arguing reprove? doth not his Doubter and himself also suppose the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to God's command. But how takes he away these nerves, and t●…ckling points of this instance and argument for the Covenant. 1. That this Oath was forced upon him as a prisoner. 2ly, taken by Zedekiah out of fear. 3ly, had a very apparent Inconsistency with a greater good, viz. to free God's Church and people from a heathen slavery. 4ly, was cross to many standing Laws of Israel, yet neither the force of this heathen Invader, in imposing this Oath, nor the fear and bondage of this King of Israel when he did take it, nor the apparent inconsistency of its matter with a greater good, and its certain inconsistency with the standing Laws of Israel, did lose the Oath when taken, nor exeem the breaker of it from wrath and Judgement. And all this because it was upon the matter warrantable, and allowed of God, as we hold the Covenant to be. And therefore neither force, fear, bondage, the greater apparent good in breaking it, nor the inconsistency of it with our present Laws, none of all these pretences (we say) will lose the Oath of our Covenant, the matter of it being warranted of God, and of such high importance as is said. Sure it is obvious to any that this answer of his, says nothing to the antecedent or consequent of this argument for the Covenant, nor touches it in the least.  
The Doubter objects next [the mark of the blessed man (Psalm 15. 4. verse.) swearing to his own hurt and not changing.] In answer to which this Informer grants, that in many things a man may swear to his hurt and not change. This is sound, and in so far he must grant, that the Oath may hinder many goods and yet not for all that be violate. And in recompense of this concession I readily yield to him, that ane Oath will not bind to a man's hurt in every thing, as to take away his own life. And that such ane Oath binds only to repentance, as being iniquitatis vinculum. But what will he say to this argument which he makes his Doubter here mutter out? Why, when it hurts (saith he) those in authority and people's souls, it will not bind. True, but how doth the keeping of the Covenant hurt people's souls, or these in authority? we read much in Scripture of the hurt that breach of Covenant hath brought upon both these. But how a people's keeping Covenant with God wrongs either their souls or these in authority, we would gladly hear. Dare he say that every disobedience to the command of Rulers, impeaches their authority? or that people's want of the means and ordinances of life, is to be imputed to Godly suffering ministers, whom for keeping God's Covenant they have chased away from their flocks & families? As for family hurt, or in relation to things of this life, there's no question but that ane Oath in many cases will bind notwithstanding thereof; Which is the Judgement of all Interpreters. But now the Doubter having spent all his arguments, hath only one poor General left, viz. that we are tender of Oaths. To this he answers first, by acknowledging, that we ought to be considerate before we enter into ane Oath. Very true, and had we all been so, there had not been so many contradictory and ungodly Oaths, standing upon record against Scotland, as this day there are. Withal he says, we should be well advised before we think ourselves discharged of an Oath. And no doubt if he and his party had advised this better with God, with his word, with sound Casuists, and their own consciences, they had not upon such poor grounds as we have seen, first perjured themselves, and pleaded for others doing the like. But yet (saith he) to think we cannot be at all discharged of an Oath, in a thing not necessary, is to be more tender than we ought to be. True: but not to take every matter of an Oath for not necessary, which he may have the confidence to call so, but cannot prove it, and not to admit every ground of discharge as lawful, which such Adiaphorists as he may pretend, is to be no more tender than we ought to be.  
But here, our Informer will reach a blow again at the Assembly 1638, because of their losing Ministers, who entered by the former Prelates, from their Oaths to them. But where is his discretion and tenderness, who objects this as a fault of that assembly, and yet dare not exhibit, nor offer to scan their grounds mentioned in their act, in reference to these engadgements? wherein, because that Prelacy is condemned in the word (and consequently the matter of these Oaths,) and likewise found contrary to the privileges and reformation of this Church, to maintain which, the se Prelates themselves who exacted such Oaths, stood engaged, and such like grounds, they prove them to be Materially sinful, iniquitatis vincula, and from the beginning null or never obliging, and do not pretend (as he) to lose from Oaths antecedently lawful and binding. Besides, Prelates being removed, this Oath supposing their existing power and office, was ipso facto null and void, as the soldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the army, and so its root was plucked up. Sublata causa tollitur effectus. Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum. So that he gets but a Wound to his cause, in kicking thus against the pricks.  
But he tells us, that he will come yet nearer with an other argument, and so he had need, for the preceding have never yet come near our cause nor his design. Well what is this? Commissaries (he saith) were abjured in the Covenant, as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy, yet we owned them, before Bishops were restored, and why may not he, the abjured Bishops also. But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us, and show him the disparity of our Commissariot (a mere civil administration, influenced and authorized by superior civil Governors, as a part of the political constitution of the Kingdom) with a Church office. In his first letter anent the Accommodation, printed in that piece entitled, The case of the accommodation examined, he will tell him, that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline. Which he sets down, expressly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjured in the 2d Article of the Covenant. Now, the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland, from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer, in all his Spiritual usurpations, is so palpable, that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement. Moreover, we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy. But will he dare to say that the Commissary, whose administration is properly Civil, and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependence upon a Prelate, was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy. Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument.  
The Doubter objects this, [that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops, and therefore might be owned as not contrary to the Covenant.] To this he answers, that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops, we might have owned a Dean at that time, or a Bishop, as having no dependence upon an Archbishop; and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest, might not have been owned and retained on this ground, as well as the Commissary. Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense; the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastic officer, and the very office denotes a relation unto, and Ecclesiastic dependence upon a prelate, in spiritual administrations: so that Prelacy being laid aside, and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government, the Dean is a mere Chimaera, and so is the diocesan Bishop, and can no more subsist, the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis, or as such, being removed and extinct. But the Commissary (a civil officer and Magistrate) his administration, of its own nature civil, depends upon, and is regulat by, superior civil Rulers, and so in that case subsists entirely as a part of the civil Government, where prelacy is abolished; and can no more be scrupled at, because a prelate did sometime usurp an authority over that office, than the office of the Lord high Chancellor, or any other civil office of state, and inferior offices thereon specially depending, because sometime a Prelate was Chancellor, and usurped authority in these matters, aught to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account.  
2ly, He says, this answer comes near to what he said before, anent the English divines who hold, only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article, which consists of all the officers there enumerat. Ans. 1. It is more than he hath proved, that the English divines do own (even sigillatim or apart) all these officers, or look upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article. We heard before out of Timorcus (whom Bishop Lighton in that letter, and the Informer himself citys, as holding that our Prelacy is consistent with the Covenant, and whom they appeal unto in this debate) that they disowne all Prelacy, where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction, all Prelacy beyond a Proestos, and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, Arch Deacons. Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds,— all Bishops not Chosen by the clergy and people— all Bishops who act by Deans, prebends, and exercise their power by Chancellors, Commissaries etc. Doth not the article itself abjure, all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer, we come never a whit nearer him. 2ly, we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil, though usurped upon by the Prelate, so that when purged from this usurpation, and running in the channel of a mere civil administration, influenced and authorized by Superior civil Governors, as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom, it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy, by his own Confession, and Bishop Lightons. How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacy, contrary unto the Covenant.  
But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary, besides that in our late times, he did not depend upon the Bishop, is really and upon the matter with us a Civil, not a Church officer, he thinks to surprise him with a third answer. That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops, yet we scruple not, nor decline their Courts and authority, and if we decline them not (as according to our Principles we are obliged) how are we free of perjury? and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant, why may not he also a Bishop. Ans. What poor tattle is this? we told him already that the Commissariot is of itself a lawful Civil administration, not ane Ecclesiastical function, and the prelates usurped authority cannot render this civil office unlawful. Whereas the dicoesan Bishop's office, is a pretended Ecclesiastical function, and in its very nature a gross corruption, and contrary to the word of God, as is above cleared. Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes. Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article? are they not termed expressly Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured: Nay, doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop. And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here. For in that passage of the letter now cited, he says we have nothing but the name of Commissaries, he means in respect of these in England, who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops. Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interpret, about the office of the Bishop's Commissary in England, speaking thus, Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae jurisdictionis (saltem quousque commissio permittit) in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest etc. That is, that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commission will allow in places which are so far remote from the chief city of the diocese, that the Chancellor without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishop's chief court. Didoclavius tells us (ubi supra) that according to the Statutes of England, the Chancellor is the Bishop's principal official, & the Commissary the Bishop's foraneous official.  
To conclude, 1. The Bishop's power as to civils, and their deputation of this their power to Chancellors is a most gross usurpation, Contrary to the Scripture, which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life. Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause. Paul speaking of the ministerial duties, saith who is sufficient for these things. The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word. Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquity Knew nothing of prelates thus meddling, citing Jerome (super Sophon. cap. 1.) who expounds that place against Ministers meddling in Secular affairs. And Cyprian, who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament: Lib. 1. Epist. 9 council. Carthag. 4. Cap. 20. Apostol. can. (Can. 6.) Seculares Curas non Suscipite. Likewise Ambrose, who affirms that Worldly Government is the weakening of the priest. (Lib. 5. Epist. 33.) Smectimnuus (pag. 32. Sect. 10.) citys council. Hispall. 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelates power to Chancellors, Commissaries etc. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging (Defence. Lib. 1.) that in Ambrose time and a good while after, which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected, the Bishops had no ordinaries, vicar's, Chancellors, Commissaries, that were not Clergy men. But this restriction they affirm to be a mere blind, and Challenge him to show any such under-officers of Bishops in those times. So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops, and the primitive Bishops. 2dly, in England, not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop, but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures, and a great part of the Bishop's ecclesiastical administration, committed unto him both over Ministers and others; such as suspension, deposition, excommunication: See Didoclav. (pag. 464, 465. de officialibus) Cartwright (2. repl. part. 2. pag. 69.) who shows that the prelates not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church, but bring it under subjection to their very Servants, yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellors, Commissaries etc. 3ly, it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries; but our Law and practice since that time, and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved, hath much reduced them to the state & Quality of other civil officers, whose administration of its own nature depends upon superior civil officers. For this we have (as I said) Bishop Lightons own Confession, that we have but the name of Commissaries here, who have nothing to do with Church discipline; Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelates. 4ly, B Lighton and this Informer do both plead, that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant, and the Commissaries as then moulded & Existent in the Church of England, that this Oath oblidges against. And so according to their Principles and pleading, our Commissary here, so vastly discrepant from theirs, falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration. Hence finally, the owning of the Commissary in his Lawful civil administrations, can be no acknowledgement, either, 1. of the English Commissaries Power, which he hath not. Nor 2dly, of the Prelates usurpation upon this civil office; no more than the simple using of our civil Laws, and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwell's usurpation, was a homologating the wickedness thereof, which this man will not dare to assert. An usurper may be in titulo, and such submission and improvement of the civ●…l power invaded by him, as doth acknowledge the providential Title, and his being possessed of the power de facto, and having as they use to say jus in re, or actual providential possession thereof, If there be no active concurrence towards his Establishment, is, as to civils, free of any guilt of the usurpation, and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus. Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists. But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministry or spiritual authority from the Bishop; because, 1. the Prelates office itself is a gross usurpation, contrary to the Scripture, so is not the Commissaries office. 2dly, the Pelats usurped possession of unlawful power over the Church, which is Christ's Kingdom, cannot give him so much as a providential Title; and therefore all acknowledgement thereof is unlawful. Thirdly, his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat, is an acknowledgement both of the possession, and jus, which this man will not deny, and this is far dictinct, from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession. So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christ's Kingdom (his Church) which is toto Coelo different, from acknowledging a possession de facto of, and a Providential title unto, a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world, which are mutable. And as for a testimony against this usurpation, I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts, upon this ground of the Covenant obligation, his party, for the preceding reasons, had signally cried out against it, as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawful civil Government, more than he doth upon this Pretence, allege a homologating of Prelacy, in this acknowledgement. But however, we say, that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacy itself as now Established, doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations, although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such, owned as formerly.  
But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant, upon the ground of schism, which he says, we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church, which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacy. This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct, and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue, we will therefore supersed our enquiry here, and pass over to his third dialogue, and Examine therein the grounds of this accusation, which we doubt not to discover, to be as Irrational, as these examined in the preceding Dialogues.   
  

A Confutation Of the Third DIALOGUE, Upon the point Of SEPARATION.  
Wherein upon exhibiting the true state of the Question, the practice of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, and denying of a subjection to Conformists as the lawful Pastors of this Church, from whom God's people are bound to receive the ordinances, is vindicat from the charge of a sinful Schismatic separation, the true and solid grounds of this practice offered, and the Informers arguments against it, fully answered.  

CHAP. I.  
The question stated and cleared, from our Church's state before, and since the introduction of Prelacy, the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists▪ Separation in many cases not Schism. The Informers groundless suppositions. Arguments presented and prosecuted at some length, whereby this practice is acquit of the charge of a sinful separation, and discovered to fall under Scripture precepts and obligations as duty.  
THE state of the Question in the third Dialogue, is anent sinful separation and Schism; whether the people of God be guilty of it in adhering to such Ministers as contend for our Reformation, rather than Curates or Conformists; And whether they stand in this case of our Church) obliged to adhere to the one or the other, as their true Pastors, from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances, and to whom they owe subjection, reverence, and obedience accordingly. This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at, it being most suitable unto his pleading, which is all along grounded upon this supposition, that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church, and professors therein: from which he concludes people's obligation to adhere unto them, as their only true, and proper Pastors. And in correspondence to this principle and inference, doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Ministers, and people, as to their respective acts of preaching, and hearing in their present state and circumstances So that if we can overturn this his grand topic, & fortify the antithesis thereof, he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground. For clearing this let us take a little view, first, of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introduction. 2ly, of her present case. 3dly, of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatic party plead upon, for the people's adherence. 4thly, on whose side the separation stands. Schism is a sinful separation from a Church, with whom, & in what acts we are bound to adhere. So that when this Question is cleared, who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere, it will go far to clear this debate.  
First, As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction, I shall l●…y down these three suppositions in relation to the matter of fact. First, that our Church from the infancy of her Reformation, together with popry rejected Prelacy, and in her National capacity, and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God, as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy: And in her National capacity abjured the same often, solemnly, and universally. This hath been already cleared upon the preceding Dialogue. 2ly. Presbyterian Government hath been looked on by our Church, as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture, and as the hedge of her reformed Doctrine. Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion, to try her true members; the subscribing the books of Discipline, and the national Covenant of old, and the solemn league of late, with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Government, have been the ordinary door of entry into her Ministry. This, as to mater of fact, is clear and undeniable. 3ly, Our Church hath Judicially condemned E●…astianisme, and Ministers their state offices, and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scandalows, Assembly 38. Sess. 16: 17. Confirmed and renewed in Assembly 39 So Assembly 40. Sess 5.  
In the 2d place, as to our Church her present condition, these things are clear and undeniable. 1. That all the legal right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory. 2. Presbyterian Government is razed, and the Church-Government monoplized in the Arch Bishops and Bishops, obtruded upon this Church: And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away. 3ly, Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition, both unto our Churches intrinsic power of Government, and likewise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government. 4. All her vows and great Oaths both in the National Covenant, as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacy, and for maintaining her reformation, are disowned, razed, and cassat, as far as legal enactings can reach. 5. Ane express bad●…e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection, and disowning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts; and people's hearing their vi●…ars and substitutes, for the same scope in th●… rulers diclaird design. 6. Ministers betwixt three and four hundred disown, and stand in opposition to this course, and a great part and body of the professors of this Church have likewise disownd the same, & stood their ground. Hence upon what is said, it follows in the 7th place, that ane axe is laid to the root of her reformed Doctrine, Worship and Government; The great hedge thereof is removed, viz: her solemn vows: and beside, her doctrinal principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy, the Churches intrinsic power of Government, Christian liberty, the unlawfulness of significant ceremonies in God's Worship; her Doctrine anent Justification, the Imperfection of obedience, Christ's certain, determinat, and full satisfaction for sinners, in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors; The morality of the Sabbath etc. are opposed by this innovating prelatic party. And next, for her Worship (beside what corruptions are already introduced, and others pleaded for, as the perth Articles &c.) It is, upon the matter, subjected to men's arbitrary impositions; And our National Covenant and Conf●…ssion is disownd, ae striking against popish corruptions, and also our late confession as asserting the abovementioned Doctrine & principles. And for Government, the Curates are mere slaves of Prelates, in all their meetings by his negative voice, and the Prelates themselves are but the Magistrates creatures. And thus as our late confession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian liberty, morality of the Sabath, free election, &c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment, and Christ's appointing Officers, laws, and censures, as head of his Church, his not giving the keys to the civil Magistrate etc. Wherein our prelatic party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an. 81, deigns that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the general Assembly of this Church, with no other name than that of a conventicle. 8ly, Our Church's case is now worse than when prelacy was introduced by King James. The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to her privileges concerning heads of religion, heresy, excommunication, and censures, clear this. Next, Church-Judicatories were not discontinued, but sat upon their old ground; and Prelates were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only. Hence 9ly. It's clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been merely passive as to all these innovations lately introduced; her true representatives or lawful Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity, as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings, at Linlithgow 1606; at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacy; All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution, to the privileges of this Church. And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a judicial Testimony, before they were raised. So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course; & since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly etc.  
For the 3d point, viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatic party (and this man particularly) do plead upon, for the people's adherence; take it shortly thus, the prelatists do plead first, that they are Ministers, and in that relation to this Church. 2lv. That corruptions in administrators will not (according to our own principles) warrant separation from ordinances. 3ly, they plead order, and union, which (they allege) is broken by people's withdrawing. These are the chief topics they insist on. On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question, first, from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers & professors adhering to our Church's reformation, principles, and privileges, are the pure genuine Church of Scotland, though now fled into a wilderness; whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidrens. 2ly, that this course of conformity is a mere intrusion on this Church, and invasion of Christ's Kingdom, prerogatives and ordinances, subjecting the laws, officers and censures of his Church unto men, exauctorating & putting in officers without his warrant; that Prelates, and their deputes consequently, have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich. Since both the one and the other are errand intruders upon the same, and promoters of this Schismatic destroying course of defection. 3ly, that our Churches divine right and claim to her privileges stands fast, notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof; and her children's obligation of adherence to the same accordingly. 4ly, That hence it follows, because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection, that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it, and therefore to disown Curates; both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church, and as standing in a stated opposition to her, & likewise as the objects of her censure, if she were in capacity to draw her sword. That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge, beside the corruption Worship; and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church, and leading the people away from our vowed reformation etc.  
In the 4th place, to come to clear this great point on whose fide the separation stands, let us premise these things. 1. Every separation is not sinful, even from a Church which hath the essentials, yea and more than the essentials, a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation. But further, in these cases separation is not schism. I. It if be from those (though Never so many) who are drawing back, and in so far as drawing back, from whatever piece of duty and integrity is attained. For this is still tobe held fast, according to many scripture commands, as we shall show. So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken, was as another Athanasius; (ay, and I only am left) in point of tenacious integrity. 2ly, if we separat in that which a national Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts, and authority, while those from whom we separate own that corruption. 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access, after a National Churches reformation is overturnd, and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners. For in this case the persecuters separat from them, and chase them away. 4. There is a Lawful forbearance of union and compliance with noto ious backsliders, in that which is of itself sinful, or inductive to it, which is far from separation strictly taken; The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evil, and hating the garment spotted with the flesh, do clearly include this. 5. Many things will warrant separation from such a particular Minister or congregation, which will not warrant separation from the Church National; nor infer it, by Mr durham's acknowledgement (on scandal pag. 129.) For if scandals become excessive, he allows to depart to another congregation. 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship; the precepts, to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine, Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean & be separate. 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to err from ehe words of knowledge, Prev. 19 27. to save ourselves from the untoward generation. Act. 2. 40, will clearly import this by consequence. 2dly, This charge of sinful separation which they put on God's people supposes many things which must be proved, as first, that the Prelates and their adherents, are the only true organic Church of Scotland, which is denied; her frame and constitution being such as it said; surely the Ministers and professors adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland though the lesser number, as they should have been, if this prelatiok defection had been entirely popish. These soldiers who keep the Gen●…rals orders are the true army, not the deserters of the same. Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformed & constitute, and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence, was not the true organic protestant Church of Scotland, or this party, whose constitution, Principles, Doctrine & practice, are point blank contrary thereunto, is not. 2. It supposed that there is no lawful use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers, as persons who have no Lawful call to officiat in this case. Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely; but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church, and under the obligation of Christ's command to officiat, which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and order of a Church, when enjoining her full peaceable constitution, will equally oblige in her broken and persecute condition, when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosom. Now; scripture and reasen will disprove this: circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is: the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem, went every where preaching the gospel (Act. 8,) so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation. 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government: and such only as was in King james time, both which we have shown to be false. 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists, and a supposed pullution of the worship thereby, is our ground of non-union; and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministerial call, and that their scandals will not pollute the worship, will infer the hearing of them in this our case, which is also false. For even upon this supposition, we are not bound to own them no more than ane ingraind Schismatic, obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people, might be owned on this ground. 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now established, is the same with that of the ancient Church, for he often tells us that we would have separate from the ancient Church, upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists. Whereas we have showed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points. That our prelates both as Diocesian & Erastian, are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops. 7. He takes it for granted, that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off, in the present posture of our Church, and that the Prelates and their substitutes, (the Curates) are the only proper representative Church of Scotland, who accordingly have only the lawful power and exercise of the keys as to either admission or censure of Ministers. A principle always disowned by our Church. See Protesters no subverters (pag. 96.) Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt. [pag. 430. 431.] Altar Damasc. (pag. 23.) 8. He supposes that its unlawful in this our case to officiat, ren●…tente Magistrat●…; that this very violence and the present Laws will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable [pag. 205.] which is a great mistake, for the Magistrate cannot lose from the pastoral relation which he gave not, ejusdem est constituere & destituere. A●…esmedull. [cap. 30. thes. 14. And hence the Ministers relation to the Church national stands, though he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place; and consequent lie the ties and commands to officiat; so that disobeying the Magistrates command not to officiat, is no disobedience to his lawful authority. Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church, though banished from his native country, doth stand. Ius Majestatis circasacra part. 1. pag. 331. (9) He still supposes that, what will not exse, or of itself plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel, or of a Minister simpliciter, will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists. The man's weakness, personal faults, not lecturing etc. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely. But though this be granted, we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland, and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto, and over and above these grounds mentioned, conformists schismatic practice, and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge, which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating; and this the Informer himself must grant, for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case, were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and des●…rting of Curates. Moreover he will grant, that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard, if Conformists were not standing in their way. Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading; for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer people's disowning of Conformists, were there no other Ministers in Scotland, and if this Church had universally, both Ministers and people fallen into this cou●…se of backsliding, will be readily granted; But without any advantage to his cause, as is evident. To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate, our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case and question. Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacy. 2. The binding force of our covenants. 3. Our Churches divine tied to her Reformation and privileges once established. 4. that this is a case both of defection, and persecution. 5. of competition betwixt Ministers & professors contending for our Reformation, and a party of backsliders overturning it. 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatic defection, to raze our Reformation; and that if not prevented; it will end in propery. 7. That Presbyterian Minister's relation to this Church, and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation, is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution, which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto. Having premised these things, from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus, whether, when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine, worship, discipline and government, is by a backsliding party overturnd, and a course-carryed on to raze it, God having left a considerable body of Ministers & professors, who stand in opposition to that course, and are in their capacities testifying against it, are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course, or the complying Ministry and hearers, the schismatics? This being clearly the state of this question, we shall offer these arguments to fortify our principle of disowning conformists in this our case, and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church, and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, and acquit this principle and practice from the Informers charge of sinful separation.  
1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church, owning her constitutions, authority and privileges, its certain the contrary party must be the schismatics; here it must be seen who are the first departers, who have first broken the hedge, who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants, the Government, the sound and pure doctrine of this Church, in compliance with persecuters, surely they and they only are the schismatics. Had not this invasion been made upon our Church and her privileges, what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawful courts? would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismatics? Now, what is the difference here, except, that this party makes the greater number; but will this take away the charge of schism? suppose a party of notorious schismatics should cry ou●… upon such as withdraw from them as schismatics, were not this a ridiculous charge; and Just so is that of Conformists in this case.  
2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adherence to that Church from which the separation is made. Now then, let him prove ministers obligation to join into this Prelatic course (without which they will not admit them to officiat) and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit; or else Ministers obligation to preach, and peoples consequently to hear in opposition to this course of defection, will stand good on the old grounds, and all the scripture commands (founded on Pastors of this Church their Ministerial relation) to set the trumpet to their mouth, and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection, and people's obligation to hear and take warning, will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinful separation.  
3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers, and professors are in this their practice never toched, by all his arguments and defences, but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party. 1. Whereas he pleads the essence of the ministerial call, which conformists lay claim unto, Presbyterian Ministers answer, that Nonconforming Ministers have this, that they are Ministers of this Church, and have a better right to officiat as her true pastors than Prelatists. And if this will not plead for hearing Non-conformists, why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curates? is not the same way from Athens to Thebes, and from Thebes to Athens? if his concession touching the essence of their Ministerial call, will not (with him) infer hearing Non-conformists, because of their supposed schism: Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curates, who really are such. 2. he pleads that corruptions, and failings in administrators, or even some corruptions in ordinances, will not infer disowning of Ministers. Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis read by them, to whom this is so clarly applicable. 3ly, he pleads union. But let him say, what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations? was it ane union under Prelacy, Erastianism, and persurious breach of Covenant; was not our Church's Reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline and Government, a beautiful order and union? Now who broke this? suppose we should Plead union, against his withdrawing Presbyterian professors from Presbyterian Ministers, will he own this pleading? or not rather disowne it, because he thinks our union is schismatical; well, so we hold and do prove the prelatic union to be: & therefore until he disprove our charge against his party, this pleading is null.  
4. Divines, do tell us (particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32.) that a sinful separation which falls within the compass of schism, is from the communion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule; otherwise, if the Church's deviation specially be great, there is no fear of any guilt by schism in departing from it; and hence infers, that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini, disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical. Moreover this man himself grants, that schism in its ordinary acceptation, is taken for a causeless separating, and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin, in that case separation is necessary. Now than if we can prove, that our non union is not causeless, and that communion cannot be held with Conformists (in our case and circumstances) without sin, we are not Schismatics by his owned confession. To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded conformity; we offer these considerations. 1. Owning them and subjecting ourselves to their Ministry as the Pastors of this Church, hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands, for all along we must suppose its binding force, and that there is a considerable body of Ministers & professors contending for it, and that the question is, to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere, and that according to our principles anent its binding force, and the unlawfulness of Prelacy, which this man cannot disprove. The owning of them in the manner above expressed is a breach of Covenant many ways. specially as this man pleads for it, with a total disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry. In this case it is a resiling from what we have attained in point of reformation, contrary to the first article, wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then established. Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Reformation? And their prayers have several petitions with which we cannot join, such as for prospering Prelates and their courses; Not to speak of the abrogating the lecture, repeating of the creed at baptism, singing a set form of conclusion, or what innovations in worship are introduced. Again, this is a concurience with promoters of this course of backsliding, and a suffering ourselves to be withdrawn from our union engaged unto, and a denial of suitable assistance to faithful Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders, all which are contrary to the other articles thereof. This will be specially clear, if it be further considered. That 1. The body of presbyterian Ministers being ejected, if disowned in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer, the presbyterian interest, and our Reformation according to the Covenant, will be extinct, sold and betrayed. 2. Hearing Curates and people's subjecting themselves to their Ministry as the Pastors of this Church. is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacy, in opposition to the Covenant & work of Reformation: So that its a case of confession, now to adhere to a faithful Ministry contending for it. 3. there's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World, and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding, but by this practice, there is no getting of wrongs redressed, or corruptions in the Ministry removed. Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engaged against Indifferency, in this great work of Reformation, and is not this the way to fall into it more and more. 5. We engage that we shall endeavour, that this work of Reformation shall remain inviolable to posterity. But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelates and curates be thus submitted unto? 6. We engage opposition in our capacity to all prelatic malignant enemies of the Lords work and interest; but how is it performed when we thus strengthen their hands, in their avowed opposition thereunto. 7. How assist we and Defend in this common cause of Religion and liberty, such as enter into this league, when we thus Divide from our suffering brethren, wound and offend them and shake off a faithful Covenant-keeping Ministry. 8 How maintain we our reformed Doctrine, worship, and union, when thus owning false prophets, and the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge, and such as cause Divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine we have Learnt. Prov. 19 27. Rom. 16. 17, 18. 9 How maintain we the privileges of our Church and her Reformed Government? when owning intruding prelates and their creatures as Ministers of this Church, and disowning her true Ministers, now taking her by the hand. This practice is ane approving of Curates call and mission, rather than that of presbyterian Ministers, which no man will deny to be contrary to the Covenant. Next, owning and adhering to Curates in this our case, and according to our principles, hath an accession to much guilt otherwise, such as. 1. The owning of a palpably blasted, and Disowning a palpably sealed Ministry. 2 A high reflection on the sufferings of many Godly upon this ground. 3. A shutting of our eyes against Ministerial Discoveries of the sin and duty of the time. 4. A casting of ourselves on tentations of greater compliance. 5. A breaking of fellowship with these that are contending for God's work and denying a sympathy with them, yea a trampling on their blood which has been shed on this ground. 6. A disowning the Ministerial authority, and tearing the commission of Christ's faithful Ambassadors, and depriving ourselves of the blessing and benefit of their Labours etc.  
5. This practice of denying a Subjection to the Ministry of Conformists, and of our Rulers demanded conformity therein unto the present course of defection, will be found to fall under great scripture obligations, such as 1. The obligation of persevering in integrity, and holding it fast. Colos. 1. 23. Heb. 10: 23. Psal. 25. 21. Supposing prelacy unlawful, and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the work of reformation as it stood established, this practice is clearly cross to the premised obligation, both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy and Erastiani me, and also as a Disowning of faithful Ministers. 2. The obligation of keeping at the greatest Distance from sin, expressed Judas 23. 1 Thess. 5. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 22. will infer Disowning Curates in this case. 1. All Direct, or interpretative consent to sin, is here Discharged. 2. A practice otherwise lawful, will on this ground become inexpedient hic & nunc. We must not eat in the case of offence, though we may freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. Now on the forementiond Suppositions, the owning of Curates hath an accession to their sin, beyond that of ane apearance or a touch, It being both a Deserting the presbyterian Ministry, and a badge of conformity to Erastian prelacy, and all the corruption and defection of the time, which is thereby advanced & promoted, 'tis also in this case of competition, a deliberate adherence to the prelatic rather than presbyterian interest. 3. The great obligation of a testimony to truth and Duty, expressed Heb. 10. 23. Mat. 10. 32. will plead for this practice, All truth must be avowed, & practically avowed. We must walk circumspectly, or exactly as the Word imports, & we must avow truth & duty on the greatest hazard; even the smallest mater is great, when a testimony is concerned in it, were it but the circumstance of an open window, Daniel durst not ommit it upon the greatest hazard. And as this testimony must be full, so must it also be constant. Demas shame is, that the aflictions of the gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ, and embrace this present world. And beside, whatever truth or duty is opposed, that becomes the special object of this testimony. Hence Ministers and Professors in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation; and Ministers silence as to a Ministerial testimony against this course of backsliding, and people's disowning them, and adhering to Conformists, is so palpably cross thereunto, as nothing can be more. 4. This practice is inferred from the scripture obligation, to guard against the slumbling and offending our brethren, expressed 2 Cor. 6. 3. Math. 18. 6. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Here is Discharged any Dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur, saith Polanus. Whatever practice gives occasion of our brothers sinning, of calling truth in question, of acting with a Doubting conscience, or which weakens his plerophory or assurance, is here discharged. And neither the lawfulness nor Indifferency of the thing itself, nor men's Authority commanding it, Nor the weakness, yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled, will warrant the Doing of that out of which offence arises. Paul Declares all meats lawful, yet will not eat in case of offence 1 Cor. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 13. This Declaring of the lawfulness of that practice, is equivalent to any civil Declarator or Law which altars not the nature of scandal. Paul will not have the weak stumbled Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. 8. 11, 12. Nor give occasion to the malicious who desired occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curates as the case is now circumstantiat doth harden them in their apostasy, and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not own them, or may provoke them to act against their light; and therefore unless owning them could be proved a necessary duty, as matters now stand, the premisd scripture obligation will infer it to be sinful. 5. disowning conformists will clearly follow from the scripture obligation, to turn away from seducers, and such as turn aside from God's way. 2 Tim. 3. 1. The apostle having given a large Induction of evils adhering to these in the last days, putting among the rest of their black Theta's, Covenant breaking, concludes his discovery with this grand precept (ver. 5.) from such turn away. We must beware of false prophets, the concision, and of such as walk not according to the received ordinances, Math. 7. 15. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3. 2. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Christ's sheep do flee from the stranger, and hear not his voice. john. 10, 27. 1. All promoters of ways contrary to the simplicity of the gospel, are here commanded to be eschewed. 2. We must know and discover such by their fruits and practical unfaithfulness, as well as false Doctrine, Mat. 7. 16. compared with 2 Tim. 3. These that practically act the foxes Cant. 2. 15. are to be taken away, and consequently eschewed, the saints must be fortified against these that lie in wait to deceive, God disowns these that make sad the hearts of the godly and strengthen the hands of evil doers. Ezek 13. 22. such as stand not in his counsel jer. 33. 22. & cause people to err by their lies and lightness. jer. 26. 32. Now upon the forementiond suppositions its clear that Conformists are leading aside from our Reformation, opposing the principles & privileges, of this Church; they are Covenant breakers from whom we are to turn away; they are speaking peace to the wicked, and healing the wound slightly, and are ruling with force and rigour Ezek. 34. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 3. Witness their present violence. 6. This practice of Presbyterian Ministers officiating in opposition to this course, and people's adherence to their Ministry, is inferred from the scripture obligation of many terrible charges and adjurations laid upon Ministers, in reference to a faithful diligence in their Ministerial function, and a suitable Ministerial testimony concerning the sin and duty of the time, which is necessarily inclusive of their people's reciprocal diligence, in attending their Ministry, and their obedience and faithful adherence accordingly. They are commanded to cry aloud and show the people their sin Isa. 58. 1. and as they would not have the blood of souls upon them, to give faithful warning touching sin and duty, and their people's case and hazard, especially in times of great sin and judgement, when God is terribly pleading his controversy with them Ezek. 3. 17. hence they are enjoined to be instant in season and out of season, reproving, rebuking and exhorting with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 1. And as faithful watchmen on jerusalem's walls, never to hold their peace day nor night till she be established, and made a praise in the earth Isa. 62. 6. to fulfil and make full pro●…fe of their Ministry coloss 4. 17. And as these commands in order to Ministerial diligence, do singularly oblige herunto in this case, so the scripture woes and threatenings thundered against Minister's negligence and unfaithfulness, are very convincing and awakening. See Ezek. chap. 3. and chap. 13. 5. 6: Hence on the forementiond suppositions it clearly follows. 1. That Ministers are obliged to be constantly instant in season and out of season, in their Ministerial testimony against this course of defection. 2. This case of defection and persecution ampliats and extends this duty to all to whom they can have access, as the scattered preachers Acts. 8. Went every where preaching the gospel, after that persecution that arose about Stephen. 3. This Ministerial testimony upon the forementioned grounds, must be leveled at all the corruptions of the times, and all the branches and degrees of our defection. 4. The duty and obligation of the people of God, is reciprocal and commensurable thereunto. And if hearing Curates and disowning Presbyterian Ministers, be not inconsistent with this great obligation, let any judge.  
6. That part●… in a Reformed Church, which having overturnd her Reformation, hath shut out, laid aside, and persecute away sound adherers thereunto both Ministers and professors, and will not admit Ministers to officiat, but upon the sinful terms of compliance with their way, cannot charge the sound party with schism in standing where they were, & owning and prosecuting their respective duties, as Ministers and flocks, in opposition to these overturners and backsliders. For this would justify the most ingraind schism that ever was heard of; Now so the case is here, for all Presbyterian Ministers are cast out, and they and all sound professors adhering to them persecute, unless they will retract their principles, and conform to prelacy. Ministers, in taking up a new tenor and exercise of their Ministry in a precarious servile dependence upon Erastian prelacy, headed and influenced by a mere civil papacy; And people, in subjecting themselves to the Ministry of the servile deputes of Erastian prelate's, as a badge of their hearty compliance with, and submission unto, this blasphemous supremacy, and consent to the overturning of the pure constitution and reformation of this Church. So that the Presbyterians their plea is an owning of duty against Schismatics disowning it. Do not our Divines tell the Romanists on this ground, that they have separate and persecute us away from them, and that therefore the schism lies upon themselves, not on us: So the case is here. Let this man say, what would have been the judgement of our Church in any of her former judicatories, anent a party owning such principles as Conformists do, and persecuting or casting out all that oppose them, and dare not concur in their course of backsliding in overturning the sworn Reformation of this Church; I dare appeal to the Informer himself, if such would not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismatics. And he can assign nothing now to turn or cast the scale, no ground of disparity, unless he place it in this, that prelatists are the greater number, and have the civil power on their side. And if this pitiful plea will carry it, the Romanists have long since outweighed the protestant Churches in this debate, which this man will not for very shame admit.  
7. This practice of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers, and disowning Curates, hath nothing of the ingredients of schismor, sinful separation from this Church, included therein, as matters now stand, and as the question is stated on the forementioned hypotheses. Which will appear in these clear positions in the point of schism (which are evident in their own light) being applied and brought home to our present case. 1. Schism is a starting out from under due relations to a Church and from her Ministry, and duties accordingly. But in this our case, and practise under debate, Ministers and professors are pursuing the duties of their respective relation to this Church, as it stood reform and established before these innovations, and the Apostate prelatick party are doing the contrary. 2. In a sinful Schismatic separation, it is always supposed that the withdrawing, is from those who are holding the communion of the true Church, otherwise we lose the basis and foundation of all sound definitions of schism. But here the persecute party are owning the Reformation of this pure Church against a party of separatists, who have broken her order, union, and National vows; and who are also censurable by all her standing acts. 3. In a proper Schismatic separation, the principles and practice of these from whom the separation is made, are supposed to be subservient to that Church's union, right establishment, and for maintaining her communion; but to separat from those whose principles and practice is a stated opposition (and in so far as an opposition) to her purity and Reformation, is to maintain her true union and communion, and not sinfully to separat from it.  
The Assumption as to this practice under debate, might be cleared by a large induction of particulars. If we take a view of the two parties (Presbyterian and prelatical) their carriage in relation to this Church: It will be evident, 1. In general. That Conformists their principles and practice, is a direct impeachment of our established reformation, and that Presbyterians are maintaining and adhering to the same. 2. Conformists do avowedly disowne and abjure our Covenants, Presbyterians adhere unto and own the same. 3. Conformists are breaking and dissipating our Churches established order and union, Presbyterians are in this practice contending for both; the one party is wounding our Church both by persecution and reproach, the other is taking her by the hand, endeavouring her help and comfort in this her deep distress, and so the Covenant obliges to disowne the first, and adhere to the second. 4. The one is censurable by her, the other deserves her praise. Now can there be any question in this, to which of these party's people are obliged to adhere according to the principles of our Reformation.  
In the 4th place, In a sinful separation as to communion in worship, it must be supposed, the worship of that Church owned and established therein, because a party innovating herein, as well as innovating in doctrine and government contrary to that which is established, are hactenus, and ipso facto (in this their practice, and upon this very ground) schismatics both in their worship and government. Therefore to disowne them therein can be no schism; for this would involve a palpable contradiction, that these withdrawers in this same practice, and in the same respects and circumstances thereof, were Schismatics and not Schismatics. Now prelatists their doctrine is new and odd, and not the voice of this Church. And their worship, (over and above the corruption adhering to it) is the worship of an innovating party, and contrary to our Churches established order. And therefore to disowne them therein is no sinful separation from this Church her fellowship and worship, while existing in her sound and purer part, and opposing these innovations.  
5. In Schismatic separation, the rent is made in the bowels of the true and genuine Church. So that when a schism and rent is stated betwixt a godly Ministry contending for a pure Church's Reformation, against an apostate party of the Ministry: the sound professors stand preobliged to adhere unto, and strength●…n the sounder part, upon this very ground of holding the union and communion of that pure Church against these backsliders; supposing they will rend and ruin her, if not opposed: and so the case is here. The union and order of this Church, is already broken by the prelatic innovators and backsliders, and by them only; so that upon the supposal of this fixed schism, the people of God must adhere to the sound Church and Ministry. And in this extreme necessity, the lesser obligation as to parochial order, must give place to the greater duties of preserving and maintaining the Church's union and reformation, when a course is carried on tending to ruin it.  
6. Every sinful separation is, from the fellowship of a Church either in her Ministry, lawful courts, or Worship and ordinances, according to the various relations, state and condition of Separatists, whether Church officers or others. But in this our case, Presbyterian Ministers and professors separat in none of these respects from the genuine Church of Scotland. 1. Ministers separate not from her courts; for none of her lawful courts are now publicly owned or existent. 2. People separate not from her Worship, as it stood reform and vowed unto, when they own the ordinances dispensed by her true pastors, for that only is the true Worship of this Church. Nor 3. from her Doctrine, and a due subjection to her faithful pastors in the Lord: And therefore neither from the fellowship of her faithful Ministers and professors. Where is then the Schism? Since both the Doctrine, Worship and Government of this true Church are owned, and backsliders and Schismatics only (and as such) are disownd.  
7. Schism supposes that these whom we withdraw from, are such to whom we are under obligation to adhere: for it is a breach of union, which is cemented and conglutinate by the obligations and duties of those who are concerned to hold it fast; So that where the obligation to the duty in subserviency to this union cannot be demonstrate, to be incumbent upon such and such persons, and in such acts, By whom and wherein this union is to be upheld, the charge of Schism upon these acts, which are supposed to violate that union, evanishes and falls to the ground. But if the person (though a Minister supposed) from whom the separation is made, wants that which immediately grounds this obligation of owning h●…m hic & nunc, as the case stands circumstantiat, in that respect withdrawing or non-union can be no Schism, for else the most ingraind Schismatics might be owned; the Informer himself must of necessity admit this, for otherwise he will cross and cut the sinews of all his pleading and arguments which he presents in this Dialogue for disowning Presbyterian Ministers in this our case, for I am confident that out of this circumstanciat case he will grant that it is no breach of any of his rules or reasons to hear them. That [they are Ministers] and [are preaching faith and repentance] that [they have a lawful Ministerial call and ordination etc.] All these he thinks will plead nothing, as the case is now circumstantiat, for adhering to them, because of that in their present condition, which outweighs all this, and loses people's obligation to own them, which he thinks is no Schism but duty: Now, let our Informer turn the tables; if there be first that in Curate's present state, which preponderats as to our disowning of them now, though all that he pleads as to their ordination, and ministerial call were granted, it's no Schism in this our case to disowne them according to his own principles and pleading in this point. 2. He must grant that denying to hear hic & nunc, and in such a complex case, is different from a denying to hear simpliciter, or disowning such a man's Ministry simpliciter, or absolutely, as he will grant that out of this case Presbyterian Ministers might be heard, and that disowning them is not simpliciter a disowning a true Ministry or Church, or them as Ministers; So that its this case of competition with Conformists, which with him casts the balance. Hence as matters now are stated and circumstantiat, and upon our principles and premised Hypotheses, he must grant there is that in conformists' case, which hic & nunc will lose our obligation to receive the ordinances from them as the ministers of this Church, which is the white in the mark whereat all his arrows are shot. Such as 1. that we are preobliged by a lawful Oath to extirpate and disowne them. 2. That they are promoters of a Prelatic design to ruin our Reformation. 3. That they have avowedly disownd our Covenants, and that we are commanded by the overturners of our Covenanted Reformation, to hear them as a badge of our renouncing it; and concurring in this course of backsliding. 4. That they are intruders, and not entering in at the door, and in the way and order of this Church; That they are violently thrusting out, and persecuting her faithful Pastors, that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people, and ordination by the Presbytery. All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to own conformists hic & nunc according to our principles, or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry.  
8. He pleads in the close of the preceding Dialogue, that the covenant abjures Sel isme. Now let us stand to this Decision; the Informer will not be dissatisfyed if I shall borrow one of his topics, and shoot ane arrow from his own bow; I would offer then to him this syllogism. That Schism which he pleads against is a Schism abjured in the Covenant: but disowning Conformists in their present state & circumstances, & refusing to be subject to them as the Ministers of this Church, is not a schism abjured in the Covenant; Ergo, etc. The assumption I prove thus. If the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their present state and circumstances, and withdrawing from them in the exercise of their Ministerial function and their Ministerial testimony against prelacy and for the Covenant, be that schism which is abjurd therein then a refusing to be subject to Curates (against whom they are testifying as the Covenant breakers, and upholders of prelacy) add not owning them as the Ministers of this Church, cannot be that scism. Unless he will make this scism, such a Janus as will cast a malign condemning aspect upon both the contending parties, and bring adherers unto either of the two, under this imputation. But so it is that disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, is condemned in the Covenant as schism this we have already made appear, it being a disowning of that established order and union of this Church which therein we do swear to maintain, and a schismatical withdrawing from her faithful Ambassadors and others contending for the ends of the Covenant, to adhere unto whom, and keep up an union wi●…h them herein, the Covenant lays upon us an express obligation, putting the imputation of schismatic division, and detestable indifferency upon the contrary practice. Ergo, upon the whole it follows evidently, that the owning of Conformists which he pleads for in this Dialogue (viz. subjection unto, and receiving ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church, and denying this to Presbyterian Ministers) is abjurd in the Covenant as Schismatical.   

CHAP. II.  
The Informers charge of internal and external Schism, put upon Non-conformists: ●…f impeaching the Church's constitution, and her practice in point of Worship for more than a 1000 Years, examined. His argument from Rom. 14. Heb. 10. 25. answered, and retorted upon him. His answer to the argument taken from the command of seeking the best gifts, considered. As also his argument from ancient canons, from the Act of the Assembly 1647. from the reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock, to fortify his charge of Schism, repelled.  
HAving thus cleared our question and plea, & fortified our practice with these arguments; We come now to examine the grounds on which this new Casuist imputes sinful separation to us therein, We acknowledge the evil of Schism upon these Texts mentioned by him, which might have caused sad reflectings on himself and his party, who are guilty of divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances, and the doctrine of this Church: And so are lashed by that Scripture Rom. 16. 17. And who would have have us saying I am of this or that Rabbi or Prelate, contrary to 1 Cor. 1: 12. It's they who have disownd a spiritual pure unity with this pure Church, and are seeking a perjurious union in departing from God, contrary to that precept Ephes. 4: 3. And are so far from esteeming others in Lowliness of mind better than themselves, as we are enjoined. Phillip 2. 2. That their Rabbis trample on all Ministers; and their underlings do most insolently persecute and despise faithful Pastors for adhering to the Reformation, authority, and union of this Church, against their innovations. Schism is no doubt an evil which hath much infested the Church, and our Church: and the Scripture sufficiently discovering the evil thereof we need not Cyprian, nor Jeroms eulogies anent unity, to persuaed it. Only where he insinuats from that saying of Cyprian, which he mentions. Who asserts from 1 Cor. 13. [that who are slain in their Schism, their inexpiable sin is not purged by their blood, and that they are not Martyrs] that such is the case of the suffering people of God at this time; we may discern the cruel venom and sting of this man's malice, for all the sobriety which he pretends unto; I shall only tell him, that as its more than he will be ever able to prove, that the Lords remnant are guilty of this sin, and are assembling out of the Church, when attending the Ministry of Christ's faithful Ambassadors in this Church, so he and his fellows setting these murderers upon them in this duty, will (if they repent not) be exposed to that vengeance which the cry of their souls under the altar, who have been slain for this their Testimony, doth plead for. He would also do well to resolve this doubt upon Cyprians Testimony, viz. Whether Cyprian did ever hold, or if himself will dare to assert, that the blood and sufferings of the best of martyrs did expiate their guilt. As for Jeroms assertion [that Schism. and Heresy, or some degree of it go together.] I think it is fitly applicable to himself and fellow Conformists, who since their departing from the unity of this Church, and her sworn Reformation, have not only, to justify their course vented gross errors in point of Oaths, and otherwise, but are now (as every one sees) posting fast to Rome, in denying many and great points of our Protestant profession. We accord to Augustine's saying [that separatists (as such) receive no life from the body] & the unquestionable godliness, & fellowship with the Father and the Son, to which many Presbyterians are admitted, and wherein they shine, compared with the abominable profanity of the whole of those almost that own Curates, will by this rule declare who are the Schismatics, and separatists from Christ's body. The comment of the Thorn which rends the lili●… Cant. 2. 2. Is very suitable to him, and those of his way, who have now of a long time rend the Lords faithful flock, wounded our Church, and taken away her vail: esteeming themselves Christians of the first magnitude, so he esteems his most reverend Arch-Bishops and reverend under-fathers'; What pitiful preambles are these.  
The Doubter alleadges [that every separation is not schism.] This (as we heard) he acknowledges, and that when communion with a Church cannot be held without sin, separation is necessary; wherein he yields all that we plead; since we have proved that in this our case, joining to their way and party is in many respects sinful; and since he Instances the protestants plea for separating from Rome on this ground, knows he not that the Papists tell us such stories anent union with the Church, and that suffering without the Church is no Christian suffering, to justify their bloody persecutions, which very well suits his case. And no doubt the protestants answer, viz. [That we are in Christ's Church, because owning his truth, though separate from their syn●…gogue, and that notwithstanding this pretence, the blood of protestant Martyrs is in their skirts] doth suit the case of Presbyterians in relation to their persecuters.  
But the great charge follows, viz. That we are guilty of as groundless and unreasonable separation, as we shall read of in any age of the Church. Bona verba! How is this made good? first, (saith he) in casting off Christian love which is heart Schism. 2. He chargeth with external Schism in separating in acts of Worship. Now what if we recriminat in both these, and retort this double charge upon himself. Have they not disownd the Worship of Presbyterian ministers & Professors, and charged all to separat from them, merely for noncompliance with their perjured Prelates? 2. Have they not for many years glutted themselves with their blood, I may say sweemd in it, upon the same very ground of forbearance as to prelatic compliance, and endeavour by multiplied laws and Acts, to root them out of the very nation? Good Sir, Pull this beam out of your own eye, that you may see a little clearer in this point. But as to the first he says, that we make difference in judgement as to lesser matters (Church Government) a ground of difference in affection, as if they were no Christians who are not of our persuasion in these things, putting thus lesser points into our creed, and un unchurching and unsancting all who are not of our persuasion therein. Ans. As to the first general charge, I know none more guilty than themselves, who are contending with fire and sword tanquam pro aris & focis, for these their lesser points, and with unheard of rage, seeking the ruin of all who dare not comply in Judgement and practice with them therein. 2. I think Christian affection to their souls, is best seen in opposing and testifying against their soul-destroying sins. Thou shalt by any means rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him is an old standing rule. Levit. 19: 17. And if they be even hated in so far as owning pernicious ways, it's no more than what David avows, Psal 139: 21, 22. do not I hate them that hate thee, I hate them with a perfect hatred. I account them my enemies, I hate the work of them that turn aside, it shall not cleave unto me. 3. As we have not so learned Christ, to call every thing lesser or small po●…nts, which his latitudinarian party have the confidence to term thus, so we know no point of truth revealed and commended to us in the word, as the object of our faith and matter of our practice, which should be kept out of our creed, lest our saith become much shorter than the Scripture pattern. And we acknowledge not the new patchment of men's Laws, which this man and his fellow-Conformists have annexed to their creed, and which can pro arbitrio make or unmake these his lesser points.  
But he says, that we unchurch and condemn all Churches in all ages who have owned Bishops, Liturgies, festivals and oth●…r ceremonies— And if we make the removal of these things necessary to a Church, there hath not been a a Church for above a 1000 years together Ans. To make the last part of this argument not to contradict the first, he should have said that there has not been a Church without these things mentioned these 1600 years, but the man seeing his first flight or Rodomontade too fierce; he did well to clap his wings closer. Upon a review of this page, I find our Informer in this charge plays but the pitiful Chameleon and versipellis: for finding that this assertion of his, that Christians of all ages since Christ's time and in all places have owned Bishops, Liturgies, Festival days and other ceremonies, would have drawn upon him the heavy burden and task of a proof, he lightens himself of this burden, by a prudent [almost] which in this point is very significant. But his confining the liturgies, Festivals, and other ceremonies within the compass of the last thousand years (sullied with all popish abominations) appearing too simple inadvertency, within the compass of two or three lines, he secures it with a [much above.] But lest this prove too broad reckoning, he instances the second or third century from whence he says, we begin our reckoning as to Bishops, festivals, liturgies, and other ceremonies. But 1. why mends he the matter so inadvertently, as to run in such a wide uncertainty as the the length of 200 years in that calculation which he imputes to us. 2. I challenge him to show what presbyterian writer did ever commence the original of liturgies and festivals, with his blind etc. of other ceremonies (which will travel who knows whither, and include who knows what) from the third, far less the second century. I affirm that its more than he or any for him can prove, that the Church hath had Bishops, liturgies, and festivals since Christ. Our writters have abundantly proved the contrary; and we challenge him to show either his Diocesan Bishops, liturgies, or festivals and the &c. of his ceremonies, in the first Apostolic Church, or in these two ages mentioned by him. That there were not diocesan Bishops then or long after, we have already proved, and far less Erastian Prelates. For holy days, let him show by divine appointment any other than the Christian Sabath, in the Apostolic Church if he can, or in the first succeeding ages. As for the feast of Esther, it is acknowledged to have come in by custom after the Apostolic times. For liturgies, we assert that the Apostolic Church and age knew no such thing as set & imposed liturgies and forms, other than Christ's prescriptions as to baptism & the Lords supper, and that they prayed as was suitable to the present action and circumstances of time, place, and persons; If he betake him to the liturgies which are ascribed to Peter, James, Matthew, Andrew, Clement, Mark, Dionysius Areopagite, and other Disciples: protestant writers will stigmatize him for embracing that which they have abundantly proved to be counterfeit. That liturgies had no place for a long time in the Church, is proved by clear testimonies; Tertullian (Apol. cap. 30.) shows that in their public Assemblies christians did pray sine monitore quia de pectore, that is, without a prescription because from their heart. And in his treatise the Oratione says, that there are somethings to be asked according to the occasions of every man— that the Lords prayer being laid as a foundation, its lawful to build on that foundation other prayers, according to every one's occasion. Agustine epist. 121. tells us that liberum est, It's free to ask what was in the Lord's prayer aliis atque aliis modis, some times one way sometimes another. Likewise Justin Martyr Apol. 2. tells us that he who Instructed the people prayed according to his ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We might also tell him of Bishop Andrews success, or rather disappointment in seeking an old Jewish Liturgy, which when sent to Cambridge to be translated, was found to be composed long after the Jews rejection, so the Bishop being ashamed, suffered this notion to die and the Liturgy never saw the light. See Smectim and Didoclav. pag. 615, 16, 17, 18, 19 & seq. 2. What consequence is this, that because we disowne a Schismatic party of Innovators introducing these corruptions mentioned: Ergo we disowne them as no Churches wherein these have been admitted. Must we bring in, or comply with every corruption once purged out, the retaining whereof may be consistent with the essence of a true Church? what consequence or reason is here? Again, doth not he and all his brethren stand in direct opposition to the order and government of the Presbyterian Church of this Nation, and unto all that own's the same: will he then admit this consequence that he unchurches her before prelacy came in, and other reformed Churches governed Presbyterially. So we see himself must acknowledge this his reasoning naught.  
The Doubter alleges [that these things mentioned, are of later date than the Apostles.] To this he answers that Bishops were from the Apostles time. The contrary whereof we have proved either as to diocesan or Erastian Bishops, such as he means, yea even a proestos which in the Apostolic age had no place, as we have made appear. Next, He tells us that Polycrates in the debate about keeping of Esther with Victor Bishop of Rome, alleged john's authority. But how proved he this, is the Question, not what he alleged; surely bore alleging, as in other cases, so specially in divinity is bad probation; Then he asks, if we will hence infer that they were no good christians who used these things suppose that they came in after the Apostles times? I answer we think that in so far as innovating they were not Sound Christians, and so must he think unless he will be wise above what the Apostles have written; Then he tells us, that from Rom. 14. It appears that albeit some thought (he should say understood and knew) that by their Christian liberty they were fred from the ceremonial Law and therefore made no distinction of days or meats yet Paul enjoined them to bear with the weak, to account them brethren, and not despise them, and the weak were not to judge the strong. Ans. 1. How proves he, that the points in controversy viz. prelacy, laying aside our vows and Covenants, Erastianism, liturgies, and festival-days for mystical ends and uses, are such nothings or indifferent matters, as meats or days were at that time, wherein pro re nata the Church might use her liberty. As for diocesan Erastian prelacy, we have made its antiscriptural complexion to appear, so that it is not within the compass of any Lawful liberty of the Church to embrace or establish it; We have also made the binding force of the Covenants appear, and that the laying aside of them consequently, is a horrid guiltyness, which this liberty can never be extended unto. Likewise the liturgies and imposing of set forms of prayer, and adstricting public Worship thereunto, have been sufficiently impugned from Scripture and divine reason, by several of the godly learned, and discovered to impeach the spiritual liberty of Gospel Worship. The holy days also have with the same evidence been impugned by our divines, who have proven that they do impinge upon our Christian liberty, are contrary to the fourth command enjoining work all the six days, except on such occasional fasts and feasts as are held out in the word, & likewise are reprobate by the New Testament prohibitions about superstitious observation of days: The Jewish days being abrogat (as the Informer cannot but grant) how dare we impose upon ourselves a new yoke? If it were here pertinent to dilate upon these points, our principles herein might be abundantly fortified, and the truth cleared to his conviction, and by consequence the impertinency of this parallel argument, and his pitiful p●…. 1. 10 principii, in equiparating the points now controvered with these things which are the object of Christian liberty. The Informers gives us nothing here but magisterial dictates. Again, that tolerance which the Apostle speaks of as to days and meats, relates to that time and case only of the weak Jews, when the ceremonies though dead were not yet buried (as they were to be honourably) especially while the temple of Jerusalem stood, and the legal worship therein by God's providence was continued. But as these observances were ever discharged to the Gentiles (except as to blood and things strangled for that exigence only of the weak Jews) so after when christian liberty was known, and this particular exigence was over, and the ceremonies buried, It is within the liberty of no Church to unbury them, or tolerat these or such like observances in others. Finally this very text condemns him, though his begged supposition were granted. For 1. The eater must not despise him that eats not: why then do Conformists pursue Nonconformists, with such grievous punishment and Laws? they not only despise but persecute to the death, and vilely reproach them; who art thou that judgest another man's servant? why then do they Judge & censure Nonconformists so highly in their pulpits and pamphlets (and the Informer in this) as Schismatics, of as deep a dye as ever the Church was infested with? 2. He that but Doubts is damned if he eat, saith the Apostle. Why then do they so violently press conscientious Doubters to their way? 3. If thy brother be grieved (saith the Apostle) with thy meat, thou walks not charitably. Why then are they so uncharitable as to grieve Nonconformists with prelatic exactions? if the Judging and despising the forbearer be forbidden, much more are their cruel edicts and constraining Laws, whereby they burden the consciences of tender forbearers in this case. The practice of Victor as to the Asian Churches, was no doubt highly uncharitable, but it was so mainly because of his censuring about such a trifle as Esther-observation; & we see from this schism the sad effects of innovations; and that the Church's unity & peace is best kept by adhering to the simplicity of the gospel: and so our departing from the gospel simplicity in point of government, and introducing abjured prelacy, is the chief ground of the present schism, and confusions in this Church.  
But now follows our Informers main charge of external schism, in s●…parating from the Church's communion in word and sacraments, contrary to the apostles direction, Not to forsake the assemblies Heb. 10. 25. It seems (saith he) that some then out of pride and singularity for sooke the ordinary and orderly assemblies of Christians. Ans. In this accusation his so much boasted of charity is evaporate. What! No assemblies for worship in this Church but among Conformists; doth he not thus unchristian and unchurch all the Assemblies of Presbyterian Ministers and professors for worship? why persuades he people to forsake these Assemblies? and who now judges another man's servant as he, who brands withself-conceit, ignorance, and schism all these Assemblies of Nonconforming Ministers and professors, who dare not comply with prelates. Again, how proves he that no assemblies are orderly except the Prelatical? we avow our meetings for worship, to be the most orderly according to our Churches established Reformation, and that their Assemblies are cross to her constution, order, and union, both in respect of Curate's perjurious intrusion, the doctrine which they deliver, and their manner of worship, which is cross to this Church's practice and appeintment; his charge of schism and disorderliness is still begged, but not yet proved; and orderliness is (with him) described from Church-walls; and as for unity, why have they east out hundreds of Ministers from officiating, because they durst not join with Conformists, in their perjured course of defection? if this man be not here self convict, let any Judge. Let him produce (if he can) in our Assemblies for worship, that which is contraire unto the nature, constitution, and worship of the assemblies mentioned in that scripture; and until this be, we may on better ground recriminat this charge upon his withdrawing people from the Assemblies of Presbyterian ministers and professors.  
The Doubter alleges poorly that all do not forsake their parochial Assemblies, but some do now and then keep them. He Answers, that though all withdraw not in alike degree, yet the least degree is unwarrantable— that people advance from step to step, that some after withdrawing from them, hear only the Indulged, or those who have still preached without conformity in their own Ch●…rches, and within a little will hear none of them; that some hear in their own Churches but will not communicate, the reason whereof he cannot understand, since the efficacy of Sacraments depends not on the Minister, that the lest degree of separation makes way for a greater— that Baxter in his cure of Church divisions, tells of some turning separatists, who died Infidels. Ans. He hath not yet proved that the withdrawing which he mentions, is a Sinful Schismatic separation; and we hope we have made the contraire appear. As for these degrees he mentions, we say. 1. His cruel uncharitablness to Presbyterian Ministersis here very conspicuous, since he will not allow them to be in the least heard or owned in their present case and circumstances. Certainly to tie up people from occasional improvement of the various gifts which God hath bestowed upon his ministers, even in a settled state of the Church, and in her right constitution, is cross to that interest in one another's gifts and graces, which the members of Christ's mystical body (upon the ground of their union and communion with the head, and among themselves) are privileged with. And in impeaching this the Informer blotes himself with schismatic uncharitableness of the deepest dye. 2. As it's no strange thing that in such a time of darkness, desertion, and defection, people's recovery be gradual, and sometime attended with Infirmities in the manner of duties incident to us while in time, so the contrary influences of love to truth and duty, and fear of hazard, may be easily productive of such variety in the carriage of poor tender souls in this matter. In a word, the Lords supper being a special badge of our union and communion in and with Jesus Christ, It's no strange thing that tender souls scruple to partake thereof from men at so palpable a distance from him, as Conformists, especially while this ordinance may be enjoyed more purely elsewhere. He tells us, that Schismatics are cut off from the body, and receive no life from it, and (if we may drawan inference and retortion from this assertion) the people of God must judge Conformists to be such. For these effects of separation which Baxter mentions, we bless the Lord the contrary effects of sound piety, in many who were profane while owning the Ministry of Conformists, are convincingly apparent, since they separated from them: and the effects of backsliding from God's truth, viz. gross profanity, or atheistical Indifferency in the matters of God, are as sadly evident in those who having once owned Presbyterian Ministers, have returned to Conformists again. As for what he objects and answers, anent some of their own party going to others than their own parish-curats', whom unless insuperable le's hinder to attend their own parish-Church, he would have his fellows not to own. We are not much concerned to notice any further, then to tell him that parvo discrimine refert, which of them people go to, the best of them being as a briar, and the most uprights as a thorn-hedge, and all of them blotted with such Schismatic opposition to this Church her pure constitution and principles, as may put it beyond debate with tender souls, (lovers of truth and duty) that they ought adhere to Christ's faithful ambassadors rather than any of them.  
The Doubter objects, [that its hard to hinder to go where we may be most edified; since we must Cover the best gifts. 1 Cor. 12. 31.] He answers 1. that the Apostle is not directing private Christians, what gifts in others to seek after for their edification, but shows that though there are diversities of gifts, and every one should be content with his own, given for the edification of others, yet that he should seek after better, not in others, but in himself. Ans. Our Informer doth but trifle and deal deceitfully in his way of representing this, and some objections ensuing; for 1. He supposes that this is looked upon in itself, as a sufficient ground of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers, without previous consideration of all the circumstances of our present case; and also in supposing that nothing casts the balance (in the Judgement of the objecter) as to profiting or not profiting, but difference of gifts; whereas we grant, that the sovereign Influence of God's Spirit, (who teaches to profit) renders the means and ordinances effectual to salvation, whether the Ministers gifts be great or small. 2. We grant, that though people have a discretive judgement as to gifts, and their own profiting, and are to try the spirits, yet in a settled state of the Church, they are not to shake off the due regulation and guidance, of a faithful Ministry set over them in the Lord, so as to be wholly at their own disposal herein: since there is no Justling betwixt the private discretive, and public Ministerial judgement, in this matter. 3. As in the trial of Intrants, not only the sufficiency, but suteablenes of gifts for such a people, is to be eyed. So when a faithful Minister is thus duly called and settled, people are obliged to own his Ministry, by a due attendance upon the ordinances administered by him, which is all that decency, union, and order, and that act of our Church after mentioned, doth call for; which notwithstanding cannot be supposed to exclude all occasional usemaking of other gifts bestowed upon faithful Ministers, which were (as I said) cross to the communion of Saints, and believers interest in one another's gifts and graces. But 4. our question here being stated upon the supposition of the greater part of this National Church their apostasy & defection from our sworn Reformation, and a great part of Ministers and professors adhering to their principles, viz. to which of the two parties on this supposition people are to adhere in worship? sure the Lords palpable blasting the backsliding party their gifts, as to any saving success, and on the contrary his as palpable owning and sealing with his blessing the Ministry of his faithful servants adhering to his truth, is a loud call (in this broken state of our Church, and case of defection and persecution) to come out from the one party and way, and adhere to the other. So his Doubter in this and the next objection, should have argued thus. In this case of defection and overturning of our Reformation, God being pleased to seal with a palpable blessing on our souls, the word from Ministers adhering to their principles, we may safely look on this as a call from God to hear them, rather than the prelates perjured hirelings, whose Ministry we have found palpably blasted since they complied with ●…his course of perjurious back siding, and opposition to God's work. In this case certainly its an argument very pungent, and founded on that of Jer. 3. 31, 32. Where the Lord threateneth the prophets who caused the people to err by their lies and lightness, and whom he hath not sent nor commanded though they prophesy, with this, that therefore they shall not profit the people at all. So the Argument going upon the supposition of our Churches broken and persecute state; and a competition betwixt a faithful Ministry, and a party of Schismatic Innovators, and overturners of our Reformation, will infer nothing against our Church's settled order under Presbyterian government, nor the assemblies act. 1647. presupposing the same; and it's not merely the gifts, but Gods saving blessing attending the same, which is the ground of this argument, and that practice pleaded for, thereby.  
Now as to his answer, It's palpable that it meets not this argument in the least, and besides his exclusive gloss is very impertinent, viz. because we are to seek the best and edifying gifts f●…r ourselves in our siation, therefore we are not to seek the best in others also. What consequence is this? Sure the Informer will not deny simpliciter, that people are to seek after the most edifying Minister, and this will follow on the very ground of our edification, which we are to design in seeking the best gifts, in and for ourselves. Nay, the one is the great mean subservient to the other; a faithful edifying Ministry is God's Method for winning to the best gifts for myself; and therefore as a mean leading to this end, falls within the compass of this command, to seek and Covet the best gifts. So a greater than he, Voetius, concludes it a duty to seek the best edifying Ministry, on this ground De politeia Eccles. pag. 52. And likewise on these Scriptures, Luk. 8, 18: 1 Thess. 5. 22. And removes objections to the cotraire.  
His 2d answer is, That the Apostle is there pressing unity, and not to despise the meanest gifts, more than the meanest member, and to avoid Schism verse 25. Ans. Then it follows, that in the sense of this precept, which we have explained, seeking the best gifts, is consistent with unity, and avoiding Schism, and consequently in this our case, it's no ways inductive to schism, but consistent with a due esteem of the meanest gifted Minister who is faithful, to withdraw from scandalous innovators, who have already fixed a Schism in this Church, by opposing her sworn reformation, order, and unity. Nay as matters now stand, this is the surest way to keep our Church's union and integrity; Since this their course has such a clear tendency to the ruin of her Reformation and pure constitution, in doctrine, Worship, discipline and Government, as is above cleared.  
His 3d Answer is, that edification is to be sought in an orderly way, not in a way that mars the Church's peace— and that though our sense of this general direction were granted, it's thus to be understood. Ans. Let our sworn established Reformation, its principles, rules, and design, sit in Judgement and determine, who are greater enemies to this Church's peace and order, they or we. Was not this Church privileged with a beautiful order of Government, pure Gospel-Worship, and sound doctrine, before Prelacy was introduced? Well then, the way to this Churches true peace, Union, and order, must be in opposing their pretended order, who are letting in the enemies, and have broken her walls and hedge. Many of them said and swore that the Presbyterial Government of this Church, was a beautiful order, unto which since they stand in opposition, they are the most orderly, who disowne them. As for that which he adds, of people's neglecting Ministers set over them in the Lord, he must prove that Conformists are such Ministers, who are both scandalous for the far greatest part in their carriage, having no visible badge of the Lords call, and do own principles, and carry on a design point blank contraire to our reformation, have left the people's conduct, in the way of truth, given up all their Ministerial authority to abjured prelacy, and make it their work to destroy, and waste the Lords vineyard. Tho it were granted that they had been so set over people, yet since they are tracing ways of Schism, and innovations condemned by our Church, Christ's flocks cannot own, or be subject to them, as their souls spiritual guides, they being men that have corrupted the Covenant of Levi, and made many stumble at the Law: And besides since that compliance (in subjection to conformists, and disowning of Presbyterian Ministers) which he doth here plead for, is in very deed a despising faithful Ministers set over their flocks by the Lord, and standing in a Ministerial relation to them; and whom consequently the Lords people are called to honour and obey, this same reason whereby he would persuade to adhere to the conforming party, pleads more strongly against them. And his rule aftermentioned not to do evil that good may come of it, will conclude that we should not under pretence of keeping parochial order, or for eviting confusion, deprive ourselves of the blessing of the Ministry of Christ's faithful Ambassadors, to adhere unto whom in this case we are under so many obligations.  
As for the Canons after'cited by him, against Ministers receiving these of another congregation to the Worship, We say, that according to the Informer himself its clear that such rules of decency and order, are not calculat for every meridian, every time and case of the Church: extraordinary cases must have suitable remedies, and circumstances of parochial order, cannot in this case be pleaded, when our main order of Government is already destroyed, and a persecuting party is in our Church's bosom, tearing out her bowels; when a besidged city hath within her walls a party of professed defendants betraying her to the enemy, they are the most orderly and faithful watchmen who resist them, and run to the posts which they have betrayed. Again, should the many Ministers now persecute (let us suppose they are residing in the bounds) plead parochial order, for their parishes adhering to them, and disowning their Curate's incumbent, the Informer will not say, that parochial order, will plead for owning them in this case. Or in the case of conforming Ministers turning enemies to Prelates, and by consequence Schismatics in his account, he will grant that the people (whom we will suppose they are breaking off from the union of the Prelatic Church) ought not to own them, but were concerned to go else where to hear. Now, the case being so with us this argument by his own confession, cannot now have weight until all that we plead against them on this ground, be answered.  
Next, he citys the Act of the Assembly 1647. Against them who withdraw usually from the Worship in their own congregation, except in urgent cases made known unto, and approven by the Presbytery. Concluding, that therefore they thought not this a fit method of edification, & that this act was made to prevent Schism. But had he set down the narrative of that act, it might have covered him with blushes, and would expose him to the censure of every Reader; for it is grounded upon the then complete establishment of the work of Reformation, this Churches comely order of Presbyterian Government then exercised, her Presbyterian unity and peace, the purity and liberty of the Gospel ordinances then rightly enjoyed. But what will this say to the present case of defection and persecution, wherein the faithful Ministry are thrust from their flocks, and that work razed dare he say this assembly did intend to stretch their act to such a case as this, or to stop Ministers from officiating in such a distressed & destroyed condition of our Church Suppose this case had been stated in that Assembly, What if Presbyterian Government shall be razed, Prelac●…e erected, the Covenant and the work of Reformation overturned and disowned by a number of Ministers, while a steadfast body of the Ministry stands against them, shall this act reach the people in relation to their faithful Pastors, ejected perjured intruders? I dare refer it to this man himself to say to it, what their resolution would have been, and if they would have concluded it the people's duty to adhere to these destroyers in that case, rather than the faithful contenders for the work of Reformation. In the 7th Article of their directions for family Worship past that same day, they suppose this Church to be then blest with peace and purity; and therefore do except from the compass of these directions, the case of corruption and trouble, wherein they say, many things are commendable, which are not otherwise tolerable; And dare he say that they would not call this such a case. He makes the Doubter yet again poorly except, [that men have different gifts] which is here a mere nauseating repetition, to fill up idle pages. Upon this our Informer very discreetly and charitably tells us, that we can little judge of an edifying gift, and do call railing at Bishops, or at the civil powers, and a tone in the voice so. Just as Dr Burnet said before in in his roving Dialogues. What is the Judgement of God's people as to edification, and the evidence of the Master's presence with Presbyterian Ministers in preaching to his people, depends not on this Character, it being comprobat by clear proofs, and sufficiently notour to such as can spiritually taste and discern.  
But he will offer some considerations about diversity of gifts, and edification by them, which is to no purpose; since our plea is not merely grounded upon the gifts of preachers whether Conformists or others; but abstracting from this, we say first, there is much more than mere gifts, yea and an edifying gift, requisite to ground a people's owning a Minister hic & nunc, or in every circumstantiat case, as their pastor: what if he be in a schismatic course? what if he be violently thrust in, and hath shut out their Lawful pastor standing in that relation to them, to whom by this man's concession they owe special subjection, reverence and obedience in the Lord? (for this we will find him hereafter plead) are the people bound in this case to own the Intruder, because of his gift? Nay he will not say it. Now the case is Just so with us. 2. We told him that our case is a case of competition betwixt the betrayers and destroyers of our Reformation, and a faithful Ministry adhering to, and contending for it: so that its this great Ministerial qualification of faithfulness, (opposite to Curate's ●…reachery) beside Presbyterian Ministers gifts, and God's blessing attending the same: and the Curate's intrusion, unfaithfulness, destructive principles, and design in their officiating (besides their insufficiency, profanity, and blasted gifts) which determine us in this matter; and the Lords call consequently that for our edification, and to prevent our Church her ruin, and our perishing in their sin, we come out from among them and be separate, as we would come out of Babylon to which their party is running post: so that all he saith here, may be granted without prejudice to our cause.  
But let us hear his considerations anent edification and gifts; first, (saith he) all Ministers have not alike gifts, therefore we must not undervalue the lowest 1 Cor. 12. I told him our quarrel is not merely gifts, & a man may be hic & nunc disowned, and yet no undervaluing of his gifts, which the Informer must either grant, or contradict all that he intends in this pamphlet. For I ask him, what if I plead this for Presbyterian Ministers, whom for all their excellent and edifying gifts he and his party will not own, and whom be is in this pamphlet striving might and main tanquam pro ●…ris and focis, to get universally disowned by all professors in Scotland? why quarrels he with the Almighty (to use his own expression) in undervaluing their gifts, and would tear their commission? I know our Informer will say that they are disorderly, and so disowning them, is no despising their gifts. Well then, he grants that men of excellent gifts may be hic & nunc or in some cases disowned, and no hazard of this undervaluing and despising their gifts, or quarrelling with the Almighty, & so the rebound of his own blow in this retortion strikes his argument stark dead; and he must grant that the question is, which of the two contending parties, have best right to officiat as Ministers in the Church of Scotland, according to her principles and Reformation? and according thereto it will not be difficult to determine who are the most orderly & to be heard, & the disorderly have no reason to complain. 2. He says we must not think the meanest gifts, useless. But he must grant that men may sinfully render them useless, as he alleges Presbyterian Ministers do and we prove that conformists do so. 3. He tells us that the best gifts cannot work without the spirit, and that to do●…e on gifts, is to idolise men, as those 1 Cor. 1. 3. Then he tells us, how Zanchius was offended with that frenchman of Geneva, who said he would leave Paul, should be come there, and hear Calvine. But what will this arguing reprove? must they be stigmatised as Idolisers of men and gifts, who will not Idolise abjured prelacy, and perjured apostats, and in owning them while wasting and destroying a purely reformed Church, discountenance a faithful Ministry contending for her reformation, and signally blessed therein? surely his instance anent Zanchius, may be well applied to such as will hear none but Curates, and wholly disowne Presbyterian Ministers; Again, if the best gifts cannot work without the spirit, and the spirit works ordinarily and best with those who entertain him, and as having their senses exercised, habitually wait for his breathe in duty, what hope is there that profane men, and greivers of the spirit in walking contraire to God, his people, way and interest, (as are most Conformists) should have the spirits seal attending their Ministry. What more? He tells us 4. That sometimes the spirit will act with the mean gifts more than the greater as Peter Acts 2. is found to have converted more in one sermon, than we read that our Lord himself did, though he spoke as never man spoke. That Christ 〈◊〉 complained of small success, Isa. 49. 4. & 53. 1. & upbraided people for unbelief Math. 11. 21, 22, 23. joh. 5. 40. — that after the sermon on the mount we read not that many were converted though they were astonished— that the Centurion's faith was commended above that of Israel: and from the east and west many will sit down with Abraham while the children of the kingdom are cast out. Ans. 1. He must grant that this argument, taken from the spirits working great things by small means, will not plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers, to whom many of his Scioli Rabbis impute weakness of gifts, because they think that aliunde or upon other grounds, such Ministers are not in this case to be heard. Well then let him take home his argument as insufficient, until he prove that hic & nunc Conformists are to be heard rather than Nonconformists, and prove his groundless suppositions above mentioned (wherein he begs the question) and disprove our true suppositions above also rehearsed, or this argument will signify Just nothing. 2. For his Instances, as this man would be sober in such comparisons, so we must tell him there's a great difference betwixt little, & no success, a Ministry with small effects; and a Ministry palpably blasted as to any saving issue; and betwixt sincere designing of success, and mourning over the want of it, making it a complaint (as our Lord wept over Jerusalem's impenitency and disobedience) and the Ministers designing himself, and no such thing, and wanting this impression mentioned. Sure as it will be hard for him to point us to any of their constant hearers who have been converted by their Ministry, so it will be as hard to point out any of their preachers, who have the people's spiritual profit for their design, or their unprofitableness as their burden & complaint to God. And since both these are conspicuous in Presbyterian Ministers, It's quickly resolved which of the two are standing in God's counsel, and travelling in birth to beget souls by the gospel, and to have Christ form in them. But he would have us praying for Conformists, and laying aside prejudice. Ans. I think we are Indeed called to lay aside prejudice at their persons, and to pray for their repentance; but to pray for a blessing on their Ministry, who are in such direct opposition to the Lords people, work, and Interest, were a mocking of God, and hardening them in their sin, and consequently hearing and receiving the ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church were a strenghtening of their hands in their disobedience. Beside, will he allow people upon their praying for Presbyterian Ministers to hear them? I trow not, than it seems▪ laying aside prejudice and praying for Curates, may consist with not hearing them. His next childish objection put into the mouth of his Doubter [that though some withdraw all will not] is not worth the noticing. It were good for our Church all her members did so understand their duty and obligatons, as to deny that subjection to Conformists which he pleads for. And that such pastors as they who destroy but feed not, had no flocks: For they have not brought back the straying, nor healed the sick etc. But he tells us, he hath proved that none ought to withdraw. How insignificant his preceding proofs are, hath been discovered, and if his ensueing be no better, It's certain that Successus defuit ausis, and that he hath overshote his mark, in this undertaking.  
The Doubter inquires next [what obligation lies on him, to be an ordinary hearer in his own congregation.] In answer to which the Informer tells us first, of our obligation shown by him to maintain union, and of the Acts of the ancient Church, and our own. Which I have already answered. Next, he tells us, of the reciprocal obligation betwixt a Minister and his congregation which cannot be so easily broken; the Minister is to labour diligently and faithfully, among the people of his charge Ezek. 33. 8. Heb. 13. 17. the people of his charge are to attend his Ministry to esteem him highly, and love h●…m for his works sake Mal. 2. 7. 1 Thes. 5. 11, 12. Heb. 13. 17. He asks how we obey this charge, when we disowne, discountenance, and turn our backs upon our Ministers, and will not receive the Law from their mouth. Ans. That there is a reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock, is easily acknowledged: but the Informer forgot the main and necessary point here (to make this weapon strike home, and the argument run strait without a bias) viz. What makes up this tye according to the Scripture pattern. This he should have condescended upon, and made it good in the case of Conformists, and then his arguing had been pertinent, and formidable to the Non-Conformists. But what will this poor general say, that there is a reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock, while he hath not made appear, what is the Scripture foundation and basis of that tye, & but begs the question in the application thereof to his case. I suppose a Presbyterian Minister should plead this to warrant his officiating among his people, in opposition to the Curate incumbent, that the people are bound to own him as their Minister, because of this reciprocal ●…ye: That the Scripture obligations (mentioned by the Informer) lies on him to be faithful and diligent, which while he is endeavouring (according to his duty, founded on his relation to his people) the people are therefore bound to attend on his Ministry to esteem him, love him, receive the Law from him, and and not to discountenance nor discourage him by withdrawing to another. Now let this man show what he will answer to this pleading, and his argument will quickly vanish before his own answer; If he say that the tye is loosed, let him instruct what that is which has in this case loosed it. Sure neither the Magistrates violence, nor Prelatic censures, according to our Principles, and the Doctrine of sound divines, when this case is truly stated. And if this divine tye stand, what will he say? Will it not 1. follow (according to him,) that a Minister may be under a standing tye to his people, and they to their Minister, and yet the people for all this may not be obliged to hear him but another high & nunc, and that warrantably, without hazard of disobedience to these Scriptures; and then he hath with his own hand cut the throat of his bare general argument from the reciprocal tye. Sure in some cases the tye may stand, and yet the actual reciprocal exercise, or obligation to the exercise of duties may be hic & nunc warrantably suspended in very many supposable cases as of Physical impediments in the people and Minister, hostile invasion, Pestilence, Imprisonment etc. 2. If the tye or relation do stand, and likewise all things which do immediately dispose to the exercise of duty, than the Prelatical incumbent is in this case an intruder, and not to be owned. For I suppose he will not say, that a Presbyterian Minister might lawfully officiat in his own Parish, after the Curate is settled there, for this would quite cross the scope of his Argument. Now the Question betwixt the two competitors is, which of them hath the prior lawful, and standing tye? will he dare to deny, that Presbyterian ministers had this; and since he cannot show how it is loosed, nor prove it to be loosed, this argument will militat not for him, but against him.  
Next, as for what he citys out of Mr Durham on Revel. pag. 105: 106. anent this tye, It is still extra oleas, and nothing correspondent to his purpose, until he instruct that which is the basis and foundation of this Relation in the case of Conformists, which he neither doth nor offers to do. Mr Durham speaks of a special delegation from Christ, of his special warrant and appointment to such a man to treat with such a flock. Now sure this most be instructed from his Word and Testament, as to Curates, before he can from this make any show of Argument. For Presbyterian ministers do upon better ground lay claim to this special appointment in relation to their flocks, upon which conformists have intruded: yet this man thinks these ministers are not to be owned. And since this deputation and appointment is, with Mr Durham, the foundation of the duty betwixt minister and people, it must be cleared from the word in the case of Conformists, before this passage of Mr Durham will afford any patrociny to his cause. Then he tells us, Tha●… Mr Durham holds that this obligation is not founded on mere voluntary consent. Well let him mark this, and then he must acknowledge, that it's not merely the Curate's gaping consent for the fleece and filthy Lucre, nor the people's blind consent, that will make them Ministers of these Congregations where they officiat. What is it then that found'st this relation? The Scipture-commands (saith Mr Durham) 1 Thes. 5. 12. Know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord. Heb 13. 14. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls as they that most give account, etc. But will this man deny that Mr Durham speaks upon the supposition of the Minister his having the Ministerial call and mission according to the rule of the Word, to ground his pleading these Scripture commands, and his special commission to such a people: And that he looked upon the Presbyteries mission, and ordination, and the people's call, together with due qualifications, and the visible evidences of Christ's call in the person thus admitted, as the foundation of this special relation to such a flock, according to the Scripture pattern, and the order and Government of this Church then established. I durst pose his conscience upon the truth of this; and whether Mr Durham did ever dream of a special relation to a flock in this Church, resulting from a Prelate's mission in a Method of perjury, in opposition to our Covenant and sworn reformation, without the mission and ordination of a Presbytry, or the people's call, and in a way of intrusion upon the charges of faithful Ministers violently thrust out by persecuting Prelates, the men thus obtruded being for most part such as have nothing that may ground a reasonable or charitable construction of them, that they are sent of God, but palpable evidences of the contrary, While in the mean time the faithful Ministers are willing to cleave to their flocks, and the flocks to them? If he say that all the Ministers he pleads for are not such. I Answer, he makes no limitation of this Argument, but pleads the forementioned Scriptures, and Mr Durham's Testimony universally, and tells us in the next page, that Mr Durham binds the people fast to the Ministers of their own congregations by this discourse, he means to the Ministry of all the Conformists. As for that passage of Mr Durham's Testimony after cited by him anent the Sympathy betwixt Ministers and flocks, and the reckoning that will be made in relation to mutual duties. We think it pleads very strongly for that Sympathy that ought now to be betwixt Presbyterian Ministers and their flocks, which Conformists have usurped upon, and the mutual performing of duty to each other upon all hazards, in opposition to the Curate's intrusion. And if Paul aggreaged particularly the Gentiles slighting and grieving him, by his particular delegation to them, which was, even as to the Apostle himself, by the imposition of the h●…ds of the Presbytry Act. 13. 13. Presbyterian Ministers delegation to their flocks, which was in this manner, must needs stand, and may be much better pleaded upon this ground than that of Curates Who are sent to flocks by Prelates as their own underlings, and have nothing like Paul's delegation in their mission. So that Mr durham's arguments, and the Scriptures cited by him, are so far from tying congregations to conformists, as this man alleages, that they tie them to their own faithful Presbyterian pastors, and by consequence to disowne prelates and their intruding hirelings, as none of the lawful Pastors of this Church.  
I might here add that the account of the Pastors' duty, and the ground of the people's subjection and obedience exhibit to us in these scriptures which he mentions, doth sufficiently exclude their party from any claim thereunto. What? do they hear God's word and warn the people from him, who are generally so ignorant of his word walking contrary to it themselves, and hardening others in rebellion against him? are they watching for souls as they that must give account? who are loving to sleep and slumber; and dare not say most of them, that ever they enquired at any soul how it is betwixt God and them? do their lips keep knowledge, who have departed out of the way, and caused many stumble at the Law? are they labouring and admonishing as to sin and duty, who are ringleaders in a course of defection? Sure if the duties of subjection, reverence, and obedience, suppose such characters of Ministers, and such qualifications as are here expressed, people are hereby abundantly discharged from such subjection and obedience as to Conformists, who are so palpably destitute of these qualifications. So that the Informer falls utterly short of his intended advantage by this citation of Mr Durham, and the scriptures therein mentioned do wound his cause t●… death, and cut the sinews of his reasoning. This man is so unhappy as to fall still by the rebound of his own arguments, and the scripture-weapons (which in pleading for this cause will never be found the weapons of his warfare) wounds him every time he handles them: which as it hath before, so it shall presently appear further, in some more of his arguments and answers upon this point, which we now present.   

CHAP. III.  
The Doubters argument from Curates not entering by a call from the people, and that passage Acts 14. 23. cleared and improven. The Informers exceptions upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fully examined, and the people's right in the call of Pastors cleared therfrom. His reasonings about Patronages, and the prelatic ordination, and people's disowning of Scandalous Ministers not censured. As also his great argument from Math. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship, scanned and retorted upon him. Mr Durham in this point pleads nothing for the Informer. His answers and reasonings anent the charge of Introsion examined.  
Our Informer upon this point of separation (which he holds to be his fortroyal in the present differences) having plied his Doubter with offensive weapons, will needs show his skill and just dealing in acting the defendant for some time. But I doubt that his defensive armour and answers shall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate, as his impugning weapons are bluntand pointless. Well, this fair disputant, will hear some of our arguments against the owning of Conformists, but be sure they must be of his own mould and digesting, for these can best suit the design of that pretty piece of pageantry, which he is acting in this pamphlet. The first argument which his Doubter offers, is [their not entering by a call from the people as all Ministers should (citing Act. 14. 23.) but by a presentation from the patron.] In answer to this, he spends some discourse upon that text, which we shall examine. But to clear this point the more fully, I will premise three things. 1. That the people have a divine right to call their pastou●…, we proved before in the 9th argument against Episcopacy, and from other scripture-grounds beside this, although it be a weighty ground also, unto this we refer the reader. 2. That upon supposal of this divine rule and pattern of a Ministers Lawful call, it doth clearly follow, that the patronages are a corruption, rendering the Ministers call in this respect maimed, and not so consonant to scripture as it ought to be.  
3. Though it be granted that a Minister presented by the Patron, and not called by the people, hath the essence of the Ministerial office, and might in some cases be owned as a Minister, yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curates as the case is now circumstantiat: Because 1. It's certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church, as established before these innovations, a Minister's entry by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, without the usurping Prelate, and by the call of the people without the Patron, is the more pure and scriptural way of entry into the Ministry; and moreover the only way of entry owned and authorized by her supreme Indicatories, and by consequence its most suitable to Presbyterian principles, when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other, and Ministers thus Lawfully called, are violently ejected by men reestablishing prelacy, and patronages, formerly cast out and vowed against, that people do adhere to their faithful pastors rather than these Innovators and intruders; which will be convincingly clear, if it be also considered particularly, that as prelacy & allits corruptions & usurpations now existent and introduced, were fully removed and abjured by this Church, so laic patronages in special were upon most weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Church's declarator as appears in the Narrative of their 39 act. viz. The sense of the obligation lying upon them, both by the National and solemn league & covenant, by many deliverances and mercies from God, & by the latesolemn engadgement to duties, to preserve the doctrine and to maintain and vindicat the liberties of the Church of Scotland— to advance the work of Reformation— and considering that patronages & persentations of Kirkes' is an evil and bondage under which the Lord's people & Ministers of this land have long groaned. That it hath no warrant in God's word, but is founded only on the Canon Law, that it is a popish custom brought into this Church in time of ignorance & superstition, that its contrary to the 2d book of discipline, wherein upon solid grounds it's reckoned among abuses that are desired to be reform, and Contrary to several acts of general assemblies, prejudicial to the liberty of the people, and planting of Churches, to the free call and entry of Ministers to their charge etc. This act the parliament 1662. did ranverse among other pieces of our Reformation: Ordaining all Ministers that entered since 49. to have no right to the benefice, till they obtain a presentation from the Lawful Patron, and collation from the Bishop. Now upon supposal of the Covenant obligation, and our engadgement therein to separat from any corruption contrary to our Reformation, to give a testimony to that work, to withdraw from backsliders, is there any doubt but that people are obliged (upon these grounds) to adhere to that body of faithful Ministers, who are standing to our principles and sworn Reformation (whereof these points mentioned are one main piece) rather then such as have turned aside to this course of perjurious defection. Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers, & exclude Conformists. Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the people's right and liberty to call their pastor, Conformists are selling away this piece of her reformation & liberty, and thus crossing the scripture-pattern, the first are adhering to this Churches vows (and people are obliged to own these Ministers that are pursuing the ends) the other are casting them away etc. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament, and in our Churches public acts in opposition to patronages, and prelatic usurpations in a Minister's entry, are still binding and in force, according to our principles, as the Informer will not for very shame deny, and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles, and so what did then engage to restore this piece of our Church's liberty and Reformation, the same doth now bind to adhere thereunto, and consequently to own the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather than the backsliders and deserters thereof.  
4. This man dare not assert, that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call, will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them, or that the granting a Minister to have this, is the only & adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary. For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously called Minister his labours, to whom the people stand obliged to adhere? Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatic course, setting up an altar against an altar (as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets) will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministerial call, if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatic course? Nay he will not say it. 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for people's adherence to them upon their lawful call, mission, and entry to their charges? will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them, and deserting conformists? If it will not (as he must here say, or yield the cause) than he must confess, that acknowledgement of the essence of Curates call, will not absulutely plead for hearing them until before the Scripture bar, and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church, they can prove their claim to be better than that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastors, which will be ad Kalendas Graecas; & whatever he can pretend here, as to disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations, notwithstanding of their having a lawful call, and pastoral relation to this Church, will be easily retorted upon himself, and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede, and stop the people's owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church. So that the state of the question here being this, whether Ministers ordained by Bishops, and presented by Patrons, or those who are ordained by the Presbytry, and called by the people, have best right to officiat in this Church, as her Pastors, according to the Scripture rule, her reformation and principles, and to be owned or disownd by the people accordingly. The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers, and exclusive of all his fraternity. And whatever he doth here allege anent P●…esbyterian Ministers schism, intrusion, or disorder, will be easily retorted upon himself, reputando rem in universum & ab initio. Or tracing matters to their true originals. But now what says our Informer to this argument of his Doubter, as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable. 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear, entered by the people's call. But though it were granted that such might be heard, who are but a few, how will this plead for all the rest, and lose his Doubters argument as to them? 2. we told him that it's not the want of the people's call, simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case, that we ground upon in disowning them, no more than it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them: But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation, union, and order of this Church, and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it, and by consequence being liable to her highest censures; and likewise their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation. 3. All those who he alleges entered by the people's call, hang by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism, disowned their first entry in this manner, and obtained presentation from Patrons, and collation from prelates, according to their new acts and orders, are now of the same stamp with the rest, as to their principles and carriage, and consequently the people's disowning them upon the forementioned grounds in this our case, falls under the same obligations with their disowning others, and the rather because their apostasy is an aggravation of their guilt. But now what says our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the people's right in the election of Pastors. He grants, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states, where the people signified their election of Magistrates, by the stretching forth of their hands, because the word so signifies. Well, what then hath he to quarrel at in this argument, for the people's right in the call of Ministers from this text? 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Critics show, that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person, as it's taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods choosing or appointing, So that the word is not necessarily to be underst●…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages. Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import, and is made use of to signify a choosing by suffrages, and lifting up or extending the hands, Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Critics, Interpreters, and the best Greeck authors. The Syriack version shows that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders, but of the Church's election of Elders in rendering the text thus, Moreover they made to themselves, that is, the disciples mentioned in the former verse, made to themselves, (for such as were made, were not Elders or Ministers to Paul & Barnabas, but to the multitude of the disciples) in every Church while they were fasting with them & praying, & commending them &c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up, or stretching out of hands, thus Mr Gillesp. Misc. quest. page 9 Who also clears this from Critics and Interpreters asserting this sense of the word. He shows that where julius Pollux hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. cap. 4. Gualther and Wolf S●…berus render it manuum extensio, and that Budaeus interprets the word plebiscitum, suffragium, H. Stephanus, manum porrigo. Because (he saith) they did in giving votes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thence the word came to be used, for scisco, decerno, ●…reo. justin. Martyr. Quest. & Resp. add orthod. Resp. ad quest. 14. distinguishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as of a different signification. Arrias Montanus in his lexicon, doth interpret this word manum elevare, eligere, creare Magistratum per suffragia. Again 2. The manner of election among the grecians clears this metaphor, & signification of the word. Demosth. Cicero and others make this appear; they had a phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, omnium suffragijs, obtinet, and another phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no man gives a contrary vote. The approving votes, in choosing Grecian Magistrates in the theatre, was by holding up, or stretching forth of hands. See page 10. 11. 12. Where this is learndly and at large made good. 3. This is also made good from the ordinary method wherein the scriptures do express the setting apart of Church officers to their sacred functions, which is by the Church's election and consent, see 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2 Cor. 8. 19 1 Tim. 3. 7. Acts 1. 23, 26. and 13. 3. and 15. 22. And since the holy ghost doth here intend by Luke to express the manner of the establishment of Elders, it is utte●…ly improbable that the church's suffrage should be here omitted. 4. Protestant writers draw the Church's suffrage in election of Ministers, from this word, Magd. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. Zanch. in 4. precept. So Beza, Bullinger decad. 5. Serm. 4. junius contrav 5. lib. cap. 7. Gerard. Tom. 6. pag. 95. Danaeus 1 Tim. 5. Wallaeus in his treatise quibusnam competit vocatio pastorum. Cartwright, against the Rhemists, objecting (with our Informer) That in scripture this word signifies imposition of hands, answereth, That its absurd to imagine, that the holy Ghost by Luke speaking with the tongues of men, and to their understanding should use a word in that signification, in which it was never used before his time, in any writer holy or profane. For how could he be understood (saith he) if using the note and name, he had fled from the signification whereto they used it, therefore unless he purposed to write what none could understand or read, it must needs be that as he wrote, so he meant election by voices. Then he proves this from Oecumenius the greek scholiast, from the Greek Jgnatius, and tells us, there were proper words to signify the laying on of hands, had the holy ghost intended this, and that its absurd to think that Luke▪ who straitneth himself to keep the words of the seventy Interpreters, when he could have uttered things in better terms than they did, should here forsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands, being most proper and natural to signify the same. Next, As for what he objects from Acts 10. 41. had he been sincere or diligent in this debate, he might have found that the above mentioned learned Presbyterian writer with others doth here tell him first, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used there, is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but is as it were a preventing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a prior designation. 2. That its attribute to God metaphoric●… or improperly, showing that in the council of God, the Apostles were in a manner elected by voices in the trinity, which he clears by that parallel Gen. 1. Let [us] make man. Adding, that this hinders no more the proper signification of the word, when applied to men, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascribed to God can prove, that there's no change in men, when they repent, because there is none in God.  
The Informers 2d answer is, That Greek writers do ordinarily use this word to signify ordaining a person to a charge, without voices and suffrages. And that here it's so to be understood, he proves from this, that Paul and Barnabas are said to do this work expressed by this Greek word, and not the people; That we will not say that Paul and Barnabas elected Ministers to these Churches, which were to yield the question. That therefore our translation reads it, they that is Paul and ●…arnabas, ordained them elder etc. they prayed and commended them to the Lord; So that it was not the action of the people, but of Paul and Barnabas. Ans. All this is nothing but his petio principii and what is answered already 1. That this word signifies ordinarily the ordaining of a Person to a charge without votes and suffrages, is most false, and contrary to the sense of the word in Greek authors contrary to the Scripture acceptation of the word, & to sound divines as we have heard. And to this may be here added (which is also the observation of the above mentioned learned writters) that we find extraordinary Officers in the Apostles times not put into their functions without the Church's consent, hence we may conclude, that far less ought there to be an intrusion of ordinary Ministers without their consent. Paul & Silas were chosen of the whole Church to their extraordinary delegation, Acts. 15. 22. Paul's company were chosen by the Church 2 Cor. 18. 19 The Commissioners of Corinth were approved by the Church 1 Cor 16. 3. Mathias an Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simul suffragiis electus est, as Arrias Montanus turns it, was together chosen by suffrages, viz. of the 120 Disciples. 2. How proves he that Paul and and Barnabas did this work expressed by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we told him that the Syriack version understands it of the Disciples. Mr Gillespy (lococitato) proves that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be rendered ipsis not illis, showing that Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renders Acts 14. 23. quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent presbyteros; so saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he proves because the Greeks use the one word sometimes for the other, as he clears from Scripture parallels. So he thus senseth the verse and context, the Churches of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, after choosing of Elders who were also solemnly set apart with prayer and fasting, were willing to let Paul and Barnabas go from them to the planting and watering of other Churches, and commended them to God to open to them an effectu●…ll door, Eph. 6▪ 18, 19 or for their safety and preservation Luk. 23. 46. Again, what inconsistency with our sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will it be, if all that is mentioned in the 23. verse be taken as joint acts of Paul & Barnabas, and of the Churches together with them, viz. That they all concurred in making them Elders by suffrage, and in prayer and fasting, and commending themselves to the Lord. 3. How proves he, that the relative [they] in our translation is referred to Paul and Barnabas only, rather than the Churches? sure, this is a blind proof, and (as we use to say) a Baculo ad angulum; they ordained elders: Ergo Paul and Barnabas only ordained by Imposition of hands; since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it's resolved by the learned, cannot hardly in propriety of speech import laying on of hands in ordination, which was proper to Paul and Barnabas; and the Septuagint whom Luke follows, expressing the laying on of hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Informer must acknowledge this from the sequel of his own reasoning, for he tells us, that Paul and Barnabas could not elect Ministers, very true, and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in its native acceptation signifies election by suffrage, as he hath acknowledged, must relate to the people; Since there could be no hand-suffrage betwixt Paul and Barnabas 4. Giving and not granting that this was an act of Paul and Barnabas; distinct from the Church's suffrage, our argument stands good and this will not in the least yield the question as this man foolishly imagines; for to read it thus, Paul and Barnabas ordained elders by suffrage, is all one with this, that they ordained such to be elders as were chosen by the Church. The people declared by hand-suffrage whom they would have to be Elders, and Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders: As the Consul who held the court among the Romans, created new Magistrates, that is, did receive the votes and preside in the elections. Since (as I said) the hand-suffrage cannot in any propriety of speech relate to Paul and Barnabas alone. See Calvines Institut. lib. 4. cap. 53. paragr. 15. and Mr Gillesp. ubi supra, who further tells us, that this may be either an action of the Church only, as the Syriack makes it, or a joint action both of the Churches and of Paul and Barnabas, as junius makes it, or an action of Paul and Barnabas in this sense, that they did constitute elders to the Churches by the Churches own voices, in all which senses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stands good for us. To which we may add, that Calvine renders the word cu●… suffragiis creassent, when the had made by votes. Adding, that Paul and Barnabas ordained Ministers to the Churches, for they did preside over, and moderate the people's election. Presbyteros dicuntur eligere Paulus & Barnabas an soli hoc privato officio faciunt quum potius rem permittunt omnium sugragiis: Ergo in Pastoribus creandis libera fuit populi electio, sed ne quia tumul●…uose fieret, president Paulus & barnabas quasi Moderatores. That is, Paul and Barnabas are said to ebuse Elders, but do they this solely and by themselves, and do not rather remit this to the suffrages of all, therefore in the making of Pastors the people had a free election and choice, but left any thing should be done tumultuously Paul and Barnabas do preside as Moderatours. So he says we are to understand the decree of the Council of Laodicea, which seemed to inhibit the people's elections.  
The Dutch Annot. upon this passage do tell us, that this was a custom among the Greeks in choosing their Magistrates, that the people by lifting up their hands give to understand their voting, so it seems that from thence this custom was also used in the primitive Church, that the setting forth of Ministers of the Church, being done by Apostles or those that were sent by them for this purpose, was approved by the Church by the lifting up of their hands; which use long continued in the Church; as the Ecclesiastic histories testify. And having told us that others understand this of imposition of hands (which they set down as the secondary and less probable opinion) they add that this also was done with consent of the church as appears by the fasting and praying which was done by the whole Congregation, and was also done in this choosing of the Elders, referring to 1 Tim. 5. 17. Acts 10. 41. upon which passage they show, that the Greek word in Acts 14. 23. signifies properly by lifting up of hands to choose or ordain, and is here used concerning the choosing of ordinary Ministers by the suffrages of the Church, to which this extraordinary choosing of Apostles is here opposed, as being done by lifting up or stretching forth of God's hand alone. Upon Acts. 6. 6. where mention is made of laying on of hands, they tells us, that as this was usual in blessing Gen. 48. 14. in sacrifices Leu. 1. 4. and in installing into offices Numb. 27. 18. Deut 34. 9 So the Church (pointing at the Apostolic Church's practice) in investiture of Ministers, did thus dedicate them to God his service, and used thus to wish his blessing 1 Tim. 5. 22. The English annot. upon this text under debate do show, that the word signifies making of such a choice, as was made or confirmed by lifting up of hands, to signify suffrages or consent, and having told us of the general signification of the word in reference to ordination or appointing chap. 10. 41. they add, that the Syriack reads the text thus, [and they appointed to them Elders in every Congregation.] Whence they collect that Paul and Barnabas did not all alone in ordaining & Church-government; other Christians showed their consent or approbation of the persons who were ordained Elders by lifting up their hands; as very we'll knowing, of what behaviour they had been among them: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies (say they) to disallow by some act, election, or decree. Adding, that Suidas interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his Interpreter renders electio, delectus, per suffragia confirmatio, populi totius consensus, an election, choosing, a confirmation by voices, consent of all the people. Let our Informer here observe 1. That the choosing of Ministers by suffrage, and consent of the Church, is imported and held out in this passage under debate, in the consentient judgement of Interpreters, and that this greek word, as in its ordinary, so its special acceptation in this place, will clearly infer so much, whatever authority in ordination and election as to Paul and Barnabas, and of Ministers consequently, the circumstances of this text will bear out and infer. 2. That this interest of the people in the election and call of Ministers is comprobate by the judgement and consentient practice of the ancient Church, as the history thereof doth verify. 3. That that passage Act. 10. 41. doth (in their sense) nothing invalidate this right of the people, held out in this text, the one place speaking of an immediate choosing by God, the other of mediate and ordinary by men, the one, pointing at ordination and appointing of the Apostles to their office in a general sense, the other of the special or specifical mould of the call and election of Ministers. 4. That this right and interest of the people in Ministers call, as it is founded upon the ancient practice and unrepealed privilege of God's Church under the old Testament, so it hath besides this, and such like instances, and exemplary recommendations of the new-testament, a constant moral warrant of the people's knowledge anent the case and behaviour of their spiritual guides.  
His 3d answer to this text is, That if we understand it of a hand suffrage we lose by it. Why so? because we give advantadge to the Independents for popular election of Ministers wherea; we give this power not to all the people, but to the session. And he tells us, that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to pressthis text. Ans. 1. We have proven that a congregational Eldership is juris divini, & that by consequence this election strictly taken must be their privilege, See 9 Argument against Prelacy on the 1. Dialogue. Who these understanding Presbyterians are, who do not understand this place as warranding the people's interest in the election & call of Ministers, the Informer hath not given us an account, since his Doubter is none of them, and if he mean the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici, he will find that they do clearly assert this truth (propos. 1.) so as it do not exclude the due right of Ministers herein. See pag. 127. and 129. And the Assembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Ministers 4. Branch, do require the people's consent and approbation, as necessarily antecedaneous to the ordination. Besides, could the Informer be ignorant that there are several other weighty Scripture grounds & arguments pleaded by our writters to fortify this right of the people; why did he not then put these also into the mouth of his Doubter, and give us an account of his own, and his Episcopal Masters ' skill in dissolving them? Moreover though it were granted, that all here did concur in this suffrage where no Eldership was yet constitute (as Mr Gillespy Judgeth probable miscell. pag. 14.) it will nothing infringe the power of the Eldership in Churches constitute, there being a vast difference betwixt the modus rei, in Churches constitute, and these in fieri or that are to be constitute. Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial suffrage by extending of hands, and that in commitiis, among courts, senate's, and representatives of the people, as in the Roman senate, in which the Consuls presided. And that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Magistrate created by suffrages, in the courts solemnly held for that purpose. That the Roman senate did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as chrysostom saith, which Doctor Potter expones, made their Gods by suffrage (Charity mistaken page 145.) Again, supposing Elderships here existent, this phrase may be well referred to the people, as importing their consent and approbation, reserving still to the Eldership their Juridical suffrage, and decisive vote in election. Mr Gillespy (ubi supra) clears this, showing that in Athens itself the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they did but like well the persons nominated, as when a Thesaurer offered some to be surety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom the people shall approve. This he proves from Demosth. advers. Timocr. from which oration he makes it good, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Assembly, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the court of judges, are plainly distinguished so far, that they might not be both upon one day; and that though the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet not they but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or judges did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordain or appoint a Magistrate. In a word, we give in this mater [the Ministers call] the suffrage and election to the Eldership (I mean in a Church constitute) and the consent (which is distinct from the decisive voice as the learned acknowledge, Gamachaeus in primam 2dae ou●… of Thomas quest. 15 shows this) to the whole people, and the formal authoritative mission, and imposition of hands, making the man a Minister, and giving him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had it not before, to the Presbytery, according to the Scripture pattern; which is toto coelo different from the Independents principles in this point.  
If any object that the giving the suffrage and election of Ministers to the Eldership, excluding the people, makes the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs, it being sufficient to clear us from their principles, that we allow not either to the Eldership or congregation, the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands. And that our arguments upon this head seems to give to the people not only consent, but suffrage in election. I shall desire first, that Mr Gillespies answer be considered (Miscell. page 24.) to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point. Who says that in this point of election we do not homologate with them, who give to the collective body of the Church (women and children under age only excepted) the power of decisive vote or suffrage in elections, we give the vote only to the Eldership or Church representative, so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of the congregation. So that he makes the attributing of this decisive voice & suffrage in elections, unto the people, to be down right Independency & the march stone of their difference from us. He tells us afterward, that the consent and knowledge belongs to the whole Church without which Ministers may not be intruded, & the counsel and deliberation, (which is distinct from this consent) to the ablest & wisest of the congregation, especially the Magistrates. But he distinguishes from both these the decisive vote in Court or judicatory, & the formal consistorial determination in the case of election, and this he says, belongs only unto, and consists in, the votes of the Eldership. And that the Independents contrarily give the conference and deliberation to the Eldership (as we use to do in Committees) but the decision to the whole Congregation. Adding further, that such as have written against Independents do thus state the difference betwixt them and us in this point, viz. not whether matters of great importance and public concernment ought to be determined with the people's free consent (for this we grant) but whether the cause must be brought to the body of the Congregation to give their voices therein together with the officers of the Church, citing Laget in his defence of Church-government, chap. 1. and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines in that piece entitled the Independency on scriptures of the Independency of Church's page 3. where he sets down this forementioned consent to the Minister who is to be chosen, as that which we allow to the members of the congregation in common. Adding further, that Independents place the whole essence of a calling in election, accounting ordination to be but a solemnising of it, whereas we place the potestative mission, not in the Church's election but lawful ordination. So that in the judgement of these Divines the reserving to the Presbytry the formal authoritative mission is the not the sole point of difference betwixt the Independents and us, nor can a man be cleared from Independent principles in their judgement, who extends the decisive juridical●… vote in election beyond the Eldership, and gives this decisive, suffrage strictly taken to the people Besides, the absurd and dangerous consequences following upon this opinion, allowing the formal juridical elective suffrage to the people, are evident, such as 1. That this goes in some respect beyond Independents opinion as to the people's power in elective suffrage, who though they give it to the collective body, yet ●…with a restriction excluding women, children and persons under age, not to every individual. 2. That this will infer that every point of government and every cause, relating immediately to the congregation, must be brought to the multitude or body of the people, to give their voices therein together with the officers of the Church, for upon the same ground that the elective suffrages belong to them, so must every piece of government. Now Mr Laget ubi supra expressly states this as the Independents principle, and as that wherein they differ from us 3. This cuts off all right and power of a juridical eldership, which is by our writters asserted and made good from the scriptures, and makes all their authoritative decisive suffrages, in this and other points of government, in reference to the congregation, an invasion of the people's right, and unlawful usurpation of their power; for if this formal decisive suffrage belong to all the collective body jure divino, how can they give it away? 4. This will by consequence bring the collective body to have their formal decisive juridical suffrage, in superior Church-judicatories, Presbytries, and synods, in every point wherein the congregational eldership and session have an immediate interest. Again, since consent and knowledge, is allowed by our writters to the whole congregation, and deliberation and counsel to some eminent members, the elderships' elective suffrage, (which in their judgement is necessarily connected with this) cannot be said to impeach the due right of the collective body of the congregation in this point; unless (as I said) we step over the march-stone, and bring in the whole collective body of the congregation to have a decisive suffrage in government. In a word, the scripture arguments, and other grounds here hinted, which do clearly conclude the people and congregations right as to a call in general, will not infer that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to every one of the people or the whole collective body, so far as to import a formal decisive suffrage, for it being the due right of the people's representatives, the Eldership (in whose choice and election the people have a great Interest, and to which they give a formal consent) the congregation doth in and by them give their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suffrage, and what is proper to some part of this organic body the Church, may be well said to be the due right and action of the whole in a general sense, each part concurring suo modo. A man is said to see, though the eye only be the proper organ of sight, because the eye subsists in and with the body, and cannot act without, or separated from it. So the people in a general sense and mediately elect by the eldership, the whole collective body concurring in what is proper to them herein. We heard from MrGillespy [ubi supra,] that among the Greeks, the people in consenting to a choice of governor's were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that although, upon the supposal of the divine right of a juridical eldership, representing the congregation (which right is abundantly proved from scripture) the formal Cousistorial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by juridical suffrage belongs to them, yet the whole collective body their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the manner formerly explained, stands good.  
His last answer is, that if we think the people's election s●… necessary that none can be a Minister without it, than we null the ministry of the whole Christian world for above 1000 years upward, and the Ministry of this C●…rch ever till the year 1649. For until then patronages were not taken away. Ans We have proved that the People's right in the call and election of Pastors is the pure Scripture pattern continued in the Church of God for divers ages, which is enough to prove that as it ought to be endeavoured after and established, by Churches who would imitat this pattern of the Lords tabernacle showed upon the moun●…▪ So where it is obtained it ought to be held fast against any contraire innovations. That the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers and teachers had place from the Apostles even unto his own time in a good measure, may be proven (besides what we have said already to clear this) by a very unsuspect witness Marcus Antonius de dominis de Repub. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 22. Num. 10. he saith, in electione ministrorum etiam Apostolorum tempore & ipsorum instituto, plebem & totam multitudinem magnam habuisse partem. And lib. 3. cap. 3. Num. 12. jam vero post concilium Nicenum in electionibus eundem prorsus veterem morem perpetuo Ecclesiam ad nostra pene tempora servasse, ut a clero & popul●… fieret ex patribus ac rebus gestis, & conciliis & juribus: ex Romanorum Pontificum attestationibus & decretis jam sumo comprobandum. That is, that after the Council of Nice the same ancient custom was owned to his times by the Church, as to the people's interest in this election and call of Ministers, he undertakes to prove from the Fathers, from history, and Councils and Laws, and the very decrees of Popes. In the Council of Paris Anno 559. There was such a decree, Quia in aliquibus crivitatibus consuetudo prisca negligitur. etc. Because the ancient Custom and decrees of the Canons are neglected in some cities— they appoint the decrees of the Canons to be kept, and the ancient Custom, ut nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus, nisi quem populi & clericorum electio pleni●…ima quaesierit voluntate etc. That none be ordained a Bishop without the will of the citizens, but such only whom the people and Clergy shall choose with full consent. That the people had a right to require, call and elect their Pastor in the ancient Church, Didoclav. proves from the Example of Eradius, Ambrose, Flavianus, Nectarius etc. From pag. 3●…6. to 331. showing that Cyprian saith of Rabbinus that he was chosen Bishop, de universae fraternitatis suffragio, lib. 1. Ep. 2. By the chose of the whole Brethren. From the Epistle of the Council of Nice, to those of Alexandria, Lybia, etc. which is extant with Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9 Where he shows that those who succeed in the room of the dead Prelate must upon these terms succeed, si digni viderentur, & populus eligeret, if they appear worthy and the people shall choose; That Chrysostom succeeded to Nectarius; postquam in hoc Clerus & populus suffragia sua contulissent, after he was called and chosen by the Clergy and people. Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. That Evagrius was chosen suffragiis, or by votes and suffrages, Socrates lib. 6 cap. 13. That Augustine called again and again for the people's consent as to his successor, Hic mihi v●…stra assentatione opus est. F●…. 11. To which may be added, a very impartial witness Bishop Bilson (Perpetual Government Chap. 15. page 434.) Where he shows that the people had their right in choosing their Pastors. Only, to prevent mistake upon these passages, we would take notice, that this suffrage here attribute generally and indiscriminatim, to the people and clergy, must be understood pro uniuscujusque modulo and according to every one's capacity, for the reasons above rendered. Since both Ministers right in ordination, and also the right of a juridical eldership in churches constitute in reference to the election of Ministers, hath (as we have shown) a clear foundation in Scripture and antiquity. But of this enough. 2. We have also proven that we are not concerned, nor in the least constrained by our principles and practice in this case, to null a Church or Ministry where this call is wanting, it being enough for us, that the want of it is a corruption rendering a Ministry not so pure as it ought to be, and that our case being a case of competition betwixt Ministers holding fast this piece of our Covenanted Reformation, and a party of Schismatic Innovators opposing and rejecting it, and turning back to the vomit of this and other corruptions, after they have been seen, cast out, and vowed against: We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows, sufficiently warranted to leave these innovators, and adhere to the faithful Ministry. 3. As we did show that the granting of Curates their having the essence of a ministerial call, will not infer our hearing and owning them in every case, and especially in ours (which himself must grant, unless he fall in a palpable contradiction) so it's more than he can prove, that this Church of Scotland from its first beginning, till 1649 had pratronages; Which being founded on the Common law, and several age's posterior to the pure Church in this Nation, planted (as we heard) without Prelates by some of John's Disciples, how absurd is it to assert that it had Patronages from the beginning. Finally, whatever tolerance of these corruptions before they be removed may be pleaded for, yet such as have embraced them now, yea & as a badge of owning this deformation of our once glorious Church, are certainly to be disowned by all who would hold fast their integrity. For what he adds, anent our owning Presbyterian Ministers adhering to our Reformation, though they have been presented by Patrons, It's both impertinent to the point and already answered, For it's not this simpliciter, or only, which we ground upon in this practice, as is often said, but the principles, state, practice, and design, of Conformists in this complex case Beside, who sees not the difference betwixt a Minister owning the principles of our Reformation, and disowning this with other corruptions, although the times necessity did constrain to make use of patronages in their first entry, when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage, and such as own this corruption both in judgement and practice after it is rejected, and the Church delivered from it, yea and own it as an express badge of Conformity to abjured Prelacy. Sure they are very blind who see not the difference betwixt these.  
The Doubter alleadges [that patronages are abjured in the Covenant] and the Informer desires to see in in what place. But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or solemn league, he will easily see this; for patronages being a popishcorruption contrary to the Word of God (as we have proved) it's abjured among the rites or Customs brought into this Church; without or against the word; And likewise in being condemned in the 2. book of discipline, to which we vow adherence as unto the discipline of this Church, it must be in that respect also abjured; And as contrary to sound doctrine, the power of godliness, and Government of this Church expressed in the 2. book of Discipline, it is abjured in the solemn League, wherein we likewise vow adherence to that discipline. But (saith he) Since patronages were in use aster the Covenant, why was not this breach discerned, and was this Church perjured all that time. Ans. The forecited act of Parliament shows that this corruption had been long by this Church groaned under, and long before that time declared and testified against, both in the 2. book of discipline, and by assemblies thereafter, and if (the interposing of the civil Magistrate being necessary to remove this) the Church still until that time groaned under this burden, where can he fix his challenge?  
The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Curates, is [that they are ordained by Bishops.] To which he answers 1. That all whom we refuse to hear, were not ordained by Bishops. He means those who were ordained by the Presbytery, and have conformed, Ans. 1. We have already told him that it is not the Episcopal ordination simply and abstractedly from our case, which is our ground of not owning them, but the Episcopal ordination of perjured intruders breaking our union and reformation, and ejecting our faithful Pastors, and testified against by our presbyterian protestant Church which they have thus intruded upon. 2. We have told him that the concession of their lawful ordination for substance, will no more plead for our owning them in this complex case, than their concession of the lawful ordination of Presbyterian ministers, will infer an obligation upon Conformists to own them, which is a consequence that they all deny. And that they must grant, that owning of the episcopal ordination in this complex case, is different from a simple owning of it, in relation to hearing. Even as Presbyterian ministers are acknowledged by conformists to have a lawful ordination for substance, whom notwithstanding they will not suffer the people to hear. 3. Those who were so ordained and have conformed, having (as I said) eatenus or in so far, renounced their Presbyterial ordination, and adhering to the prelatical as the more perfect, this their disowning of our reformation (especially aggreged by their perjury and apostasy) puts them in the same, yea a worse condition as to our hearing them, than those that are merely ordained by the prelates. 3. He tells us, That on this ground we would not adhere to these whom Timothy and Titus ordained, nor would we have heard a minister for many ages of the Church; Then he tells us of Jeroms, quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, and that ministers have now a hand in ordaining Conformists. That on this ground we would not have heard the members of the Assembly 1638. who were thus ordained, and some now though non-conformists, who were ordained before the year 1638 by Bishops, the valitidity of which ordination is vindicat by ●…us dicinum minist. Ang●…ie: Ans. We have already proven, that Episcopal ordination is not in the lest warranted by the Authority of Timothy and Titus supposed in these Epistles, but rather a Presbyterial ordination, which is the pattern showed upon the mount. 2. We have also proven that his prelatic ordination, whereof the Prelate hath he sole and proper power according to this constitution, is a stranger, in the first purer ages, and even in Jerom's time. 3. We have also proven that the granting of the essentials of their ministerial call who are ordained by Bishops, will plead nothing for owning Curates, who are both scandalous and perjured intruders and have nothing for the most part which may in the least ground a charitable construction that they were ever called of God; and are standing in opposition to a faithful ministry, by them excluded and persecute from their watcthowers, none of which can be said of the instances which he mentions. As for that concurrence which he pretends Conformists have with the Bishops in ordination of ministers, it is according to our Law, merely precarious and pro forma. And therefore utterly insufficient to found his conclusion.  
The Doubter objects, [that though some of them were ordained by the Presbytery, yet they are now turned the Bishop's Curates.] He might have added, and turned court or Erastian-curats', since the all of our present Conformists authority, is derived from the court and subordinat to the supremacy, as is evident in the act of restitution and other subsequents acts. In answer to this he alleadges weakness of judgement, strength of passion in the objecter, but really shows both in himself, by telling us, that we may fear Christ's threatening; he that despises you despises me, since he hath not yet made, it appear that the men he pleads for have a relaion to this Church as her true Pastors, according to the principles and tenor of our Reformation. Then he tells us, that Curate signifies a cure of souls. But the True Nonconformist, told his fellow Dialogist, that this term owes its invention to men's vanity, loathing the lowly Scripture style of Minister, and is in effect nothing but the issue of the corrution of the Church's humility, and that what they pretend herein while destroying in stead of feeding, is like to stand in Judgement against them at the great day. For his next interpretation of [Curate] viz. he that serves the cure though not the Minister of the place, but the substitute of another, We owe him thanks, for one egg is not liker another, than they are to such vicarious substitutes. But he will not have them called the Bishop's Curates, as if he were Pastor of the diocese, and they deputed, under him, and Bishop (he saith) hath such thoughts of ministers. What their thoughts are, is best seen by their deeds. We have proved that according to this frame of prelacy the Bishop is properly the sole Pastor of the Diocese. In the 7. Argument against Prelacy.  
The Doubters next objection is, [that they are perjured persons, and therefore not to be heard.] He answers 1. That many of them never took the Covenant, and therefore are not perjured, which is already removed, when we did prove from Deut. 29. that it oblidges even those who did not personally swear. It's remarkable that Deut. 5. 2, 3. God is said to have made a Covenant with his people in Horeb, even with us (saith Moses) and all of us alive here this day. They were dead who engaged at Horeb, and many there present were not then born. So Neh. 9 38. all entered into Covenant, but some only did seal it. Sure the intention, and relation of the Covenanters, and the matter of the Oath itself, will make it thus extensive. Next he says, Ministers that took it, and comply with prelacy are not perjured, for the reasons which be gave in the last conference. Which reasons I have there answered, and proved that there is nothing in our case, which may in the least limit or invalidat its obligation, and upon the grounds which are offered to evince the standing obligation of that Oath, I do affirm that they are perjured. 3. He tells us, That scandalous faults though deserving censure, yet while it is not inflicted, and the person not convict, his Ministry ought to be waited upon, as judas who came clothed with Christ's commission to preach, so long as he was not convict, yet was to be heard. Ans. 1. He grants that scandalous faults, specially of an high nature, and if the man be impenitent, do deserve deposition. Now their faults are both scandalous and of a high nature, such as profanity, perjury and apostasy, in all which they are most impenitent and avow the same; and as for their being convict and censured, which he requireth as needful for disowning them, I answer they stand upon the matter convict by clear scripture grounds, and by the standing acts and judicial decision of this Church in her supreme judicatories and assemblies, which have condemned and made censurable with deposition their present principles and practices, in opposition to her vows and government. Again, there is a great difference betwixt what ought to be people's carriage toward scandalous Ministers when a redress by Lawful Church Judicatories may be had, to which people may have recourse, and what the duty of a people is in that case, wherein a prevailing backsliding party, and a persecuting Magistrate own such Ministers; so that the true Church can have no access for censuring and removing them. In this last case supposing their scandals to be of a high nature, this inevitable necessity of the Church's incapacity for present, may supply the defect of a formal censure (in the judgement of some) and ground a disowning of them, as if they were already cast out, especially if their entry be by perjurious intrusion, and their profanity and scandals thereafter notour to all. Now how applicable this is to Conformists, needs not my pains to subsume. We might also here tell him that there are scandals which are official, rendering the man coram Deo no officer, and that in case of their becoming very atrocius Mr Durham will allow to depart to more pure ordinances. On scandal page 129. Although we will not take upon us to determine, how & in what cases, during the Church's incapacity, & discomposed state, a Ministers atrocious scandals after his entry, and perjurious usurpation in the way and manner thereof, may supply the want of a formal censure, yet absolutely to deny that in any imaginable case, whether of the scandals and intrusion of the minister, the Church's incapacity to censure, or the people's clamant necessity, and apparent advantages for their edification otherwise they were obliged to own him still, and that nothing but this declarative sentence, could lose their tye, would, infer very dangerous consequences obvious to the meanest reflection. Specially that in performance of supposed duties, flowing from the tye and relation, they would cross many scriptur-precepts enjoining the contrary. Shall Christ's sheep follow the hireling and stranger, and not beware of wolves and false prophets, strengthen Covenant breakers, and schismatics, because a perturbed Church cannot draw forth her censure. If it be said that this will open a door for separation, since every one displeased, may pretend that scandals are of an highnature. Ans. 1. The sinful abusive pretences of men, is a poor argument to infringe any truth or duty. 2. This absurdity may be retorted in the other extreme, and under pretence of the man's exterior call who is not (nor can be in a Church's disturbed state) censured, Christ's sheep may (as I said) be given up to destroying wolves, the means and opportunities of their edification lost, and their souls exposed to most imminent hazard of perishing. 2. There is a pure Ministry and Church free of their scandals, and testifying against them, so that adherence to them rather than Curates is only a non-union to corruption, or a scandalous party of Innovators who have gone out from the fellowship of this Church, and such a separation negative or non-union, as Mr Rutherfoord allows, Due right of Presbyt. pag. 253, 254. such as he says was the carriage of the faithful in relation to the Donatists in Augustine's time, or a separation from the most and worst part not the least and best part, as he there distinguishes, calling the greatest corrupt part the Schismatics; As before the Jews came to blaspheme, there was no reason to join to them rather than the Gospel Church, planted by the Apostles, to which Mr Rutherfoord says, converts were to adhere. 3. We have heard that according to our principles and the tenor of our Reformation, we are to look upon them as Schismatics from this Church. So that upon this very ground of holding and maintaining this Church's purity and union, they are to be disowned by God's people. Our Informer will grant that abstracting from a Ministers being otherwise either censured or censurable, he ought not to be followed in a Schismatic course to the ruin of a pure Church's union, but is ipso facto to be left: for upon this ground he pleads for disowning Presbyterian Ministers abstracting from their being any otherways censured. 4. Are there not many Presbyterian ministers neither convict nor censured, and whom he dare not call scandalous, whose conversation and walk is both convincing and shining, and such as discovers that Christ is in them, that they have the master's seal and call to preach the Gospel, who have entered into this Church by the door, and are standing in a ministrrial relation to her, yet he pleads for disowning them, merely because their Ministry is cross to the prelatic union and order. So he must grant that Ministers may be disowned on this ground of Innovating upon, and standing in opposition to a Churches established union and order, abstracting from this formal censure. As for what he adds of Judas, it's very impertinently alleged here, for his theft and other wickedness was as yet secret, and not become open and scandalous, which excepts him from the compass of this question, which is anent Ministers guilty of open and avowed scandals, intrusion into the Ministry, violent ejection of faithful pastors, and persecution of a pure Church. None of which can be said of Judas.  
But now follows in the next place, his main objection and argument from the Scribes and Pharisees, he tells us, what great exceptions might have been made against their life and doctrine, Math. 23. that they were ●…mies to Christ, neglected judgement, mercy and faith: that they were proud hypocrites, and that though all which Naphtali says of Conformists were true (and all sees it to be true and consequently that he gives them no other characters then what they put upon themselves, and cannot more be charged with distemper for this, than our blessed Lord in calling these Pharisees, serpents and vipers, or Paul in calling the Impostors of whom the Philippians were in hazard, dogs, evil workers, the concision, whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their shame though they were (as these pharisees) gross in their lives, and there were leaven in their doctrine, they were not to be disowned, since although the Pharisees for doctrine taught the commands of men; and took away the key of knowledge, Christ in his sexmon on the mount purged the Law from their corrupt glosses, yet Simeon and Anna turned not separatists, joseph and Mary went up to keep the passover, and Christ bids bear them, though with a c●…veat 〈◊〉 beware of their leaven, and their ill example. Here he also tells us, that he hath no pleasure to make a parallel betwixt the Pharisees and our preachers in long prayers, and devouring widows houses, compassing sea and land to make proselytes, though we have given too much ground for these comparisons. Ans. 1. To begin with this last invective (which he insinuats, and Dr Burnet prosecutes at large in his trifling dialogues) If I should rejoin that its a foaming out their o●… shame, to make such comparisons, and renders them too like these wand'ring stars to whom this is attrib●…, It were no great overstreach. Dare he say that our Lord did simply condemn long prayers, because he condemned making a show of them; or that faithful ministers their travels to keep poor souls upon the solid foundation of our sworn Reformation, and recover them from this plelatick corruption and apostasy, is to proselyte them to be children of hell? It may be with better ground averred that prelatists who are enemies to either long or short prayers in the spirit, and plead for dead forms and liturgies, and who have d●…oured not widows houses only, but God's house and Church in this land, and who compass sea and land to proselyte this poor Church to the Synagogue or Rome, are much liker these precedents in the above mentioned characters.  
But 2. To his argument, The pharisees were scandalous in their life, corrupt in their doctrine, yet the saints separate not from ordinances, and Christ allowed to hear them. This man might (if he had been ingenuous) have found this objection solidly answered and removed by severals. I answer 1. It's more than he hath proved, that the owning of the Pharisees ministry is here enjoined, because 1. The command of observing what they enjoined, will not necessarily infer this; we may observe what moral Philosophers, or papists bid us do under such like restrictions and limitations, upon which people are enjoined to observe what the Pharisees prescribed; we may observe what civil Rulers bid us do, but not own them as teachers. 2. There are many things in the context, which seem utterly to repugn to this inference that our Lord enjoined the owning or attending of their instructions as ecclesiastic teachers. 1. He bids beware of their leaven or doctrine Math. 16. 12. joining them with Sadducees who denied the resurrection, and erred fundamentally, sure not to hear them was the best way to evite their leaven, 2. It will be hard to prove that they were Priest Pharisees, since all the Pharisees were not such, as Nieodemus and joseph of Arimathea, who were civil Rulers, and consequently any command to obey them, will no more infer hearing them preach, than such a command as to council or parliament. The thing commanded is not hearing them as teachers, but only obebienc●… which may be very properly enjoined as to civil Rulers. 3. The qualities ascribed unto them, such as their sitting in Moses chair, who was King in Jesurun, not Aaron's who was the Piest, their loving the chief seats in synagogues, (whereas, if teachers, their chief seat was known, and appropriate to them) their paying tithes (whereas, if priests tithes were payable to them) these qualities (I say) seem to import that they were not priests and teachers by office, that hearing of them, or attending their ministry as such, is enjoined hearing of and atteding their Ministry as such. 15. 4. Christ bids let them alone, which sounds like, own them not as teachers. He calls them blind leaders of the blind, nay he calls them the stranger whose voice the true sheep hear not, but rather the true shepherd Math. 15. 13, 14, Joh. 10. 4, 5. and such as shut up heaven against men, and hindered such as were entering; all which seem very inconsistent with a command of hearing them. 5 Christ spoke to the disciples as well as the people in this precept. Now its certain that neither the disciples did eyer hear them, nor could they leave his Ministry, nor is it found that Christ who came to fulfil all righteousness, taught them to do so, by his example. Finally the words of this precept have for their scope to engage to beware of the Pharisees infectious evils: so that this command to do & observe what they delivered as sitting in Moses seat, which they did then possess, is but by way of concession, which supposes only that which he intended shortly to abolish, and now would have improven for the best advantadge.  
2. Granting that they were to be heard, I deny his consequence, that therefore Curates in this our case are to be heard also; the cases are very different, and the disparity when cleared will discover his consequence to be naught, from the hearing of the Pharisees, to the hearing of Conformists. I offer it then in these particulars. 1. These Pharisees Ministry was not of itself actually exclusive of, and a direct intrusion upon the Ministry of faithful teachers. Suppose they had chased away all Israel's Lawful teachers, and by perjurious violence thrust themselves into their rooms, would our Lord have bidden own or hear them? If our Informer say so he will contradict himself, and overturn the scope of his reasoning in this dialogue, for he thniks that the ministry of Presbyterian ministers, is intrusion, and thereupon pleads for disowning and not hearing them. 2. He pleads for owning Curates as Christ's ambassadors clothed with his authority to deliver his message, but Christ doth here (at least for any thing he hath said from this text) only enjoin to hear the Pharisees interpretation and decision of that nations Municipal or civil Law, anent the rules of external righteousness and civil policy, which two are very different. 3. Christ having guarded the Law from their corrupt glosses, and the disciples from their snares, shows in this precept how to make the best advantage of that dispensation, now ready to vanish away, since he was shortly to erect a gospel ministry, and remove all that legal dispensation, and then none of them were to be heard: But this man pleads for disowning our faithful sent gospel ministers under a standing relation to this Church, and the obligation of Christ's standing command, and commission to officiat, and this in favours of intruding hirelings usurping their places, and opposing these faithful Ambassadors in their master's work and message. Now who sees not the difference betwixt these. 4. They were not in a stated opposition to a faithful body of teachers, acknowledged and owned by the sound Church of Israel and testifying against them, seeking to root them out, and together with them a reformation, to which all had recently vowed adherence. 5. There was no badge or Test of compliance w●…b all their abominations particularly appointed and enjoined by the Rulers, in this act of hearing them, as there is in our case in relation to the hearing of Curates, rendering (as I said) the not hearing them, and adherence rather to a faithful Ministry testifying against them, a case of confession, especially this difference will be apparent, if our National vows and Covenant, expressly obliging to adhere to these faithful ministers, in opposition to them and their course of backsliding, be duly pondered.  
Next, as for what he says of Simeon and Anna; Joseph and Mary, their attending the temple Worship at that time; as his argument there from is removed by what is said, so to clear this further, I add 1. That its wide reasoning from the godly their lawful concurrence with that Church (now under the rust of old corruptions) in what was good and sound, to our deserting a sound Church and ministry to comply with abjured corruptions, and Schismatic innovators, reintroduced after they have been cast out. 2. It's as wide reasoning, from their not separating from God's ancient Church upon the ground of corruptions, to conclude against noncompliance with a party who are not our Church (though they usurp her name) but are opposed and testified against, by our true Church and ministry. We in this case (as I have said) do not separat from the Church of Scotland, her Doctrine, Worship, or ministry, but only from Schismatic backsliders from the union & reformation of this Church. But in the case of these old saints & worthies, separation from the temple, would have imported an absolute separation from the ministry & Church of Israel. In a word, the utter impertinency of all his pleading in this argument, and from these instances, appears in this, that he supposes that its merely for Conformists personal faults we disowne ordinances administered by them, as if they were ther●… by polluted; which has no more truth in it, then that its merely for Presbyterian ministers personal faults as pulluting the worship, that he pleads for disowning them, but upon the grounds of the present case and circumstances, wherein they stand, he pleads for disowning Presbyterian ministers, and they more justly because of Conformists present case, plead for disowning them, as is said and cleared above.  
After this he citys Mr Durham on Revel. 3. inferring from what is said of the Angel of Sardis and Laodicea, that a minister as to his case unsound, may be owned and esteemed as such. But how impertinent this is to our purpose any may see, for their scandalous carriage in their walk is much more than unsoundness as to their case, which notwithstanding we acknowledge will not of itself, and primo instanti warrant separation from ordinances in every case. But we have cleared that we have much more to lay to the charge of Conformists, than either inward unsoundness, or outward scandals simply considered; even their corrupt Doctrine, their intrusion, their stated opposition to this Church her principles, union, and Reformation. As to what Mr Durham adds, and our Informer citys in relation to the ordinances their not suffering derogation in whatsoever hands they be anent a due ministerial respect to the Pharisees though their rottenness was discovered by our Lord: that Judas was to be received as an Ambassador with other Apostles— that God makes useful Instruments sometimes— and that edification doth not necessarily depend upon the holiness of the Instrument, Act. 3. 12. Matth. 7. 23. It's utterly remote from our purpose, as is clear from what is said, for neither can he prove that this practice is a separation properly such, nor doth that case of an Improvement of the pharisees teaching during that time of the legal dispensation, now shortly to be abolished, meet our purpose, nor the case of Judas hid abominations, correspond with that of avowed perjury and apostasy from the vows and Reformation of our Church. Nor is there here a supposed prior obligation of adherence to conformists' ministry, preponderating any objection as to their scandals. What can this man say, if we shall plead these reasons of Mr Durham, for adhering to Presbyterian ministers, viz. that ordinances ought not to be despised in whatever hands they be, that even the pharisees and Judas himself might be heard, and therefore much more Presbyterian ministers of this Church, that God can make even graceless men Instruments of good; that the efficacy of means depends not on the holiness of the instrument. Now will he admit a conclusion of owning Presbyterian Ministers from these principles; nay, he thinks that matters stand so with them because of their supposed Schism and disorder, that for as applicable as these things are to them, yet they ought not to be heard. And so by his own confession and pleading this will conclude nothing for him, until his above mentioned groundless suppositions be made good. Now let me retort of our Informers angry Query here, how can they Justify withdrawing people from Presbyterian Ministers, since not so bad as the scribes and Pharisees, if they have either knowledge or moderation. He must then of necessity grant, if he will not contradict himself, that all these grounds will not plead for hearing in some cases, & that the London Ministers assertion anent the validity of the Episcopal ordination for substance (repeated here again ad nauseam) falls utterly short of proving his conclusion. Those Ministers do assert, that the Presbyterian ordination is the more pure and conform to the scripture pattern, what will he then say to this conclusion, that upon this ground (and especially because Conformists themselves own the validity of Presbyterian Minister's ordination) they are inconsequent to themselves, as well as going cross to scripture and sound reason, in disowning the ministry of the Presbyterian ministers of this Church, and withdrawing people from hearing them. Let him pull out this beam from his own eye, and his answer shall easily serve for us.  
The Doubter alleges, that in Math. 23. [We are not bidden hear the scribes and Pharisees, and that the words will not bear that.] He answers that he forbids not to hear as we forbid to hear Conformists. Ans. 1. We have seen that there is more may be alleged from the Scripture as to a prohibition to be their ordinary and constant hearers at least, (which he pleads for as to Conformists) than he can allege as to a command of hearing. 2. That the tolerance or allowance of a hearing of them during that shortly to be abolished legal dispensation, is far from coming up to his conclusion of owning curates in this our case. 〈◊〉. He answers, that Mr Durham speaks of a ministerial respect due to these Pharisees, and that without hearing, this ministerial respect is Lame. Ans. Mr durham's reason anent a Ministerial respect is in relation to the Improvement of their teaching, & tho granted in the greatest latitude he can imagine, will not infer his conclusion of owning Curates in this case as is already cleared. Admitting that a due Ministerial respect, will infer hearing in Mr durham's sense and instance, yet in our case, (which I told him Mr durham's assertion will not speak unto) acknowledgement of a man to be a Minister, and capable of a Ministerial respect in so far, will not bear this conclusion, else the Informer hath in a clap devoured and eaten in again all this Dialogue in pleading against this Ministerial respect in hearing Presbyterian Ministers, whose Ministerial authority he acknowledges. 2ly, He answers, that our Lord enjoins obedience to that which they bid do, and that as sitting in Moses chair— and how could that be except the people heard them teach from Moses chair— he that bids obey a Ministers injunctions from the word of God, consequently bids hear him deliver his doctrine from the word. Ans. We told him that for any thing that he, or any of his fellow pleaders, have yet offered from this text, these Pharisees might be civil national doctors and interpreters of Moses judicial Law, and of 〈◊〉 municipal Law, from his civil chair, who was King in jesurun, which will no more infer a hearing them teach and preach as Church officers, than our obedience to the King, Council, parliament and Session, will infer that conclusion. 2. His parallels as to the command of obeying a Minister's doctrine from the word its inferring an injunction of hearing him deliver these doctrines from the word, is (in this case and question) pitiful sophistry and begging of the question, in supposing that these anent whom this injunction was given, were Ecclesiastic Ministers, which he hath not yet proved. 2. That teaching from Moses chair, is in this case equivalent to Ministerial gospel teaching and preaching from the word of God, which he has not proved either, since (as I said) God's word contained the Jews municipal Law, which civil Judges might in that capacity deliver and interpret, in relation to external righteousness betwixt man and man in things of this life. Finally, granting they were to be heard teach and expone, which he hath not yet made good from the text, it will nothing help his cause for the reasons often given: so that the separation which he improves this place against, being his groundless supposition alleged but not proven by him, and by us disproved by what is said above, and likewise the application of this hearing the Pharisees to our hearing Curates, being his bare petitio principii, his assertion after subjoined viz. that this passage will stand against us to our conviction as against the separatists in Queen Elizabeth's time; is but a piece of his ignorant arrogant confidence; there being a vast difference betwixt our case, and that of those separatists at that time, as shall hereafter appear. And beside, Presbyterian Ministers of this Church have much more to say from this text, for their people's adhering to them, than prelatists can plead.  
The Doubter next alleadges, [that many Episcopal men have entered upon honest men's Labours, and therefore aught to be disowned as intruders.] He answers 1. That all are not such, that some Conformists have keep●… their places they bade before the change, others have entered in to the labours of those that are dead and transported elsewhere. Ans. Our Informer doth miserably pinch and narrow a sinful intrusion by this description; which himself must acknowledge. For should a Presbyterian Minister step into his own Church upon the death or transportation of one of the Curates, who will question that this man will call it an intrusion according to his principles anent the prelatic Church, and so he must acknowledge that notwithstanding what he here pleads, the Curate's entry is intrusion according to our principles; beside that the Ministry of those who have conformed, and were Presbyterially ordained, being an express owning of the principles▪ practices and design, of this prelatic schismatic destroying party, and by their acceptance of collation and presentation, and concurring in the Prelates pretended Judicatories, a ministry completely of the prelatic mould, its reductive, if not formaliter, an intrusion; or partaking with the general intrusion and usurpation upon the pure reformed Ministry and Church of Scotland, even as a state officer or Magistrate his taking his office from Invaders, while an army is in the fields against them, doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invader in the exercise thereof, though it be materially the same office and employment which he had before. Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commission from an usurping General, and other usurping superior officers, who are dissolving and betraying the true army, expelling the true General and officers contrary to their first commission, doth partake in that usurpation. Considering the Church of Scotland as it stood established in doctrine, discipline, worship, and government, and her National and solemn vows, surely this course of Conformity is a most gross intrusion upon her, without so much as a shadow of consent; and so is all partaking therein by consequence, which no Conformist can acquit himself of; and therefore according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation, cannot be looked upon as any of our true Church her Sons and Ministers.  
But here our Informer poseth us with some great queries forsooth 1. Whether Conformists were active in utting Presbyterian ministers, or came in before they were out, and their places declared vacant. Ans. Whoever is active or passive in outting them, one thing is sure, they are violently thrust out contrary to the word of God, and the rules, order, and Reformation of this Church. So that come in who will, they are Intruders. 1. Because they have come in upon a charge to which faithful Ministers of this Church have Christ's Keys and commission. 2. Because come in and obtruded by those who are ingrained usurpers, thiefs and Robbers; I mean perfidious Prelates (often abjured and cast out of this Church with detestation) and not in the order of this Church, Nor by her door. A poor man is by a number of Robbers dispossessed of his house, they put in a seeming neutral, to keep house for them; the poor owner seeks his possession, & complains of this usurpation, O saith the new tenant and Robbers depute, I am no Intruder, I have a good right, I put you not out, but found your house empty. Now let the Informer use a little honest application and answer his weighty Query. 2. He asks, why will those dispossessed ministers suffer the people to starve, because they have slept out of their charges. Ans. The people are starved & poisoned too by those that come in; & these Ministers are concerned upon their faith to the great shepherd, to endeavour what they can to save his lambs from the wolves, and give faithful Ministerial warning of their flocks hazard. Next, he tells us, though a minister be transported against his will, yet the people should submit to his successor. True, when for the Churches greater good, he is transported to another watchtower by her faithful guides, and true Church Judicatories, but not when the true pastor is chased away by usurping perjured Prelates; and an intruding hireling brought in as their vicar. It's this man's perted self (to use his own phrase here) that blurs his eyes to draw a similitudinar argument from such an absimilar instance. One thing he did well to add as a proviso, viz the successors coming in upon an orderly or fair call. And doth this man think that Conformists have this orderly call according to the Reformation and doctrine of this Church? Nay, is he not disputing against this call, and so if this be a necessary condition of a Ministers Lawful succession, the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconsistency near of kin to a contradiction. As for what he adds of the necessity of a Ministry, and making the best of what we cannot help in our superiors, we say, that were the Rulers using their power for giving one Lawful pastor for another, and in the method of this Church, and according to the scripture pattern, by Lawful Church Indicatories, these reasons would say something; but when they have overturned the Reformation of a Church, and contrary to that Church's vows and their own, are obtruding abjured prelates, and a number of profane hirelings as their deputes, to exclude and ruin a faithful Ministry, his reasons in this case are naught, and speak nothing to the point. As for what he adds afterward of Ministers, in the year 1648 ejected for asserting their duty to the King, and their submitting while others were put into their charges. I Answer, he will never while he breathes be able to prove, that they were deposed for asserting their duty to the King, and not rather for promoting an ungodly course tending to the King's ruin, and the ruin of our Reformation, and for other pieces of their scandalous miscarriages, by the true Lawful Judicatories of this Church. So that upon both grounds, the flocks were concerned to submit to such faithful pastors, as were set over them in the way and method of this Church, and according to the scripture pattern.  
His last answer to this argument of his Doubter anent Conformists Intrusion is, that Presbyterian Minister's intrusion, is from parish to parish over the Labours of all the Ministers of Scotland, whereas Conformists intrusion (if it be so) is but over one parish. Ans. We told him before, that Presbyterian Ministers, notwithstanding the prelates violence and usurpation, are Ministers of this Church of Scotland continuing still in that relation to her; So that the present presecution and violence, as well as backsliding of the Prelatic schismatics and Innovators, warrants their more enlarged officiating by the same grounds, upon which the persecute officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where pre●…ching the gospel, and on the same ground that Ministers enlarged officiating in the time of our Reformation, was warranted; to which this case of defection is parallel and correspondent. So that their ministerial obligation, and the many scripture commands as to diligence in their testimony, Being by the present state of our Church extended to their officiating in this manner, their Ministry is no Intrusion, but the Lawful exercise of their office, received from the great shephered, nor is it upon the flocks who are under a tie and relation to the present Incumbents as their pastors, but toward poor starved flocks committed to wolves, who destroy but feed not; and the Curate's pretended Ministry being neither of Christ, nor for him, is still an usurpation though over the smallest flock; so that his Instance of the pirates word to Alexander, and citation of the Apostle's caveat Rome 2. 21. is extra ole●… and reaches himself a rebounding stroke. For who (I pray) have usurped the name and authority of this Church, and endeavoured to have it completely moulded in their way, and to extirpate all faithful Ministers and professors within the Nation, is it not 14 usurping Prelates and their underlings, this is a robbery indeed, and with a witness.  
Now follows another argument of his Doubter [that Episcopal Ministers are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy, and therefore cannot be heard without breach of the Oath.] In what respects the owning of Conformists, especially as that practice is now circumstantiat, is a breach of Covenant, we have cleared above, and need not again repeat it. He answers. 1. That Ministers are not mentioned in that article. But if they depend upon that Ecclesiastical hierarchy as Church Officers, why are they not mentioned. Next, it's enough for our purpose, that the owning of their Ministry as depending upon prelates, is in this our case abjured. 2. He tellsus, that dependence on that hierarchy doth suppose, and is to be understood of a hierarchy, made up of all the officers enumerate in that Article, as the English Presbyterians sense it, which hierarchy we have not in Scotland. This conceit I have already confuted, and proved that beside this Article, we are by the first bound to preserve the established Reformation and Government of this Church, and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath, in the pursuing of its ends; and not to suffer ourselves to be withdrawn from this Reformation, and our union therein by terror or persuasion, is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article, which doth abundantly (as we have said,) reach the disowning of Conformists.  
In the next place he tells us, that to bind ourselves to disowne Ministers depending upon Bishops, is to bind our selves to sin. I Answer whatever may be said of such an engadgement simpliciter and absolutely considered, yet certainly to engage ourselves against the reintroduction of Prelacy into a pure Church reform from it, and against all dependers upon, and promoters of that Interest in such a Church, in the capacity of Church officers, and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it, is both a lawful and necessary engadgment, necessarily flowing from & dependent upon the abjuration of prelacy itself. That Ministers though faulty may be heard, will (as we have oft demonstrate) nothing help his conclusion. Since he can not deny that their faultiness in some cases may bar their being heard, as he supposes Presbyterian Ministers faults puts a Lawful stop in the way of people's hearing them. Then he tells us, that he hath shown episcopacy to be a Lawful government which none might Lawfully adjure, for this we refer the Reader to what is answered on the first Dialogue where we have proven the contrary, and that it is a government contrary to the word of God, which therefore we were obliged to abjure.  
Lastly he tells us, that by this exposition of the 2. Article we were bound not to own Ministers who were in office at the taking of the Covenant, but to extirpate them since they depended upon Bishops as to their ordination still, even after they had taken the Covenant, unless they renounced their ordination received from Bishops, and had been ordained a new by mere Presbyters, which they thought themselves not bound to do by the Covenant, or they were Ministers without a true ordination all that time, and then all their Ministerial Acts were null since they proceeded from that ordination. And yet (he says) we never serupled to hear such Ministers notwithstanding of this dependence upon Bishops in part, if they disowne Bishops for the future. Ans. What a silly knack is it which all this tattle is founded upon, viz. Ministers who received ane ordination from Bishops, or Bishops with Presbyters, in a Church upon which they had usurped, are still to be looked upon as Ministers depending upon Bishops, even after Prelacy is abolished, and Presbyterian Government established in that Church. So poor a notion that I am sure the least reflection may discover its vanity, ordination being God's ordinance and appointment, and the Bishop qua Presbyter being vested with a power in it, ordination by the Bishop with Presbyters (though maimed in respect of the Bishop's arrogated power, which is a corruption adhering to it) cannot by any good consequence be said to depend in its esse or nature upon the Prelate, and far less in operari or esse after that corruption is removed and abjured, and Presbyterian Government set up. Doth a soldier or Officers commission or Military power slow still from a Colonel after he is disbanded? Nay this is too gross inadvertency. Were Zuinglius, Luther, and other of our Reformers dependants upon the papacy or popish Prelates after their cleaving to, and embracing the Reformation? Do not all our divines distinguish the essentials of their ordination from these corruptions adhering to it, and assert that they had a Ministry Lawful for substance, and an ordination to their Ministry, though coming to them through that impure channel. This man Justifies the Pope's plea, where is your Ministry (saith he and the Romanists) you have no Ministry but what you have from us? do not our Divines tell them that the Ministry and ordination itself being God's institution, we have them from the Lord, now restored and recovered from their corruptions, and are not dependers upon them for our Ministry? did all our Reformers Ministerial acts flow from the pope or papal ordination as such? Let our Informer take heed of this praemunire, for this dangerous error which he hath fallen into, will expose him to the severe censure of all protestant Churches. 2ly, Hence Ministers who were ordained by Prelates with Presbyters concurring, were no more bound (yea less bound) to renounce their ordination simply, then Zuinglius or Luther were obliged to renounce theirs; especially since their ordination was in a protestant Church, and under Prelates owning the protestant profession (which our Informers charity will no doubt esteem a considerable difference) and their not renouncing it simpliciter will no more make them still dependent upon the Prelates as to their Ministry, when prelates are removed, then Zuinglius and Luther were dependent upon the Pope as to their ordination, and the acts flowing therefrom, after their separation from the Church of Rome, or infer that they did owe their baptism to the Pope, or the ordination of the popish priest who baptised them, and were concerned to be rebaptised. So that the popish cause and interest is much obliged to our Informer, if his plead for our prelacy will hold good; and it is no bad omen that both interests are thus embarked together in this man and his fellows reasonings for them, and must stand and fall together, which fortifies our hope and confidence, that as the first hath begun to fall, so the other shall gradually decay, whither, and fall with it.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Informers answer to the Doubters argument anent separation from a corrupt Church, and the retorted charge of schism upon Conformists, examined.  
OUr Doubt-Resolver will seem ingenuous in offering an answer to some chief objections against the owning of Conformists, and therefore puts into the mouth of his personat Doubter, some more arguments, in such a mould as he supposes is for his best advantadge, which I shall now consider, and deal faithfully with him and his supposed Doubter, in presenting these arguments, (which he hath disguised) in their genuine strength, and shall examine his answers, which when weighed in the scripture balances and according to the true state of this question will no doubt be found as empty and insignificant as any of the preceding.  
The Doubter hath another argument [that we are warranted by the word to separat from a corrupt Church.] This objection he curtly and advantageously propones, making his Doubter suppose 1. a confessed separation in this practice, from a Church to which we are bound to adhere, which this new advocate has not as yet made good. 2. That any corruptions generally, or such as may denominate a Church in some measure corrupt, will warrant a separation, which is a principle we do not own. We acknowledge a Church may be joined with Lawfully wherein there are great corruptions, and this with Mr Durham and others on that subject. But as to corruptions, we say, if the controverted joining be in that which is clear and necessary duty in the present circumstances, there can be in this joining no stain, but in so far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex case, cannot be performed without a direct compliance with, or slain of these corruptions, than a proportioned separation is needful in so far as suitable to that exigence; and yet even in this case we assert that other duties in the fellowship with that same Church may be owned: and that fellowship is not entirely to be broken off (upon the preceding ground) in these things wherein there is no such hazard. But now what says he to this argument, 1. He tells us, we are mistaken if we think the Bishops a corruption, and that this will not be granted. Ans. I hope I have made it evident that they are a corruption, and therefore to be disowned. The 2 answer is, that its a mistake to think that for corruptions, and even great corruptions, a Church is to be separate from. Then he tells us, of the corrupted of the Church of Galatia; that in the Church of Corinth an article of the creed was denied, that there were great faults in the Asian Churches Rev. 2. 3. and of the great corruptions that were in the Church of Israel, as is evident in the books of the Kings and Prophets, yet the people of God were not commanded to separat as long as the substance of the worship was not corrupted, as it was by jeroboams calves. Ans. 1. What if Presbyterians shall borrow this argument from him, and from these instances of not separating from a Church, notwithstanding of great corruptions, shall plead for all professors in Scotland their adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and this Presbyterian Church, as having a worship not substantially corrupted, whatever other personal faults, or corruptions they may be liable unto, that yet they are a true Church as to the main, and that therefore they ought to be joined with, as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia (wherein there were great corruptions) were still adhered to by professors. What will he say in this case? I know he will say that its ridiculous for such a party of Schismatics to call ourselves the Church of Scotland. But what if we return this answer to him again, that according to the Reformation and principles of our Church (out of which Prelates were ejected, vows against them universally taken on, and Presbyterial government completely settled therein) Its ridiculous to call a party of Prelates and their adherents the Church of Scotland, or for them to usurp her name, who have thus overturned her Reformation. So that until he make good the above mentioned hypothese: or suppositions, viz. that Conformists are the true organic Church of Scotland, that this our practice is a separation properly such; that its merely because of Conformists personal faults that we withdraw; that we are under prior obligations to adhere unto Curates with all their corruptions rather than our Presbyterian Ministry and Church, which is both free of them and contending against them; until these and such like suppositions be made good, his argument from the preceding scripture jostances as to joining with a Church that hath corruptions, is a meet petitio principii, and will not help his cause in the least. Which will be further evident if we consider in the 2d place, that the case of these Churches and professors therein was far from ours in relation to corruptions. For  
1. The Doctrinal corruptions of Galatia as to the legal Ceremonies, (by the bad influence of judaizing teachers) though they were of a large, yet the Informer will not prove they were either of such an universal spread and tincture, or strengthened by such an universal acknowledgement, as to make the state of that Church correspond with his hypothesis in this argument. 2. That error in the Church of Corinth in relation to the resurrection, appears not to have been owned by their teachers and Church officers, far less publicly avowed and obstinately and presumptuously maintaired by them or any considerable number of hearers, which makes their case wide from ours, wherein so many preachers who call themselves Pastors of this Church, & many others, obstinately and avowedly maintain our abjured corruptions; the Church of Corinth was in capacity to censure any handful that owned this error, & to purge out this leaven, but so is not our Church in this case as to the mantainers of Prelacy and its other corruptions, so that there is here no remedy but for the sound part to keep themselves pure from their contagious and destroying course. The account of both these Churches in the point of corruptions, which is exhibit by Pareus in his Comment. ●…n the 1 Cor. is considerable to this purpose, upon the 12. verse of the 15. chap. he tells us that the Apostle accuseth not them all, but some only, freeing the rest of this crime. Neque enim accusat omnes sed quosdam inter eos. Reliquos igitur a culpa li●…erat. Neque enim paucorum culp▪ omnibus est imputanda. Thereafter he shows that some do judge that this was Hymen●…us and Philetus, others, some of the Jewishes Saducees or Heathen Philosophers who had instilled this poison about the resurrection. And a little after answering Bellarmine's cavil, [that because of these Churches their corruption in doctrine, therefore pure doctrine is not the mark of a Church] as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were without the faith of the resurrection, and sound faith as to justification. He answers by denying this assertion. Neque enim (saith he) tota Ecclesia Corinthiorum negabat resurrectionis fidem: sed aliqui tantum, quos redarguebant alij. Idem de Galatarum Ecclesia sentiendum: qui nec omnes, nec tam 〈◊〉 errabant in fundamento, nutabant saltem, utrum fides Christi ad salutem sufficeret— dicit enim ibidem, ut & Corinthijs: modicum fermenti fermentat totam mass●…m. Ergo fermentum, non erat omnium sed aliquorum tantum: a quibus tamen omnibus imminebat periculum, quod Apostolus tentat ab eis avertere. That is, this whole Church of Corinth denied not the resurrection, but some only who were opposed by others, the same we must judge of the Church of Galatia, who did neither all, nor so hainonsly err in the foundation, but by the persuasion of false Apostles were hesitating, whether the faith of Christ was sufficient to salvation, or if the circumcision was also needful, for he says in that same place as also to the Corinthians, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Therefore this leaven was not of them all but of some only, by whom notwithstanding all were in hazard, which the Apostle endeavours to prevent. The Dutch annot upon the same place [How say some among you etc.] observe that this error was not common of the whóle Church, but of some only whose names are not expressed, as 2 Tim. 2. 17. that by shaming them he might not fright them from conversion. And upon Gal. 5. 9 they show that this little leaven spoken of, may be either understood of the false doctrine itself, or the men who promoted this doctrine, who although they were few yet did much hurt,— and therefore were to be eshewed. Now, how disproportioned for extent and infection, these corruptions were unto these of our Church about which our debate is, is obvious to the meanest reflection, and consequently the Lameness of our Informers similitudinary argument from the one to the other. Which will be yet further evident, if we consider. That  
3. He cannot make appear, that in any of these Churches there was a formal legal judicial enacting authorising and commanding of these corruptions, and endeavours used, to exclude and root out all who would not submit to them, by Barbarous violence and persecution, particularly faithful Ministers for testifying against the same. Nor can he prove that adherence to these erroneous corrupters in their Worship, was appointed and enjoined as an express Test and badge of owning their errors, and renouncing the truth, and all the sound party adhering thereto, which is so casting a difference, that it quite invalidats these Instances as to any argument against our practice, for this destroying backsliding Innovating party of this Church have laid down courses either to engage to a formal owning of their corruptions, especially the faithful Ministry of this land, or else to exterminat and root them out & all sound professors together with their Testimony.  
In a word whatever concurence in duty these corruptions he mentions may be consistent with, it is certain that the sound professors were called to keep themselves free of the contagion thereof by all means, and the Church was to use all endeavours to purge out and rid herself of these corruptions and corrupters too if obstinate, Paul wished they were cut off who troubled the Churches of Galatia, that is censured and laid aside as rotten members who were in hazard to grangrene the whole body. The Officers of the Church of Corinth are commanded to purge out the old leaven, since a little would quickly leavent the whole lump. And the Apostle reprehends them for not casting out the Incestuous man, & enjoins the sound professors in that Church to come out from among the unclean and be separate, as they expect to be received of God. And our Lord reprehends the Church of Pergamus for not casting out them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, and the Nicolaitans— and the Church of Thyatira for suffering Jezabel to seduce and infect with scandalous errors and practices the Lords servants. Now the scope of these precepts will say, that when the case is so circumstantiat, that the Church and sound part can have no access for removing and censuring destroying corrupters, especially while by violence endeavouring (after they have departed from a pure Church her sworn Reformation and constitution) to force all to a concurrence with them, or exterminat the impolluted remnant, that this sound Church (I say) are to keep themselves free of their contagion, to follow their duty in opposition to them, and mutually to strengthen one another therein; which is enough to Justify our practice in this case. In like manner, the many commands of the Prophets to abstain from the pollutions of the time, and threatenings for accession thereto, will by proportion infer this our practice mentioned, and that when a case is such that no concurrence can be had with Innovators in their worship without the stain of their sin, and when they are persecuting all that will not concur with them, a non-union and forbearance is most necessary. Had any corrupting treacherous Prophets or others of the Church of Israel in concurrence with persecuting Rulers, enacted universal compliance with some gross corruptions, and ejected all the faithful non complying teacher's priests or prophets, admitting none to officiat except these corruptions had been formally acknowledged, Let any say what would have been the faithful prophet's decision in this case, and whether upon the same ground on which they so oft dehort from the least compliance with any sin, they would not have allowed and commanded the faithful prophets and members of that Church to oppose them, and cleave unto their respective duties, and unto one another in the following thereof. As for what he adds, that there was then no command to separat from the worship while it was not substantially corrupted. I wonder if he will charge a corruption of the worship itself, or in the substance thereof upon the duties now owned and performed by Presbyterian Ministers and professors, from whom he notwithstanding thinks its duty to separat, so that until he prove (as I said) Conformists their better claim to officiat as Ministers of this Church, then Presbyterian Ministers, this argument lights heavy on himself, and the censures put upon Novatians and Donatists falls upon their dividing and destroying party. The case of these Schismatics being as far from ours as east from west; were Novatians or Donatists first cast out by a violent backsliding party for not concurring in a course of backsliding, in overturning a Churches sworn reformation, and were they enjoined & commanded, to own the course of these backsliders? I think the Donatists & Novatians their violence against adherers to the union of the true Church, is a fit emblem of the present practice of Conformists, how can this Man say, that there were then greater corruptions them now. Can there be greater corruptions in government then a papacy of the highest degree, as is their premacy and hierarchy? can there be greater corruptions in practice, than perjury and such gross profanity as Conformists are blotted with for the most part? greater corruption in principles, then Popish Arminian errors etc.  
The Doubter objects, [that if we may not separat from a corrupt Church, what mean these scripture commands enjoining separation, such as 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 5. 11 2 Thes 3. 6 Rev. 18. 3] We have already said that he deals deceitfully in making his Presbyterian Doubter assert that we may separat from a corrupt Church in every case, but this we say, that in whatever case, and in how far soever; we cannot join with a corrupt Church without the contagion and stain of its corruptions, in so far and in that case, a separation is necessary, and falls within the compass of these scripture commands. And that in this our case, the demanded conformity as to Presbyterian Ministers and professors cannot be yielded, without the stain of prelatists their sin, is above cleared. So that he needs not tell us here, that every corruption is not a sufficient ground of separation. For we have heard our Informer acknowledge that a Church may be in that degree corrupted, as will render a separation warrantable; yea and necessary. I could wish he had condescended upon that degree of corruption, and shown us here the maximum quod sic, & minimum quod non, as to the ground of this separation, and how far these corruptions may strike at a Churches vitals, and yet her life and essence as a Church subsist. And here I would close in a little with this Man, and inquire, that since a Church's corruptions will (with him) in some cases render a separation necessary, upon what ground is it necessary, and from what prior principle is this concluded? sure it must be upon this ground, left union with that Church blot the soul, and make us share in her sin. So that in this case, we are not obliged to hold union and fellowship with her when it is infectious, as is most clearly imported in that command 2 Cor. 6. and if separation be upon this ground allowed, whether the corruption be lesser or greater, eatenus or in so far, we are obliged to separat, for Majus & minus non variant speciem rei. Next, I infer that a non-union to a corrupt party who cannot be called the Church, or at lest whose being the Church is magnalis & sub judice, will be a fortiori warranted, and upon lesser grounds than separation which supposes an anterior obligation of union, and actual union out of this case, and abstracting from it.  
But for these scriptures mentioned, he says they will not prove our point, and to that of 2 Cor 6. 14. he answers, that our Lord is speaking of separating from ungodly fellowship with Idolaters, not of withdrawing from christian assemblies. But doth he not enjoin that separation because of the hazard of Infection by their sin, and why not also from christian assemblies where there is the same hazard of this Infection? did he not acknowledge that the case of a Church or christian Assembly may be such, as will render even a separation necessary. Now if in this case the tender separater should plead this text, and that corrupt Church or assembly of Christians give our Informers answer, viz. that it pleads only for separating from fellowship with Idolaters, not of withdrawing from christian Assemblies, how will he extricat himself, and reconcile this answer with his concession. But for these texts 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 6. he says, they are meant only of needless fellowship in private converse with scandalous persons, but allows not to withdraw from the public worship because of the presence of such scandalous ones, as if this did pollute the worship, though it may be the fault of Church guides not to keep them back. Ans. The ground here is the same (and acknowledged by him) whatever be the withdrawing which is more immediately enjoined, viz. lest their fellowship prove contagious, scandalous or in any measure sinful, & so if fellowship with a Church in her Assemblies be thus infectious, these scriptures do enjoin a separation upon the same ground; and by necessary consequence from what he hath acknowleged: And therefore this answer is nothing to the purpose, unless he will retract his concession, that there may be corruptions in a Church and her assemblies, which will render a separation necessary. Next, as for what he adds, that ordinances are not polluted by the presence of scandalous ones. It is not for him, nor against us; since he acknowledges, there may be a Lawful yea necessary separation from a Church & her assemblies in worship, though not upon this ground of the ordinances their pollution by the presence of scandalous ones: because of the reason which we have already heard; and we do also upon other grounds than this of a pretended pollution of the ordinances by their scandals, maintain our disowning Conformists in their worship to be a duty (as we have heard) even that they are forcing all to a sinful compliance with them, in a schismatic departing from the unity of this Church and perjurious overturning the work of reformation, and will neither suffer Ministers nor professors to join with them in worship, but with an express aknowledgement (in the intent of our Laws) and owning of this defection. Sure we are commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly, (which our Informer pleads as a sufficient ground to disowne Presbyterian Ministers & withdraw from them because of their supposed disorder and schism, though the ordinances in their hands are not polluted with their supposed guilt,) and from all fellowship with scandalous brethren, which is contagious and may pollute us, Now, are not they walking disorderly & cross to the doctrine, discipline, & Reformation of this Church? are they not consequently schismatics? are not their scandals infectious, when they will suffer no Ministers to possess their charges, or officiat either with, or without them, or people to enjoy ordinances among them, without direct owning their defection, and overturning our Reformation, and a professed submission to their abjured prelacy, as is clear in the acts enjoining Ministers preaching, and people's hearing in conformity to prelacy and the supremacy.  
For that of Rev. 18. he says, that it enjoineth a separation from Rome's corrupt doctrine and Idolatrous worship, but warrants not a separation from a Church where no such corruption is. I answer, The ground of the command is the danger of Infection by Rome's sins, as is expressed in the text, which will consequently hold wherever this danger is, whatever be the the particular sins from whence this danger flows, for (as I said) majus & minus non variant speciem and we may add, that other Known rule, a quatenus ad omne valet sequela. In whatever case an union is unwarrantable and infectious, a proportioned separation is upon this ground enjoined. Nay, if the conjunction have but mali speciem or be inductive to sin only, the command of eshewing, every appearance of evil, will reach this withdrawing, unless the conjunction be on other grounds an indispensible duty. Now our Covenant obligations, and our Reformation as itstood established being duly pondered, it will be clear that Conformists be schismatics and destroying Innovators, and there is no prior obligation to join with them, but rather to disowne them in this course. Sure this man holds that fellowship with Presbyterian Ministers in their assemblies for worship is contagious, and that people are obliged to leave, and come out from them, though he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor corrupt doctrine to their charge, and so he must acknowledge, that this and such like commands will warrant a separation upon the general ground here intimat, abstracting from that special case of Rome's Idolatrous worship and corrupt doctrine. It's very sophistical reasoning from the denial of the special ground and nature of Rome's contagion, from which christians are called to separat, to deny a separation upon any other contagion to fall within the compass of that precept, which is to reason from the denial of the species to the denial of the genus.  
His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of separation upon himself, and alleges [that we have better ground to charge Conformists with schism because of their departing from the government of this Church, to which we are still adhering, so that they have gone out from us, not we from them.] We proved this charge already from the constitution and Reformation of this Church as it stood established, and our universal vows of adherence thereunto, so that such as have overturned this work of Reformation, (not Presbyterian government only) they are properly the first dividers and deserters.  
But let us hear how he acquits himself of this charge. 1. He says that their submission to prelacy is in obedience to the commands of superiors, whom we are bound to obey in things not sinful, So that their obedience is duty, and Presbyterians their non submission is disobedience to authority, and Schism from the Church. But 1. His Doubter alleging that Presbyterial Government is the Government of this Church, and inferring thereupon that departing from it is Schism, and that Prelatists have gone out from Presbyterians, not they from them, which is a very clear consequence, and will clearly infer the departers to be Schismatics upon any description of Schism which he can assign; And moreover, this being the great ground upon which this man and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Schism, viz. That they are separat from the present Prelatic constitution, since he offers no formal answer either to the antecedent or consequent of his Doubters argument, what will the interposed command of Rulers signify to alter the Nature of Schism, or to make that practice which is Hactenus upon Scripture grounds Schismatical, to be no Schism. This I must say is strange divinity, but like enough to that of these men who make the Magistrate a Pope over the Church, her ordinances, and over sacred Oaths and vows. 2. We have proved that their submission and obedience in this point, is a high rebellion against God, in disowning at men's arbitrary command, the Government of his house appointed in his word, and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it, and against which all the nations were engaged. So that our practice is obedience to God, and a keeping of the union of Christ's body, and theirs is both perjury and Schism.  
He tells us, that he hath proved in the first conference Episcopacy to be the only Government left by Christ, and practised by his Apostles: So that our disowning it is Schism from the Scripture Church Government, and that of the primitive Church, as well as from them. To this I only say, that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for, appear to be a stranger both to Scripture and antiquity. Again he tells us, that in this charge of Schism, he means it not only or mainly in respect of Government, but of separating from their Assemblies for Worship, which is Schism though the Government were wrong. I answer 1. If he acknowledges that separating from the Government is Schism, why answers he not our countercharge, that their party did first separat from the Government of this Church, and that therefore the Schism lies first and principally at their door; for that which he says of the Magistats command, is (as we have heard) utterly insignificant to wipe of this charge. 2. This charge of the first Schism on his part standing good, for any thing he hath said, that which he here adds of our being Schismatics, because of our separation from their Assemblies for Worship, is like wise naught. For upon this ground of his Doubter, which he cannot disprove, viz. That they have made the first breach and separation, they are Hactenus Schismatics, and so are to be disowned in their worship upon that very account and ground, upon which he pleads for disowning Presbyterians Assemblies for Worship though he can lay nothing else to their charge, or allege any substantial corruption of the worship. And so the recocted cram which he here presents to us again anent the Scribes and Pharisees, Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worship, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary their not separating there from etc. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian Assemblies for Worship (and much more) then for him. Since he dare not say that they are more corrupted than the Church of the jews was at that time, and so we may echo back his alas how will you justify this separation of yours, with an enquiry how he and his party will justify their separation from the true Ministry of the Church of Scotland? What if a party of corrupt Priests and Levites had risen up and pursued a course of defection, tending to raze and ruin all God's ordinances, casting out all such Priests and Levites as would not concur with them, and had appointed an acknowledgement of and concurrence with their wicked defection, to be the only condition upon which they will admit either priests or people to share in the ordinances? In the mean time a great body of Priests and people adhering to God's ordinances, and contending against them, had been keeping their possession of the temple Worship as long as they could? I dare refer to our Informer to give judgement in this case and show, what Simeon and Anna, Joseph and Mary would have done, and to which of the parties they would have adhered? And let our cause be judged by this.  
His Doubter in the next place objects [that Conformists lecture not, & therefore may not be heard.] Here he but trifles to insinuat that this is solely looked upon by us as a ground of not owning them. But in so far as in this our case it's a piece of their apostasy from our established reformed Worrhip, and an express badge of conformity to prelacy, and in both these respects, flat perjury and breach of Covenant, we look upon it as having its own influence with other grounds to warrant a non-union to them while standing in a stated opposition to faithful Ministers maintaining, this with other pieces of our Reformation. To this objection our Informer answers, 1. That some Conformists lectured, and ye●… were separat from. And so might all of them be upon the forementioned grounds thus disowned and separate from, Although they had kept a form of this, but I believe they are for signs and wonders among them who keep the lecture, or own it at all. Next he tells us, of the ancient reading of the Scripture in the Jewish Church, and of Moses and the prophets in the Synagogues, Acts 13. 15, 27. and 15. 21. and likewise in the Christian Church. But what then? who denies this, why, they have (he tells us) the Scriptures publicly read in their Churches. But I trow the reading is the better of expounding, and he might have found, that the Levites (Neh. 8. 8.) read the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people understand the reading; And he dare not say that the ancient public reading of Scriptures among the Jews was by God's appointment a dumb reading without exposition. Why gave God prophets and teachers unto his Church if not for this end? and faith comes mainly by hearing the Word preached. Why then grew his reverend Fathers and their conforming Sons, so angry with this Churches laudable practice of giving the sense together with the reading (comprobat by that ancient Practice of the Jewish Church, which he pretends) since otherwise the Text read ane 100 times is still like a kernel under a hard shell. Nay but he says, if we separat upon this ground we would have separate from the Church in all ages. Sure not from that Church where the law was exponed and its sense given, as well as read, beside that our non-union to our prelatic Innovators, (or withdrawing too if he please) hath this as an appendix with other grounds, that Conformists in withholding our former lecture or expository reading from the people, and substituting a bare reading in its place, discover themselves to be teachers who are keeping close and not opening the seals of God's book, & are afraid that their hearers should learn too fast.  
In the 3d place, he tells us a tedious story, anent the disuse of our first authorized method of Lecturing, which was at first only to read one chapter in the old testament and another of the New with brief explication of occurring difficulties, but that thereafter we held with one chapter, then with a part of one, and raised observations— making it a short sermon, so that its all one to separat for this, as to separat for shorter sermons, which are, caeteris paribus, thought better than a long. Then he tells us further (to cloak this their laziness) that variety of purposes are hardly retained, and procures a wearying, and that one thing puts out another etc. But what fruitless talk is all this? If our Church's appointment was of this nature at first to open up difficulties upon the reading, did she therefore intent to cut off the exercise of that gift anent practical observations, which is found in experience so eminently edifying as himself acknowledges in the next page, and the method of preaching abroad, to which method we are beholden for some excellent commentaries upon the Scripture, which would probably have been by this time Entire through the whole bible according to the design and mould projected by the Reverend brethren and Ministers of this Church, If our Prelates lazy reading tribe, had not invaded the pulpits of the Lords faithful labourers. Again, suppose there was as to this method some deviation from the first appointment, yet since our Church gave a tacit approbation & universally used it, his censure is too critical & saucy; beside, to plead from the variation in the practice to a total disuse, is dull reasoning; and whatever the lecture was at first this is certain, that this universal practice and eminently edifying piece of public duty, owned by our Church, was presently disused and discharged by prelates, and its disuse became one of the badges of conformity, and a part of their mark upon their creatures, and therefore eatenus in all reason it ought to have its own weight with other grounds, as to disowning them, in their present state and circumstances. The experience of all the true seekers of God can disprove sufficiently what he adds, of a tedious nauseating as the issue of variety of purposes; variety rather taking off, then begetting tediousness whence the Scripture is composed for this end of such a sweet variety of purposes and methods. His story of Pembo's desiring to hear one word or sentence at once, and no more till after a long time, is calculat well to patronise a reading or non-preaching Ministry; but the many scripture precepts given to christians anent growth in Knowledge, and leaving the first principles, and not to be always children in understanding, and likewise the scripture precepts straight charging and enjoining Ministers to be instant in season and out of season preaching, exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine, sufficiently discovers the ●…diculous tendency of this story.  
4. He tells us, that suppose it were a fault, every fault will not warrant separation. We say not that every fault, nay nor this simply considered, will warrant separation, but that this with many others presumptuously maintained and avowed, will warrant a non-union unto a schismatic party of Innovators destroying and overturning a well reformed Church, and rooting out a faithful remnant of adherers thereto. As for the want of the circumcision and the passover for sometime in the jewish Church, which he next pleads as that which did not cause a separation, not to stand upon the particular impediment of circumcision while in the wilderness or an inquiry into what special lets might have had an influence (or a sinful influence) upon the disuse of the passover, yet Conformists case, who are but a schismatic unsound part of this Church, rejecting an approved ordinance and duty, in compliance with and subserviency unto a perjurious course of defection, is so far discrepant from this, that any may see the disparity. As for that of 2 Kings 23. 22. That there was not holden such a passover (as that of Josiah) from the days of the Judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the Kings of Israel, nor of the Kings of Judah. It's only spoken comparatiuly in respect of the spirituality and s●…lemnity of that passover, and doth not suppose ane absolute disuse of this ordinance through all that time. A learned Interpreter upon this passage doth paraphrase the verse thus, that there was no passover celebrat with so solemn care, great preparation, and universal joy, the greater because of their remembrance of their miserable times under Manasseh and Amon.— And that from the days of Samuel the last of the Judges, as it's exexpressed 2 Chron. 35. 18. None of the Kings had with such care prepared themselves, the Priests and people to renew their Covenat with God as Josiah now did. And as he will not be able to prove that out of the case of persecution, invasion, dispersion or captivity, and the inevitable necessity flowing from these, there was a warrantable disuse of these holy ordinances, so professors their not separating from that Church even upon a sinful disuse; will never come home to his purpose, as is already oft cleared 5. He adds, that upon this ground we would separat from all other Churches, and from our own Church before the year 1645. And then he would please us again by telling us, that he could wish all sermons were as Lectures, the chief points of a long text being propounded, which would be more edifying, then when they rack thè text and their brains (a native and kindly character of his party, and their preaching) to seek matter from their text to hold out the time. But we have oft told him that it's not this defect only, or without the circumstances of our present case, that we plead as a ground of disowning them. And if he account the Lecture-method of preaching the more edifying, with what conscience have they deprived God's people of this exercise & method of preaching, upon my Lord Bishop's orders? It seems his ipse dixit is the first rule of edification with our Informer and his fellows, a principle well suited to lawless and Lordly prelacy, which must have all ordinances mancipated to its arbitrary commands. So that our Informer giving the supreme Magistrate a papal power over Church-Government, and solemn sacred Oaths and vows, in the preceding Dialogue, and the Bishops a dominion over Worship in this, puts pitiful fetters upon Christ's glorious bride; and as in this point and most of his reasonings, in begging the question, he but skirmishes with his own shadow, so in thus wounding our Church, by his dangerous lax principles in his pretended healing, but truly hurtful and trifling Dialogues, he shows himself to be a physician of no value.   

CHAP. V.  
The Informers answers and reasoning upon the point of Scandal and offence, in reference to the owning of Conformists, considered. His dangerous principles both as to civil and Ecclesiastic power in this point. His answer to the Doubters argument for Presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner controverted, taken from the practice of Christ and his Apostles, examined. His absurd principles ●…nent the Magistrates coercive power over the exercise of the Ministerial office.  
Having discovered this man's unsoundness in the points above examined, wherein we have seen how in opposing the Lords work, his faithful servants their labours in promoting it, he hath dashed against the Scripture and sound divines, and stated himself in opposition to both. We shall next discover, some more of his errors, which, are the issues of the former, & of the wicked design for promoting whereof, they are presented. The first that offers itself to be considered, is in the point of Scandal. From which we argue against the owning of Confor●…ists as is above expressed. And this grand doubt-resolver will needs discuss it, but with what success we shall presently see.  
His Doubter in the next place offers to him an argument against hearing Conformists, [taken from the offence and stumbling of many godly, flowing from this practice of hearing them, since they look upon it as a sin; and tells him that the Apostle says we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others.] We have already proposed, and some way improven this argument from the scandal of the weak in this case. To this he first answers, that when we are forbidden to give offence, It's meant of not doing that which is of itself sinful, whereby we grieve the godly, and lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our evil example; but when we do our duty in obeying God, we cannot give offence to any, and if they take offence It's their own sin and weakness, but none is given. As here (he says) it's their weakness to offend at maintaining unity and peace, that this rather gives a good example, and to lie by from hearing Conformists for fear of offence of the weak, is to omit duty and harden them in sin. Ans. The Informer offering this reply from the sense of that scripture generally hinted by his Doubter, seems at first view to restrict the command of not giving offence, to that which is in itself sinful, wherein it might easily be made appear that he contradicts sound Divines, scripture and himself. Especially the passage to which the Doubter refers being of a far other sense and scope. But lest this censure should appear too Critical, and upon consideration of his second answer, I shall not meddle with what he says here in thesi, or this assertion in itself considered. But to the assumption & application of this passage in his answer, I return to him this in short, that he doth but here still beg the question in supposing that the owning of Curates is in this our case a duty and a maintaining of peace and order in the Church, whereof we have made the contrary appear: and that maintaining the true union and peace of this Church, is to own her true and faithful Ambassadors, contending for her reformation, true order, and union against their course of defection: and so this practice is both sinful in itself and scandalous to others.  
His 2d Answer to this premised argument of his Doubter is, That the Apostle ordinarily when forbidding to give offence; speaks of the use of liberty in things indifferent, that it must not be used to the offence of the weak brother, lest contrary to his conscience he be emboldened to sin, 1 Cor. 8. 10. Or be grieved because he thinks we sin in doing what we should not, Rom. 14. 15. Ans. We shall not much stand upon this, only we here see that the lawfulness of a thing in itself, will not (according to him) Justify it in that case wherein, either the weak is emboldened to sin, grieved, or made more weak and his plerophory hindered.  
And that the sincere enquirer for Truth may be confirmed in this sound persuasion, and guarded against what he after subjoins, I shall here offer unto him the sense and Judgement of an eminent Father, and Reformed divine upon this point. chrysostom upon Rom. 14. Homily 25. Expones all the Apostles Arguments to the same scope, of the unlawfulness of offending the weak in things indifferent. Particularly upon verse 13. Si non salvare fratrem (saith he) culpam habet, id quod & Evangelici talenti de●…ossor indicat: Quid non faciet datum etiam scandalum? Sed inquies quod si suopte vitio scandalizatur infirmus? propter hoc ipsum aequum fuerit, ut illum feras, Nam si fortis esset, tali cura opus non haberet, nunc vero quia imbacillior est multa etiam curandi diligentia opus habet, that is, if it be faulty not to save our brother, as the hider of the talon maketh it evident: What will not even the giving of Scandal do. But you will say, what if the weak be scandalised by his own fault? Upon the same very ground it is just that you bear with him. For if he were strong than he would have no need, of such care, but because he is weak he stands in need of much diligence for his cure. In the next homily, he hath many things upon the rest of the Apostles argument to the same purpose. Upon the 14. ver. I know nothing is unclean of itself. He offers an objection to the Apostle for clearing the words. Quid igitur non corrigis fratrem, ne putet aliquid immundum esse? ●…t quid non illum ab ista consuetudine omnibus viribus abducis Why do you not with might and main withdraw your brother from that opinion and practice (a thing that our Informer and his fellows make no bones of as to dissentients.) To this he answers in the Apostles name. Ver●…or inquit, ne moerore illum afficiam unde & subdit: Verum si propter cibum frater tuus contristatur, non jam secundum charitatem ambulas. Vides quo●… 〈◊〉 familiarem interea sibi faciat infirmum Auditorem ostendens tantam illius rationem halere se, ut ne moestum reddat, etiam quae vehementer erant necessaria, praeciperere non audeat, sed indulgentia illum ●…agis ac dilectione attrahat? Neque enim postea quam vanu●… exemerat metum, potenter illum tra●…it aut cogit, sed sui ipsius Dominum esse permittit, that is. I am afraid lest I make him sad, and hence he subjoins, but if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. See how tenderly he deals with the infirm hearer, showing that he hath so great a regard to him, that lest he make him sad he dare not command these things that are most necessary, for he he doth not draw and force him after he hath taken away the groundless fear, but permits him to be his own Master. And upon the 1 Cor. 8. v. 20. He hath things to the purpose. On verse 9 Non dixit quod licenti a vestraoffendiculum sit, neque certo asseveraverit ne impudentiores faceret. Sed, inquit, videte: timore eos abducit, & ne faciant prohibet: Et non dixit scientia vestra, quod majoris esset laudis, neque perfectio vestra: Sed licentia quod suberbiae & stultitiae— non dixit fratribus sed infirmis sratribus, ut gravius eos reprehenderet quod nequeinfirmis parcunt & maximefratribus. That the Apostle imputes folly and pride unto them who offend the weak brethren. Upon the 10. verse— the conscience of him that is weak shall be emblodned to eat etc. He shows that the offender of the weak cannot charge the guilt upon his weakness — tu enim imbecilliorem facis duo sunt quae te privant venia, & quod infirmus & quod frater— addatur & tertium maxime horrendum— quod Christus neque mori propter illum recusavit, tu autem neque ei indulgere pateris. That is, the offender makes them yet weaker, that two things render such as offend them inexcusable, the one that they are weak, the other that they are brethren, and a third crime may be added, which is most horrid— that thou ●…fuses so much as to spare those for whom Christ refused not even to die.  
Upon 12. verse. When ye so fin against the brethren & wound their weak Conscience ye sin against Christ. He hath these words, quid homine inhumanius existimari potest, qui ●…grotum verberat? Etenim omni plaga gravius scandalizare est, nam saepenumero & mortem adfert. Et quomodo in Christum peccant? Uno quidem modo, quod quae servorum sunt ipse pro se accipit. Altero autem, quod in corpus ejus & membra faciunt qui percutiunt. Tertio quod opus ejus, quod propriamorte absolvit, two propria ambitione destruunt. What can be more i nhumane than that man, Who beats one that is sick? for to scandalise is more grievous than all strokes for it oftentimes brings death. And how sin they against Christ? One way, because he takes to himself what concerns his servants; another way, because they wound his body and members, Thirdly, in that the work which he accomplished by his own death, they destroy by their own ambition. Upon the last verse of the chapter, If eating of flesh make my brother offend I will eat none while the World stands. He saith, Hoc Magistri optimi est officium, suo exemplo erudire quae dicit, Et non dicit sive just, sive injust: sed quomodocunque. Sed non dico, inquit, Idolothytum, quod & propter aliam causam prohibetur: sed si quod licet & permittitur scandalizat, etiam illis abstinebo, neque una aut altera die, sed tot●… vitae tempore. Non enim manducabo, inquit▪ carnes in aeternum. Et non inquit, ne perdam fratrem: Sed simpliciter, ut non scandalizem: That is, this is the duty of the most excellent Master to instruct what he says by his own example. And he saith not I will not eat whether justly or injustly: But whatever way I will not. As also he saith not that he will not eat of the Idolothytwhich is forbidden for another cause. But if that which is lawful and permitted give scandal, even from these things I will abstain, and not for a day or two, but during my whole life. For he saith I will not eat flesh while the world stands. And he saith not lest I should destroy my brother: But simply lest I should offend him. And a little afterward having shown, that what the Apostle speaks belongs unto us. he saith, dicere enim quid mihi curandum est, si ille scandalizatur, & ille perit? Crudelitatis illius atque inhumanitatis est: Atque tunc quidem ex eorum, qui scandalizabantur, infirmitate id contingebat. In nobis autem non itidem; Talia namque peccata committimus, quae etiam fortes scandalizant: Nam cum percutimus, cum rapimus cum trahimur cupiditate, & tanquam servis liberis abutimur, nun haec sufficientiasune ad scandalizandum? Neque mihi dixeris illum calceorum sutorem esse, alterum Corearium Statuarium vero alium: Sed considera fidelem illum esse & fratrem. Illorum namque sumus discipuli Piscatorum, Publicanorum, tentoriorum Opificum: Christus einm in fabrili domo educatus est, & fabri sponsam matrem habere non est dedignatus, & ab ipsis incunabulis in praesepi ●…acuit, neque ubi caput inclinaret, invenit: Et tantum iteneris confecit ut fatigaretur & ab aliis victum accepit. That is, for to say, what am I concerned if such a man be scandalised, and such a man perish? is his inhumanity and cruelty: But some of those who then were scandalised, were offended through weakness, But soit is not in us: for we commit such sins which do even offend the strong. For when we strike, and offer violence to them, and are drawn by our own lusts, and abuse free men as if they were slaves, are not these sufficient to scandalise them? Say not to me, this man is a Shoemaker, the other a Tanner, the other a statuemaker, but consider that he is faithful, and a Brother. For we are the Disciples of those fishers, Publicans, and tentmakers. For Christ was educat in a tradesman's house, & disdained not that his mother was betrothed to a tradesman, and himself lay in a manger for his cradle, neither found he where to lay his head: Was wearied with his journey, and received maintenance from others. In which passages, it is evident that chrysostom upon the great moral and Apostolic grounds, of the weak their interest in Christ, his tenderness of them, his dying for them, their spiritual hazard while their conscience is wounded, their liberty in Christ, the cruelty and uncharitableness of offending them, demonstrates the hainusness of, & vehemently inveighes against this sin, and clearly asserts with the Apostle, that the lawfulness of the practice in itself, affords not the least warrant for doing of that out of which seth, or whereby the weak brother it made more weak.  
Next, I shall offer the sense of an eminent Reformed divine upon this point. Pareus upon this chapter doth fully confirm our principles on this head. Let the Informer read his analysis of the chapter, where he will find him digest the Apostles reasons and arguments against the giving offence in matters lawful, and learndly prosecutes them in his exposition, which he will find to be such as do cut the sinews of the new and dangerous principles in this point, which the Prelatic formalists do maintain, citing Chrys. in some of the passages mentioned. Which purpose he also prosecutes in his commentary upon Rom. 14. and 15. Chap. Upon the 7. verse anent the pollution of the weak conscience, he says that this pollution is not so much to be imputed to themselves, as unto those that did induce them to eat by their ill example. Upon the 9 verse he shows that the lawfulness of their practice excuseth not abuse in this case, call scandal, dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur, citing Rom. 14. 21. Upon the 10 vers. he shows that the danger and guilt there pointed at, is the inducing of the weak to imitat the practice with a fluctuating conscience. Upon the 11. He shows that the Apostle puts together aggreging circumstances of this sin of giving offence in things lawful viz. that we ought to edify and not destroy by our knowledge, next that the person scandalised is our brother. 3. An infirm brother, whom to wrong must be extreme malice, 4. Which is the greatest of all, that Christ hath died for the infirm brother. The same he resumes upon the 12, vers. and explains the sense of Chrysost. and Beza as to the wounding of the weak conscience. Upon the Apostles conclusion vers. 13. He shows that he expresseth a resolution of the same nature and extent with that Rom. 14, 21. viz. not to do that whereby our brother stumbles, or is offended or is made weak. Adding, idem vult intelligi de toto genere rerum mediarum & licitarum, potius in his se libertate sua cessurum, quam ut fratrem offendat. Sic the sin tacit ingerit quae est presentis loci doctrina praecipua: In casu scan dali etiam a rebus licitis abstinendum esse: Quia tunc sunt illicitae & peccata, per accidens quidem sednostra culpa, quando quod facere possumus ac debemus, (N. B.) offensionem infirmorum non cavemus. That is, the same he will have to be understood of all things lawful & indifferent, that in these we ought rather to cede from our liberty then offend our brother. Thus he tacitly enforceth that point which is the chief Doctrine of this place. That in the case of scandal we must abstain from things lawful, Because than they become sins and unlawful by accident, yet by our fault when we guard not against the offence of the weak, which we can and aught to do. In the close he says, that the Apostle will have us in things lawful not simply to eye what is our right, but what charity and edification do require,  
But now let us come to the assumptian and application of our Informers concession, to the present case and question, are there not many weak brethren who may be embolded to sin, or (may we suppose) condemn me sinfully if I hear Curates? Suppose the practice were lawful in itself, what will cure this malady? Behold a Catholicon presently, We must know (saith he) that if the command of Authority interpose & enjoin the thing Indifferent, then it's no more in my liberty pro tunc. Because (forsooth) I am restricted by Authority, which makes the thing necessary. Ans. 1. This man charges a great defect upon the Apostle Paul who in all his discourses upon guarding against offence in things indifferent, makes no mention of this new case & knack, anent making the indifferent thing necessary, by the command of Rulers, and exeeming thus the giving of offence from guilt? But all along he pleads by many arguments in the places mentioned, that if the thing be indifferent, the case of offence makes it unlawful. And all his arguments in these passages, which do press the eshewing of offence are moral and constantly binding (and consequently admit no such restriction as this) such as Christ's tenderness of the weak, their redemption purchased by his blood, Christian liberty, the evil of my brothers doubting, whatsoever is not of faith is sin etc. And he moves objections against his doctrine, such as, I have knowledge; I have faith— And shall I be limited of my liberty, because another is weak or wilful etc. Such like objections he moves and answers, but of this exception and restriction anent a command from Rulers altering the nature of the thing, and losing all his arguments in relation to offence, the Apostle mentions nothing.  
2. This puts a blasphemous authority, upon the Magistrate; we know the terrible interminations and threatenings thundered against giving offence, and discoveries of the dreadful tendency thereof, woe to them by whom offence comes, Again, better be cast into the sea then offend one of the little ones— destroy not him, saith Paul (with thy offensive carriage) for whom Christ died. Now will the Magistrates command give me sufficient warrant and security in and for a thing indifferent, to destroy my brother, and, will it list off Christ's woe and make it lighter than a feather, which is more dreadful then to be cast into the sea with a millstone tied about one's neck.  
3. I would know if this Informer will deny that the Apostolic precepts in relation to offence & scandal, pressed with important and great motives in the premised Scriptures; are of ane universal and moral nature, and do reach and oblige all that own the profession of Christianity in their several relations and capacities. These precepts founded upon the everlasting and constantly binding grounds and motives of union, charity and love to the brethren (the great gospel command) edification, the communion of Saints, (the very bonds and ligaments compacting and strengthening Christ's mystical body) none can deny to be of an universal extent, and to be among the grand rules of Christian practice limiting and directing our carriage in whatever relation we stand, whether Ministers or people, Masters or servants, Parents or children etc. And the superior being under the obligation of these great rules (unless we will make God a respecter of persons) it necessarily follows that they do direct and limit him in the exercise of his power, so that this being one Regula Regulans as to all the Magistrate Laws; it's must absurd to imagine that his counter-practice and Laws can lose himself or others from this divine superior obligation, unless we will deiesie him and make his Law & practice the sovereign and supreme rule in every point as well as in this. Whence it follows by necessary consequence that the practice which is offensive, scandalous, and destructive to our brother, in its present circumstances, and upon the constant unerring scripture grounds & rules, cannot be altered in its present quality and state by men's commands crossing the divine Law, but remains a sinful scandalous practice though a hundred Laws enjoin and authorise it.  
4. Was not Paul's Apostolic declarator that every thing sold in the shambles might be Lawfully eaten, as powerful to exeem that action of eating such things from the compass of offence as the Magistrates Law and authority? Sure he had at least as much, if not more authority in this point, than the Magistrate, especially as this Informer expones authority afterward from Acts 15. 28. yet that same practice, Lawful in itself, and by the Apostle declared to be so, and accordingly enjoined and authorized by him, must not be used in this case of the offence, even of the weak and ignorant, but the Apostle himself, though thus declaring and, (may I say) authoring the lawness of the practice, declares he will never use nor take it up in this case of offence. I beseech him, was not the warrantabliness of this practice in itself by the Lord's word, declaring all things to be clean to the clean, and Paul's Apostolic declarator in this place, as valide to render it, of indifferent, necessary to the users, as the command of our civil Rulers in relation to this practice under debate, and a little more, he having the mind of Christ, and being a Master builder of the Churches. Yet the offending of the weak, ignorant yea or wilful, will in his Judgement cut short this liberty, and render the practice sinful upon that ground. But moreover the instance of the brazen serpent will here bite and sting his cause and argument to death; for it was an eminent type of Christ, and reserved (and sure our Informer will say warrantably) as a signal monument of that rare typical cure of the people stung by the fiery serpents in the wilderness, yet when the people were stumbled, and it became an occasion of their sinning and committing Idolatry, good Hezekiah broke it, called it Nehushtan, and is commended for it by the Spirit of God. Now in this man's principles the interposing of authority for its preservation was sufficient to keep it from being destroyed, though all Israel should have been never so much stumbled, and ensnared to Idolatry by it, but the keeping of this monument God would dispense with in this weighty case. Sure that which rendered the preservation of it highly provoking, and Hezekiahs' breaking of it commendable, was its stumbling and ensnaring tendency and effects, whatever authority and acts might have interposed formerly for its preservation. Will the Informer say that gideon's ephod (which in his intention was only designed for a monument of that victory over the Midianites) was lawfully preserved when it became thus ensnaring as the brazen Serpent, or that the preservation of it was lawfully authorized in this case? surely he will not for shame assert this, and so the case is here; and he may see in these instances (if his eye be single) that a practice though in itself lawful or indifferent, yet, when become offensive in its present circumstance and inductive to sin, cannot in that case be rendered warrantable by any Laws of the Magistrate.  
Finally, our Informer in this as●…ertion cosseth found Divines and Casuists as well as the Scriptures, yea and fights with himself. For we have heard from Chrysostom and Pareus (who are herein accorded by all our writers) that the action which is in its preseut state and circumstance, scandalous, is, while clothed with these Circumstances, necessarily evil, and upon many weighty grounds severely prohibited by the spirit of God in the Scriptures forecited. So that no power and Laws men of can remove these scripture limits & march-stones. Next, the great ground and rule anent a scandalous action, and upon which the scripture motives against it are grounded, is the state, condition and freedom of the conscience, lest it be hindered in its plerophory, emboldened to judge without ground; and the person hindered to act in faith, or induced to act against it etc. So that to assert that the Magistrates command can invalidat these grounds and principles, and render the action not sanda●…ous which is such otherwise, is to give him a Dominion over the conscience, and subject it immediately and absolutely to his Laws, which is a principle disowned by all Protestants. Moreover the Informer himself defines the offence of the weak brother in things indifferent, an emboldening him to sin contrary to his conscience, or to judge that we sin when we sin not, citing 1 Cor. 8. Rom. 14. Now if the action be upon this ground & principle necessarily sinful in its present circumstances, how (I pray) can the Magistrates command render it not only Lawful; but necessary, as he is bold to assert. Can the Magistrate by his Law embolden a man's conscience to sin, and yet neither the Magistrate sin himself, nor the man sin in obeying him? Amesius a better Casuist than he will tell him (de Consc. lib. 5. cap. 11. Quest. 6. R. 6.) that nulla authoritas humana, vel tollere potest scandali rationem, ab eo quod alias esset scandalum, vel peccati rationem a scandalo dato. That is, no humane authority can take away the nature of scandal from that which otherwise were a scandal, or the nature and cause of sin from scandal given. And his ground is very considerable, which doth confirm what I have now said. Nullus enim homo (saith he) potest vel charitati & conscientiis nostris imperare. vel periculum scandali dati praestare. That is, for no man can put imperious commands either upon charity or our consciences, or exeem from the hazard of scandal given.  
But now to fortify this raw & ignorant assertion as to scandal, our Informer brings Act. 15. 28. — these necessary things— from which words of the councils sentence, he draws ane argument thus, that though of themselves they were not necessary, but sometimes indifferent, yet by the Authority of the council they were made necessary for the good of the Church, so [he says] obedience to authority preponderats the not giving offence, as the greater duty of the two, as divines and Casuists show, and in this case the man who thus obeys gives no offence, but doth duty, and if any take it, its causeless on his part, and occasioned through the brother's weakness, so that its scandalum acceptum non datum, groundlessly taken but not given, and when the Apostle forbids to use, our liberty to the offence of the weak, he speaks to those who were not determined by Authority. Ans. What poor ignorant and incoherent reasoning is this, 1. It's a strange sottish, or rather popish Assertion, that the necessary things Acts. 15. 28. were made so by the councils authority: For the text is most express, that the Apostles enjoined this upon weighty scripture-grounds, and what seemed good to the holy ghost (speaking in the word) as well as to them, so that the holy ghosts grounds and commands touching the maintaining of love, and union in the Church, and the great rule of edification, and not stumbling the weak jews, were the great and standing Scripture principles upon which this decree was grounded.  
Now to show how our Informer takes the papists here by the hand in this gloss, let us hear Calvine upon the place — [praeter haec necessaria] Hujus vocis praetextu superbe triumphant Papistae, quasi hominibus liceat ferre leges quae necessitatem conscientiis imponant— quia quod deccrnunt Apostoli necessario servandum esse pronuntiant— i. e. the Papists triumph proudly upon pretext of ●…his this place, as if men might make Laws imposing a necessity upon Consciences because what the Apostles decree, they affirm, must be necessarily kept.— Then he adds, atqui expedita etc. But the Answer is easy to such a foolish cavil (so he censures our New Casuist and his fellows in this point) for this necessity was no longer vigent then there was hazard of dissolving union, so to speak properly it was an accidental or extrinsic necessity, which had place not in the thing itself, but in guarding of offence— which [saith he) is evident in the speedy laying aside of this decree. Then he tells us, that when the contention ceased— Paul shows that nothing is unclean, and again establishes this liberty Rom. 14: 14. And commands to eat freely what ever is sold. Adding, that the papists in vain do snatch an occasion to bind consciences from this word and to conclude the Church's power to statute any thing beside the word of God. Telling us further, that from the word of God the Council drew this ground of exercising charity in matters indifferent. Then (saith he) in summa, the sum is, if charity be the bond of perfection, and the end of the Law, if Gods command be that the faithful study mutual unity and concord, and that every one please his nighbour to edification, none is so rude who may not perceive, that what the Apostles here commanded is contained in the word of God.— And at the close he tells us, Apostol●…s ex verbi Dei sinibus minime egredi.— That the Apostles would not step beyond the limits of the word of God.  
But 2. This man's Babylonish tongue still wounds himself as well as the truth, for 1. he acknowledgeth that what the Apostles here decreed, was for the Good of the Church; which (if he understand any thing) he must needs take it according to the grounds laid down in this disquisition, specially that which the Apostle James proposes immediately before his and the rest of this Apostlee decision vers. 21. viz. that Moses had in every city, them that teach him, being read every Sabath day. So that it was needful at that time upon the grounds of charity, union, and aedification, to beat with the weak Jews in abstaining from these things discharged by God's Law, till the ceremonies were honourably buried. Hence it follows clearly that this abstinence was made necessary upon these weighty grounds at this time, and not by the authority of the council only. Neither was the matter enjoined, of a thing indifferent, made necessary, by their determination, but upon these grounds, and for the great end of the Churches good, which he mentions, this abstinence was at this time, and in this case necessary; And by the Apostles declared to be so upon divine warrant for what else will he make of that expression. It seemed good to the Holy ghost. Again, Paul and the other Apostles had no power but to edification, nor any dominion over the faith of God's people, and so acted nothing here pro arbitrio or imperio. So that their sentence, was only a declarator of God's mindeanent that which was antecedaneously to their decree hic & nnnc a necessary duty, although we deny not that the Apostles decision was to have its own weight in determining the Church's obedience. 2. He brings this passage to prove that obedience to authority will preponderat the not giving of offence. But so it is that the great ground of the Apostles decicision here is the guarding against the offence of the weak jews, and obedience to this sentence was in not giving offence, and upon this very ground Christians were to abstain from these meats, whereas he foolishly distinguishes in this point betwixt obedience to authority, and not giving offence, as distinct duties, and makes the first to overrule the second, in plain contradiction to the text, which makes the not giving offence, to be the great duty, and the foundation of this obedience.  
3. This charge will be the more conspicuos, and the Informers inconsistent prevarications, in this point, if we consider these things in the point of offence: 1. That every offence through weakness is not sinless upon the offender's part. The Inform●…r himself doth (with the Apostle) assert this, who in the very preceding page from 1 Cor. 8: 10. & Rom. 14. tells us, that the Apostle will not have that which 〈◊〉 indifferent●… or lawful in itself, used to the offence of t●…e weak, or imboldening of their conscience to Sin. 〈◊〉 That upon this ground it follows that, the Scandal●… acceptum, or offence taken, as contra distinguish●…d by our divines from Scandalum datum, or offen●…e given, is badly and to narrowly described from ●…e groundless taking thereof, as if upon this account it were faultless upon the offender's part, it being certain, that neither the lawfulness of the thing out of which offence arises, the good intention of the doer, nor men's commands, nor the weakness, yea or wi●…kkedness of the takers of offence, will free the giver thereof from guilt, unless the action be in its present state and circumstances a necessary duty: for thus the distinction could have no place, and there were no Scandalum datum at all there being no ground to take offence, upon the takers part, and takeing this phrase in the Scripture acceptation as there can be no reason of a sinful action properly. Nay though the effect should not follow, the giver is still guilty, as Peter was in giving offence to our Lord, though that action could produce no sinful effect in him, for he said to him thou art ane offence unto me. So that it is beyond debate with all sound divines and casuists, that any dictum or sactum, action or word, upon which the formentioned effects may follow, if it be not hic & nunc necessary, is a scandalum datum. 3. That accordingly all sound divines treating on this subject, in describing a passi●…e scandal in opposition to that which is given, do not draw their measures or description merely from the weakness or other bade disposition of the taker of offence, but from the state and condition of the action itself, out of which offence ariseth, which if not necessary in its present ●…tate and circumstances, they hold the scandal to be is well active as passive; Thus Mr Gilespie Engl▪ ●…op: cerem. Thus Ames: de Consc: lib. 5. cap, 1. 〈◊〉, quest 3, Resp. 1, 2. tells us, that, in omni scandalo ●…ecesse est ut sit aliquod peccatum, in every scandal of ne●…essity there is some guilt, because it hath a ten●…encie to the spiritual hurt and detrime●… of our bour. And describing passive scandal, which is without sin upon the giver's part, he says that this falls out, cum factum unius, est alteri occasio peccandi, praeter intentionem facientis, & conditionem facti, that is when the fact of one is the occasion of another's sinning, beside the intention of the doer, and the condition of the deed itself. He draws not his description from the intention of the doer only, but from the condition of the deed itself, which if tending to the spiritual hurt of our neighbour, is still an active scandal, and no authority of men can alter its nature or remove its guilt, as we heard him before assert. Mr Durham on scandal, part. 1, chap 1. describeth scandal, that is taken only or passive offence, that it is such when no occasion is given, but when a man doth that which is not only lawful, but necessary, exemplifieing this by the Pharisees carping at Christ's actions Matth. 15: 12. and by that of Prov. 4. 19 where the wicked are said to stumble at they know not what. Thus clearly asserting that the lawfulness of the practice, will not wholly lay the guilt on him that takes offence, unless it be also necessary. 4. The Informer cannot deny, that this necessity of the action, must be evinced from clear Scripture commands and cannot be rationally inferred either from the assertion of the practiser, or the commands of the Magistrate simply, or any supposed Ecclesiastic canon, since this would evert the Apostles reasoning on this head. So that he is obleidged to evince the necessity of this practice controverted from other grounds than he hath mentioned, or this charge stands good against him, esspecially since (as we have said) the Apostles injunction which he mentions as to the free use of meats, was a greater authoritative determination; then any which he now alleges to render the practice necessary. And if a practice lawful in itself, and corroborated by ane Apostolic precept enjoining it, could not be lawful in the case of offence, far less can the constitutions he mentions make this practice lawful in such a case. So that our Argument, a Scandalo, stands good against him upon this point, in answer to which he hath brought nothing but what is contrary to Scripture, casuists, yea and himself.  
The charge which he after exhibites against us, of erecting separate meetings in the houses and fields— and of our being Schismatics if ever the Christian Church had any, we let pass among the rest of this man's petulant assertions, the grounds whereof we have examined and confuted. The people of God in obedience to Christ's faithful Ambassadors (by Prelates perjurious violence thrust from their watchtowers) assembling to hear the great Shepherd's voice, erect no separate meetings, but keep the assemblies of this Church driven by them to a wilderness, whereof (if the Lord open not his and the rest of his tribe their eyes) they will bear the sin and punishment for ever.  
The Doubter object next, [Christ's preaching in private houses and fields, and people's hearing therein, inferring that so likewise may we.] This argument our Informer (according to his usual candour) disguises, we say not that in a settled peaceable state of the Church, Ministers may preach and people hear in this manner, but upon supposal of this Churches disturbed persecute condition by a party of prevailing backsliders, Ministers preaching and peoples hearing, is warrantable upon the formentioned grounds; both Ministers (upon whom our Prelates hands have been very heavy of a long time, yea (I may say) their little finger thicker than their predecessors loins,) sters and people being in this broken destroyed state of our Church chased, harassed, and denied all ordinary places appointed for divine worship, nay scarce any place of residence in their native land free from the fulmina & thunderbolts of Prelates mad rage. But what says he to this argument, he tells us 1. That though Christ preached thus, yet it was not to separat from the jewish Church, nor did he disowne the hearing of their teachers, but allowed to hear Scribes and Pharisees with a (proviso) to beware of their leaven— that he sent those who were miraculously healed to the Priests, and did not bid disowne them. Ans. 1. Whatever be concluded as to Christ's disowning, or separating the people from the teachers of the Church of the Jews at that time (wherein the Informer hath offered nothing which will amount to a demonstration of what he affirms, and his assertion tho granted will not fortify the conclusion he aims at) yet this is certain and undeniable, (and in so far his Doubters parallel argument stands inviolable against him) viz. that our blessed Lord preached after this manner which he condemns. Since he condemns in universum & simply Presbyterian Ministers preaching, and people's hearing them in this manner, abstracting from the disowning of Curates and their Ministry, so that this answer meets not the objection as leveled against his principles. And he cannot deny but that in so far as Christ and his Apostles were owned, their ordinary Jewish teachers were separat from and disowned, but he condemns all owning of Presbyterian Ministers, and withdrawing from Curates, as ingraind Schism and sinful separation. This answer is the more forcible, if it be considered that our Lord had liberty of their Synagogues to preach in, yet he frequently left them, and preached in private houses and in the fields, and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may use this liberty, whom (in a piece of cruelty beyond that of the Scribes and Pharisees to Christ) they have banished from pulpits. 2. As for our Lords not putting people to separat from that Church or the teachers thereof, we have already shown how far it is from his purpose, and what a wide consequenceit is, from a non-separation from the Jewish Church, and teachers though corrupt, (while that legal dispensation stood, which was shortly to be removed, and the Gospel Ministry erected in its place) and from our Lord's tolerance thereof as God's ancient Ministry, though now corrupt, to which he was to put an honourable close, to conclude that a people are to disowne a faithful Gospel's Ministry and Church, in compliance with a number of destroying Innovators ejecting them, and razing a sworn Reformation, which all that Church are bound to defend. This is such a palpable inconsequence, as any may upon first view discover it. 3. There was (beside what is said) this reason in special, wherefore our Lord would not have the Jewish Ministry at first universally left, because he came as a Minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers; he was to come to the temple as the King's Son and Lord of all the Prophets who went before him, the Law being to go forth from Zion, and the word from Jerusalem, Jesus came first to his own. Therefore the Jewish Ministry and teaching, was to stand for a time to make this apparent, and as Christ's great witness for his authority, and the Doctrine of the gospel, either for their conviction or conversion; hence he appealed unto the Scriptures which they heard daily read, and preached, Search the Scriptures for they testify of me. And when he enjoined the healed leper to go and show himself to the Priest, it was to offer the Sacrifice which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them. So that to make the substituting of the Gospel to the legal dispensation and ordinances apparent, and its Ministry to the Jewish Ministry and Priesthood, to which Christ's death and resurrection only was to put a final period, it was necessary it should be owned in some measure. And Christ could not wholly disowne it without stopping a great part of his mediatory fulfilling of all righteousness, for he was as head of the circumcised people, and as of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, to obey the Judicial and ceremonial Law, and therefore he duly attended the passover and all the solemn feasts, which could not subsist in their exercise, without the standing of that old Ministry; Now how far this is from our Question, and inferring the owning of Curates in our case, is obvious to the meanest capacity. What he says of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees, is already answered. But now this Informer will offer some special reasons of Christs-preaching after this manner, to cut short our argument here; the first is, Because he was to bring in the Doctrine of the gospel, and preach himself the true Mes●…ah, which was needful to be done, and because of the opposition of his doctrine by the Jewish teachers. Ans. 1. Although he was to bring in the doctrine of the Gospel into the world, yet as he was sent first and immediately to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to exercise his Ministry toward them mainly (upon which ground at his first sending forth the Disciples, he commanded them to go to these lost sheep, not in the way of the gentiles) so he had the synagogues and Temple to preach in, and frequently did so; and yet notwithstanding went to the fields with great multitudes, and to other places then these appointed for their ordinary and public Worship; and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may do the like, who are denied our Conformists Synagogues or ordinary places of Worship, they being upon important grounds obliged (as our blessed Lord was) to officiat and bestir themselves in the exercise of their Ministry. And therefore. 2. Since he reasons from the necessity of the Work which Christ was about, and the opposition which he met with therein from his enemies, these samegrounds pleads strongly for Presbyterian Ministers officiating in the manner controverted, because the preaching of the gospel by Christ's faithful Ambassadors, was never more necessary, and never met with greater opposition from its enemies; and therefore upon his own grounds it follows, that Ministers ought to embrace all occasions of preaching and in any place where they can have access. Sure he dare not restrict the necessity of the work, and the persecution, from which he infers the Lawfulness of preaching after that manner, to that particular necessity and persecution attending the first planting of the gospel, or affirm that these grounds may never again recur for legitimating of this practice, since thus he would condemn ou●… first Reformers.  
Come we to the 2d Reason which is this, Christ was head of his whole Church, and was not to be limit in the manner of his. Ministry as ordinary teachers, but might preach where and when he pleased, since all belonged to his Ministry, and that none will say that he is pastor of the whole Church, but the Pope, nor can any mere Man do what Christ did in every thing. But our meetings (he says) are in despite of the Law, and we add disobedience to our schism. Ans. 1. We shall easily acknowledge that all Christ's actions are not imitable, such as those of divine power, as working of Miracles, and the actions of divine prerogative, as the taking of the ass without the owner's liberty, the actings of his special Mediatory prerogative, such as the enditing of the scriptures, giving of his spirit, laying down his life, instituting Church officers, Col. 3. 16. Joh. 10. 15. Mat. 28. 18, 19 These are not imitable, nor yet such actions as were merely occasional, depending upon circumstances of time and place, as the unleavened bread, the time, and such like circumstances of his supper. But we say there are actions imitable, as 1. in general Christ's exercise of graces, which have constant and moral grounds, and are commended to Christians for their imitation, every christians life (as such) ought to be an imitation of him the precious mirror of grace, Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me for I am meek. etc. Eph. 5. 2. Walk in love as Christ also hath loved us. Joh. 13. 15. I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done. The christian must walk as he walked. 1. Joh. 2. 6. 2. In particular, Actions on Moral grounds, flowing from the relations wherein Christ stood, do oblige, and are exemplary unto, those that are under such relations, viz. Christ's subjection and obedience to his parents, and paying tribute to caesar, do exemplify children and subjects their duty as in that capacity; so his Ministerial acts and faithful diligence therein, do exemplify Ministers duty. Now the question is, as to this manner of Christ's preaching in this case, that is, not in the ordinary and authorized assemblies of that Church but in the fields, and in houses, whether the grounds of it will not sometimes recur, and oblige ordinary Ministers? for it's ratio exempli we are to look unto, rather than the mere circumstances of the Individual act, as Chamier tells us, Tom. 3. lib. 17. de Jejunijs. And for evincing this in our case our Informers own answer is sufficient, if we shall but suppose (which neither our Informer nor any of his fellows have ever been able to disprove) that Presbyterian Ministers are under a relation to this Church as her true Pastors, and under the obligation of our Lords commands to officiat accordingly. His grounds are the necessity of the work and the bitter persecution of Christ's enemies; both which grounds are still vigent in relation to Presbyterian Ministers as is said.  
For what he adds of Christ's acting this as head of his Church, and not limit in the exercise of his Ministry, as ordinary Ministers, none of which is an universal postor. It is very insignificant here. For 1. every piece of Christ's Ministry, his very teaching, and teaching in the temple, was as messenger of the Covenant, who was to come unto that temple, and in the capacity of head of his Church, yet are exemplary for Ministers duties according to their measure. 2. He dare not say, that our Lords preaching after the manner instanced in the objection of his Doubter, or his preaching while fleeing from persecutors, was merely founded upon this ground, and did flow from no other cause and principle but this viz. that he was not limited in the way and exercise of his Ministry, for he hath already assigned other Reasons of this, viz. the necessity of the work, and his persecution simply considered, so that if he should assert this, his 2. answer would contradict his first: and besides, he will not deny, but that such as were not heads of the Church, and who were in an ordinary peaceful state thereof, limited in the exercise of their Ministry, did preach after this manner, for the officers of the Church of Jerusalem Acts. 8. in that scattering and persecution, went every where preaching the gospel. So did our first Reformers (not to stand upon that moral precept given to the Apostles, who were not heads of the Church, viz. when they persecut you in one city flee to another) and the Informer will not say that they were not to carry the gospel-message with them in this flight Now that which those who were not heads of the Church, but Ministers, yea and ordinary Ministers have done the parallel of and warrantably, surely that Christ did not upon any extraordinary ground now expired: But such is this way of preaching, Ergo &c▪ In a word as its easily granted that ordinary Ministers are fixed and limit to their charges in a settled state of the Church, so he dare not deny, that a Churches disturbed persecute condition will warrant their unfixt officiating upon the grounds already given; and he should know that others than the Pope were universal pastors, and even in actu exercito, of the whole Church, viz. the Apostles as himself acknowledged, nor can he deny that ordinary Ministers are in actu promo related to the whole Church, as her Ministers given to her by Christ, and set in her. As for what he adds of our meetings, that they are against the Law, he knows that all the Jews appointed that any who owned Christ, should be excommunicate. From the violence and persecution of which Law, himself infers our Lords, officiating in the manner controverted, and he can easily make the application to our case, and answer himself.  
The Doubter thinks it hard [to be hindered by the Law from hearing the word of God and other parts of worship, or that Ministers be hindered to preach, i●… being better to obey God then men.] He answers 1. that the Law allows and commands us to hear the word preach●… in our own congregations in purity, and defends it, which is a great mercy, and that its better to worship God purely with the Laws allowance then in a way contrary to it. Ans. 1. Granting that the Law did allow some to preach faithfully what saith this for their robbing so many thousands of the Lords people, of the Ministry of some hundreds of faithful Ministers? will a piece of the Ruler's duty in one point excuse their sin in twenty others, and lose the people from their obligation to duty towards Christ's Ambassadors? This is new divinity. 2. The law allows none to preach (in the manner he pleads for) but with a blot●… of perjury in taking on the Prelates mark, and complying with a perjurious course of defection, and allows none to deliver their message faithfully in relation to either the sins or duties of the time, which is far from allowing to preach in purity, and in this case we must rather adhere to Christ's faithful shepherds upon his command, though cross to men's Law, then follow blind unfaithful guides in obedience thereunto, and this upon that same ground of Acts 4. 19 which he mentions.  
But he says, that answer of the Apostles will no way quadrat with our case, why so? 1. Because the Apostles had an immediate extraordinary call from Christ to preach in his name, and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth. Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suits our case, will be apparent when it's considered, that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries, who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground, is one with theirs, their grounds in their answer, compared with the context, are [that they are Christ's Ministers and witnesses, employed about the great gospel message, clothed with his authority, and under the obligation of Christ's commands lying upon them.] Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer, dare he say, that the Magistrates Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel, or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ, might not thus the ministry be put out of the world; Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint, and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church, as the Apostles were, and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry? can the Rulers mere prohibition lose either ministers their relation pastoral, or the obligations flowing therefrom?  
2. Although the call of the Apostles was immediate and extraordinary, yet this will not prove that their answer will not suit the ordinary and mediate call in such a case as theirs, when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach: for first, we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediate call mainly or only, if at all in this case, but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis, the authority of the one, and the weight and importance of the other, in relation to all Ministers, are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them: since the substance of this Apostolic apology lies in this, that they were Christ's Ministers, clothed with his commission to preach the gospel, which any faithful Minister may plead in such a case. 2. Tho their call was immediate and extraordinary, upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Ruler's restraint as to their ministry, yet they were so likewise as Christ's messengers and ministers simply in a general sense, for majus 〈◊〉 minus etc. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediately from Christ and not from the Rulers, which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach, and would not submit their ministerial authority, its acts and exercise, to the Ruler's disposal, especially the gospel-message being of so great importance, so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church, independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrate, as theirs was, though the Apostles (as I said) had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers, and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint. Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations, upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead;  
The Informer answers aly, that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel, and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world, but by their preaching, but now though some be silenced, others are allowed to preach. Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat, is of his bold putting in, but nothing of it is in the text, viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they. Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority, and message simply. 2 I ask him, could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition, upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrate would not hinder others to promote the gospel? if they could not, than he must grant that this answer is naught, that the Apostles refused, because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel: For the gospel was preached and propagat, though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage, if he say that any one, or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon their terms, then. 1. He contradicts his first answer, that their extraordinary immediate call could not be discharged by any power on earth, and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents, and laying by his work upon men's command not to preach. Sure Christ's command and commission tied all his Apostles conjunctly and severally: Paul said, too to [me] if [I] preach not the gospel, and one Apostles diligence, could not lose the obligation of the other, and excuse his negligence. 3. We have proved that there is no warrant from God for Rulers their immediate arbitrary discharging Christ's Ambassadors to officiat, and consequently faithful Ministers are not obliged to obey. And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrate to impose a silence upon him, be cause others were permitted to preach, It's unlawful for ordinary Ministers to be silent, because others are preaching, and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithful, and destroying but not feeding. So that our Informer doth but mock God, if not blaspheme, while blessing him, that authority, is opposite to our disorders, not to the gospel.  
The Doubter next asks him [if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel.] He should have added, by his own proper elicit acts as King or Magistrate, or formally and immediately. But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals, and mould our arguments in his own disguise, that his simple evasions may appear answers. Well, what says he to this doubt▪ His answer is, (I ommit his insignificant reflection) that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings. 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise, to which he was bound to submit, so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions, which he must not counteract, suppose he think the King and law wrongs him, especially, when others do preach though he be silent. Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum, Solomon punished Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime, which deserved death, telling him (as the text saith) that he was a man of death, or one who deserved capital punishment, according to the nature of the hebrew phrase, which sentence of death Solomon (upon the grounds mentioned in that passage) did change into a sentence of banishment, and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office, which he could not in that case perform: Ergo he formally and immediately deposed him, and the civil magistrate may so immediately and formally depose ministers, this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logic, or solid divinity. The Instance indeed proves, that the Magistrate may civilly punish a Minister for crimes, and consequently cut him off from the exercise of his Ministry, but that he can simply and immediately, or by proper elicit acts, discharge the exercise thereof, can no more be proved from this instance, then that the man who gives bad physic, or hurts the Minister's person, and eatenus stops the exercise of his Ministerial office, hath an authority to inhibit the exercise of his Ministry.  
As for our Informers restriction, anent the Kings inhibiting a minister to preach in his dominions, 'tis a very poor and transparent sophistical cheat, for no man ever said that he can exercise any magistratical power upon those who are without his dominions, whether ministers or others. And thus should his dominion in God's providence be streached over all the christian Church, he hath authority (by this courtdivinity) to silence the gospel sound in a clap, and extinguish a gospel ministry when he pleaseth, and then this man would do well to ponder how this consists with the nature and design of Christ's great commission to his first ambassadors (his Apostles) in reference to the gospel message, and unto all ministers until the end of the world, and his promised presence accordingly; as also whether the Apostles, and ordinary ministers afterward, did warrantably counteract the Magistrates opposition in this exercise of their Ministry; and what our lords answer would have been, in case such an objection anent Princes discharging the exercise of their Ministry, had been offered by the Apostles at the first giving out and sealing of their great patent and commission to preach to all nations, and whether our Lord would have told them that their commission did not bind in that case. The Informer is afraid to set his foot on such slippery ground as to assert that the King can depose absolutely, but yet avers that he can restrain the actual exercise of the Ministerial office, and surely if this be granted (in that extent he pleads for) it will abundantly secure self-seeking politicians from the trouble of a faithful Gospel-Ministry, & they will be content to part with this nicety of a simple deposing. But if, in the Judgement even of some of his Rabbis, whom I could name, the most formal ecclesiastical censures do amount to no more than this legal restraint of the exercise, he doth but pityfully resarciat his lapse, and mend the matter by this whimsy.  
As for what he adds of [Beza's letter to the non-Conformists in England, not to exercise their Ministry against the Queen's authority and the Bishops.] The often mentioned difference betwixt the then State of that Church, and our present condition, doth quite invalidat his proof, since certainly in some cases the counteracting the Princes command as to the exercise of the Ministry, requires a very cautious consideration, but had our case in its present circumstances and latitude as above delineat been propounded to Beza [touching the overturning the Reformation of this Church (so fully settled by civil and Ecclesiastic Authority, and confirmed by Oaths of all ranks) by Prelates and their adherents ejecting all faithful Ministers, who will not be subject to that course.] Sure Beza who (as we heard) requested John Knox never to let Prelacy be introduced into Scotland, and all faithful Ministers to contend against it after it was cast out, would have judged Ministers obliged in this our case, especially after Prelacy is thus vowed against, to keep their possessions, to preach the gospel, and testify against such a wicked course, as well as it was the duty of our first Reformers to preach against the will of the then Bishops and persecuters; Besides, it's the Doctrine and principles of our Church, that neither the Magistrate nor Prelates censures can lose a Minister from the exercise of his Ministry; which is above cleared. So that our Informers great Diana, which he is all this time declaiming for, viz. The imposing of an absolute silence upon the true Pastors of this Church, that Conformists only may be heard and owned, doth so stoop and bow down, that the underproping of his slender artifice, and poor mean plead, cannot prevent its precipice and ruin.   

CHAP. VI  
The nature of Presbyterian Minister's relation to this Church and their call to officiat therein, vindicate from the Informers simple cavils. Mr baxter's rules for the cure of Church-divisions impertinently alleged by him. The Testimonies of the jus divinum Minist. Anglic. And of Mr Rutherfoord in his Due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation, insufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion.  
THE appearances of our Lords Ambassadors in his message and for promoting his Interest, have been much opposed by Satan in very various Methods and versatile disguises in all ages, but that Presbyterian Ministers of a pure Apostolic Presbyterian Church should be opposed in the exercise of their holy function and Ministry received from Christ, and this exercise impugned from pretended Scripture grounds and Presbyterian principles may seem strange, if these latter days had not produced many such prodigies of errors and wickedness. The progress of this personat doubt-resolver his impugnations will discover so much, which we now proceed to examine.  
This Informer next alleages That Ministers among us make themselves Ministers of the whole Church, and the Doubter alleging [That a Minister is a Minister of the Catholic Church] he Answers from Mr Rutherfoord Due right of Presb. page 204. That though a Minister is a Minister of the Catholic Church, yet not a Catholic Pastor of it, that by ordination, and his calling he is made Pastor and by election he is restricted to be ordinarily the Pastor of his flock. And that Mr Durham on Rev. page 106, 107. thinks there is odds betwixt being a Minister of the Catholic Church, and a Catholic Minister of it, as the Apostles were and the Pope pretends viz. to have immediate access for the exercise in all places— that ●…ho actu prime they have a commission to ●…e Ministers of the whole Church, yet actu secund●… they are peculiarly delegated to such and such posts, But we have made ourselves Ministers of all the congregations of the Country. I answer, this doctrine crosses not our principles nor practice in the least. For first, when we assert that a Minister is by election restricted to be ordinarily the Pastor of a flock, and especially delegat, and fixed to such a post & particular watchtower, it is not so to be understood, as if there could be nolawful exercise of his Ministry elsewhere: for first, this were flat independency etc. 2. All (save they of this persuasion) grant that the Minister receives no new authority as to his Ministerial acts and officiating in other places, but a new application only. Hence in the 2d place, is to be understood of the Church her ordinary settled state under a settled Ministry but when there is a destroying enemy within her bosom wasting her, and the faithful Ministry are put from their Watchtowers and posts, by a number of Schismatic Innovators, who are dissolving her union, and impeaching her Authority: In this extraordinary case, Ministers more enlarged and unfixt officiating, is no breach of this Rule; Because 1. In this case the Parochial constitution is impossible to be held, and God calls not to impossibilities, and yet his call to preach the Gospel stands and binds, and by consequence to preach to others than the Ministers parish. The common rule will plead for this viz. necessitas non habet legem, which this Informer himself doth hold will in some cases warrant the laying by of that which otherwise were a duty; he knows what his inference is from David's eating of the show bread to keep from starving, and Paul, and those with him their casting their goods into the sea to preserve from perishing. So that of necessity he must admit this rule and answer, upon his own ground. 2. The reasons which did warrant our first Reformers officiating in this manner (a practice which he dare not say that the authors mentioned, or any reformed divines do condemn) will warrant this our practice in this persecute state of our Church, it being clear that the case of Reformation is parallel to that of a Church's defection, and persecution, in relation to this practice controverted, as we cleared from Acts 8. 3. The same great end of the Churches greater good and edificaton, which warrants fixing of Ministers to their posts in a Churches settled peaceful state will warrant their officiating more largely and at other posts, when put from their own in her disturbed, persecute and destroyed coondition by a prevalent Schismatic, backsliding party. The faithful watchmen seeing the city betrayed by a party of professed defendants, who are letting in the enemy, do their duty to the city best in resisting them and running to help. 4. If faithful Ministers their necessary keeping their posts and the unlawfulness of exercising their Ministry any where else, were in this case asserted, than it would follow that a Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed and destroyed Church, and all his gifts and graces, were useless in that case, which notwithstanding are given for the good of the Church, but this is absurd; Shall not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her true Sons, when she is wounded and her vail taken away by smiting watchmen. 5. By our Principles the Prelatic party are Schismatics who have already broke and overturned our Church's order, and Reformation. Now this Informer will not deny, that in such a case, the Church may send forth her Ministers to officiat among such backsliders and Schismatics, for their healing and recovery; he knows upon what ground Mr Lightoun not long since, sent out some of his brethren to preach in the West of Scotland. Beside Mr Gillespie will tell him, Miscell. page 23. That a Schismatic Church hath no just right to the liberty of a sound Church, as to the calling or settling of Ministers. So that in our principles no Conformists are duly or lawfully called and settled. 6. Our divines do grant that in extraordinary cases, even the want of ordination itself will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may be a necessity which will sustain and comport with the want of it. Mr Gillespy Misc. ch. 4. page 63. tells us, that in extraordinary cases when ordination cannotbe had, and when there are none who have commission & authority from God to ordain, then and there an inward call from God stirring up, and ●…ing with the people's good will and consent whom God makes willing, can make a Minister authorized to ministerial acts— That at the first plantation of Churches, ordination may be wanting without making void the Ministry because ordination cannot be had. And if necessity will plead this in relation to ordination itself, Ergo a fortiori this necessity of our Churches destroyed perturbed condition, may much more comport with ordained Ministers their more enlarged officiating for the help and recovery of a perishing remnant, by Wolves in sheep's clothing.  
Next, this Informer going on in his nauseating repetitions, charges intrusion upon our Ministers, and inquires, what warrant they have to preach and administer Sacraments to those of another Minister's charge, being neither called nor desired by these Ministers. I answer, they have Gods call to preach the Gospel as Ministers of this Church, and as this call would warrant their officiating in other parishes upon the lawful Ministers desire or invitation in a settled serene state of our Church, so in this her ruined and destroyed condition, the same call abundantly warrants their helping of these congregations, and such poor Macedonians, who desire their help while under destroying Schismatics, who have no lawful call to be their Miinisters from God or this Church.  
But here our Informer assaults us with a dilemma; either Presbyterian Ministers call is ordinary, or extraordinary. Ordinary they have none, since they are not invited by the Ministers of the congregations to whom they preach, extraordinary they will not pretend unto. I Answer by a counterdilemma, and retort his argument thus, either the pretended Ministers of these congregations have an ordinary or extraordinary call to officiat therein, ordinary they have none according to the Doctrine, Reformation, and principles of this Church, being neither called by the people, nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church, if we speak of the generality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelates, upon these congregations where they officiat, and for those who were otherwise ordained and have conformed, we have told him that by accepting presentation from Patrons and collation from Prelates, they have renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination and the call of this Church consequently, and thus do fall under the same consideration with the rest; and for the exraordinary call neither the one nor the other, will pretend unto it. And when he answers this dilemma, and by the Scripture-rules, and the Principles, and reformation of this Church, (which the Informer hath not disproved, yea admits us to suppose in this question) justifies the Curates call to of ●…iciat in these congregations over which they assume an authority we shall produce ours as to this practice which he condemns. Beside, what answer will he give to such a dilemma in the mouth of Schismatic congregations, offered unto such Ministers as the Church sends from their own congregations to officiat among them? And whatever his answer be, it will suit our case. Then he tells us of acts of councils condemning this encroachment, as he calls it, But when he shall exhibit a case parallel to ours, which these acts speak unto, we shall consider it. For what he adds of the Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Presbyterian Ministers who preached in their congregations, with a practice repugnant to the Scripture and Canons of ancient Councils, he should have done well to have produced these Scriptures which the Doctors alleged: And for ancient Canons, I think all things in their case considered, it would be a hard task to produce these Canons striking against that practice as it stood circumstantiat, considering their Schismatic withstanding the Reformation of this Church, their Arminian principles, and defending popish ceremonies which errors they had openly vented and obstinately maintained.  
His next charge of ordaining others to perpetuat our schism, is a manifest calumny, this true organic Church is by this practice, only propagating a lawful pure Ministry in opposition to their destroying Schismatic course, the blessed fruits whereof, and its seals upon the hearts of the people of God, have been conspicuous, and we hope yet further will. And no less gross is that calumny which follows, anent our great mixed communions, and admission of ignorant vicious persons unto them, who (he says) by our way cannot be kept back, there being none admitted at any seasons of this nature (which have been very rare) but upon sufficient testimonies from faithful Ministers or elderships. But is he not ashamed to object this to us, whereof his party is so notoriously guilty, who are known to admit, yea call promiscuously, to fill their empty tables, (which tender souls dare not approach unto) both gross ignorants, and notoriously profane to the shame and scandal of Religion, and the contempt of that holy ordinance; our persuading people not to own Conformists as the Ministers of this Church we hope doth now appear better grounded then all this Informers persuasives to the contrary. And that we have been in any measure successful in this, speaks out Gods purpose not to leave wholly our married land.  
For that which he citys out of Baxter's preface to the Cure of Church divisions anent the odiousness of Sacrifices presented to God, without love and reconciliation to brethren, and of making a people's communion in worship, the badge and means of uncharitablness and divisions, we th●…nk reconciliation and unionin the Lord needful to acceptable worship, but an association with scandalous Schismatics and backsliders in their wickedness, we think is no less dangerous and obstructive to real fellowship with God in duty; especially since God presses our coming out from among such, and our being separat from the contagion of their sin, with this motive, that he will receive us. And as there is a holy brotherhood which we must associate with in order to communion with God, so there is a congregation of evil doers which we must hate. Yea we have David's precedency (as is before observed) to hate them with perfect hatred, and count them our enemies. But who can sufficiently admire these men's talk of unity and love who having first broken and divided this poor Church have been these so many years persecuting to the death, yea sweeming in the blood of the faithful Ministers and professors thereof because hey durst not join to their way, and conform to their supposed trifles and indifferencies. Surely prelacy being the grand Idol of Jealousy provoking God against us, and the fire which hath kindled all our combustions, and hath opened the veins of the Lords servants and people to bleed for many years, occasioned such horrid dispersion and unheard of oppression 〈◊〉 the Lords Church and people in our Land, with what f●…ces can these upholders of this course look up to the God of Love and peace, and how can they lift up suc●… bloody wrathful hands to him.  
But now his poor half proselyted Doubter confesses that [there is much truth in what he has heard from this sound Informer forsooth— And takes leave with a professed resolution to reflect upon what he has heard from him,] Whereupon he dismisses him with some of his healing advices, prefacing with an admonition to seek illumination from God. But had this man been serious in seeking this from God, he had not vented in these trilling Dialogues such weak notions and reproaches against God's truth and people. But since his Doubter returns him no answer thereunto, I shall make up his want and shortly offer my thoughts upon them. His first advice, is not to be too confident of our own opinion as undoubtedly right, but consider what he hath said in his three conferences. Ans. If it be truth which we hold, sure we most hold it by faith in a pure conscience, and not be wavering and ●…ossed children. We acknowledge not the Cartesian principle, and the popish doubting way as found divinity, and a confidence of truth is far from a self confidence. As for what is offered in his three dialogues, I hope it is sufficiently antidoted by what is said above, so that it needs not in the least demur our persuasion.  
2. He will not have us think the matters of difference to be the substantials of Relegion, since persons of both persuasions may keep love and fellowship without renting the Church and neglecting ordinances, because greater differences have been; and communion not broken thereby. Ans. If these matters controverted be not substantials, why then have they made such a substantial bloody contest for them ●…anquam pro aris & focis, for so many years, and if communion must not be broken in a Church upon this account, why have they rend and overturned our Church, and persecute away so many godly Ministers and professors for these things, denying all fellowship with them in their worship, for adhering to their principles, and disowning this course of conformity? had prelatists suffered Presbyterian Ministers and professors to stand as they were in this Church, to enjoy their principles, and to follow their respective duties according to their stations, faithful Ministers to preach, and God's people to enjoy the fruits of their Ministry, he might with some colour have pretended to this desire of union and fellowship, but since prelatists have cast them out, and do so cruelly persecute them for adhering to their principles, and owning these duties, this pretence is nothing but deceitful hypocrisy. He adds, that the difference is but a matter of government, and if we separat for this, we would have separate from all Churches since christianity began and if Christ held no comunion with a Church, where prelacy was, he hath then seldom had a Church, and hath been for many years a head without members. Ans. This is nothing but a renewed repetition of groundless assertions: for how proves he that our plea is a matter of government only? surely their course strikes at the whole of our Reformation, as hath been cleared. Again, how proves he that we would have separate upon this ground from the Church for so long a time, though it were granted that our plea were only a matter of government, since he hath not yet produced instances of such a prelacy as we have, in any Church. Besides, since the Informer pleads for prelacy upon pretended Apostolical precepts and practices, and yet doth here vilify it unto a mere punctilio, and makes it such a sorry business as persons may come and go upon it at their pleasure, we may easily discover what nimble Sophisters, and slippery fingered Gentlemen he and his fellows are as to the retaining and holding of divine institutions, and that they can easily expose them to sale, for obtaining easeful serenity and other worldly designs. Or how proves he that its the government of our Church which they have introduced? or that they are the Church? or that we are in this practice separating from our Church? Hath not Christ a mystical body in Scotland without prelates? or finally, how proves he that there is alike ground for Joining to prelacy, introduced by an Apostate party, after it is cast out, and abjured by all, as there is for Joining in fellowship with a Church continuing Long under that corruption, and not purged and reform from it. The Joining with them in their worship, being demanded as a badge of our consent to prelacy itself and all the corruptions attending the same.  
3. He pleads for charity, and that we say not Conformists are graceless because of this difference, he tells us, that for all Corinth's corruptions, the Apostle spends a whole chapter upon Love, and that such as have least truth, have lest charity, that the weak christians who understood not their liberty Rom. 14. in being loosed from the ceremonial Law, had least charity as they had least truth, and so papists to protestants. Ans. This charge lies most directly home to himself, and those of his way. Let more than 20. years' Law & practice, in relation to the ruin of a faithful remnant of Ministers and professors who adhere to the reformation and government of this Church, and their vows for promoting the same, discover what hath been the charity of our Prelatical party. Beside, whatever be our thoughts as to their state with God, and without judging their eternal condition, it's no breach of charity to know such as are seducers from God's way, to beware of sin, and the ensnaring of such seducers, for which we have so many scripture commands as we have heard, and the Judgement of discretion in relation to evils which we are to eshew, is not that uncharitable judging in matters Lawful and Indifferent, which is condemned, Rom. 14. 3, 4. for else we could not act in faith. And the same Corinthians whom Paul exhorted so much to Love, he enjoined also to come out from among the ungodly 2 Cor. 6. and to flee the contagion of their sin.  
4. He advises to consider the danger of divisions Gal. 5. 15. Mark 3. 24. since the enemy mocks religion upon this ground, and while each fights with another, all are overcome, which he illustrats with the story of Scilurus his sheaf of arrows Ans. Divisions indeed among God's people are sad, and have had sad effects, but union must be in truth and duty, and cemented with these bonds, since it is the unity of the spirit which we must seek Eph. 4. 3. and therefore not in a way of defection and Rebellion against God and in breaking his Covenant, which is nothing else but a combination against him; It is in the Lord, that we must be of the same mind, Phil. 4 2. and Christ who prayed so enixly, for his disciples union, Joh. 17. 21. prayed also for their sanctification in and by the truth, 17. ver. and that they might be kept from the evil of the world, 15. ver. And the Apostle Paul who is so great a pleader for Love and union, would not give place by subjection to deceitful workers, no not for an hour Gal. 2. 5. The best way to mantain union & preserve the Gospel (which their dividing innovating course of backsliding hath exposed to so much prevalency and reproach of Papists) is to keep our garments free of their defilements, & to put away that accur said thing which hath made us so weak before enemies.  
5. He advises his Doubter to acquaint himself with the writings of the old Non-conformists in England, such as Cartwright, Bradshaw, Ball, etc. Who testify against the Brownists for their separation from that Church (for which he says much more might have been alleged then for ours.) Ans. We acknowledge that these worthy men have done well upon this subject, and that separation which they wrote against; But our case [anent a Church purely reform from corruptions of doctrine, worship, discipline and Government and under universal oaths of adherence to that reformation infested, encroached upon, and invaded by a party of Schismatic overturners of her reformation, standing in opposition to a faithful Ministry, and professors adhering to them,] is so vastly discrepant from their case, [anent keeping up fellowship with a Church universally tainted with corruptions, from which she had never been purged,] that by no imaginable grounds, can a consequence be drawn from the one to the other. And any consequence relating to us, or application of the plead of these Divines against the Brownists, will properly strike against his dividing party, who have gone out from the fellowship of this pure Church, to which they were Joined, and did vow adherence to her constitution and reformation, yet notwithstansting by them thus miserably rend and destroyed for many years.  
As for these Rules of Mr Baxter in his Cure of Church divisions, which this Informer doth afterward commend unto us, we are not much concerned in their explication or application, since they do not in the least-strike against what we maintain, therefore we shall briefly run over them. For the first here mentioned, [anent not making communion with a Church stricker than Christ hath made it] when we disowne dividers and Schismatics renting and destroying a pure Church, and introducing abjured innovations, we do not narrow these terms of communion, which Christ hath given. For he hath commanded us to withdraw from such as cause divisions and offences, contrary to our received ordinances, and not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, to turn away from Covenant-breakers; And it's their dividing party who fall under the censure of this rule, who make compliance with abjured prelacy the terms of their communion, and so cruelly persecute all who will not conform to their course of backsliding. There is no doubt equal danger on the other extreme in making the terms of our communion laxer than Christ hath appointed. For the 2 rule which he mentions [anent a due impression of the evil of division and discord, and the reasons and necessity of union.] I think indeed had this Informer and his party, kept up a Scripture impression of this, they had not for the punctilios of their trifling Conformity, so miserably rend this poor Church, and overturned her Reformation. For the 3. [anent not engaging too far in a divided sect,] it reaches Conformists, another blow, who have so far engaged for Prelates and their Interest, that for many years it hath been the great work of our Laws (by the instigation of them, and their Rabbis) to root out all Ministers and professors of this Church, who do not conform, and own this course of backsliding. Dare this petulant Informer call adherence to this Church, her sworn Reformation, principles, and faithful Ministry, adherence to a divided Sect. For the 4. [anent the difference betwixt a sound and sinful zeal, and that we be suspicious of our Religious passions] we say, zeal for the Gospel, for keeping Covenant with God, for reformation from popry and prelacy (which is the the Test of our zeal as stated in opposition to them) doth convincingly evidence its soundness. For the 5. [anent not being over tender of our repute, or impatient of men's censures,] we say, to be tender of truth and duty, and our good name in maintaining it, which is as precious ointment, and to be tender of not offending and displeasing all who are thus tender, is nothing but a true and Gospel-tenderness. For the 6. [anent eshewing needless fellowship with the more censorious Christians] we say, we stand obliged to keep fellowship with all the godly in all duties, and this charge of over censoriousness we deny as to our plea against Conformists, neither hath he Informer yet made it good. For the 7. [that we lay not too much weight on doubtful opinions, nor begin with them] we bless God that in this pure Church, God's people have been taught the solid beginnings and first principles, and do build on that foundation; But we have not so learned Christ, as to put into the Category of things doubtful, breach of Covenant, abjured Prelacy, and a Schismatic sinful compliance therewith, For the 8. [anent not admiring or favouring a preacher for his voice, affectionate utterance, etc. Without solid understanding,] we say, God's people with us have been helped not to regard men's speech, but their power. And as they know Christ the great shepherd his truth, by his voice from them, accordingly as his sheep to follow them. For the 9 [anent not rejecting a good cause, because owned by bad men] we say, the cause we disowne is bad in itself, and we disowne the owners of this bad cause, upon this ground; And are confirmed in our disowning of it, by the fruits which we see the owning of it produceth in its supporters and abbetors, which are such as do warrant us according to our Lords command, to avoid and beware of them. For the 10. [not to follow the bad examples of Religious persons,] we bless the Lord we are taught to walk by the rule of God's Word, not by examples of men, and not to follow even a Paul further than he is a follower of Christ. For the 11. [anent keeping an eye on the state of all Churches upon earth, and pondering how Christ keeps fellowship with them, lest while we think we separat only from these about us, we separate from almost all Churches] we say, that we have looked upon our own Church deservedly, as among the purest and best reform, and by the same rule are concerned to keep up fellowship with her, as knowing that such as renounce fellowship with her, would renounce it with all Churches. And this we do with a due charity for all Reformed Churches, and whatever Churches do hold the foundation. But upon these grounds we are bound to disowne destroying Schismatics, as are our Conformists, who have introduced abjured innovations contrary to her pure constitution and Reformation, and have gone out from her fellowship, and by the same consequential reason, from the fellowship of all Churches. For the last rule which he mentions, [that we count it as comfortable to be a martyr for love and peace by blind zealots, as for the faith by infidels] we say, that we own no zeal which is not according to knowledge, and are contending for the union and reformation of our Mother against a party of blind fiery zealots, for ane abjured hierarchy contrary to the Word of God and this Churches vows, in which honourable quarrel that many have suffered even to bonds, imprisonments, yea death itself, it is our Glory. As for what he adds [of the English nonconformists, their testyfing against separation, as a way which God never blessed with peace and holiness though they dissented from the Ceremonies] I nothing doubt, but that they would have put the same Character upon the practice of the Prelates and their followers, had they seen and known all the circumstances of our case. They dissenting from fellowship in the ceremonies, and eatenus from fellowship in the Worship, though that Church, had never been purged from them, how much more than are we concerned to disowne innovations introduced into this Church, after they have been cast out and vowed against. Suppose that Church, had been (as ours) Reform in doctrine Worship, discipline and Government, and a party had risen up destroying that pure constitution, contrary to all their vows, admitting none to fellowship without acknowledging of their wicked course, persecuting and casting out all Ministers and professors, who would not concur? And then let them tell us what these nonco●…ists would have done in this case, surely upon the same ground that they eshewed a contagion in communicating with the Ceremonies, they would have eshewed this piece of contagious conformity also. Especially the express vows of adherence to that supposed reformation in every piece of it, and of disowning all recesses, all backsliders, and of owning all adherers to these vows in prusuing the ends thereof, being taken in, and duly pondered.  
After the close of this Dialogue, our Informer will needs strengthen his plea in presenting unto us, by way of Apendix, some passages of the English Presbyterians, their Jus divinum Ministerij Anglicani, and likewise in Mr Rutherfoord his due right of Presbytery, anent the unwarrantableness of Separatio●…, which as they are utterly alien from our purpose, so (as would seem in the conviction hereof) he doth not so much as offer to draw an argument from any of them, while propounding these his grand supposed topics, except a general hint at the close, which is utterly insufficient to fortify his conclusion, as we shall after show, but leaves the favourable conclusion to be drawn by his half-proselyted Doubter, or friendly partial reader. However (although upon the matter any seeming conclusion he might draw from them is answered, yet) we shall view them briefly, having premised (1.) That he supposes but hath not yet made good, the charge of a sinful separation upon the people of God in this case, which we have shown to be more applicable to himself. 2. That the case of separation from that Church at that time because of her corruptions, is far wide from this case of our disowning Conformists now, and consequently all his citations will never come home to our purpose, because.  
1. Not to separat from a Church upon the ground of corruptions which have been long settled in her; is very far distinct from this practice of disowning an Innovating party introducing corruptions to the ruin of a pure Church, after they have been seen, and universally cast out, which is the practice he now pleads for; a stop as to an advance in Reformation, is much different from backsliding in this case, and especially the joining to a backsliding party who are not the true Church, is much different from adherence to a Church though backslidden. It's a far different case not to leave the communion of a Church because of some corruptions, and not to join with an unsound party of a Church drawing back from her Reformation: So that upon a due consideration of the matter of fact, and Presbyterian principles, its evident that these Testimonies do level against Conformists.  
2. It's a far different case to own the Ministry of a corrupt Church wherein prelacy is universally owned, and wherein there hath been no other way of entry into the Ministry for many generations but by Prelacy: and to own a party of Schismatic Intruders introducing Prelacy over the belly of a Presbyterian Church, and shutting out her faithful Mininistry, surely these Intruders are in this case the Brownists.  
3. It's a far different case to submit to a Ministry merely Episcopal, and to keep the Worship in a Church long under this Government, and to submit to an Episcopal Erastian Ministry, and a Church Government fundamentally corrupt, deriving all its power from an Antichristian supremacy, and mere civil papacy, after it hath been eminently and universally disowned by that Church, and vowed against, Especially when a backsliding party only do thus usurp over the sound Ministry, and have ejected them, and this Erastian abomination is set up to raze this true spiritual Government of the Church once universally settled and owned.  
4. It's a far different case, to submit to an Episcopal Ministry so far as pure, while Episcopacy is universally owned, and no obligation is upon any to disowne it, further than its own corruption in that case will amount to and infer: and to own and submit to an episcopal Erastian Government introduced by an Innovating party into a Presbyterian Church against her standing acts, solemn Oaths and vows universally taken on by that Church against the same, while a faithful Ministry, and the great part of the people are in Conscience of their vows contending against it. Surely this superinduced obligation requires a higher degree of zeal against that defection, and renders it the more heinous. The high places permitted to David and Solomon before the Temple was built, are censured in after times; greater light and obligations do in this case cast the balance.  
These considerations do clearly repel any argument which he would draw from his citations to our case. But now to view them, The English Presbyterians in that piece do first assert page 10. [that all in the same bounds most be under the care of the same Minister, and that these limits ought not to be brangled Ans. This shall be easily accorded, give us our beautiful Church-order and a lawfully called Ministry and this parochial order shall be observed, and obeyed.  
2. (page 11.) [A man under a wicked or Heretical Minister must remove his habitation rather than brangle parochial order.] Ans Than it follows in their principles, that when the order and union of a Reformed Church is already brangled by Innovating Schismatics, whose wickedness and errors are palpable, men may attend a more pure Ministry without Schism, by clear consequence, sure he is a loser by this.  
3. (page 12.) [to appoint Elders in every Church, and every city, is all one, and converts in the city must join with the congregation in Churchfellowship.] Ans. But what if a party in the city call themselves the Church, shut out the true Minister, and bring in one of their own, must not the true converts own their first Minister, and oppose these Innovators? Surely this Testimony rebounds another blow upon our misinformer.  
4. (page 25.) [evil men defacto have been officers, Hophni and Phineas, Scribes and Pharisees, whose Ministerial acts were not null, and Christ's commission authorized Judas.] Ans. This will as much plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers as Conformists: And if he allege that they are disorderly, Schismatical, etc. and therefore must not be owned in this case. I answer ●…he must prove this which he hath not yet done. 2. He must acknowledge, that the granting that the Ministerial acts of Church-officers, are not null by their sins, will not plead for hearing Ministers in every case, until aliunde, and from other grounds, our obligation to own such men as our Ministers hic & nunc be made good, which he hath not yet done as to Curates. Neither Hophni or Phineas, nor the Scribes and Pharisees, were rooting out the faithful Ministry of the Church of the Jews, who would not concur in a course of defection, after they had laid down a course to overturn the ordinances: which is the case of Conformists in relation to us, as is evident. Again, state the question so that Hophni and Phineas, and the Pharisees Ministry could not be owned without partaking in their sin, than this man must needs grant, that God's people were obliged to disowne them, and had disowned them. Now we have proven this to be our case as to the owning of Conformists.  
5. (page 42, 43.) [Israel is called the people of the Lord, even after the Calves were set up at Dan and Bethel, and Cajaphas was owned as high priest, though they came to the office by bribry and faction, and the highpriest had an hand in crucifying Christ] Ans. The same reply and retortion recurs as formerly▪ what will he say if we plead this for presbyterian Ministers, whom he will not call worse than these mentioned, nor will he say that our Presbyterian Church is worse than that Church. So that he must grant this will not reach his conclusion, till more be supposed and proved in this point. Again, though God in his sovereign dispensation had not as yet cast off the ten tribes, having a faithful remnant among them, yet I hope he will not from this plead for owning the Calves, or the Priest's Ministry whom Jeroboam had obtruded, and set up contrary to God's institution, and for keeping up that woeful breach in God's worship, and in Israel, which was thereby promoted, and this is a fit emblem of their Innovating prelatic Ministry. Beside that the high priests were men in a considerable measure deciders and Interpreters of the civil Law, and might in that respect be owned. But however, it is (as we have said) bade arguing from the comporting with corruptions in that old dispensation and Ministry especially when drawing near an end, to the receiving of abjured corruptions into a Church which has been rid of them, and from a non-separating in the first case, to conclude against a non-union or non compliance in the second. And thus neither will Paul's carriage toward the high priest, Acts 23. plead for adhering to Curates upon the same grounds. For he will not say that Paul understood not his office in a spiritual sense to be now expired, and that he was not to be owned as a teacher, who was every way destitute of the truth of the gospel, and an enemy unto it. Jackson thinks with seural others, that Paul said, I knew not that he was the high priest etc. ironically, it being very improbable, that Paul knew not the high priest, and suppose it were so, he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover, so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest, because as a judge it was against the law to revile him. Therefore (saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28.) though they understood Paul as excusing himself, yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted God's highpriest, who carried so. Which (saith he) is the more probable, when it's considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended, when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood. Calvine on that place of the Acts says, It's not credible that Paul-gave him his wont honour. — Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas, & secuta turpis prophanatio, Paulum quasi integra vigeret, solito honore prosecutum fuisse, qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur, after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ, and vile profanity attending it, that Paul, as if the priesthood had been standing entire, would have allowed the wont honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title. And having objected to himself, that we must not contemn civil Magistrates, in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers — Inter civiles Magistratus (saith he) & ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus— there is a difference betwixt civil Magistrates and Church officers, though the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet (he tells us) the Lord will have subjection remain entire. — Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat sol●…untur piorum conscientiae, ne injustae dominationi pareant etc. spiritual government being degenerate, the consciences o●… the faithful are loosed from obedience to an unjus●… domination. But our Informer will say, that I thu●… set the authors of jus divinum minist. anglic. by the ear●… with Calvin and jackson as to the sense of this place. I answer, they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest, bu●… only, that many think he did. 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoined, viz. that corruptions cleaving to God's ordinances null them not, is not laid upon this solely, nor positiuly at all, even as a partial, but only as a probable ground. And the conclusion itself when admitted, will never reach his design as is above cleared. Again, admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title, or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time, as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion, civil rule, as such, being God's ordinance, which is not made null by corruptions, so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgement of the spiritual part of his administration.  
Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians. Let us next consider, how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that piece forecited, if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning, since he offers not (as I said) any argument from these citations, but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers. In that piece [scil. Due right of presb. page 220. to 256.] There are several passages which this man takes hold of, as 1. [He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached, and sacraments duly administrat, is unlawful, and vindicats 2 Cor. 6.] Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry & professors then for Conformists, whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church, in such a case as this, since (as we heard) he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now, the pure Church remains with the smaller steadfast number, and that the backsliders from truth and purity, though the ●…reater number, yet really are the Schismatics. And ●…n this sense we are to understand him when he says that this separation as to worship, will not infer an absolute separation, And his allowing non-union, where there is not sufficient cause of separation, in the case of purer to be joined with, and his admitting a partial separation, because of a partial corruption of ordinances (Peaceable plea page 121.) will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case; and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words (Peaceable plea page 122.) doth not suit our case and express such a sense thereof as we have explaind; and if he would not have applied that which follows unto our present prelatic party, had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances, viz. we separate not from a true Church or her Lawful Pastors, when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds, who will not go before us, and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so? Thus (page 148. concl. 6.) he tells us, we may separat from the worship when we separate not from the Church. So that its evident, that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separate not from the Church of Scotland, nor her worship, while withdrawing from Curates, in attending the Ministry of Christ's faithful ambassadors.  
In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that piece mentioned, viz. (page 233.) [the personal faults of others, are not sufficient ground for separation— That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin, though they knew one of them had a Devil.] Again (page 250.) [It was not Lawful to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth.] (page 253.) [The Godly separated no●… from the Church, when the altar of damascus was se●… up, things dedicat to Idols, as Lutheran images, are called Idolatry, 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation, and the cup of devils, yet Paul command●… not separation, and the table of the Lord was there.] I answer, this is already removed by what is said above, as to any conclusion for his cause, which thi●… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ou●… upon these citations. 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland, to which in this case we are obliged to adhere, or 2. If we can prove, that according to our Church's Reformation, Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organic Church of Scotland, though the persecute smaller number (which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy, for he says that in case of defection, truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part, (Due right page 253.) In either case I say this will plead more appositely for adherence to Presbyterian Ministers and their Assemblies.  
Next, Mr Rutherfoords scope is to prove, that personal faults corrupt not the worship, which we deny not, but as we have above cleared this falls utterly short of reaching his conclusion, as to the owning of Curates, until he first prove his forementioned suppositions, wherein he begs the question, and this principle or assertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more strongly for not disowning Presbyterian Ministers until this Informer prove his suppositions, and disprove ours in this debate.  
In a word, the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this, that there is no reason whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presbyterian Ministers, and inferring a conclusion of owning them, but it will either, first be retorted upon himself, or secondly, the universality of the argument, and the conclusion deduced there from, so limited, as utterly to irritat his design; since he must acknowledge, that there may be a Lawful separation from a Ministry and ordinances, although not polluted by personal scandals. And therefore this principle in every case will not infer a separation to be unlawful, far less a non union, and he must acknowledge that to argue the unlawfulness of a separation or non-union in every case, or merely, from this ground [that there is no pollution of ordinances by the personal faults of Worshippers or administrators thereof] is a gross petitio principii & ignoratio elenchi; and which his case, supposeth many things which are to be proved, as 1. That Conformists are this Church. 2. That this practice of disowning them as now circumstantiat, is properly a sinful separation. 3. That Prelatists have the best right to officiat as Ministers in this Church. 4. That we have no other reasons for a non-union but this pretended pollution of ordinances, and that we stand obliged upon this supposition that the ordinances are not thus polluted, to join to them rather than Presbyterian Ministers. And since this principle will prove them all to be Schismatics who disowne Presbyterian Ministers in preaching the Gospel, it will follow therefrom that our Informer is in this pamphlet pleading for Schism, or else he must so limit this position, as thereby his conclusion against us shall be utterly cut off as is said.  
Fourthly, he presents unto us that passage (page 254.) where he shows [That the godly in England though separating from Bishops and Ceremonies did not separat from that Church; and approves their doing so, and in keeping communion therewith in unquestionable duties, the contrary whereof he charges upon these separatists against whom he reasoneth, telling us ibidem, that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation, and yet retain the true faith, it's to be presumed that God hath some there to be saved,— that Christ himself is where his ordinances are, and some union with him the head— that though a private scandalous brother ought to be cast off, yet not an Orthodox Church.] Ans. 1. The Presbyterians have all this to plead for pleoples' adherence to them, until this Informer prove that the prelatic party are our national organic Church, which will be ad Kalendas Graecas. 2. Mr Rutherfoord all along states his question as to separation, from a Church so and so polluted. Ergo he spaks not of a Schismatic destroying Innovating party, or a separation from them rather than a sound Church contending against them, which would quite invert his scope and arguing, and the ground and hypothesis thereof. For I pose this man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators cast out the true Ministry, and should plead this passage of Mr Rutherfoords for their schism and the people's adherence to them, sure he would charge them with begging the question, as we do Consormists in this point, and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them.  
Fiftly, Mr Rutherfoord says ib idem [We may separat from the Lords supper where the bread is adored— and from baptism where the sign of the cross is— yet we are not to separat from the Church.] Ans. We may hence collect that in Mr Rutherfoords principles 1. We are to separat from all contagious Worship, though not absolutely corrupt. 2. That this is no separation from the Church while there is a purer Church & Ministry to be joined with, and to which we were joined. 3. That a fortiori a non-union unto, and disowning of a backsliding party, who are not our Church, is warrantable because of their contagious corruptions, especially when (as is said) the opposition of that party to the true Church is so virulent. Mr Rutherfoord tells us there, that we separate not from the Church when we profess to hear the word, and allow the truth of Doctrine, and do not Presbyterian professors own the true Doctrine of our Reformed Church, while hearing and and adhering unto her faithful Pastors. Beside, Mr Rutherfoord tells us, that there may be cause of non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation, as Paul separate not from the Jews till they blasphemed, yet, saith he, there was no cause why people should join to that Church before that time, since they had the cleaner to join with viz. That of the Apostles— Ergo in case of a true Reformed Church her being divided, and rend by a backsliding destroying party opposing her Authority, union and purity, introducing Innovations into her, contrary to her Reformation and vows, and casting out her faithful Ministry who dare not comply with their wicked course, a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithful Ministry contending against them, is no sinful separation from the Church, nor a separation at all by Mr Rutherfoords doctrine. Sure the Presbyterian party are in our principles the cleanest Church, to whom therefore Mr Rutherfoords allows to adhere. (page 253.)  
But here the Informer presents us another passage in that same place to repel what is said, viz. that he asserts [there is no just cause to leave a less clean Church (if true) and to go to a purer, though one who is a member of no Church may join to that which he conceives purest.] Ans. This makes as little for him as any of the rest, for 1. He is still speaking of a Church, thus entirely less pure, in comparison of a more pure. But blessed be God their prelatic impurity, has not infected all our Church, their being 1000 of Ministers & professors who adhere to the truth. This man will not say that this will plead for a people's adherence to a party of Schismatic backsliders' Intruding upon a pure Church, Introducing Innovations into her, and ejecting her faithful Ministry as Conformists are now doing; which will be yet more convincingly clear, if we consider 2. that Mr Rutherfoord lays much weight upon this, that a man is already a member of that Church which is less pure, but we cannot be said to be hactenus members of, and on this ground under a prior obligation of adherence unto, a party of Innovators and backsliders, who are destroying and ruining the pure Church, but in this case our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithful Ministry, thus opposed as is said.  
But now at last our Informer who hath been hitherto silent as to any inference from his citations, draws out a general conclusion from them, that in Mr Rutherfoords judgement and the English divines, neither the personal faults of Ministers, Nor real faults about the Worship (much less supposed only) will warrant a separation, which when admitted lifts not his cause one hair breadth off the dust, as is clear from what is said; since he hath proved none of these three, either 1. That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation, nor 2. That this practice of disowning them in this our case, is a sinful separation. Or 3. that we disowne then merely for personal scandals, or some corruption in Worship. Whereas we have proved that abstracting from both these, we have ground of disowning them as Schismatic Innovators destroying this Church; and himself must grant that there may be a non-union unto, yea a separation from a party ground lesly assuming the name of a Church, though neither their personal faults do pollute the worship, nor the worship itself be simpliciter disowned, or else he must yield the cause when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyterian Ministers, and for not separating from them: since it is upon this ground, that all along he pleads for people's disowning them, though he dare not say that the ordinances are polluted by their supposed scandals.  
After this our Informer exhorts his Doubter, to try all things— and not to be ashamed to retract what is amiss, as Augustin wrote books of retractions and jerom exhorted Ruffinus not to be ashamed to confess an error. Ans. I think indeed, we are to search all things by the rule of the word, and had he with a single heart and an eye to the God of truth, searched better, he had not obtruded upon God's people (in defence of so bad a cause) such insignificant arguments for demonstrations. But why exhorted he not his Doubter to hold fast what is good, as well as to try all things? It is not fit to be ever learning, and fix in nothing. And no doubt this latter part of that scripture precept, justifies our opposing their Innovations. But he pleads for retractions, and it's no wonder to see men who have Justified the casting aside such solemn Oaths and vows unto God, plead for retractions. But if he and his party retract not such monstrous retractions (the very naming whereof would have made Augustin and Jerom astonished) the woe threatened against perjury, backsliding, & breach of Covenant is very near them. His concluding prayer that God bless us with truth and peace, is good, and heartily accorded, and surely when our Jerusalem shall have this spiritual prosperity, peace, and truth (which this man pretends to pray for) within her walls, prelates and their woeful train and corrupt principles, which have made such sad breaches in her walls, will be without them. And the prosperity of such as love her, will ruin her enemies.  
His Doubters Resolution [to hold fast what is good upon the proof of all things] makes up his lame advice. And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the serious Doubter in that which this man hath been misinforming him about, and antidoted this poison, we pray that all the sincere enquirers for truth, may hold it fast against the times errors and defection. The character of schism presented to us at the close of the pamphlet, is verified in the party he pleads for: since their proud usurpation of the name and authority of this Church, after they have thus rend and separat from her, demonstrats this their schism to be superbiaeproles. And in their taking up such gross unheard of principles anent Oaths, anent Magistracy &c. to maintain and uphold this usurping hierarchy, they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of schism, that male perseverando fit haeresis. And because of the corruptions which it is like to be more & more productive of, It may very probably become also mater haereseos. The Lord awake for judgement, and send a plentiful rain to water his in heritance, and revive his work in the admist of the years, and make his face to shine upon his sanctuary in these lands, which is disolat, for his name's sake.   

CHAP. VI  
Animadversions Upon the PREFACE, And title Page.  
Having thus examined what this new Casuist hath offered in these Dialogues, we shall here subjoin some Animadversions upon the Preface prefixed to this pamplet (1.) His professed design is to let people see the sin and unwarrantableness of separation as the Epidimicall disease of the time. Ans. I think indeed it is so. and upon whose side this separation lies, and who hath brought in this flood as he calls it, not since 78 but 62 I hope may be now no doubt to the impartial discerner. It's no strange thing to see men charge upon others, that whereof themselves are so eminently guilty, Papists call themselves the only Catholics and charge Protestant Churches with separation, just as this man and his Innovating party deal with us, they only must be the Church of Scotland, and we the Schismatics, though not many years ago it would have been thought (I believe by many of these men themselves) as strange a●…e absurdity and paradox, to term such a party owning such principles and practices as they now do, the Church of Scotland, as to affirm that nihil was aliquid, non ens, ens, or that Zenith was in the situation and place of Nadir: such ane intoxicating thing is backsliding and sinful self love.  
2. He praises Magistrates in the bounds where he is, whose authority together with his mighty convictions (forsooth) brought back people who went once to hear Presbyterian Ministers out of novelty. Ans, ●…s no small piece of our sin and desolation that the Magistrates sword given him for protection of the Lords faithful Ambassadors in following their duty, according to there solemn vows to God, should be improven in such a sinful opposition to them. What peace and order in this Church hath attended their monstrous perperjurious backsliding, were 20 years' experience may discover especially to those who have seen and known the beautiful order of our first glorious ●…temple, the very rubbish, whereof is yet refreshful in any remains of a faithful Ministry that is left.  
3. Against his modest reluctancy (forsoo●…h) some of authority and learning among his party thought it fit that these his Dialogues should see the light, because schismatic principles and practices are not laid aside but carried on and this Informer thou ht it a mater of conscience to discover to such as are willing to be informed, how unwarrarantable such cours●…s are, if Scripure and even the Doctrine of Presbyterians may be admitted to judge. Ans. How he hath fastened this charge of Schismatic principles and practices upon Presbyterian Ministers and Professors, I leave it to the Impartial to Judge from what is here replied. And how far any thing which he hath affered either from Scripture, or the principles of Presbyterians, is from reaching the conclusion which he aims at in these trifling Dialogues; which all who are conscientious are (we hope) shy this rejoinder, and a respect to truth and duty, sufficiently antidoted against, and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at such prodigiously bold ignorance.  
4. He wonders that so many of good note and not of the commons only are drinking in the principles of Brounists, which have been zealously disputed against by old nonconformists. Ans. How h●… hath made good this charge I refer it to the persusall of what is here replied, and how far the plead of these Non-conformists whom he mentions are from helping his cause. I must here add, that its astoninishing to find this man pretending a principle of conscience for this undertaking, when his conscience could not but tell him, that both upon the point of Episcopacy, the Covenants, and separation also, he might have found all and more than he hath said fully answered, and that he pitifully snakes away from our arguments & dar not propose them in there genuine strength. Nay he doth not so much as offer fairly to state the question in any of these three great points which he pretends to inform us about, but confusedly shuffles them up for his own advantadge. And upon the point of the Covenant obligation, he poorly follows the arguments of the Seasonable case, and some hints from the Surveyer without so much as offering any return unto what the Apologist hath long since repelyd unto them. If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge? and yet he is not ashamed to tell the world, that because Episcopacy and the covenants are by people made the great grounds of separating, therefore he premised his two dialogues concerning Episcopacy and the Covenants, to show what a sandy ground they are for separation, if prelacy be found at least Lawful, and the Covenants in every case not obligatory, whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacy lawful, or the Covenant not obligatory, but what is by several of the godly learned abundantly answered and fully baffled, several of which (viz. the Apollogist, and jus divinum Ministry Anglican, he seems to have had before him in writing these Dialogues, and yet nather doth he touch the answers of the Apologist to his arguments anent the Covenant, nor dar he scan the pungent arguments of the London Ministers against prelacy, and likewise there answers to several things which he has offered for it, and particularly there learned Appendix in the point of Antiquity, which cuts the sinews of all his tedious legend of testimonies, he durst not meddle with. Beside It would seem he hath seen Smectymnus upon this subject, whose learned confutation of the Episcopal plea as well from scripture as antiquity he passes over sicco pede. And as for Erastian prelacy, he offers not a jot indefence of it, though his conscience could tell him that this is one main point of our plea against him. So that suppose Episcopacy were in its self found Lawful, as he says, yet if Erastian Episcopacy be found unlawful, his cause and pleading is lame and lost.  
After this he would amuse his reader with a testimony of Zanchie and another of blondel which parts the hoofs of his page first as for Zanchie he citys a passage of his Obser: in suam ipsius confessionem cap. 25. aphor: 10. 11. wherein he saves first his faith is simply built upon the word of God, Next In some measure upon the common consent of the ancient Catholic Church, and that he believes what has been defined by holy fathers gathered together in the name of the Lord— citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem that these things are from the Spirit of though not of the same authority with Scripture, than he adds that nothing is more certain from counsels Histories and writings of the Fathers than these orders of Ministers of which he has been speaking to have been received into the Church, with her entire consent, and what is he to condemn what the whole Church has approved. I answer, beside that he should have set down these gradus Ministrorum which Zanchius speaks of, that his reader might have known what these degrees were, or whither they were prelatic degrees or not, which no doubt he would have done had he not found that this would have marred his intent, (for which cause he doth not so much as offer to English any part of this or of the ensuing testimony) we say, first, that any who knows Zanchies learning, and what the voice of the first and pure antiquity is, and how far from giving a testimony to the present Diocesian, much less the Erastian prelate, of whom none can without extreme impudence assert that Zanchie is speaking, will esteem this persuasion [that the prelacy now existant with us hath the universal consent of all histories councils and fathers] to be as far from the thoughts of Zanchie, as its necessary to prove his point 2. Zanchise ayes his faith simply and mainly leans upon the word of God, and so whatever the word is found to condemn (as we have proved it doth the present prelacy in many respects) Zanchie will make no bones to condemn it likewise, own it who will.  
The next passage he citys is of blondel (Apoll. pag. 193.) who asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs absolutely to the government of the Church— and it's anext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the manner & order of its government, which the Church always thought permitted to her arbitrement; Nather must we think every thing unlawful which humane custom of professors hath brought into the use of divine things— That in such things christian prudence must act its part, that no Church must be drawn into ane example, that from the general precept 〈◊〉 Cor. 14: 40▪ the Church hath full power to follow what is more decent and commodious. Ans. 1. We have before cleared that with blondel their diocesian Prelate stands absolutely condemned in scripture, and in his principles is diametrally opposite to the divine Scripture Bishop, which evidently concludes his condemning the present Episcopacy with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction,— much more the Erastian prelate, altering fundamentally the government itself, which he dar not say that blondel ever dreamt of. So that though we should grant because of this testimony, that blondel will befound to admit a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constant Moderator, which It's well known is the outmost length he goes, and that the Church's example and practice here anent may be variable, it falls utterly short of reaching the lest patrociny to his cause. 2. he citys 1 Cor 14. 40. anent alterable circumstances of order and decency, about which the Church's exercise of Christian prudence is conuérsant, so that he must understand what he pleads for to be of that nature, but we have showed upon the first Dialogue how far its contrary to Scripture & reason to include a diocesian Bishop or Arch bishop within the compass of decency and order there commanded, since decency and order points only at circumstances of actions already commanded and circumstances commun to civil and sacred things. And this according to the general rules of the word, so that none can think blondel so sottish as to take in among these, the Diocesian or Erastian Bishop and Archbishop. 3. Since the professed scope of Blondells learned Appology is to plead for sententia Hieronomi— which is that in Apostolic times communi concilio presbyterorum Ecelesiae gubernabantur, surely whatever blondel may admit as to the Church's liberty in relation to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the admission of the diocesian prelate with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction (which this man pleads for) and much more the Erastian prelate, would evert both his hypothesis and scope. Again, he dare not deny that with blondel the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Ministerial scriptural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterat, so that what he calls the modus rei cannot in its self, (and consequently in Blondells meaning) be supposed such a modus rei as destroys the thing itself, & the subject which it affects, as certainly by the Diocesian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, much more the Erastian, doth the very substantials of Presbyters divine power, which this learned author is in that piece pleading for. And in a word I dare pose this Informer, whither blondel would not have thought a national Church's liberty in this point of Custom or alterable circumstances of decency and order (even though we should grant that he puts Episcopacy among these) is tied up and restrained, by sacred solemn Oaths and vows universally taken on against the same; so that his cause is never a whit bettered by these blind Testimonies which (as is said) he he durst not translate, as he professeth to do in the rest of his citations, for the advantage of the unlearned.  
The assertion after subjouned by him viz. that the unlawfulness of Episcopacy was questioned by none of the ancients except Aerius, and rarely by any of the modern except some of our British divines, that ancient and modern divines think that prelacy was the primitive Government left by the Apostles] we have proved to be a manifest untruth. Specially when applied to the prelacy existant with us; and that it is the consentient judgement of the far greatest part, both of ancient and modern that there is no difference jure divino betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter. And that our Prelates now in Scotland are as far different from the ancient Bishops as east from West, so that no patrociny can be drawn from the one to the other. That blondel professes to vindicat Jerom from that which he calls Aerianism, who will believe, taking Aerius opinion to be for the premised Identity of Bishop and Presbyter; since we have made it appear by Testimonies of the learned, that both Greek and Latin Fathers held this same opinion with Aerius. How he hath proved Episcopacy [to be the Government which hath best warrant in the word, and hath continued without interruption for many years] we refer it to the reader to judge by what is above replied, wherein we have made it appear, that as his pretended Scripture proofs for prelacy, and his answers to our Arguments against it, are most frivolous, so none of his pretended Testimonies from antiquity do reach his conclusion, nor any shadow of a patrociny for our present Prelate now established, whom we have fully disproved from Scripture, both in his diocesian and Erastian mould. What poor shadows for proofs doth this man grasp at blondel thought the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawful, and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and good order. Ergo, he pleaded for the Diocesian Bishop with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction, and a Bishop deriving all his power from the civil Magistrate as immediately subject unto him, which is a very antilogical proof and a mere rop of sand.  
Lastly he mainly commends to his reader this Dialogue anent separation [wherein he says all the reasons brought for it are propounded and answered without passion which doth but alienat the minds. Ans. How poorly this man hath answered the true grounds of disowning conformists, or rather past them over, and how pityfully he all along begs the question in supposing what he hath to prove, we hope is made sufficiently appear to the Judicious and impartial. As for passion, its true there is less of this in his Pamphlet then in some other of this stamp which his fellows have flung out among the people, yet he hath his signal flashes of it [in justifying Dr Burnet's parallel of nonconformists with Scribes and Pharisees, and in calling them as great and causeless Schismatics as ever the Church had in any age, nay in his gross malicious reflecting upon the sufferings of poor Innocents' in this land, telling us under the covert of Cyprians words [that their in expiable sin of discord is not purged by their sufferings— that forsaking Christ's Church, they cannot be martyrs nor reign with him,] which, with what a tincture of malice it presents its self, let any judge. His conferences he says do bring water to quenchour flames, but they bring rather fuel to the fire, and wood and hay to uphold Babel. The Rabbis whom he pleads for have kindled our flames, and the best way to quench them Is to put these incendiaries to the door.  
Next he citys the preface of the Syntag. Confess. edit. Genev. [wherein the Church of Scotland is commended for her unity as well as purity of Doctrine, and then he cries out O how have we lost our good name, and the staff of bonds is broken in the midst of us] but he should have been so ingenuous as to have told us that we are in the preface of that Syntagma commended for our reformed Presbyterian discipline as the great bond and cement of our unity, and the guard of our pure doctrine, and who have broken this bond and sacred hedge I need not tell him, and what hath been the distress, confusion and desolation of our Church since it was broken, every one now sees; so that he might lament the loss of our good name upon this ground, and especially of our Integrity where he a true son and watchmen of this Church. The consequences of our sad divisions, through the violence and Schismatic intrusion of abjured perjured Prelates and their underlings have indeed hazarded the standing of Christ's Kingdom among us according to that of Mark 3. 24. And the biting & devouring wolves, the Prelates for whom he pleads have hazarded the consuming of God's poor remnant Gal. 5. 19 Our Church's dissolution & corruption, & were he as tender to prevent this, as to preserve there worldly peace and sinful union, he would have seen Prelacy to be the Idol jealousy, the wedge driven by the popish artisans to divide and break this Church, and as the true cause of all our breaches to be removed in order to healing. The popish invasion doth indeed plead for union of the true Prorestant Church and interest against them, and consequently to hold out and oppose such arrant upholders and promoters of that Antichristian interest as Prelates have first and last been found and never more than now, since popry hath never more prevailed then since they were established (by the confession even of our Rulers) and that without control. While they are enflaming the powers to the out most height of rage against poor Innocent nonconfomists, so that union with them who are at so palpable an union with Rome is not the unity of the spirit which is to be keep in the bond of Peace, and to be owned by any that favour the Protestant Interest.  
The texts which he presents unto us upon the frontispeice of the Pamphlet will be found to rebound a deadly blow upon his cause. For that ●…assage Psal. 122. 6. 7. pray for the peace of jerusalem etc. We also pray for this peace, and in order to the obtaining of this suit, that the Lord would make up the breaches in her walls, and remove the treacherous breakers thereof, who, we may say again and again that in this they have dealt very treacherously, but what peace with Conformists while their whoordomsare so many. The next text is Psal 133. 1. behold how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to duel together in unity. It is so indeed and therefore woe unto them (if they repent no●…) who have broken this bond of holy brotherhood, have rend Aaron's garment, corrupted the Covenant of levi, and do avowedly own principles and ways upon which hermons dew (heavens blessing) cannot be expected. Therefore this command of Lovely union engadges to disjoin ourselves from them. For the next text Mark 3. 24. a kingdom divided against its self cannot stand etc. We say, God's Church hath stood amidst great divisions, is one and entire in it ●…f, and will at last be delivered from all divisions and offences; and therefore upon the same ground we are to avoid prelatists who have caused them. For that of heb 10. 25. anent not forsaking the Assemblies, we bless the Lord that such as are sorroufull for our Churches true Assemblies, and to whom this man and his fellow's reproaches thereof are a burden, have had the Assemblies of Christ's ambassadors to attend, and that the great Master of Assemblies hath not wholly left them, but hath covered a table in the wilderness in this our Churches fli●…ht unto it, to these who with peril of their life are seeking their soul food because of the sword of the wilderness, drawn out by Assemblies of Schismatic destroying Intruders, from whom we must depart, and who have persecut us away for adherance to our sworn Reformation and Covenant with God, which they have dissound.  
The sentence next subjoined viz opinionum varietas & opinantium unitas non sunt asustata, doth highly reflect upon himself, and the party he pleads for, who do persecut with fire and sword all who differ in judgement from them in these things which they acknowledge but tricae & matters indifferent, so that in this they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For us, we are chased out from them, and can be admitted to no union with them except we unit in there sin, which throw grace we are fixtly resolved against. His design [to quiet people's minds, and settle them in more peace and unity] is of itself to good to be presented as a porch here to such a shattered pasquil, and to be pretended to so bad a cause & in this place may be not unsuitably assimilated to Solomon's ring of gold in a swine's snout. No doubt solid peace and unity is only to be found in God's way, in keeping his Covenant and owning his Messengers of peace (whose feet have been beautiful even on these reproached mountains & other places where God's people assembled, since they have his call and seal to preach the gospel) and not in following the foxes in a way of perjury and breach of Covenant as this pamphleter would persuade.   
FINIS.  
  

Courteous Reader.  
There being several considarable typographical errors in the first part especially, thou art desired ere thou readest, or in the reading to amend with thy pen these ensuing, or such like as will occur unto the in the perusal.  

First Part.  
PAg. 5. l. 15. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 6. l. 25. r. 28. l. 29. r. inequality. p. 8. l. 18. r. chides. p. 9 l. 2. r. juridical. l. 8. r. high. p. 10. l. 6. r. Pastors. l. 16. r. dogmatic. l. 35. r. juridical. pag. 11. for [as the foundation of] r. influencing. p. 13. l. 30. r. this. p. 17. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 24. r. possessed. p. 18. l. 17. r. he. p. 19 l. 32. r. qualifications. p. 21. l. 7. r. hath. p. 22. l. 11. r. tell. l. 20. r. the. p. 25. l. 23. r. with. p. 26. l. 31. r. none. p. 27. l. 1. r. up. l. 7. r. these. p. 28. l. 24. r. unto. p. 29. l. 26. r. power. p. 31. l. 17. r. there. p. 32. l. 32. r. it. p. 36. l. 26. r. worn. p. 37. l. 9 r. bring. p. 39 l. 13. r. he. p. 12. p. 46. l. 23. r. Rom. 12. p. 51. l. 1. r. Gravari. l. 2. r. Politicorum. Chap. 7. Tit. l. 5. add. in. p. 59 l. 10. r. wearing. l. 16. add. a. l. ult. r. not. p. 63. l. 9 r. Oecononemy. l. ult. add. shows. p. 68 l. 7. r. simply l. 33. r. to. p. 73. l. 22. r. be. p. 76. l. 9 add. is. p. 81. l. 10. r. subject. l. 30. r. of dominion. p. 82. l. 25. r. Informs. p. 84. l. 1. r. negatively. p. 85. l. 9 r. this. p. 86. l. ult. r. the. p. 89. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 80. p. 92. l. 4. l. 32. r. can. p. 94. l. 33. r. in. p. 95. l. 1. deal. is. p. 96. l. 4. r. he. p. 99 l. 27. add. is. p. 102. l. 10 for. [the Corinthians] r. Churches. p. 104. l. 13. deal, [as we may after show] 107. l. penult. r. officers and offices. p. 108. l. 30. r. can. p. 109. l. 9 add, his. p. 114. l. 10. r. thus. l. 32. add. no. p. 116. l. 11. ad●… according to the series of his reasoning. no. p 119. l. 9 r. this. l. 29. r. inferior. p. 120. l. 30. r. this. p. 123. l. 4. r. Christian. p. 124. l. 9 r. to gather. l. ●…30. deal ry. p. 125. l. 24. r. been. p. 126. l. 22. r. Spurious. p. 129. l. 1. r. commanded. l. 4. r. Presbytry. p. 131. l. 13. supple. in the proper Scriptural senc. l. 32. r. grad. p. 137. l. 1. deal. had ane office next to that of apostles and doctors. p. 139. l. 20. r. his. p. 140. l. 21. r. for. p. 148. l. 12. r. supple. Taking it in ane authoritative Juridical senc. p. 150. l. penult. r. pray. p. 157. l. 14. deal, apostolic and. p. 162. l. 27. r. circle stil. p. 163. l. 9 r. with. l. ult. r. ceremonial. ibid. r. part. p. 164. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. deal. ane. p. 167. l. 5. r exemplify. p. 170. l. 14. r. Prov. 9 p. 171. l. 14. r labourers. l. ult. add. we. p. 174. l. 34. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 177. l. 10. r. ubi. p. 177. l, 31. for, even, r. except. p. 178. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 183. l. 30. Ar. itself. p. 186. l. 16. r. and pride. l. penult. add, in. p. 188. l. ult. r. true. p. 191. l. 30. r. profligat. p. 195. l. 16. r. interval, the, l. 21. r. nothing. p. 196. l. 3. r. bold. p. 198. p. 199. l. 5. r. what. p. 200. l. 2. deal message, or. l. 13. add. in. p. 201. l. 33, p. suppositia. l. 33, r. suppositious. l. ult. what. p. 203, l. 17. r. till. 204. l. 6. r. consuetudo. p. 206. l. 24. r. for. 1. p. 211. l. 21. through the. p. 215. l. 25. r. distributively. 217. l. 9, deal, by. l. 19 add, is. p. 219. l. 6. r. or. p. 221. l. 24, add, the. l. 25. r. opposed. p. 222. l. 25. r. of. p. 226, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 227, l. 12, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 229. l. 24. r. deligatur plebe p. 231, l. 30. r. ligandi. l. ult. in. p. 236. 11. r. ●…rum. p. 238, l. 26. r. fit segregatus. l. 27. r. set aside or cesured. p. 241, l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 25, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 142, l. 10. r. lowly. p, 143. l. 10. r. unalterablenes. l. 19, r. harmonious p. 245, l. 7. r. common p. 246. l. 28. r. name. p. 247. l. 28. r. office. ibid. r. none. l. 30, r. us. p. 252. l. 3. r. 5. l. 33. supple, and besides. l. 34, r. this. ibid. supple, which is p. 261. l. 28. r. forgot. 29. r. for. p. 261. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: p. 265. l. 10. deal, as to soom acts. p. 272. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 281. l. 9 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

2. Part.  
pag 2. l. 15. supple. both. p. 7. l. 24. supple, anno 40. and 41. p. 24. l. 17. r. 1671. p. 62. l. 4. r. this p. 73. l. 2. r. then l. 20. r. cannot. p. 99 l. 18. r. commissaries p. 117. l. 4. deal. me. p. 124. l. 4. r. consonant. p. 132. l. 19 r. Diaeceseos. l. 21. supple. the.   

Part. 3.  
Pag. 2. l. 13. r. our. l. 14. r. or. p. 4. l. 29. r. declared p. 12. l. 13. supple. and are. p. 14. l. 28. r. do. p. 26, l. 15, supple. ane. p. 28, l. 28. r. and. p. 29, l. 16, r. of. p. 35, l. 31, supple. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 36, l. 1, r. motion. p. 37, l. 28, r: fourth. p. 39, l. 32, r. constitution. p. 40, l. 32, supple comparing this with what he pleads from the instance of solomon's deposing Abiathar. p. 48, l. 9 r. by. p. 53, l. 2. r. obligations. p. 59, l, 8, r. intrusion. p. 61, l. 32, add. thereof. p. 64, l. 27, r chousing. p. 67, l. 15, r. petitio. p. 69, l. 25, r. they. p. 73, l. 32, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 78, l ult. r. Sabinus. p. 81, l. 15, r. the p. 83, l. penult r. relation, p. 84, l. 15, r. no Bishop. p. 90, l. 21. r. Priest. l. 27; deal. hearing of. p. 28, deal. and attending their Ministry as such 15. p. 94, l. 11, add, graceless men. p. 95, l. 4, deal. of. p. 103, l. 18, r. ofl. 23, r scruple. p. 113, l. 1, r. supremacy. p. 127, l. 28, r. inquies. p. 130, l. ult. r. calceorum. p. 134, l. 12, r. another, p. 138, l. 26, r. authority. l. penult. r. our. p. 160, l. 1, add. this. p. 162, l. 27, r. Presbyterian. p. 165, l. 17, r. they. p. 167, l. 27, r. for, or, r. again, p. 168, l. r, add, especially. p. 170, l. 10, r. which notwithstanding is. 179, l. 29, r. Magistrates: p. 181, l. 12. r. a purer Church. p. 183, l. 16, r. and which doth. p. 186, l. 2, r. thousand. l. 16, r. this. p. 190, l. 11. r. more then. l. 28, r. offered. p 162, l. 8, r. Smectymnuus. p. p, 162, l. 25, r. the Holy Spirit, deal of ibid. p. pe-  
command. p. 76. l. 19 After Ambition, r. The text being most express in it, that the inequality which they were striveing about, included a dominion and primacy. p. 77. l. 13. after [touched] add, since our Lord was now exerciseing, an absolute supremacy over his Church, how then (I pray) will this argument taken from his example, Suit his Scope & purpose of dischargeing a Supremacy. p. 79. l. 20. 21. r. thus, did not Christ discharge ane inequality, in dischargeing a primacy; an inequality of the highest pitch. p. 79: l. ult: r. Seeming to make. p. 80. l. ult. After [power] add (to use his way of speaking) p: 81. l: 20: r. and neither despotic nor princely. p. 83. l. 28: 29. r. That Church-officers are of superior or inferior orders or kinds. p. 84. l: 26. r. A preaching Presbyter or Pastor. l. 31, 32. r. Such Presbyters have the Scriptural Episcopal authority. p, 85. l. 17, r. Superior and inferior kinds or orders. p. 87. l. 6, r. After [Church rulers] add, we, all know how Prelatists and the popish Church apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Clerus. l. 9 after [denomination] add, considered in its true extent & import, p. 89. l. 5. r. To the highest ordinary office bearers, entrusted with the Power of the keys, l. 14, r. Whatever Power of order or jurisdiction, the Scripture Bishop can lay claim unto. p. 90, l. 1. r. The Scripture Episcopal Power, l. 9: r. All this Episcopal Authority. l. 25, r. Elders or Bishops in a perfect parity, and in common, So, l. ult. after [flocks]. p. 91. l. 3. after, [Presbyters] add, when applied (as is said) to the highest ordinary officers entrusted with the Power of the keys, l: 12, r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors. So l. 18, l. 32. after [elder] add (he must understand the preaching elder or Pastor if he speak to the point.) l. ult. and pag. 92. l. 1. r. When God is pointing out thereby the highest ordinary officer entrusted with the word and doctrine. l. 5. r. preaching Presbyter, l. 15, r. preaching elders. l. 17. r. this highest ordinary standing officer often mentioned, p. 92. l. 17. r. When the Word [Bishop] is applied to the highest ordinary Church officer entrusted with the Power of the keys. l. 24. r. preaching elder or Presbyter, l. 30. r. the same highest ordinary officer. l. 37. r. preaching Presbyter, So p. 94. l. 5, and 7. and 19 So p. 95, l. 5, & 9 p. 97. l. 5, r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors. So, l. ult. and p. 99 l. 4, & 16, 26. So p. 101, l. 14, and 18. l. 34. r. that the Pastoral office admits of different orders, p. 102, l. 28. r. preaching Presbyters. So. p. 103, l. 6. 21, and 28. So also, p. 104. l. 23. p. 111, l. 30, r. Such different orders of Church officers, l. 34. r. different orders, p. 120. l. 14. r. his fancied Ecclesiastic Officers specifically different. p. 122, l. 8, r. of a Superior order and function, l. 11, r. of the same function. l. 16, r. Several functions, l. 18, r. different functions. p. 124, l. 24. r. as appearing to the Informer Episcopal like. p. 131. l. 13. r. thus (or of the Scripture sense embraced by our divines, viz. for the Apostles extraordinary unfixt assistants in their Ministry. So Calvin on the place. Bucan, loc. 47. de Minist., Muscuius, loc. de minist. verb. pag. 362. etc. and the latter part of his Answer seems to admit this) l: 21. r. (which the Informer will easily grant is not that strict proper sense of the Evangelist, supposed either in his doubters objection or his answer.) p. 133. l. 31, 32, 33. r. Thus, in the Scripture proper sense, but those that preach the Gospel in that extraordinary way above expressed, for, as for those that wrote the Gospel, the Informer will not say they are intended here, and although such may be in part called Evangelists upon this ground, as Mark, & Luke, Sensu Augustiore, as Bucan expresseth it, ubi supra, yet this is not acknowledged to be the proper and adequate ●…round of this office and denomination, as contradistinguished in Scripture from Apostles, two Apostles themselves, Matthew and john, being such Evangelists, p. 139, l. 33, 34. r. So that he doth in these words clearly plead etc. l. ult unto p. 140. l: 6. after [among them] add, if we consider the entire Series of his reasoning, not only from Christ's primacy and Supremacy as exemplified in the Apostles (whatever he doth inconsistently here add, as to the division of this princehood among them, since thus the Apostle John was sole primate, over the Church when the rest were gone) but also from the moral standing Authority of the Jewish P●…hood, and such a single Supremacy of the Highpriest which he denies to be typical, but of constant use in Government, and his express asserting th●… equality of the same Ministry, may admit of inequality (consequently principality, or primacy as he expresseth it) in Government. Thus he [de divers. grad. ●…p. 14. pag. 145.] l. 16. r. Had in a perfect parity and in common; so pag. 147. l 13. p. 148. l. 31. after elder, add, takeing it in an authoritative juridical sense, as competent to Church officers. p, 149. l. 13. after accuse, add, taken generally and in its full latitude. p. 152. l. 21. After properly, add, and immediately entrusted to them. p. 157. l. 12. r. will the Informer deny that in his sense, or of these divines, these precepts, 1 Tim. 6: 13. and 1 Tim. 5. 21. Joined with the promise mentioned, will not reach, and include every piece of the Apostolic and Evangelistick office respective, p: 158. l. 10. r. is not that which simply and absolutely in itself considered they hold to have the force of a rule, p. 162. line 10. r. different offices and functions, 25: r. before Ephesus Crete and other Churches were settled in their organic being and their ordinary and inferour elders. p. 164. l. 13. r. is mentioned in such ane act of Solemn blessing, thus circumstantiate both as to its subject and object as this. p. 176. (misprinted 149.) r. From the first Scripture Bishops or preaching Presbyters, p. 177. l. 30, 31. r. That this Episcopal power over Presbyters, though far from the Diocesian Bishops power was not till the year 140. p. 190. l. 18. r. Aaron himself [mediately at least and upon the matter.] p. 194 l. 12. r. Hanmer p. 197. l, 13. r and expound thy Scriptures which custom hath not known etc. Disowning thus all customary or traditional innovations. p. 200. l. 27. r. from Mark the Presbyters, l. 29. r. speaking of this custom he excludes him. p. 201. l. 2, r. thus, to the Presbyters election as their act simply, but would have plainly asserted that it was by Mark's appointment: the simple observing of this practice or custom, & observing it by his appointment, being quize distinct things; beside that we shall after show, that Jerom never intended to assert any such thing. p. 203. l. 16. r. The Church in this Nation. p. 207. l. 7. r. Common counsel, or in a joint parity and equality, so, l. 1●…. ibi●…m after. 4 figure, r. if in Jerom's sense the Apostles &c p. 208. l. 3. r. preaching Presbyters. From, l. 11: to 17. r. thus, can he make it appear that the Schism in Corinth (from which he draws the change in Jeroms sense) was anterior to his proofs from. 1 Pet. 5. and Acts. 20. Much more his proof from John, for the divine warrant of this entire parity and common joint Government of Presbyters, or that this Schism was not attended with such absence of the Apostle, as he supposes did influence this new Episcopal Government in Jeroms sense. p. 209. l. 1. After the word [nature] add, besides that the passage itself, will never prove either Marks practice or appointment in relation to this supposed Bishop as is said, p. ●…11. l. 11. r. Upon the ground of this first evasion and gloss, l. 20 r, which in the two collated passages of Jerome, 212 l. 5. r. that the Apostles in Jeroms sense did, l, 24. r. by common counsel, or in a complete parity, (thus also. p. 214, l. 24) p. 213. l. 22, r. preaching Presbyters, p. 216, l. 29, 30, to 32, after [Jerome speaks of] r. thus. So that this Schism was bred while there was no Presbyterian parity to breed it. He tells us, that in Jeroms sense the Corinth Schism gave a rise to this change, while Paul was present in Spirit and Governing them Episcopally (for he will not say that he let go his reighns of Government upon every personal absence) and therefore it took its original according to his pleading from the Apostolic Episcopacy. p. 220, from l. 33, to p. 221, r. he makes him reflect upon Christ's immediate commands and institutions in point of Government, whereof severals can be produced in the Evangelic History, as if they were not only altered, but stated in-opposition to the Apostles institutions and practice therein. For Jerom doth thus clearly oppose to one another, the Dispositio Divina, and Ecclesiae usus or custom in this passage, as two contrary and inconsistent things, thus he also reflects upon Christ's institutions as at first practised by the Apostles before this change. p. 225. l. 17. r. no such delegation. p. 231. l. 17. r. the present princelike power of our Prelates, as Diocesian B. far less their Erastian usurpations. p. 237, l. 8, 9, etc. r. the ancient Bishops were not all set over whole provinces, but city by city for the most part (yea several cities had more) who certainly were not Bishops in that sense, wherein we heard Theodoret and Oecomen●…us denies a multiplicity of Bishops in one city, which also proves a great variety in the Moold and denomination of Bishops spoken of by the fathers. p. 238. l. 23, r. set aside, separate, and suspended, So, p. 239, l. 2, p. 247, l. 11, r. a preaching Presbyter or Pastor. l. 35, r. Sect. I●…. p. 250. l. 9 must begin thus. Besides, what can he infer from Calvin's assertion of the precedency of one at that time? had not Paul etc. p. 251, the Parenthesis l. 5, 6, 7. r. thus (no less foolishly then maliciously here improven by Durel, no friend to his principles.) p. 252, the penult line must be contiguous with the preceding, and run thus, besides that this treatise entitled etc. p. 258, l. 15, and l. 19, of pag. 259 are to be joined as contiguous, p. 261. l. 17. after [Government,] add, and received and submitted to our Churches pure constitution in point of doctrine and worship, p. 262, l. 25, r. which as early crept into the Church, as the prelacy he pleads for yea much more early. p. 263, l. 33, 34, 35, r: thus; nor hath the Informer proved that this Proestos, cast in the moold of the present Episcopacy which he pleads for, was allowed of Blondel, since he holds it to be cross to the divine pattern, and from Scripture disputes against it. p. 238, l. 21, r. from the times of the Apostles, and appointed by them. p. 262, from, l. 22, to l. 29 r. thus: presented under an Episcopal notion to Eusebius, and the Power of Bishops which then had obtained, whom he too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them, and (as Irenaeus also doth) calling them Bishops in the Catalogues, might deceive others in nameing them, so, p. 263, from, l. 9, to 11, read, what ever impression of them Irenaeus might be supposed to have upon the ground of his expressions of them, or might thereby beget in others, because of the language and custom of their time, yet &c. from l. 14, to 16, r. the nature, and state of these Church-officers, whom termeing [Bishops] they were supposed to be such as had then obtained, l. 18, to 25. r. thus; in that Irenaeus calls them [Presbyters] according to the promiscuous use of the names Bishop and Presbyter in his time, they prove that these expressions of them which seem to savour of an Episcopal notion, or what impression he might have, or others take from him, was a mistake: since according to the Scripture language etc. l. 26, to 32, r. that what impression Irenaeus might possibly have of the first moderators, or what Episcopal notion Eusebius might present them under, upon his credulous reports taken up upon trust (as he says himself) from his forefathers, were a mistake: and this because the people, whom they thus represented, and of whom they meaned and speak, were upon thematter mere Presbyters. p. 264, l. 21, r. next, if the Informer will strain these words to plead for his hierarchy even in the Apostles time, and will affirm that Bucer etc. l. 25, r. he must needs grant that Bucer was obleidged to take notice etc. l. 30, r. else there will be no consistency in the words, if Bucer reckon etc. p. 271, l. 5, 6, r. but as the Informer will find it hard to prove th' distinction of the schools to be as ancient as these fathers, so though it were granted that it was, it is certain that what gradual difference they admit betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter, they found it etc. p. 281, l. 3, r. collected by one under the name of Clemens. 2d. Part. p. 5, l. r, r: having no tincture of Prelacy, but entirely Presbyterial in its mould & members, according to the then degrees and State of our Reformation. p. 23, l. 7. after [Seasonable case] r. (and himself in objecting the same afterward, p. 69.) p 29, l. 8, r. in their nature, and originally flows from the Pope, p. 64, l. 30, after [Government] add, whatever defection or liberty of glozing any of them might fall into or plead for. p. 76, l. penult. read. prael. 3, parag. 9 p. 78, l. 3, r. of all Oaths of this nature. p. 82, l. 3, 4, 5, r. Not to detain the Informer in tasking him to prove that this Statute as not being judicial, but moral, doth belong unto the Christian Church: l. 28, 29, r. this divine frame of Presbyterian Government, which both as to its courts and officers, comprehends the substantials of Government: p. 83, l. 15, r. prael. 3, parag. 9, 10, l. 23, r. prael. 7, Parag. 6: p. 92, l. 27, r. but such cannot be the Inf●…rmers meaning in this place, nor will his moold of arguing admit thereof: p. 98, l. 14r. a matter not only of itself indifferent, but a domestic and private concern l. 22. after [gratis dicta] r. Besides, upon the supposal that the matter of both Oaths is alike or equal, and that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent, the parallel will not hold as to a dispensation with the matter of the one and the other. p. 101, l. 11, after [obligation] add, for whither we conclude the lawfulness of the matter of this Oath, from its conform 〈◊〉 to the divine positive Law, or from the overuling of this positive precept in this case by a Superior moral command, all is one as to our defence and argument for the Covenant from this text, p. 115, l. 18, r. The Informer hath not reconciled this either with the command or with the promise etc. p. 117. l. 15; 6, 7, r. Sure in his opinion their offer of a league, if strangers, admitted a demur, and if Canaanites their offering to admit of terms of peace might have stopped this question, even though inhabitants of Canaan etc. l. 11, r. So their first offer was a ground of peace, if strangers, l. 13, r. especially these continued demurs and renewed interrogatures recorded in this contexture are considerable, if we consider what is observed by learned interpreters from v. 8. that they sought peace, etc. l. 17, and when. r. for when. Parnell. 3. p. 35, l 32, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 45, l. 28, r. Presbyterian Government and the established Reformation of this Church, p. 47, l. 28, r. the work of the Reformation then established, p. 50, l. 3. for, pamphlet r. Dialogue: p. 54, l. ult. r. and such things as upon our, and the Scripture grounds (which the Informer cannot disprove) do immediately in a moral sense dispose &c: p: 56, l: 33, r: (besides that as to the main of this Character, they are all such as we have cleared) he makes &c: p: 57, l: 14, r: which even as to the Apostle himself, was solemnly sealed, confirmed and commended to the gentile Church: p. 73, l. 10, r. extending hands, and that not only among the people, but also in commitiis etc. p. 75, l. 27, r. independents and us in this point of a ministerial call. p. 76, l. 8▪ r. that this electiv suffrage strictly taken or ju●…dicially, may be pleaded for as belonging to them. p. 77, l. 8, 9, etc. r: thus: and as that which is proper to some part of this organic body (the Church) may in a General sense be said to be the due right of the Church itself: in like manner, I may this call and election be said to be the right of the whole congregation, as including the body of the people and the eldership, the juridical decisive suffrage belonging to the eldership, and the Consentient to the rest of the people, as is said. p. 18, l: 9, r. they are abjured, p. 90, l: 17, 18, r. again, 'tis obedience that is enjoined, which is more General and extensive then hearing them as Ecclesiastic officers, and will not necessarily include it, l. 20, 21, r. sitting in Moses chair who was King in Jesurum, appears distinct from sitting in Aaron's Priestly chair, p. 91, l. 10, 11. r. hence the concession [that they were to be heard] will not bear a conclusion of hearing Curates, in this our case. For 1. (here add what is under the second head) then proceed thus, next, say they were to be heard as Ecclesiastic teachers, the cases are very different etc. then proceed to 1, 3, 4, 5. head. p. 97, l. 9, r. teach and expone in the sense and extent he pleads for, which he hath not etc. p. 103. l. 29. 3. depending as to their ordination, p. 104. l. 24, r. did the ministerial acts of our Reformers now mentioned flow etc. p. 105, l. 6. r. did owe the validity of their Baptism, etc. p. 115. l. 27. after [defection] add, and deeper stain of more and more practical acknowledgements thereof, as to the design and endeavours of the Lawmakers, p. 118, l. 2. r. Since in this his first reply, taken from their obedience to the rulers, he touches neither the Antececedent nor consequent etc. l. 30, 31, etc. r. thus, Since he acknowledges separation from the Government to be Schism, Sure our counter charge stands good against him, that the first Separation lies at his Door, it being made good that Presbyterian Government is both the Scripture Church Government, and also the reformed established Government of this Church, & this retorted charge, neither he nor any of his party are able to disprove. For etc. p. 119. l. 30. r. absolute unavoidable condition: p. 128, l. 33: r. that are very necessary, but allures him rather by love and tender forbearance: p. 119, l. 6. r. — Sed licentia, quod temeritatis; & superbiae & stultitiae (in margin arrogantiae) majoris videbatur. p. 130, l. 18, r. but I say not (saith he) the I dolothyt etc. p. 131. l. 10, r. thus, at that time this came to pass through their weakness, etc. p. 133, l. 10. r. that in these things he will rather cede from his liberty (or intermit its exercise) then offend etc. p. 141. l. 33, r. no more indifferent, but duty, p. 142, l. 15, r. takeing this phrase in a moral sense, and in the Scripture acceptation. p, 150, l. 16, 17, after [Ministry] add, and did necessarily suppose the same: p: 155. l. penult. r. Ergo. by his Magistratical Power, he did properly and immediately silence and depose him, and the civil Magistrate may thus immediately and formally by his Magistratical Power restrain the exercise of the ministry. p. ●…57, l. 2. r. that he can by his Magistratical Power and by elicit acts immediately restrain ministerial duties, or that the Magistrate hath ane immediate Power over the exercise of the Ministerial office, to discharge it at his pleasure. p. 164, l. 14, r. 1 one anent whom an inquiry might be stated.  
Praef. p. 24. l. 24. r. contention and hatred. p. 26. l. 6. r. come to Bethel. p. 35. l. 16. r. after the firs●… anent view which I had of it.  
Several such might possibly beyet glean●… up: if some passages of Authors seem to●… generaly cited, or not translated ad verbum. the notoriety of the places themselves may excuse the first, and the condition of Readers, to whom this is mainly addressed, may plead for the second. The Pages here quoted are numbered according the printed Method, but the true Method exhibit in the Index, will direct the Reader aright.