SJ f tyxA-Sr&T set m$]5 f;.(A* ttZ^^CS ■ SC$^|5Y the Covenants againftEfiJcopa* cy> and Separation. Wherein The unfoundnes, and (in many thinges ) the inconfiftency of the Informer* prin- ipies, arguments,and anfwers,uponthe(e points, :he violence which hehath offredunto the holy fcripture, and ro diverfe authors ancient and mo- dern y is dernonftrat and made appear. A nd that truth which is after godlines , owned by the true proteftant Presbyterian Church of Scotland , aflerted and vin- dicated* Prov 19.2? Ceafe y.myfon , toheartheinfltuBiofitbtt taufetb to er re from the words of knowledge. nnted in the Year , 1684. Rev. lame* 8t«wart THE Tfc Manet, f #t*rta PREFACE to the reader Chrifiian reader Hat which the wifeman long fmce offered to their confidera- tion who obferve the revolving courfe of providence \ is ther anythingwherofitmaybefatdj this is new* hath its fignalaccomplifhment, in the renewed collifions of opinions and debeats. The conflicts betwixt truth and error or not of yefterday,but as early as the morning of time j when he who is a liar from the beginning aflaulted with a horrid calumny the truth and faithfalnes of God f and having by a lie mad a breach in our fitft parents integrity., by inducing them to believe it, inflilld his poifon into our lature j a love ofdarknes rather then light. The eye of the underftanding(hke atures bodily organ when its criftalin \ umor is vitiat ) cannot fee and re- ceive the impreflionof its objeft, ( truth \? ) and and duty^ in its lively colours and native {implicit/; and if fometirnes the clear beamesoftruthforceapaflragcforitfelfl& make fomeimprefllon upon the perverfc &dztkmindofman,0 bow quickly is that lttle Victory ioft> this begun fignaiute ob- literar^by the rebellious will& affections. The carnal mind is not fubj edt to the Law ofGodnorcanbe^ hence truth is deta/nd inunrightioufnefs, convi&ons ftiffled^ and the convincing fpirit of God counte- racted and grieved. Hence all the rene- wed pleadings for* & difcoveries of rruth , begets in moft men ( by a wofull antife- rtjfafis) nothing but renewed contradi- ction & fpurnings againftir, Whilefasthe funs vigorus influence upon the va- pors of this dull earth; by its irradiations it attradte,and condenfes thick foggs,dark clouds of perueife difputings the more to pblcure it felf . Yet a holy feed there is and hath been in all generations , chil- dren of lightand of ! he day j whofe work, and honourable badge it is to contend and be valiant for the truth ; who under the conduft of Michaeh\\2X great prince who (lands up for his people f truths fincere lo- vers ccs and afferters) have from tbebegin- ning warred this good warfare againft that oldapoftat, and his followers. So that the warr which Johnfawin heaven, be- twixt Michael and the^Dragon j was not then only begun , but a new battel and en- counter of that old warr proclaimd in pa* radife berwixt the feed of the woman and the ferpent. All men are inroiled in one of thefetwoarmies,imbarquesinoneoftbefe interefts according as theyare regenerator unregenerat,as theyhave the feed ojGod in them or not; & difcovries ol truth have va* riouseflfedts accordingly, either of more intenfelove, or violent hatred^ the fun ftiining upon thefloweis&dunghil, draws equally forth a fweet & funking favour. The ere&ingof this royal ftandart ofZions Ring and lawgiver ingadges his faithfull wimeOcsto flow unto it , and come un- der it, and excits fuch who have but the Jfir it of that world in them,, to a coun- ter-mufter againft it- Who would not have thought j that the longed for appearances of that Immanuelj anddefire ofall na- tions, that eternal word and wifdomof God in the flefli.lhould have put an end to all p all rebellion of wretched (inner* againft him; but it never grew more., then by his convincing difcovries of himfcif. Eter- nal truth and holines fuffred contradiction of fmners againft hi mfelf, he oft filenced enemies reafonings., not their malice 3 and the moft admirable a&ings of hisef- fe&ionat condefcending love to men., the giving of himfelf to death for them , was intertained with the moft viru- lent and hellifh eruptions of their wrath againft him., in murthring him. The rulers oppofed this great ruler of Ifra- elj the learned fcribes and rabbies with all their literal knowledge of Mofes and the Prophets., could not yea would not fee and acknowledge ihis great Trophet j the covenanted people would not receive t h i s great meffenger of the Covenant 5 and they who boafted to be ^Abrahams feed j rejected this fromlfed feed \ could not fee him when among them, but hated himf whom Abraham faw a far ojf, and rejoy- ced in the difcovery. Yet this wifdom of God was then j and dill is j jujiified of all children of God j and fuch as are of the truth will fee its beauty throw all the mifts mid of meas calumnies and contendings againftit. The angry cloud wherwith God hath now of a confiderable time covered the daughterof Zion in our land, challenges in this as much as in any thing elfe^our mour- nfull obfervation, Szjimpathizingcompaf- (ion j that men have taken the boidnes., with perverfe difputings to infeft her true fons and children , to aflault her pre - cius ordinances and priviledges, and with a barefaced impudence to indeavour the removal of the ancient landmarks which our fathers have fet, nay which the great God hath eftablifhed. Yea to cajollus i with poor fophifhy into acarlefs difregard , and abandoning of the magnalia^Deij the great things of gods Law(impor tant truths and duetiesj as if they were meer trifles and indifferencies-to caft the afperfions of fupercilius fcrupulofitie upon true zeal for God j of rebellion > upon true loyal- f/and faithfulneJSio the King of faints, of devifive humor j upon (incerindea- vours after the union and true order of the houfe of God j 13 it not to put light for darknes and darknes for light j bitter for fweet fweer, and fweet for bitter* yea cruel lb- percilius mqckrie. Yet at this rate are we treated by our prelatick pamphleters. The authority of the fecond great moral precept anentrhe receiving and main- tainingofall gods ordinances , thedodh worfli. difc. and governm. of his boufe, the weight and importance of the third anent the obfervation of moft f acred folemn oathes andvowes to him for this great end, weighes but light ia thefe mens ballances; but he whofe handholds the plummet and line judgeth other wife., their baliances arefalfe,ootthe ballances of the fan&uary .Their new plagiary divinity de- pendingin a great meafure upon the came- lion- rule of world lywifdonr, andfteeting its courfe by the verfatil rule of human 1?- wes , iscalculat for any mer idi an, but that of canaan & immanuels landjntett all muft go to his Law and teftimony., and is pro- nounced bafe metta 1 , which is repro- bat by that touchfton j where every pin of the tabernacle muft have its famplax from the holy mount % ere it get his appro- bation p and have the cloud of his glorL ous prefence created upon it. The goj.j denl den preface giving a luftre& beauty unto the prophets meflagewas^ thus faith the lord j bur thefe mens ordinary Anthem is thus faith the Law j prefenting their d if- hes under that leaden cover. Our new A' fhodits have loft the language of Canaan, or at beft do but ( like thofe roungrels mentioned byNehemia^ fpeak half the Jewes language, half oi afhdod, deba- sing thusttie golden rule, by aheteroge- nens mixtur of human teftimonies& prin- ciples. O How is our wine mixt with Water j the beauty of the virgin Daugh- ter of Zion defaced.That Gebal^Ammon, A malek& fuch like do infeft& take crafty councel againftGod$Church,is nothing fo amszing or dangerous as when thtreis^ conspiracy of her prophets within her wails. ^Tis a great queltion whither thefe mens malice in wounding our Church ^and taking away her vail,, while pretending to a& the guardians and watchmen j or their treachery in fuperficial flight healing of her wound /mil be found the deepeft chal- lenge when the great fhepherd comes to id with them. Butfure., botbtneone and the other will make make upadre- (*J * adfull ad full impeacement. Who ever Caw this houfe of God in our married land _, in its priftine glory & integrityscan but mourn over rhe preientdefolation. TV.efe gates once called/rtf// but upon the carved work., to deftroy it , may make ane impreflion of forrowupon any heart,but that of adamant. Ifrael wept at the fad newes of Gods refu- sing to go with them unto the promifed land _, but efpecialy when they were brought back from the very borders ofCa- naan for their difobedience and unbelief, & doomed to return and die in the wilder- nes, fpending the remainder of their dayes Jayes and yeares in vanity find tr oubie* Tis long fince the glorious cloud is with- drawn to the threfhold of our fandtuary, md the darke,not theaufpicius light fome Sde , turned unto us 9 yet who are follow- ng the glory, who are found crying out a penitent [ Ichabod^ oyer its departing. The building was io far advanced > that we were exfpe&ing to fee the head- Hon brought forth with fhoutings and ac- clamations of grace grace j tofeetheglo- riusaccompliflimcnt of a work of reforma- tion in Britame and Ireland., but ah! we are brought back from the borders of this great hope of a compleated reformation., into this wildcrnefs of the muftdifmaiide* foiarioa that ever the work of Godhath been expoftd unto fince the foundation thereof was laid. What means the heat of tins great anger., and where will it iflue > Afire is kindled in his anger^a fire of angry Jealoufie^but ihall it burn for ever, is there none to make up the breach and ftandin the gap. Ezektelfaw the healing waters ifluing from the temple J and upon a defirable aufpicius ad vane, firft to the ankles, then the knees: then to the loins, andatlafta great river. But now the waters of out tjftlara, the Serpents flood of errour cafl out afcer the fleeing Woman, and of pro- phanity flo #ing from our defiled fanClua- ry^have been long flowing apace5&are be- come of a prodigious grouch, OurPref- byterian Church -judicatories, ^re not ftr iltnedonly byrhdnvafion of the ancient cProftaJie > or fixed moderator., ( which colt K, |ames iome pains to effc&uat ) but their root mull be plucked up j cither as Presbyterian,or as Ecclefiaftick courts; all their decifive power contracted into a Prelats tpfe dixit; and all his pretended fpiritual authority, refolvinginto ihe Jic volo of a civil papacy % regulable by ir fell oneiy ,no fuperiour rule. How deeply we have drunk of the whoors cup* and whai a deluge of monftruous \vickednefs,hath us Harmony of charming mujitians I e juill^of our Prelatick pleaders andPam- )hleters have ftruke up their bed notes ind meafures to gam the defigne. But he ^Menaces j and the Idols golden met * tal have far utdone the mufitians [ttper/uading , whofe treeples of old & of late^ have met with luch b-filingContra's that the fagacius eare is not fond of th r fhril founds. Wh^ch havelongfince krakt the firings of our found Proteltant principles. C 3) For For this late Pamphleter , who hath dreft up minc't-meatof foom old fragtoens to pleafe childifh Pailats^ I fuppoTe few or none who have piercer into theboweh of our prefent conrroverfies, havejudgec himfo confiderablej as to deferve a for lhal encounter 5 there being nothing which he or anyofourlateScriblers hat! offered j but what is already fufficientl) anfwered. So that thefe litie toying mean Dialogues \ were like to paffe aion£ as fecurely in their own want of worth asBeJfus in theCortedy. Yet in one point o; two I cannot but commend hinv, firft thai the fubftanceof this book anfwers itsin- fcription of the differences of the time , thefe 3 points being indeed the chief car- dines ofour prefent differences , in whict had he fatisfyed all the Presbyterian ar- arguments he had done much ro cutth< finnews of their caufe. But how far are w( at a loffe in this Expe&ation , when the book is lookt over , not one of thefe grea que&ions fairly fated j fcarce one Argu« ment of Presbyterians fo much as fairlj propofed,but enfeebled by filly difguifes. $md the anfwers to them fuch poor anc ridicu ridiculous evafions, as if he had intended in this difcovry of the weaknes of his caufe ro profely t his Readers intopresbyterians, if they were notfuch before , in (lead of weakning that party by this new afifauk ; the great point of Erafiianijm not fo mucii as once toucht: And fo notwith- fhndingofail his defence of the Diocefian B^shop,the Eraftian BifhopLying opene to alithe weapons»& wounds of luch as have impugned thofe principles. And upon the debate about the Covenant \$>and Sepa- ration •, the only presents us withfo&m- what of their old mufty (lore., who have appeared in this caufe of late j whofe no- tions are more crude after all this mans re- coEiingj a convincing proof that there was in the firfl: conception., ane indigefiibU error. Next 1 find foaiewhatnioreof a feren temper j leffe of the far caflick fcold- ingftrain j then what hath tindtured his felie w-aSors upon this fceen ., who have bravely fcoided it out againft the Ptef- byterians J even to a non ultra of that Therfites - artifice j although now and then he puts out his litle iting tco this way. In loom things alfo hlslngenuity (*^J defer vs defervs its praife, in advancing Prelacy ioneer the popes miter > both in his plead- ings from the Jewish Triejlhood, & from ant quify > wherein he hath purtrayed the bealt in exacter lineaments , then foom raotefmooth pleaders. HiiChara&er ot'cbe rer m [ Curat'] viz, on thatferves the cure though not the Minijier of the place* and of their preaching upon fliorter texts, that it is a racking of the Text and of their brains to find out matter > ishoneftand zppotxij for wuich the Presbyterians do e h*m thanks ; but thereby their doubtt in the point ofTrelacy>& thepre- it\t Separation, arefoftrengthned, and like to gr« w , and efpecialiy by his feeble refolutions > that they verily judge he (h*li never prove the tC/Edipus, but is in extreme haiart to be devoured in this en- QuunttrySzjffftfon-like^o be torn in pieces by thekenneil of his own pretended refo- lutions and Arguings , retorted and hun* ted back upon him- They do alfo look up- on the Dialogizing Methods (o much plea- fing him & lome ofbis fellowes, as a cover ^but now very diiucid and tranfparent) to hide tohidethechildiflifophiflry, of difguif- im the tue hate cf qutftions , and the ftrength of Presbyterian Arguments ^ while they mud fight with no weapons, t u o; their adverfaries choice and mea- furing: When the Knight enters the Wifha huge invincible gyant,thcen- c unttfi looks very unequally and farall like ro the iprightiv litle Combatant; but the Romanes maker caa fo order the fcene v that he Ihall be fure to lay his advetfary ail a long , and come off victorious. Our Adverfaries have too longridn oHd civ fetiomTheo/ogicall de~ bates 3 \\ icfej their play* bookes $ wherein they do but render themfelves ridiculous, what hacfa the chaff to do with the wheat? When will they offer a fair andformall enucleation of this controverfy J and dif- cuife cur Arguments long fince offered u;jto them j wh?ch do (land to this day ununfwered? How long will th^y beg Principles., beg conceffions, and rear up fearing like Arguments upon a Chimgeri- callfundation, and then Accoft their cre- dulous hearers or readers with Thrafonik boafts and Rhetoricall Rhodomontadoes^ C$J which Which are as infipid and taftlefle to the dis- cerning v as the Artificial! fruit to the hungry pallat. Reader , for the defign of this underta- king 5 1 have this to fay 3 that although I have as iitle as many men coveted fuch ap- pearances^ yet have been perfwadedto be thus publick upon this occafiou^ that having cafualiy met with this Pamphkr^ after it had for a confiderabe time travel- led up and down^ 1 judged ic expedient to employ upon it fomefolitan ho whereinl was taken offfrom other employ- ments j both to prevent languifhing j and to fatisfy thedefire of a friend., whom I highly efteem / as r like w ayes to unde- ceive fome fimpler and lefte difcerning readers f who feem'd to be taken with this piece ; which eflay afcer a confide- rable times lurking com ng iato the hands of fome welwiibers to our Zion Jdid at laft yield to their importunity in reference to the publication \ Whatever entertain- ment this may meet with j and hawkeen soever the dar ts of malicious reproac b m ay prove which are levelled at me , Hie mu* rus ^Aheneus efto , I have this fhield, that lean > I can fay it before the heart fearcher, with- out heart condemning, that as 1 intended herein a vindication of Truth and duty, and according to my meafure and capacity to give this teftimony for it f to the ftrengthning of a poor affii&ed remnant contending lor the fame, lb in writing thefe flieets j 1 had an eye upon the fa- ther of lights for his help andprefrnce, and dare not deny bur that this was found infomegood meafure accordingly. And in the perufal of what is here offered unto jflfclickview ( which was not at firft di- redtly my intention J I would have thee looking after thefe with other emprove- menrs. Firft , thou may difcover what a ho- nourable caufe wee now contend for j e* ven the Crown dignity and Royal prero- gative of Jefus Chrift j his glorious fupre- macy over his own houfe, in appointing its officers, lawes, ordinances 5 for the truefrsmeofhis tabernacle according to the pattern (hewed upon the mount, for that Government of his houfe delivered in his perfeft and glorious teflament j fealed with his blood, for fealty & loyalty to to this King of Kings., in keeping his Co- venant into which this nation and Church ib folcmrilyenteredifor the wall and bul- warks of this City ofGodinoppofui. o to antic^riftun underminers and invaders thertof.forthefefoltmn Affcm^liesof his faints upon the auciem grounds c nd prin- ciples of cur information ( fo much now afperfed by devouring tongues) rheceaf. ingwherQi incur Zion ought to engage toforrow,anda lamenting afrer our pro* vokod Lord, now hiding himfeli from us. Enemies have often invaded him upoo^BI his rhrone of grace j and profeueJ itiends have not fincerely aproach'dutiio Next, As to our adverfanes pleading againftusin this quarrel, thou may eft dif- cover firft, that they arefnat^ashythe works of their hands, fo by the Words of their lips , and fail before the rebound of their our Arguments; this mans pleadings againftus, efpecialK upon the point of ie- paration^ levelling fo clearly againlt him- felf^ that fuch who impartially read him upon his point mayfhaight entertain this re fleaion^/Wj- hardforthee to kickagainji the pricks j and that its eafy to pull this Egyp- Egyptians fpear cur of his band and kill him with hi: ownfpear. Secondly thou miy f e , what nionftrciH iifues they are driven unto in the defence of their caufey wha a chain of contradi£ions& absurdi- ties th?y havetwiftedto windthcmfelves out of their inextricable Labirinth , that they hatch cockatrioeggs; obftinat main- taining ofoneabfurdity begets a hundred/ fo nue is that faying & prophecy, evil men shall wax e worfe & '{uuorfe \deeeivtngj & being deceived. How palpably have thev wtfcfted the holy Scriptures to fhift the convictions thereof, and makefomefliifc of anfwer ? How laxe and abiurd are their new principles inj?oin? of Oaths J revolv- ing their ftrength into the Magistrates srbitriment and Lawes ; befides other odd pofterns which chey have opened to efcape allobligations thereby^iftbeir mat- ter be not indifpenfably neceflary _, which with them is in a great meafure determined by the Law. What a monflrcm Chaos of more then Infidel-barbarity andconfufion fhall this world become * if thefe mens faith-banifhiDg principles be once admitt- ed* Thirdly, to evince, that our Pre- lats lats puppets andnew pleaders areSabelfi true brood and bu lders , thou mayett feCj how fweetly they joy n with chePapifts in their gloiFes upon thefe Scirptures j plea- ded againftthcm. Whencit is evident, even to a demonftrative certainty ^ that tfre caufe of popry and prelacy > are of ane irreparable affinity > and ftand or fail together. If this mans giofles whereby he fhifcs off our Scripture Arguments^ ft riking at the Bishops mitre y be once ad- mitted^ the popes triple crowns equally fhielded.againft the weapons of all Pr^p- ftants. Our learned Proteftant divines in confuting the popifh evafions do fo mana^ ge their difpute, as if they were directly pleading againftthis Informer in defend- ing our 'Prelacy. And who heares his gloifings, pleadings and anfwers, would imagine that by feme tSHetempfuchofis % Bellarmineor Eccius were now acting the Informer to profely t the Presbyterians to our Prelacy or a papacy rather. Befides ^ i *tis clear he embarques, with thePapifts in his endeavour to bring in antiquity and the Churches practice* as the infallible com- ment uponthe Scripture in the(Epifcopa!l debate,, confequently in alldebats in The- ology ology. Nay we mud mcafure the Temple and the Altar , mould our Arguments in th s point of truth by Scripture . ftand- ard\hwAox the utter court of Antiquity ; wee leave it out>for it< given to the Genti- les. Its msny foul principles and pra&ices will not be gotten within the Holy Scrip- ture verge This man in his Scripture | pleadings is very fparing ., for a few pages measure will do ir. But for Antiquity ware he mets us our large and full , to the great part of all the bcokj and in this he deals hon*ftly giving the courfer ftnjfihe largeryurd. In fine 3 thou may fee tbefe men difco- vered beyond all their hiding pretences of love, peace and unity 5 their large fpa- cious charity /'"extended to the dimenfi- ons of a Metropolitans palJaceJ hath fine entertaining rooms {oxT apsis ^^uakerSj ^Arminians , &c. but the poor Tresby- terians will fcarce get fuch a room in it as ! Bifhop Bonners colehoufe wherein he lodged the martyrs; they cry out one Pref- 1 by terian Minifters as refufing all Chrijiian fellowship with them in worship : but when (hall wefee them open their pulpits to our Minifters, after they have banifh'd them them from their own flocks > They vilifie all our differences unto mzeteptvcJilices; yet they con lend about them tanquampro aris & foci s j and had rather all Presby- terians were harafled and perfecuted, even to a confuming defolation > then one fringe of their Garments , ( As Biftiop Lighten calFd the points debated) were cut off and let go. They declame zea- louflv in their pulpits and Pamphlets a- gai txiXJanguinary Principles. H • > w can fhefe crueil men». fay they, looke up to the God of love} But now after they have drunk pretty largely for many years of Tresbyterian blood, and are gaping for more as fan as the bloody v hore of Rome whoinag?ear meafure influences th^m., tne;fe devout Burrio's j can wipe their mouths , and pretend they have peace of- ferings-with them. Miftery Babylon/ iV/yitery Prelacy' Whatane aby fie of de- ceit is here. ( In the third place , thou may fee. that the caufe wee contend for , as it huh the firft and/ar^ Scripture t^Antiquity , fo the next enfiiing Antiquity alib/and the mtrociny of the purer sges., and the au- fpici« picioufW Harmonious cOnfent of re* formed Churches and divines^ So that our prefenc Teftimoriy is the fame with thar of the witnejfes againji the beaft , and our adverfaries (land arranged under t^ntichrijfs banner j in the whole feries at leaft & complex farrago of their prin- ci pies . ^ATyiocefian Erajlian Trela* cy j underprop' t by blood and T }et -jury , headed by a civiU papacy s embracing if* its bofome all foul err ours , is a hideous Monfter,a bow ingwall^a tottering fence., and lookcs in face and feature fo unlike to ChriCis bride , held out and pourtrayed in Scripture, and once glorioufly fhining in this land., that no difciple of" Chriffc no friend of the Bridegroom , can niifia- ke the one for the0tfaer. So thatourad-, verfaries charge of novett heterodoxy is a new minted calumny & frighting bukbear gnd fcar-cnow. fit to fright children hi knowledge, to be the derifion of the knowing J and for nothing die. Fourthly, thou haft here fez before thee j a looking glade reprefenting our fin and punijhment in thefe later dayes. Wet have not fuitably emproven a iaith- (**J full full Miniflry fonccour Churches crown and glory J now that crown is falling a- pace < how many ftars hath the dragon caftfrom heaven to earth, Wee have not not ftudied perfonall reformation* while publick NationaU\reformationwzs own- ed 5 therefore the holy Jealous God hath given us up to an tvowed difountng of that reformation. Wee endeavoured not j while Gods candle fhin'd upon our tabernacle , to get our cafe difcovered and fearch'd f our hearts fprinkled from anevill Conscience., therefore moll of us are given up to Confeience - Wafting fins. We have not drawn with joy, from ouxweUsoffalvatioHj while they were open and running in a plenty of powerful! &pure ordinances; now God hatbfufferedi Philiftinesto (top thefe Wells >%&& whikj wee endeavour ro dig them again j fucf^ are the counter endeavours of this man and his fellowes by their pleading andpraJ ftices., that they are called Ezek and|5/> I n& % ftrife and contention. Wee arc like to dig and drive long ere wee gc tfee well called Rehoboth # andHaith full Ambafladours of Chrift fhall find theii oh 4d rooms again in the houfe of God. Wee javcnoc ktept upadue impteflion of the >blidging force of our National & folemne Covenants withGod, who of m have ends- ivoured to perform our vowes to God :heretn? Therefore God hath given mod o£ is up to ^palpable difowning and fhame- ■efle renunciation and abjuration of thefe rreat and facred Oaths. Wee hid our (elves from difcoveries of our praffical breaches and many whorifh dcpartings fromGod pointed at by cur iaithfull Seers* now hfc hath given us up to a legall avow- ed departing. The accur fed thing which ^vas before fecretly with us., is now ple- aded for^difputed for, by pretended Seers andwathmen; even the remnanc have dealt treacheroully with God j therefore he hith given them up to treacherous de- alers j who have dealt very treacheroufly with them. Wee were wearied of refor- mation j wearied of God $ and faid to our faithfull feers % fee not, prophecy not 1 right things f but deceits j get you out [ of the way ^ caufe the holy one of ifrael to 4 ceafe from before us.Ourwhorif h hearts lu* rj fted after a finfull liberty and Egypts fleih* 1 { * * Or ) pOtS pots j neither were wee throughly clean- ged from our old fins our iniquities off e or Therefore God hath an/were d us ac- cording to the Idols of our heart , and hath faid to us Rafter wee have fee up our Calves J go to Bethel j tranfgrejfe at Gil- gall > t§c. He hath given us our deGrc and fent leanneflTe into our foul. Our no- ble Vine j becaufe fo dreadfully de gene- rat, is now whit her ed and wafted j plukt up in fury, planted in thewildernefleand fire going out of itfclf to devour its own fruit. This is a lamentation and (hail be for a lamentation. Fiftly f Thou mayeftin the perufal of this reply j difcover fomthing alfo ol light arifing in darknefie j the ftrength and foiidity of our principles demonftrate in the plain and eafy repulfe of thefe aflat Jiams. The iodigefted chattered conge* vies of their new notions do appear but meervanity^ a deceitfull nothing wher levelled againft thefegreat truths whicl wee contend for ^ notwithftanding ofal their clamorous boafting; as the threatn ingbillowes having made a wateriftibat tery upon the rock fall oflfagain in empt< ' ' froatl [froath; fo that wc may fee it accompli £hed of our caufe and principles which was Jobs hope as to the iffuc of his troubles when they are tryed they come forth as gold. And our adverfaries^ light empty crakcts cannot by thoufands of degrees countetpoife them , when both arc laid together in the even Scripture Ballances. Truth under all ({toakzsVirefcitVulnert the bruifing of it by difputes difFufes it fcentand makes it t'asthe breaking of that Alabafter box did the oyntmentj tbe more fragrant. Thus our holy wife God brings meat out of the eater ; its the Privi- ledge of Truth , in relation to perverfc ►difputes againftit,, which was promifed toZion* when enemies were gathered together, that it doth arife QJ threfh them The Horns of this honourable caufe are found horns of Iron and its hooves braflc: it can tbrcfh (as it hath done before) even the mountains; (Tot what are they before Zerubbabel)and fift and fann themas duft . This is a fignai token for good in the dark and cloudy day, that thefe great truths., which are now become the Shibboleth , thefpeciallobjett ofourTeftimony^ and (** l) adhe- adherence thereunto i the chara&eri- ftick of the Lambs followers, are con- firmed and fhining in a heart vengadg- ing beauty : if we hold faftthisTeftimony wee are fure to come off vi&orious^ to get the white &one&rhe new name: If wee quit and caft off this fortifying girdle of Truth, we will fuccumb , and be writ- ten in ihcduft,not among the living in je- rufalem. For the manner and Method ofth is rep- ly, it will,, Ifuppofebefoundveryfuita- J bleto thelcope. The language is plain and accommodat to polemicks , which dorejedl all extravagant ornaments of fpeech. The Informers Arguments are propofed v'tv'tda>vegeta>ad amijjim oft ti- mes verbatim* ana nothing of fcctning ftrengch or nerves in hisreafoning declin- ed , but fully weighed and examined. The Presbyterian Arguments j which he hath difguifed, are prefented and offered in their genuine firength* and fully im- proven againft him; Wberin this trifler is called to the orders 3 and his tergiver- fation checker and made appear. The (late of every one of thefequeftions islike- wayes wayes propofed, andArgumentsdrawen forth thereupon j which do abundantly fortify the Presbyterian caufe and Princi- ples^ and in a great meafure obviat all his Exceptions, and this in the beginning of every Dialogue before any formall en- counter with him. So that if any fliall en- deavour again to underprop this tottering wall and to draw this faw back again, they muft be ty ed to the fame Methode/weigh- ing all that is offered in the found ballances of Scripture and reafon^andnot infucfa a faint, fuperficiair, difpute-deferting Me^ thode as the Anfwer to the Dialogues betwixt the Conformift and Non-confor- mifts hath been plyird with; whofe reply er doth but { like the dogs atiV/V^Ieape here & therefuperficiallythusmeafuring out the dimenfions of the whole book with litle or nothing of a formall encounter with the Anfwerer his Arguments and reafons. Some things there are j that do require a litle touch of Apology5 if any quarrel the prolixity j 'tis eafily granted that a fufficient anfwer might have been con- tradted into far leffe bounds ; yet as every writers head or hand is not fo fkilful as to put fut am Iliad into a nut , fo every reader nor the tooth to crack that nm> mar- tow is nauå rather then nourifhing cenuay ftpmaks And astheftrongercon- deafedljgfrt of the Sun , whither in its di- te€t, or refracted beams j hurts weaker eyes; fo all eyes are not for the fma! i prin t oftheLaconickfiile, nor can every jud- gement readily digeft; too much epitomi- zed arguings^ efpeciallyinfuchfubje&s wherein the (piflitudcand variety of the matter, requires a more dilated ftile and method. The^Fair flaring of thefe great points ^now the axfetree^ about which our religious differences arp turned J the giving of light unto them by folid Argu- ments may well bear the charge of fome little paines in reading in order to fatiffa- n therein; and the man is a wretched mifer who would be fcant as to the afford- ing of time and diligence in this endea- vour. if any defiderat a more particular Exa- rnen of the Teftimonics of the Fathers and fome other Authors cited by the Ittfor- mer ; there are fcveral grounds which may take offebis exception. Firft/ince, upon jipe-n both fides it is profeflfedly agreed jrhatthefcripture is the only judge in this (debate , and fince both parties now con- tending ( as alio the fathers themfelves and all found Chriftians) have "profetfed to fubfcribc ane ablolute appeal to this judge in matters of religion ( whatever deviations from this rule and profetfion, J this man and his fellowes are guilty of in ; their arguingsand pleadings,efpeciaiiy in this point) matters, lfay., ftandingthus in this debate among profefledprotcftants, who are difputing from fcripture , cer- tainly a critical fcanning of,or litigiouscon teflabout thefenfe ofevery humane writer, they mull in their principles acknowledge to be but a diglzd'nuon dc tana cafritta, a fpendingpf money for that which is nor bread. When any difputanr hath with much critical travel among the fathers, brought home their fufTrage to his caufe , or by the fame diligence taken it out of an adverfaryes hand as it were withhis (word and this bow j what is all the victory? a humane teftimony brought to fortiiya*//. vine truth (which was before flrongand impregnable in its own light and authori- (Hf) ty ty) andateftimony aptto a wiredrawn by afubtilerCriticktoa different or con- trary fenfe. Next, the fcriptures decisi- on in this debat, being (a$it is hoped) convincingly made appear, and the chief teftimonies of fathers for our caufe vindi- cated againft this adverfary,no rational or ingenuous reader will judge itcxpcdient, after thefcriptutedecifion israadeappear and the teftimonies of eminent fathers alfo , and the adverfaryes contrary hu- mane tefhmonyes, as to the main, dlfpel- led f to purfuc every ftragling citation. Thirdly, \ is evinced that as upon rhe one hand all his teftimonyes upon the point of Prelacy j though admitted., do but am- ount to demonftrat the faBuntj which is not thequeftion,and not all thej^which only is, (o upon the other hand they are as far fhortof reaching any patrociny to the prefent *Dsocefian Eraftt&nTrclatis the Pigmces arme is to fetch downUlyfles helmet. ( Now what fuperfluous waft of time were it to infift in icanning of tefti- monyes adduced to prove that which is notthequeftion? the difputant hath but a mean labour in trying whether his adver- faryes faryes conclufion is deducd according to rules j and followes on the premifes ^ when the conclufion it felf is a long da- yes journey cut of the lifts and ranges of the queftion , and not the negatumot the principle which tne adverfary undertakes to prove. If any roan will from this In- formers teftimonyes draw out our *Dioce- JianEraflian'PrefatAn the nature and ex- tent of the power now exercifed by him, he may give a defie to all xhtVirtu&fiio march him in chymical extractions^ and may have ihe chief chair for invention. AH the fathers cited by this difputantareas ambiguous as 'he Delphick Oracles in our debate* In fine, this piece is chiefly addreffed to the plain fimple fearcher for truths to furnifh him with ftones from mount Zions brook ( with plain fcripturc Arguments) to encounter and overcome our Phiiiftine braggards: not to charge his unfkilful vveake (houlders and armes with Sauls unwieldy armour. Howtaft^ leffe and ufelefleto the unlearn d j a dif- puteabout the fenfe of humane writers is , when the inquit y and debate is about a d i- vine truth., whetein the confeience muft be be fatisfied upon divine warrand, needs not my pains to prove , it Ibeing obvious to the meaneft r eflcc"rion. If any mall yet except upon the want of a full examinati- on of fome Commentators upon fcripture., whom the Informer appeales unto j 'tis anfwejred , that if the fenfc of controvert- ed texts be evinced trom parallel', and the fcope and contexture, and the Adverfa- ryes argument repelled, the humane re- ftimony or fenfe of fome Interpreters muft vail to this in the judgment of ail Proie- ftantsy and befides, neither the fuftrage of Commentators is wanting to our fenfe of thefe fcriptores we plead , nor can this mans glofles be reconciled to the fenfe of found Proieftants. Which wee fuppofe the reader will find aboundantly clear in the Perufal. T he learnM do know that wee might mufter up as many commenta- tors fuffragesto patron ife our fenfe of text controverted _, as would /patio conficere immenfumaquor. The truth is., that with fome , wee will need an Apology f in that., this piece is fwelled to fucha bulk upon this ground, &that fo much of itis taken up in prefenti ng and fcanaing the fenfe of au- thors $ thors; be fides j the many tefrimonyes of rcformedChurchcs and divines forPresby- rerianGovernmentwhichwec have prefen- ted in a fhortviewinthelaft Chapter up- on the firft Dialogue, do., confequenrly give fentence for us^as to the fenfe of the texts fcanned in this controverfy , and more then counterbalance any whom this man appealls unto. Some j h is probable * may think ftrange, that the Informer hath fo far got theftati of this corrector, and travelled fo long before this appeared; but fuch may be quickly fatiffyed as to l\i\$punfiilio of a time-ceremony ^when theyareraadeto un- derftand that as this piece was along time abroad ere ever I did fee it , fo after fome fight of it , it was a confiderabletime be- fore! had theleaft intention of imparting my thoughts of it,&af cerlhad this imparted them much more time did interveen before my intention did fully con efpond with the preffe motions>& accefle where it could be had. But however, the knowing reader will not fomuch value ^^replyed, or whens as what and how. Satcito Ji fat foveas a found proverb: although ( if this matter matter did deferve any more Apology) it might be truly averred that the fubftance ofthisreply,ailtoav§ry little was written in the moncths of June and July in the Year 168 i • fmce which time thefe iheets were much lurking and out of my hands. And but little opportunity offered for boring them through exactly after the writing thereof. Yet upon fome renewed defires., as to the publication I did again haftily look them overamidft many avocations., dividing the whole into Chapters for Me- thods fake^ with fuitable inferiptions containing the fumm & feries of the chief points treated of; having alfo acceflc to perufe fome Authors which were not by me at firft writing , fome inlargements were made which have much encreafedic to this bulk , and ?t is probable may make it prove ragged in feveral places., and not fo intelligible to the plainunlearned rea- der > for whom at firft writing it was prin- cipally^ not only, intended; yetforhis advantage the Citations of Authors are allEnglifhed, and fome times rendered only in English , and often upon repeat- ing ionic few of the Authors words, the fentence fentcnce is broken off &the reft prefcnr- ed in our own language; vvh/ch if itfeem flrange to any other; as the ground affig- ned will, I, hope 5 fatisfy^ fo a view of the Authors will be my vindication as to the truth of the teftimonyes themfelves. Upon the point of Separation ( which is a difficult and coroprehenfivequeftion ) 1 have not undertaken any large fcrutiny into its nature and degrees, nor to fcann the feverall incident cafes and fubordinat qucftiqps., which the full difcufling of that great point would require; defiring only to maintain the antithefis of the Informers principle and fundamental! Topick in the third Dialogue j and in fo far only to en- quire into this point as to vindicat this pra&ice of presbyterian Minifters and profeflburs their owning and following their refpe&ive duties, from his imputa- tion of a finfulland Schifmatick repara- tion; and therefore have not dire&ly fpoken to thefe cafes , viz. what may befaidfor, oragainft ConformiftsMini- Aerial miffion ? What difference is in this our cafe betwixt zfixdorftatcdj and ane occajional hearing . In what cafes it might might be abf!ra&ed fcema forroali own- ing of Curats as Minifters of this Church ? Whether a proteftation at firft hearing might be a (ixfocientfalvo to free the pra- &ic from that compliance which is plea- ded from the narratives and declared de- fign of the A&s which do enjoyn it? And upon the affirmative folutionof this cafe> what might be the nature ♦ extent andcircumftancesoffuch aproteftarkm? Whither the diverfe cafes and difpenfa- tionsoffeverall places of our land, will import fuch a difference as to fin or duty in this point, as there might be a diver- fity of practice and union keeped ther- upon? Theleand feveral fuch like cafes I have not taken uponme formally to ftate and clear ^whatever light about them may follow upon what is here affef ted ) not finding it ncceffary in order to the fcope of this defence^, as the queftion with this Informer is feared and limited f norbeing defirous to render this reply of too great a bulk , or to be forward and pre- suming in difficult points. If the learned and Judicious deftdcrat here many things both as to matter and manner , as I doubt not., not, they will ; let not the Presbyterian caufe and intercft tall under the worfe Charader with them; this being butane eflfay upon thefe great queftions offered by a very mean perfon of that number 3 and not their joynt- polities and form'd thoughts i addrefTed alfo mainly to the plain and unlearned readers. Yet for its fcope and fubfiance., I doubt not, but it will be found fuch as is able to fpeake with the Enemy in the gate j and fuccfesfully to unde^goe their afTauIts, ifanyfuchbe mideupon't. One thing is indeed to be regrared.whcroflcould not but acquaint the reader in this place j that Becaufe of many difficulties which the overfeer of the firft part ^ in Anfwer to the firft Dia- logue., at the prefibj did labour undcr^ Both in refped: of the Copy and feveral o* therwayes., there arefome confiderable Tipographical errcurs which have creepe into it , and feveral Latinc and Greeck words mifreprefented; of which erro?s# fuch as do confiderablymarr the fenfe are noted among the Errata. The other parts t^is hoped will not be fo bad,, & create the Reader fuch difficulty. (**% Ifliall I Ihall alfo here acquaint the Reader > that I have fecn a manufcript entituled, Tofitions relating to public k worfljip ^ maintained by ^Presbyterians Informer times , and contradicted 'by the practice of many in theft dayes , driving the fame defign with this Informer in his third Di. aloguej and upon the fame grounds, whe- reof lhad written a confiderable time fince a full Examen j but cannot hereprefent it : both^ becaufe that pafquil is not ex- tant; and especially, becaufe it i§ for fub- ftancefullyanfwered in this reply .TheAu- thor upon thefe general acknowledged grounds of the obligation j lyingupon all Church -members toattendthe ordinan- ces: the unlaw fulntffe offeparatingfrom pnblick worship for the fins ofCMinijlers or fellow -worshippers ; the condemning of the Brounifls in England by the old Non ' confonnifts there , becaufe of a to- tall Separation j though themfehes did feparat in part: their acknowledging of the lawfulnefie of Epif copal ordination for fubftance , &c. drawes out a Orange and remote conclufibn againfl: Presbyteri- an an Miniflers of this Church^their officiat- ing in their prefent cafe & circumftances 3 and peoples adhering to them in the ex- ercife of their Miniftry. The abfurdity ofwhich inference, and whzzzfand-rofie connexion it is , needs not any renewed difcoveryhere, which were but AEiuma- gere. The impertinent and groundlefie Tuppofitionsupon which this inference is founded j and the confufed fhufling to- gether of thatwhich in this queftionis to be diftinguifned j being aboundantly above evinced , and alfo the apparent inconfi- flency of this way andMethod of Arguing: fmce from all thefe grounds a deftroying conclusion may be drawn out againft ihis pafquiller^ inreferenceto theowningof Presbyrcrian Minifters in their Minifiry : fince the ordinances adminiftredby them are really ordinances of C&rift j their miffion and ordination warrantable, the worfhip not' corrupted by tbeir fuppofed fcandals, and consequently they are higb. ly guilty who difown their Mmiftry f or plead for it ; or elfe to evite the deadly re- bound of his own weapons and Arguing* (*** x) he hemuftftatethequeftionof new* and re- ftridV and limit to the particular Oate and circumftancesof this Church} but then he muft confefTehis arguing upon thefegtne- rail politions , to be but beating of the air and poor childiih babliog. It were not unpleafant to trace the many groffe con- tradictions incident to this way of arguing and apparent to men of an ordinary reach who have read this paper. Firft. [atten- ding of ordinances] add [receiving them from Conformifts] are all one and identi- fied with them, yea tycd with adaman- tine chains ; yet in the cafe of Presbyte- rian Minifters, ihefe twoareasfarfepa- rat, as eaft &Weft. Secondly nothing but a fubftanrial corruption of ordinances admi- niftred by Conformifts can warrand a with- drawing from them., & this principle fayes the Author hath ftrong Scripture grounds to warrand it,Eut take this principle over to PresbyterianMinifters^and then it Jofes all its vertue , and he will find grounds of fcparating from them,, were ordinances never fo pure., and this is no ftrange thing, thing , the fliarpeft fighted eye cannot feeitfelf. Thirdly, a man can never be reconciled tonimfelf^ who confeflfesthe Epifcopal ordination lawful , and yet dif- owns Conformifts. But once turn the Tables , and the game runs croffe ; a man may acknowledge the Presbyterian Minifters have a lawfull ordination, and never croile that principle 5 though he totally difown them. There arc alfo feveral groflfe inadvertencies , befides thefe that are common with his feilo- wes in this way of arguing , which are pe- culiar to the Author of that Pafquil. Such as, his cutting the finews and over- turning the fundition of bis arguing, in granting all to be true which Noncon* fermijfs charge firelatifts with j id eft ^ that they are Schijmaticks &c. So in the fecond pofition. Yet holding y that this pofition viz. That ordinances are not polluted by their Scandalise will inferra concluiion of hearing them£/V£S> nunc; Wheras this very ground oiSchifme is that upon which he mainly ple- ads for difowning Presbyterian Minifiers, f*** 3y> lliS his confcunding in the matter of Ae- rius bis fuppofcd cenfure by the ancient Church our acknowledgment of the fa- iium and of the Jus. His denying in> a&fwerto the objection anent the Cove- nant j that any adl under a General head of dutyjConfidcredPhyfically or material- ly , may become hie & nunc j and in its prefent circumftancesfinful exaccidentfj yet walking all along upon this very ground, in condemning the preaching of Presbyterian Minifters and peoples hear- ing them:. In calling ( in anfwer to ano- ther obje&ion J theTrelatick party the Church of Scotland as now conftitute - Yet in the prcmifcdconce*Fion acknow- ledging them Schifmaticks from this Church ; Thus dealing back a principle to m^ke (hift of anfwer, which he hath already given away to his ad verfary in thi s debate. In granting to the Presbyteri- ans that this frame of prelacy is worfe then the former j and gives more to the Magtftr ate thenQiods Word allowes, yet calling this cfcabiifhmemofit, the prero- gatives of Authority Sube commands of fub* fubmifilcn thereunto lawful commands. T befe & many fuch like absurdities are ob- vious to any that have read that chattered f?afqul!:which might be made further con- vincingly appear if wee could dilate upon ic and prefent the pafquii it felf. Buc this litic toutch may abundantly difccver its vanity and inefficiency intheprefentdif- . pute, and that the caufe, which our Pie- lats puppets are pleading for ^ is fo defpe* rat and tottering that it needs many con- ceptions of its adverfarycs and beg/ d fup. portions to under-propit withal,&yet fo rotten is this fabrick and bowing waii , that it mull notwithftanding fall to the ground. Reader, Ifliall detain thee no longer from the perfual of thefc flieets , fave on- ly to tell thee that as che flrengthning of the hearts of the Lords remnant in follow- ing their duty and amidft their prefent fufferings ,is the intendment of this appea- rance j fo there i$ no patrociny intended * nor can be drawen by the moil remote confequence from what is here ple- aded upon the point of feparation, unto unco thefe dreadfullly prefaginganti-mi- nifterial principle! and practices j that feveral in this land are fadly precipitat- ing themfeives into ; which wee hojr^ will be aboundantly clear to the under- ftanding perufer of what I have offered upon that head j and the ftatc of the que- (lion as It is exhibited : how clear and full our confe&ions and principles ate in aflerting the due right of Magiftracy 3 as well as of a true Gof pel Miniftry , and how harmonioufly wee join to the con- feffions of all the Reformed Churches herein j is fufBciently notour to the un- byaflfed and judicious ; and confequent- ly f that no precipitations or ftrayings from the fcripture path upon thefe heads, can bectv^ed upon our caufe and prin- ciples. Great and manifold fkve been the affaults of Satan upon tnis poor Church , and reproaches of that grand accufcr of the brethren upon our Refor- mation and the faithful promoters there- \ of. And the plowers have long plowed upon her back* and enemyes of all forts have marry time afflidlcd her from her youth. poutk O that bur provoked jealous God arould fhvwus, wherefore he contends, md give both Minifters and People a aeart- affecting fight and fenfe of the true grounds of this controyerfy , and fhew jnto us our tranfgreffions, wherein wee lave exceeded and provoked him thus 6 lengthen out our deiolation; that he vouid exciteMinifters to make full proof >f their minifbry^ and open up to them tn effectual door and cngadgehis people :o a due andfuitable fubjedtion to their VJiniftry that this word might run fwiftly md this fword of the Lord cut the cords of he wicked , that wee were all excited to mcompafchis throne with ftrong crying md tears in order to the returning of the Bcclipfed departing glory that this great JhephcrcWifrael j would fhew himfelf he only wife of God and the only Poten- :ate in difsappointing and crufhing the :rafty, cruel ftratagemsaod defignes of Jatan fnowa&iogboth the roaring lyon md fubtile old Serpent ) and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrift and his Aruzans. Ihatthis out Iflc P upon which * the day- day- [firing from on high did early fhine ] and which did early wait for his Law * whoisZions great Lawgiver., was reco. vcred fromPopifh darknefle,, and fronj decay es after the times of Reformation, may have a reftoring healing vifit and being made a marled land may be upon this ground a land of defires. That Chrifts Tabernacle j now fallen down , may be reared up according to the pattern, and planted among us untill his g orious appearance to accompli/h his Churches warfare and to make up his Jewells, T his is the ExpeSation of the prifoners of hope, and in this expe&ation let us turn in to the fhoag hold., even to his name which is a ftrong tower and go on in hisftren gh keeping his good way which hath alwayes been ftrenth unto the uprighr? Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the faints and be ftedfaft, unmoveable^, aU wayes abounding in the work of the Lord, fince he comes quickly., who is our head and judge and his reward is with himfo that neither our labour nor fufFering (hall be in vain in the Lord. The Contents FIRST PART, Chap. t# page it THattheprelat now eftabliflied in this Church is both Di$cefi*n and YrtflUn cleared* By the pre- -fent (landing aCiSLhercanent page 2, 3. A twofold ftateofthe queftion proponed accordingly, Argu- menu from Scripture againft the Dioceiian Prelat asa pretended Church officer fuch as i« appropriating the term Epijcopur common to all Paftors , to a' PreJau The abiu dry of this difcovered Calvines remarke- able Teftimony onTitus 1 : 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Falcrt which hath the fleck for its immedut cbjetl. Cleared from 1 Pet. 5:3, invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters. 1 he matter of fa cleared from the matter of fa& and Stverall Scripture grounds page 16* 17, 18. It maimes and di- terfifies the Paftorall office , by Anti-Scripturall new ft invented TheConfcnts invented degrees thereof cleared ac large page 19, 2o His office many waves comrare to thevery .nature of the gofpell Church Government , cleard a! o at large from the nature of the Prelats officd md feveral Scrip- ture grounds page 21,22,23, 24. Cap- 3, page 1 5. The Diccefian Bjfhops office debajesextrdordtnary of- fices , in confounding them With ordinary , cleared from the Scripture-account of thefe extraordinary offices, and the nature of the Prelats office , according to the principles and pleading of the Epifcopall party. Pag 2$ , 26, 27, 28 .29. 3 o.Thc derivation of the Prelatsof- fice from the Apoftolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus , loaded with abfurdiaes. ibid. Chap, 4. page 30. The Diocefian Prelats office takes away the pg$fkr right to ea' I their P after. This right proved from Scrips tureand divine reafon pa^eji, 32,33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the pra&ice of Prelatifts as likewayes the proceeding charge the di- vine ri^ht of this office proved from feveral Scripture grounds, efpecially I iirn. 5: 17. And fome chief exceptions of the prelutick party examined Page 343 Chap, %. page 39. That the prefent Prelacy isgnpe Erajiianifme , pro- ved, from the matter of fait, fome Arguments a- ^ainft it under that notion* It excludes and denyes all Ckurch Govc;nmcnt in the hands of Chmch offi- cers firfl: park cers diftinft from the civillj contrary to the Churches ' priviledge both undcrthe Old and New Teftament , which is demonftratat large. Page4i^42> 43*44* Is in many points areincroachmenc upon the liberties of the gofptl Church and upon Chriiis mediatory Authority over the fame 5 which is cleared page 45,4'- Chap. 6: page 47. Eraftianifrncdenyes thccompleatconnitutiQfiofthe A* ptfiolick. Church in pint of Government. Removes the Scripture landmarks 3 let to diftinguifhthe civiiand ■EcclefiaiHck powers, which is cleared in feveral points P2£e47> 4*»49, 5°- Icjslyable to great abfurdities - ibid. Chap. 7. pag. fu The Informers fhiftingandobfeuring; the true ftate of the queftion anentEpiicopacy , and flinching from the point dcbateable difcovered /everal wayes page 51. 5 3 He declines a direft pleading for thePrelats civill offices 3 yet offers feme arguments in defence thereof wherinhis prevarication and contradiction to himfeli is made appear. His pretended Scripture Argument* fromthclnfrancesof Eli and Samuel, andthepriefts concurrence in that Court II Numb, to fortify the Trelats civil ftate offices,ad examined page 5 4, 5 5 > $6* 57* 58,59. He is conrradidted by interpreters in this point? Antiquity full and clear againit him. The {grounds ofthe Affembly itfjS Seff. 25. Againftthe civill offices of Miniftc'ri page 63, 64-* The Informers cndeavouis to bring in the Viocefian Bishop under thac I command of decency and order as Upfull though not cm- t l manded The Contents mnledani necejpny. That the Biihop cannot be war- ranted on this ground butmuftasa fuppofed Chimh officer, inftrufthisinftitutionj and million from Scrip- tu e , cleared from (everal Scripture grounds and the acknowledgment of fomc adverfariej page *5, * 6, $7i 68>69,yo,7i>71>7i* Ch g. page/j. mirprintedChap. 9. The Informer undertakes to anfw$rthe Arguments of Presbyterians againft Epifcopacy, his anfwers to ou Arguments from Matth. 22:2?, 26. Wherinhai? ?ing mifreprefented it, he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papifts, falls in diverte incon- fiilencies, and walks croffe to the fence of found divi- nes upon this Text: Yea T>f fome of the ancients which cleard at large page 74, 75>76> 77>7&,79> *°j 81, Sa. hisaafwer to our Argument fromi Pet* 5: 5. Wherein he alfo offers violence to the text and joines ifiue with the Papifts , hisevafions examined and this Text (as alfo the preceding J Improven againft bini . p2geS4>85,S *oS. Chap. ic. iftifprinted Chap* ix. page 109! The Informer offers Scripture warrandfor Biihop*. His Argument from the Government oj the Church undet tkeoldTeJlatntnt, the fubordination of the Priefisand Levites. The rcmotenefs and abfurdityof his con- fequence anent ^the lawfulneffe of the prefent diocefi- anEraftianPrelats office-asit is deduced from this prin- ciple,difcovered«feveral wayes,page 1 io,i 1 1 , t i2.That there is no imape of onr Prelacy in the "Jewifii Church Government, c!eared,The Informer walks crofTe to ?«- ui^,yeaBi{hopBilfonhimfelf3 and in the feriesofhis reafoning,introduces a pope into theChrifiian Church, pagenj, 114,115, IK?, 117, uS, J19, 120. His Argument from \\\zJpcflles fuperiorityto tbe7odtfciplesp examined. He begs the queftion in fuppofirg Prelats tofucceedtheApoftles immediately , andPaftorsihe 7c Difciples, and from a fupcriority among officers of different kjndes, eroundlefly concludes a fuperiority among' officers of the [ame kjnd. No Image of our prelacy in the Apoftles fuperiority over other Church officers, page ii r, 122)123, 124,125,126./ Chap. 1 1. mifpxintedChap. 10. page 127. The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Epifiofaey ef Timothy and Tjttts. Their Epif- copall office difproved y from the office a? Evargelijl » afcribed exprefiy to the one , and by eood con fe£uen- ce to the other , from many circum£ances of rhe fa- cred texr, and the judgment of interpreters, page nJ? 129/mifprinred i27?)i3o(mifprintedi2S)j3 r.{mif- priiutd 129.} The Informers anfwers anent the fir ft t t a»i The Contents and large fcnfc of an Evangelift,hisreafons «f denying to Timothy,the Evangeliftick office in zftriBfinfe > zx aminedrand found inconfiftent with themfelves5 anc centrare to Scripture 3 132, ( mifprinted 130 ) 133 mifprinted 131, ( 134 mifprinted 132 ) 155 f mif- printed 13 35) 136, mifprinted 134, 137 mifprint- cd 1 3 ? 9 138 ( mifprinted 13O he denies the power in ordination and Jurifdi&ion to be the proper work of an Evangelift. How abfurdly and inconfiftently page 1 3 9, 140 ( mifprinted 137, 148) his contradi- ction to &n- *48 ( mifprinted 14*1 *43 > *44. I4y5 146 ) he walks crolTe to Bifhop Hal , Dounham and Hooker, to Chryfoftome, Jerome, Theodorw. His grounds upon which hepleadsfor Timorhyand Titus their Epifcopal power, particularly examined, the firft taken from Pauls giving diredion to Timothy and Titus, bote to cary in ordination andfurifdi8ii6n3g€n^vsMy examined page 149, 150, (mifprinted 146,147) his arguing from thefe diredhons particularly examined anent rheir not lay ingtn of bands fuddenly, anent nbufa 2ndccnfures.pagciSi>i!)Z ( mifprinted 14I, 149) the Informers next Argument,from the concernment of after a- ges in thefe rulers. That neither this , nor theadrefs- ing of thefe rulers tothe Evangelifts will affoord anj help unto him,cleared» The Loudon Minifters vindi- cat. That Timothy and Titus power at Ephefus anc Cretejvas not voided after fime elders were ordained there, fandy foundation to fupporc their Epifcopacy. Tire 1 n fornw Firft Pare rmsr is picyfully in the bryai s,in anfwering hisDoub- ?r< exception anent Timothies ordination, by the laying an hhe bands of the Yresbyterj. The praBice of after agts a Ground to fupport the Epifcopacy of Timothy and Ti« is i*;,^.^^^6*^?' 1*8, 15 9,160, Idi,itf2, 6$ 164,1^,16*, 167,10s, 169. ( milprintedi5o, • 51,1^2,1535 154, m> 1^,157, I5«j '59> "o> 6ly i6z, 1^3, I643ltf, 166. ) 3hap. 1 1. mifprintcd Chap. 1 1 . according to the milprinted Method ( which (hall be followed hereaher except in fome few pages ) page 167. The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the feven \fian Angells > difcuffed. That the flile of prophetic ^9 vritingsand of this book do ftrongly-conclude a coUec- tvepife'm the term,Atf£e/,provedby feveralArgunaents «ge 1685^69, 170* Whatever hecanalledge is the Chara&eriftick of this angel ., proved to be in Scrip- ;ure apropriatto Minifters. page 171. Many divines indent and modern for the colle&ive fenfeofthe ft7ord (Angel), yea fome epifcopalmen themfelves, >age i723 17J. The admitting of the Angel to be one mgieperfon will nothing help the Informer, page 173, 174. Hisanfwerto the exception horn Rev. 2: 24* examined. Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Tefttmwies of the ancient s and the Catalogues of fucceeding Bishops* examined. Pa?e 175,176. 177,178. The aidreffing tfthe Epiflle to the JngeL Will not help him. as neither Doctor Reynolds , nor Beza their taking the Angel forafingle perfon. Page 178? 179, 1S0, 1S1, The Informers new Argument for prelacy [ ta- ken for Viotrephes hislove of preheminenec] wherein he embraces Bellarmines evafions, and offers violence tt Z t# The Contents to this,and parallel texts page 181,182,183 ,184,18ft i26, 187. Chap 1 5* mifprinted Chap. ii. pagei87^ The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of & pifcopacy. That Antiquity is not the Judge in this de- bate, although he could inftruft the matter of faft, proved. Page i88» 189,190, 191. The Scripture ( even by the Confeffion'of the Fathers ) the only judgein matters of faith and praflice^ not Cuttome and Antiquity. Ibid. TheJtf/orwtf/reafoningonthis head.reduced to a formal fyllogifm. The Major pro- pofition , the Informer though oblidged offers no proof of. It is fcannd,andlikewayes tke affumption; andthe|unfoundnefTeofbothdifcovered. Page 192* 193, 194. 19^ *9<5. Thelnftrmert Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops yhrgely fcannd,and the infuffici* eythereofdifcovered^in the Judgement of found di- vine?. Several things do invalidat F/7/eWwjTeftimony. page I973 J9$> 199, 200, 201, 202. That the firft pureft Chuch was governed by Presbyters without Bi- fhops. Jeroms Teftimony in his commentary upon Titus, and the Epiftle to Evagrius, for the Identity of [Bifhop]and[Presbyter], and a Presbyteriall Govern- ment in the Apoftolick times , largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer , which are dis- covered to offer violence to Jeromes Words , to be inconfiftententwiththemfelves, and contrary to that fenfe of Jeromes Teftimony \vl ich is exhibit by lear- ned Proteftant divines , yea fome adverfarys them- felves* Page 204, 205 , 206, 207*208, 209, 210, 211, Xi2,2i3,2i4>*i5> 3 1^27,^18,219^220,221,222, Chap. Firfl: Part Chap. 1 4> roifprinted Chap* i $ page ti jl The difference betwixt our prefent Prelacy , and the ncientEpifcopacy, dated and evinced in many points, uchas i: The potver of ordination and \urifdiB\on above Weslyters , cleared in feveral particulars. And from *e Teftimony of the Ancients , and eminent Prote- :ant divines* Chryfollomes Teftimony on i Tim. r«. lomely ix. explaind. 2. That they Were fetup by tie }resbyters free choice and e'eftion. Proved from Anti- quity g . In refrenc tothe peoples Inter eft in their choyce. 4. that they could not , ordain alone* f . That they did not in ■ i ade Presbyters decifwefuffrage. Cleared alfo from An- liquity, page 213, 224, 22^,226, 227,22s, 229, 230, ^r. 6. In the point of their ciuilftate* offices-, which'js vroved to be contrary to the canons called /f poftoftck, Jc o'.her canons of ancient Couneills. 7. That metrepo- itanVrimacy isaftrangerto antiquity. alfo cleared. S. Jolikewayes Eraflian Prelacy , page 232, 233, 234. >• Our Piehts exclufion of 'the ruling elder from Church Hidicatories c~ofTes Antiquity* 10. Their large and Provincial infpeBion. II. Their laylag afide the pre- iching of the Gofpell, renders them Monfters to pure Antiquity, and expofes them to the cenfure of An- ient Canons page 23?, 236, 237, 238, 23^ 240, 141, 242. 12. In their fafiuous pomp and fumptucut rrandeur ibid. > Chap. Mj mifprinted Chap, 14. page 243 The Informers pretended Teftimonyes out of Cal- vin, Beza , Blondell &c. For Eoifcopacy , examiu- jd.Th^irAnti-epifcopallJudgemefet cleardfrom their ft i writ- The Contents ings , particularly Calvines, from his Commentariei upon the controverted Scriptures in this point , fe« verall paffagesof hislnftitutions and Commentaries vindicated. page 243, 244, 245 > 246* 247,248, 249, 250,151. As alfoof fomeLpiftles page 252,25$, 2,54- Asalfooffieza pagc25<>, 25*, 257,258, 25^ 36o.TheIwjirwerytwo abfurdities which by way of i Dilemmahe offers unto us from our affertion of the tin- alterablensficofPYesbytersanG*vernment,and our coiicefil- onofa Proejlos eariy brought in, fcannd and retorted upon himlelf. Page 260, 26 f> 262, 2^3. Some paflages of Blondel vindicated, and of Chamier, and Moulin, page 264, 2*5, 266,267, 26$. ( mifprinted 23 *) the Authors of ]us divinum Mmjleriianglicani vin- dicated at (ome length , and inipecial from imputa- tions of a contradiEtionimVokd upon them by the Infix- raer,page I6q> 270,271, 272,273,274 (mifprintec 237» 235,262, 2*3, 2^4) apaffage of Bucer vindi- cate ibid. Chap* 16* mifprinted 1 £• page 175. (mif- printed 265. Severall Teftirnonyes of the farhers offered by M Durham in his commentary upon the revelation , foi evincing the identity of %Angd> Bishep and Presby* ier3 vindicated from the exceptions of the Inform? his Exception to Mr Durhames teftimony of Au- guftine examined, as likewayes tathat of Ambro fe and Chryfoftome. Rage 27?, 176, 177, 278 279,280,281, (mifprinted 265, 266,267,268,219 270*271 j the Informers inconfiftences noted,pag< Z%l,ZtZii%i ( mifprinted 171, 272, 275. ) Firft Part Chap. 17. mifprinted 16. page 2.84^ (raif- printcd 274. ) The Harmonious confent oi ancient fathers , modern divines and confejfions of reformed Churches >t or Presbyte- Vian Government in its effential points of difference from Pre lacy 3exhibit. 1. That there isnoiiffence betwixt a biship and Presbyter Jure divino. Page 2 8 ^ 2% 6, 287 ( mifprfnted 27$ , 276, 277. 2. In their point of ordina* tion& jurifditlion that thefe are not in the hand ofafwglepre- Ut, but that Presbyters have efjcntiall joint-inter efl therein \ page i$2, 289,290 ( mifprinted 278, 179, 2$o. ) 3- I n point of the peoples intncji in the ele&ion and call ofMi- nifters. Page 290, 291 ( mifprinted 28o> 281) 4* In relation to the ruling elder, as appointed by Chrijt* Page 292 (mifprinted 2S2 ) $. As itftandsin oppofition to Eraftian principles and theprcfent prelacy in that refpedt, and maintains a fpirituall Authority in the hands of Church officers^ diftinS from>& independent upon,the ci viJ powers of the world 3ibid# SECOND PART, Chap. 1. pag.it A Twofold ftate of the queftion propofed * the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either, or both Covenants> the other concerning the obliga- tion of thefe Oaths againfr. it. That prelacy is abjur- ' ed in the national Covenant^proved from feverall clau- fes of it,pageg ,4, 5,^ That it is alfo abjured in the fo- lemn league and Covenant^provsd from feveral paf • fcges thereof, and the then ftate of our Church, page U4 7,& Th« Contents page 7,8,9, t o.Thc (landing force of thefe Oaths upon theprefem and fucceeding generations proved. I. from their nacure and effenc|, page n, n3ij. 2. Prom the fubje&they affeft. 3. Their matter and objeft. 4. Their end and fcope, and even as to Presbyterian Government, page 13, 14* Chap. 2. page 16, The Informers Arguments againft abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant. Some reafons of his againft an Oath in generator this Oaths obligation upon the pofterity, weighed, page 1 6, r 7 , 1 8 , 19,20 Mr Croftons Teftimoriy (in his Amlepfis)for the obli- gation of the Covenant upon the po!terity,page z 1 ,22. The Informers reafons againft the abjuration of pre- lacy in the National Covenant, examined* The Au- thorofrhe Apologetical relation vindicated,togethcr with the Aflembly itf$ S.pa^e 23, 24,2?, 2£, 17 '> 2$, *9> $0, 31,31, 33, 34, J 5j 36, 37, 38» 3 9> 4o, 4t. Chap. 5. page 4.x t The Abjurarion of Prelacy in thefolemne league and Covenant vindicatfrom the exceptions of the In- former. The Informer alledges it is only the Englifh Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges againft , howi m pertinently, cleared. page 4$, 44,4?. ThatTimorcus affords no help to him in this anfwer,cleard ibid. Nor IVir Crofton.which is alfo cleardspage 46, 47, 48* 49* 50. From feveral parages of Mr Crofconinhis A- nalepfis. The Covenant excludes our Prelacy, and o- bhdges to Presbyterian Government in his principles, proved ibid. His objection ahent [the fenfeofthe 2 Article offered bv the Parliament of England] Anfwer- ed* As Second Part ed. As alfe his Exceptions ro our Argument taken from our obligation [to prefer ve the Government of theChurch ofScotlandjpage f2, 53, 54, SS> ^,57, .58, f 9. His fancied contradiction which he imputes 10 us as to the fenfe of the firft and fecond article,rc- fjted, The Informer ftands in oppofttion to Mr Crofcon.iThe fenfe of the Englifh Presbyterians asto the firft Article not different from our o\vn,ibid» That theEnglifh Presbyterians did looke upon themfelvest as oblidged to reform according to our pattern,which is the Scripture pattern, proved at large from feveral paffages of Mr Crofton page *o,6r, 6256$> *4> 6$y Thelnformers allegeance[that the firft Article is ambi- guous, and that our Church and ftate being but a part oftheimpofers oftheOath3ihcir fenfe cannot deter- mine its meaning] vain and impertinent, pag 6f , 6696~9 Chap. 4.. page 67. . The grounds upon which the Informer undertakei to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceafeth > although iis oblidging force for the time paft, were fuppofed^examined. Hebegsafuppofition of the in- difference of prelacy, how poorly and impertinently cleard,page 6%, 69, 70. His firft ground taken from [the command and authority of Rulersjgenerally con- fidered,and found impertinent to fupport his conclu- Con, though his fuppofidon were granted-page/i, 72. His id ground touching [the alteration of the matter fwomjasalfo his third takenfrom [the hinderance of a greatergood,bytheperformance]refolving(inltisfeftfe) wholly upon theMagiftrates command,abfurdwhenap- plyed , to our cafe which is fully cleared, page 73, 74*71*7*1 77i7^ Hisabfurdandiftconfiftentrea- tf J foiling The Cotents foning about a [ greater command overruling the lefle] and our obligation to obey therulersi as prior to that of the C0venant.page7.ibid. alfopage 79*80. His Argument taken froraNum: jo.examinedatlavge he contradicts Cafuiils , and the text hath manifold incofiftencies in his reafoning, while refolving all his rules into theMagiftrateslawes, the Informers rules pleaded againft him.and according to the mould of his pie ding doth caft dirt upon the Magiftrate, page 80, Sf, S», $3, 84, S 94, 9<> > ?6. . His reflection upon Mi- miters in leaving their charge, examined,a$ alfo his Ar- guments from the Rechabites. page 97, 98, 99. Chap. 5, page 99. The Informers anfwer to our Argument for the Co- venant obligation taken from the Oath tothe Gibeoni- tes. His trifling w&y of moulding our Argument, And in what fenfewe? plead this paflage. page 100, ioi* The Informers abfurdity which he endeavours tofaftenuponusin this Argumentviz: [that an Oath can bind againft a command of God , impertinent to the point, and fuch as the Informer himfelf ftands o- blidged to anf wer3in maintaining the Authority of the facred text, page io*, log. he is contradicted by Jack- fonand , inconfiftene with himfelf in this point. Page 104, Second Part io45 io<>* the violence which he offers to that paffagc Deur. 10: 10- difcovered and cleared from Interpre- ters, and many Circumftances of the facredtexc and parallel Scriptures^page 106, 107, 108,109, iio4His groffe^nd foohfh diftinguifliing in this tranfaftion of Jofliua. the league and the peace difcovered. page ibid, as alfo his oppofuion to learned interpreters here* He fuppofes.but doth not provea limitation inGods com- mand to cutt of the Canaanites^ His abfurd fuppofi- tion that Jofhua brake his league with them when he know them to be fuch.page ? i ijn.his inftance anenc Rahab to prove the limitation ofGodscommand tode- ftroy the Canasnitesccnfidered andemproven againft him. As alfo his Argument from the i 1 of Joihua 1 9 examined. AndSolomonsimpofing bondfervants upon thefe nations pleads nothing for him* page 113,114, 115,116,117,118,119. The manyfoldinconfiffencies of his anfwers upon this point obftrved,pagei2o, 121, 122,12 3 ,124. The impertinency ofallheanfwersupon this point though granted* His anfwers to our Ar- guments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King ofBaby- Ion,examined. As alfo to the Argument taken from Pfal. 15:4, Pagei25, 126* 127,128. His reflexion on the Affembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the intrants under Prelats , groundless and impertinent to the point,ibid. His argument of- fered byway ofretorfion [ComifTaries though abju- red in the Covenant are owned by us? and why msy not alfo Bifiiops without hazard of perjury ] largely fcannd. The vaft difference betwixt the one and the other pra&ice cleared in feveral points,both in refpedt of the officers owned and of the manner of owning thempage 129, 130, 1.31,131,133,134, I35>i36* THIRD The Contents THIRD PART Chap.?, pag,i. T He question ftated and cleared, from our Chur- ches liare before, and fince the introduction of prelacy; and the different condition of Presbyterian Minifters and Conformifts page ^3,4, ?><£♦ The dif- ferent grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party (and this man particularly ) plead upon, for the peoples adherence exhibited. [Separation]in many cafes not[Schirrn-]The many groundleffe fuppofitions that this charge of [Schifme]is founded upon,cxhibit, and cleared page 7. 8, 9% io, u, iz. The ftate of the queftion largely drawen forth upon a true ac- count of the m3tcer'of fact, and of our principles, and Arguments offered to acqui: this practice of the charge of [Schifme] , fuch as i That the Presby- terian party are this true Church, i. That they a*e under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick intereit. 3, They hive a ground of retorfion of ail that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point. 4* The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted; which is cleared in feverall particulars? page ig,l4, if ,t6„i7. y. It falls under Scripture- obli- gations, which if cleared infeveral particulars page 1 3 19, 20,21'6-Thatthe Prelatick party will befoundin their perfecution,the grand renters and dividers cf this Church. 7.Th:s practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of afinfnll reparation from thisChurch which is cleared in 7 particulars at large, page2i,2$, *432-i, 2£32->2S. Finally thispractice cannotbe that [Schifme] abjured in the Covenant. The Infor- mer$L Argument hercanenc cmprovcn againft him and that Thrid Part that thedifowningofpresbyterianM;fu(ler$YalIs under the imputation of fucb a Schifme, cleared page 27* Chap.i, page 19. The Informers charge of [internall Schifme] upon nonconformifts* his Elogiesof Schifm,and Tefti- mony of Cyprian confidered,and thischarge[retorted upon him page 30, 3 1,32,33. Kis charge of condem- ning allChurches for a thoufand years who have owne Biihops, liturgies Ike*] examined, found ground* lefle, and impertinent to the point^His Argument from Rom 14. Examined and retorted upon him. His charge of [ExternallSchfme] infeparatingin adts of Worlliip, fortified by that pafiageHeb. 10:25? Exa- mined, page 34, 35, 3*.-37> 38,39,40,41,4s- The doubters argument from iCor. 1 2: v. 3 1 . [thatwecought to feeke'the beft 8c moft edifying gifts]advantageoufly for himfelf,but frauduJentIyLpropofd by thelnformer* Confiderations to clear and enforce this Argument. The Informer s anfwers examined at large page 43 > 4 h 4?#4M7»48, 49, 5o,i$f, 42, His Argument for adher- ing to Conformifts taken from the reciprocal! tye be- twixt a Minifter and people Ezek. 33* 8. Heb* 13:17* Mdl.2-7. iTheff. $: 11,12. As alio from Mr Dur- ham on the revelation page io*, io5. examined at large, page 53,54, 55»f6, 57,58, ?9« the premifed texts improven againftConformiftsplea from ihisfup^ pofedtyeand relation, ibid. Chap- The Contents Chap. 3, page 5 8. The doubters argument from Carats not entering by a call from thepeople, and that patfage Ads 14*. *$. cleared and emproven* page 59, 60, 6i, 62,03. The Informers firft anfwer, that feveral whom we re- futed to own,entered by this call.ibid. his exception upon the term £eipeT#>«r*m$ examined. his firft anfwer touching the uleofthe word,toexpre(Tethe a&ionof ©nefingleperfQn,proyedfromA&sio:4i. examined. the ufeof the word cleared from parallels, criticks and Interpreters, page ^4>6?, <$6. Hisfecond Anfwer, that Greek writers ufc thisWord to fignifie ordination without fuffrages,and that this was the aftion of Paul and Barnabas,examined. The granting that this was the a<5tion of Paul and Barnabas , diftinft from the Churches fufFr3ge, will not help thelnformer. Pa^e 67,68) 69. He walks crofle to interpreters in this anfwer page. 7°5 7i> 72. Histhird anfwer [that wee will thus give advantage to independants for popular ele&ionofMinifters] examined, wherein the differ- ence betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared, from the judgement and principles of Presby- terian writers, page 73^ 74, 75 , 76, 77. His laft an- fwer is that ifweedifownConformifts for want of this call we null the Miniftry of the Chriftian world for a~ bove a thoufand years & upward, and the Mini- ftry ofthis Church ;to the year 1^49. examined, e- ven the later Antiquity elearforthis call-. by, the te- ftimony of Marcus Aotomus de Dominis 'the Council of Paris anno 559* the examples of Eradius* Ambrofe &c. Yea of Bifhop Bilfone. page 783 79, So, Si, That patronages ?re abjured in the Covenant, cleared Third Part cleared againft the Ioformer, and his exception anest our Churches per jury ,becaufe of the ufe of patronages after the Covenant, repelled. In what fenfe the prelatick ordination is pleaded by us in difowning conformifts. of the term ,Curat. The Informer hone- ftly giants that itfignifyes one who ferves the cure, though not the Minifter of the place , but the fubfti- tuteofanother.pageSa, f 5,84, Sf. Hisanfwer anent the charge of Perjury, and reasoning anent the law- fulneffp .of difowning Minifters, becaufe of Scandals, whoarenotcenfured,examined* His reafoning found frivolous, and retorted upon him. page $tf, 87* 8?. his great argument from Math. 2 3 .Anent the fuppofed command ofhearing the Scribes and Pharifees,exami- ned. Several circumftances of the facred text offered to difcover4how very difficult, it is to prove tfot there is a command of hearing them, as Church officers. The confequence from hearing of them, though gran- ted, to the hearing of them, denyed upon five grounds: As alfo his reafoning from Simeon & Anna, Jofephand Mary their attending the Temple- Wor- ihip,examined. page 89,90^1,91,93. Mr Durham on Revel. 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point* page 94j95>9^« Hisreafonsto prove there is a command of hearing Matth* 23 . as above defcribed, examined and repelled. page 9>feveral "anfwers of the Informer to our charge of intrufioa and the que- ries that he propones thereupon ; as alio his retoriion upon this charge* examined and found vain and frivolous, page 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. His anfwers to the doubters Argument I anent trie abjuration of Epifcopall Minifters in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted. His retorfion [ that wee were bound upon this ground todifown all the Minifters at the taking of the Covenant, who badbeen ordained by Prelaw, wnleffe they r«n«uaced their or- i! dinativa] The Cetfttnts dinatiOft] ane empty knack, refle&ing on the reform- ed Church es,& juftifying the popes plea againft them; page 103,104,105. Chap. 4, pageiof, The Informers anfwerto the doubters Argument anent [ reparation from a corrupt Church.] In what xefpe&s and how far this feparation is owned. His anfwer anent [ thenotfeparating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia > and the afian Churches Rev. 2: 3 .Though tainted withmoft groffe corruptions &c:] examined. The difcrepancyofcui cafe from theirs in this point clcard in fome particular$,and our caufe fortified from Scripture direftions to thefe Churches,pageio£, 107, io£, 109,110,1*1, H2>n3» The impertinencyof thefe inftancesto our cafe^clcared from hence feveral waycs,ibid* The informers an- fwerto thefe Scriptures 2 Cor. 6: 14, *<>> 16. 1 Cor. ij; ii,i. Thefs, 1*6. Rev. if: 3. Examined* and found contradictory to hiVconceflion anent[a necefla- ry feparation from a corrupt Church] , when highly corrupted] page 114, 115/116, 117. His anfwerto the retorted charge of Schifme upon Conformifts[for fe- perating from this Church , examined, and found naught: He therein' cuts the finnewes of bis arguing againft usjpage n 8, 119,110. Hisanfvverand reason- ing concerning UBuring examined. God never appoin- ted a dumb reading , the Levites gave the fenfe of the Law&c. the exceptions ancnt[thedifufe of our firft Method of le&uring] and [the want of Circumciflon and the pafsover for a confiderable time in the Jewifti Church]he]ph[mn©tintbispcint,pageni,r2i,i2'3/ 114, US- Chap. Third part Chap: j. page xztf. Tke Informers anfwer and reafoning upon the point of fcandal and offence , in reference to the ow- ning of Conformifts confidered. The Informers groundlefle fuppofition anent the duty of hearing Conformifts* Our Orthodox fenfeof Rom 14. and I Con 8. in the point of Scandal, cleard at large from the expofition of Chryfoftome on the firft text,and Pa- reus on the fecond page Htf* 127* 128, 129s 130, igi, 131, 133. The Informer upon fuppofition that a pra- ctice is lawful! and offence flowes from it holds thac the command of the powers will loofe the giver of of- fence from guilt; and remove this liberty of the pra- ctice and the nature ©f offence, howabfurdly, clear- edinfyve points.page 134., 13^136,1}$. Heishe- rein contradi&ed by Amefius.The inftances of the bra- zen ferpent,and Gideons ephod improven againft him* ibid. Hisabfurd glofle upon A<3s 15: 28s that the things before indifferent were made neceffary by the meere determination of the Concil , largely repelled. Calvin clafles him with the Papifts herein . His mani- fold inconfiftencies ©bferved , and abfurd exposition lof fcandalnm acceptum and datum whichdodeftroy that diftin&ione. Mr Gillefpie Eng: Pop: Cerem: i Amef: Confc: Lib: s. Cap. II. JWr Durham on Scan- dal part 3. Chap 1 difcover the futility of his do&rins tin this head, page i?95 In0ji4l3 \4xy 143, 144- The I Doubters Argument for presbyterian Minifters preac- hing in the manner contravened 3 takenfrom [Chrifl I and his Apoftles preaching in the fields and houfes] the Informers general anfwer [anent Chrifts not fepa- rating people from the Synagogue] weighed and I found frivolous, page 145,14$, 147. Some fpecial 1 1 1 mfons The Contents reafons wherefore our Lord did notfeparate the peo- ple from the Synagoguc,ibid. The fpecial grounds of our Lords pra Aice , offred by him to cnervat our Ar- gument>confideredandAnfwercd. Such as [his bring- ing in the doctrine of the Gofpell as the McUiah,] his beiDg[headof the wholeChurch]page 148, 149, 150, 1 f t . flfhat a&ions of our Lord were mi-able. Ru- les hereanent (allowed by found divines ) applyed to the cafe and practice controverted. [ That the law allowes the gofpell to be preached purely , and faith- fully by fome] though granted to the Informer,wiiL helphim notaing*ibid.Tfie Informers anfwers and ex- ceptions to our argument from Ads 14: 19. examin- j ed. His anfwerfrom the Apoltles extraordinary callfri- lous^as alio from the tendency of the rulers prohibition to (ilenceche-gofpell- page i5i,i535i54,iSf-His rea-: foning upon Solomons thruiling out, Abiathar from ' the,pnefthood,examined; as alfo his citation of BezaeSi letter ro the Non - Conformifts in England. Page* J If 157. Chap:6> pageijr* The nature of PresbyterianMinifters relation to thfl Church,and their call to officiate therein,vindicatfron the Informers fimple cavils. MrRucherfoord and MrJ Durhames acknowledgement[thataMir;iiter isnotmaad aCacholickMinifterof theCatholickCiinrch but by^hij ordination reftrifted to a flock [will not help tile Infor-j mer,whichiscleirdin{ixpoints:pagei $9,i6o>i6i>i6% His Dilemma which he ofters to azxviz ; that our call to preaches either ordinary or extraorninary,anfwered Sc retorted upon him. His Cavills aneni the Acts of Councils condemning this' encroachment ( as he calls it ) and the Doftors of Aberdeen their charging Pref- Third Part Presbyterian Minirters therewith, repelled* ibid. His charge aneat [ our ordaining ofhers to perpetuat our Schifme ] a manifeft groundlefle calumay. pageitfj, 164. Hispaffage cited out of Mr Baxters preface to The cure of Church divifiens , anfwered, page itf^asaJfohis? healing advices to his hai.f-profe* lyted Doubter.page 6>,itf6, 167* i6S, i6gy 170. Mr Baxters rules in his Cure of Church dhifiom> which he after commends unto us,ihortly viewed,6c their im- pertinence to his purpofe difcovered.page 171, 172, 1 71 ,174. His teftimonks out of the/«j divmumMinifieti anglictm s and of Mr Rutherfoord in his Due right of Prcsbytcri, anent unwarrantable reparation, lnfuffi- cientto bear the weight of his conclusion* The diffe- rence between the cafe they fpeake to, and our cafe cleared in 4. Confiderations , page 17s > 176, ^77* His citations from the firtt author particularly confi- dered,and their infufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion difcovered* page i7$,*7°, *8o, 181, The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in fo far as relating to his fcope. page J.82,183, 184,, igj l86, 187. In his citations from both thefe authors, and arguing therefrom,be is found inconfiftent with himfelf^to walk upon groundleffe fuppofitions^and ly- able to a manifeft retortion. ibidThe Informer drawes out noconclufion upon thefe citacions3fave this gene- ral one at the clofe viz: That real, much leffefuppo- fed corruptions in the Worfliip , or adminiiirators will not warrand feparation.The impertinency of this pofition to help him>cleard ibid. He pleads for retract- ions, and prefents at the clofe a character of Schifme, which is retorted againft him page 187, iSS. T 1 1 2 Chap. The Cntents third Part Cbap: 7 . irifpnnted Chap: 6. page i $g. Animadverfions upon the Informers preface and title page3pr^fixed to thisPamphlet.He pretendes con- fciencc &: a defigbn of union in this undertaking3how unfoundly , difcovered. page i$?, £90. 191. His Teftimonies out of Zanchy andBlondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy , left by him untranflated , ( though he pretends for theadvamadgeof theEnglifli reader to tranflate all other teftimonies ) anfwered. Pag, x A Confutation Of the Fir ft J DIALOGUE, Upon the point Of EPISCOPACIE. Wherein it is demonflrat , that .the Epif- copacie now exijlent, both in its *Dioce- fian f§ Eraftian cutt,is contrare to the Scripture t to the fir it and purer Anti- quitie , the'Doftrine andConfeJJions of Reformed Churches & found Divines. Kyind the Informers Reafbnings for it, fromScripture &Antiquitie>are weigh* ed, and found wanting. A C HA P. a 2 A Confutation of the firll Dialogue Chap. I, That the Prelate now ejfablished in this Church, is both Diocejian and Erafttan, cleared. The Infor- mer is engaged to defend both. A twofold State of the Quefcon propounded accordingly. Some Arguments from Scripture again ft the Diocejian Prelat > as a pretended Church- officer. Suchast I. Perverting the Scriptural term , Epifcopus, commune to all Pajlors \ in appropriating it to a Prelat. %. Making it relate to Pajlors , which hath the flock for its immediat ob)cSt. *$. Inva- ding & nulling the Authority allowed unto Pref- byters* which is demenjlrat at large. 4. Im- peaching Chrifls Kingly office , as Ilead of his Church f andthe perfeBionofhisJVordy inob* truding ane Officer upon the Church, of a different mooldfrtm thofe defcribed and allowed bp him. HE Jltte of the firji Qucjlion in the firft Conference is , whither the Epifcypacie now cflablished by Law in Scotland* be wmanted or condemned by the Word of\ G*d< For clearing mis, it mull be under- ftood, what that Prelacie is , which is now exiftent , and which this Author pretends is confonant to Scrip- ture and Aatiquitie. As to matter of fad, it is tinde- nyable. I, That the Parliament 1662. did exprefly raze Presbyterian government , in all its prcexiftentj Courts, Judicatories and Privileges, declaring ill vbide and expired. 2. They did liedintegrat the Bi-J ihopj upon the point of Epifcopacie. . ^ /hops [ to their Epifcopal function , prefidencie in the Church, power of ordination and cenfures 3 and all Church difcipline to be performed by them , with ad- vice (only) and of fuchof theCIcrgic (only) as they fhall find, (they themfelves being judges) of knowne Loyaltie and prudence.3 And they redintegrat them to all the pretended Privileges poflefTcd be them in Anno 1^37. What time their power was at the greateft height. Since, of themfelves they framed the Book of Canons, which doth eftablifh their fole power and dominion over all Church Judicatories, razing Clas- cal Presbyteries and Parochial Seffions , and drew cptheLiturgie and Book of Ordination without the leaft ihaddow of advice from this Church 5 Threatning even excommunication againft the oppofers of that courfe. ;« It is alio evident , that all this Power and Authoritie of our Prelats , is fountainedin , derived from, and referable unto the Supremacies As is evi- dent by the Aft reftoring Prelacie, after the decla- ration of the Supremacie , as his Majefties Commif- fioners in the exercife of his Ecclefiaftick Government, and , intheadminiftrationof all their pretended fpiri- tual Authoritie- 2s accountable to him , their Head and fupreme Legiflatorla all Church matters. Hence , it is evident , that this Author is obliged (if he would anfwerhis undertakingin pleading for theprefentPre- lacir) nor only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diccefian Bishop in all his pretended fpiritwal power over Church Judicatories ; But likewaves of the Eraflian- bishop, deriving all his Authority from the Civil Ma- giftrat . ' Wee (hall then (beforwee come to-examine his plead- ing upon this Head ) oiler, I. Some Arguments againft itjourDiocefianPrelat, qsapreteirded Church-officer, • md fhall fhew his office to be contrare to Scripture. 2. As tfjane Eraftian Prclat dery Ying all his fpiritual power from A 2 the 4 A confutation of the fir ft Dialogue theMagiftrar. h As a pretended Church officer, the DiocefTan Siihop is contrare to Scripture, m many rei- PCf'ln narrowing and reftriSing the' Scripture term «WL. to ane office and officer, ciftirfcfrotn, and Siorrc, aPre.byterorPaftor. *«*■««*$* onlie, asthe Charadenitick of his office. Epikopal men themfelves (and this Author particularly doe ac knowledge this term to be in So .pture apply ^/A byters. Let them then fhew a reafop why M avw madciipeeuHartoaPrctacasduboafrotnPr^bjtew, Or, let them mew where the word .„nprop*at the wi m?aft ^ or Minifler, to a diocefun Prelat otdje » Wh° jould byters due* And why alfo, ihall u not b.; thou g fih ane ufurnation when .they ^PffJ^Xer : f^;;« or BuUp , to fuch ■ , p ew ^ [fe in Scri Since this term is a, much Riven to 1W 1 ^ ture,3S the terme of Paftor o\r»tntjW j Comentarses. OnTitt:/- rt'v,"?„ r .u rhe a„Dro. Upon the point of Epifcopacie. jf clusprgvaluit ■■■ nomen tjjicii quod D em in commune om* tubus dcderat in untnn tram fern reliquisfpoltaus (3 injur mm eft C? dbjurdum* Vande fie pervert ere Spirit us fancit linguam w~— minimis prcfanaaudacia eft.- %A8. 20: 28. He col- lefts the identitie of the name & office of Eifhop & Pref- biter, from the eldei s being called Bifhops. And having obferved the fame on Philip. 1. And that after , the na- me [Biihop] became peculiare to one. He ados, id t amen ex hominum confuetudine mtum eft , Scripture automate minim: nititur. XcUing us that under this pretext of gi- ving the name to one, ane unlawful dominion was bi ought in. But of tins againe. IF. The office hereby defigned, doth al^aves relate to the F/ocli, ani hath them for irs immedixt object and Cotrelat , as much as the vord Pallor- The Bifhops of Ephefus were made by the holy Ghoft STn^wzt/mj over the flock of Cod whom they were to feed. Whe- reas our fuppofed Diocefian Epifcopusi or Biihop » His office 2nd infpeCiion relates immediatly to the wholl Pdftores of hlsdioceis, whoareaife much, hi* flock and the object cf his oversight , care > direction , cor- rection and cenfure3 ss the x*®* or laverie. Peter, bids the Efifcopou?itis feed the iiock & z& the Bifhops over them; But our diocefian Prelat , pretends to feed and ruIe'thePaftores therr:felvfs.TheScriptureF:ihopisPo- fttli Pafigr but the Diocefian Prelat is Paft^r ?aftorumy Irresbiter Presbitercrum , Andcherforis ane Anriicriptu- ial Monller. J I J. The Diocefian Prelat ufurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed tfaem oi God in his Word. For both power of ordination and jurifdi&ion is foly and properly in the Diocefian Prelat according toEpifcopal men, and likewife according to ourLawes, As we faw above in the act anent Prelacy. For accoid* ing thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church offi- f£ei above Presbyters, he is folc as- to ordination » may A 3 dos 1$ A Confutation of the firft Dialogue. ■dee it alone, and afTurnes Presbiters onelie profirmtl Which nomoreleffens hisPdncipalitieandSuperemi- nencie in this pointe , then a Prince in affumeing Coun- sellors c faith D^«4w,*>Def. lib f, Cap, 7. ) weakens his princely power and aurhoritie. Presbyters exercife all their Aits of the power of order in a dependance upon him, he only is the proper Paftor of thediocefs { asihall beafterward cleared ) Presbiters are but his fubftitutes and helpers . They, are likwayes Sub/eft to him as their proper Sole judge and cenfurer by Eeclefiaftick cenfurescf fufpenfioa , depofition, excommunicati- on, the decifive power in Church judicatories is pro- perlie his. For the moft unanimous Afts and concluii- onsofthe diocefian Synod falls nndershis cognifancei to be ratified or Caflat at his pleafure- He is the Sine quonon 3 and hatha "Negative voice in the judicatories : the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him sdvicg , Nay and not that either , unles he judge them of known laydt'c and prudence- Now, in all tiiefe, he uiurps over Presbiters authorise allowed them of God. For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order & jurifdi8iony equalieto all Presbiters , who have both J^eys of do&rinefr dtfcipline given them immediatlie by Chrift. In that I. They are command sthV^thf and TKiyLAuiiv i Pet. 5.2S. Adr.lo; 2. which comprehends theauthoritieand exercire of both the keys of do&rine and discipline, z* In all commands relating to the ex- ercife of rhis power , th^r is not the leaft hint of ane e- qualicie among them, which were very cro^s to the Lords Scope, iftheOiocefian PrelatsSuperioritie were allowed and appointed. The Presbiters or Bifhops of Ephefus , and thofe of rhe Churches which Peter writs unto, are commanded to feed and rule jointlie, e- quallie, and with ihe fame authorities but Ron of them independancc upon, and deryving a precarious authc- ritie from another , in feeding and ruleing. 3. In all the Upon the point of Epifcopaeie y the commands relating to peoples Subjection &ofa&ience to Church Rulers in the exercife of their power, their is not the lead hint of difparitie among thefe Rulers. iTheflT. 5 : 1 2. People are commanded to obey them thai labour among them, and atz over them in the Lord, and to eftcem them highly* And Hebr. 13: 17* They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules : but nothing of a fpe- cialdegne of obedience to this funpofedhigheft&fuper- eminent watch man is heard of in thefe or ahy fuchlike precepts. And no wonder, for thes fimple Gofpcl times knew no B;fhops who watched not ovcrSoules, and laboured in the word and do&rine. When the Apo- ftle Peter commands Chriftians to obey civil Rulers: He diftiaguiflis the King asSupeream > and Governours fentbyhim, that a Chief fubje&ion may be yeeldedto the one, andafubordinatto the other' But nothing of this is heard of, in enjoining peoples fubje&ion to Minifters. Ane honour muft be allowed by Timo^hey {by the people of God confequentlie) to elders that ruleweif, yea and a double honor, but #$&**$*, tfpsci- dy , to thofcthat labour in the Word and Do&rine. The Apoftle inflating a diftinftion in the degriesof honour allowed toelders,ind in this different character ofthe one from the other, diverfifies elders higher & lower. Now by the fame reafon , upon which Divi- nes doe rationaly build this conclufion, itmu'ftbe granted , that the enjoyning obedience to aUPaftores promifcuusly and without any Note of diftin&ion , wil' inferr their equal office and aiuhoritie. And by the fame reafon that the Apoftle added this fj&xi?x or effect* . aljyin this place, he fhould have added }n thefe, or iome fuch comands relating to the peoples obedience, a *&*/?« or efpecialy ? to difiinguifh the Diocefiaa Prelat from other Paftores, and expreffed it thus , efteem them all highly obey them, befubje&tothem A 4. the g A Confutation of the fuft Dialogue that teach and watch oyer you , All your Pallors, bit efpecially the Supei eminent Paftor or Bifhop who hath thecheifinfpediion, and from whom all the reft derive their authoritie. Likwayesin enjoining the paitoral du- ties, he fhould have been especially noticed, vho had the cheif hand and aiuhoritie therin( which is a To- pick improven by this informer ) but nothing of this is ieenin Scripture, asihallbeafcer, more fully cleared* 4. Wee find accordinglie > A practical Equaling , a- fnong Paftores or Eiihops in the exercife of this govern- ing power, abundamlieheld out and exemplified in Scripture. The jnd^ing and cenfuring of the irceftu- ousman* is by theApoftle enjoy ned to the Church Officers or Miniftcrs of Corinth joyntlie. 1 Cor. 5. Chap, compared with 2 Con 2. Chap. The Apoftle Jill along fuppofetb are inherent authority in thefeMi- niftei*s to put forth this grand juridical Fonnjital At! ; cfryde* them for fo long r.egle&ing it, and i'hewes its objecS (viz. ) Thisperfon under the f$rtnalpf ntio of wicked or [candalus. Again he fhews its nature to be A \udging , or puting from among them , and delivering to Satan > upon this judging previous thereunto; He alio fhews , that this authoritie touches , all Church Members , not them that aie without, whom God jud- geth, butthofe that arc within. Now> asheefuppofes ( I fay) ane authority of this Nature and extent inhe- rent in thefe Church officers, fo he fpeaks to them inds* finitlyznd univerfally all along, which were veiy crofsto his Scope, If he had fet up or allowed > the DiGCtfian Prelat whofe fole prerogative this were : And the infiifted Cenfur he calls , with th= famine indefinitnes, A pinisbment snfhtled b) many 3 who accor- dingly are commanded with the fame indefinitnes or univerfality of expreffion , To receave &abfoivehim upon his repentance. The exercife or the bindixgani hipfwgfotver , being in the reprefentatiye juri-ncall Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 9 *xk\w* or Churchy to whom fcandales muft be delated, and ro whom the promife of ratification of her juricall Ads in Heaven, is made. Matth iS: 17. Befidswefind the exercife tf crdwatitn in afresbitry , 1 Tim* 4: 14. And that evenjin.relaiion toane Evangelift Timothy. The Presbitry here, mull: be a juridicall Senat and meeting, for the Office can lay on no hands: And ordi- nation is ane hie authoritative juridical! Aft> Pauls prefence and laying on of hands together with them > confirmes their authorise , as bring cumulative thereto t not privative thercf, even as his countenan.ccingof 3 or concurring, with, our Adverfaries pretended Diccefian Prclat (lee us fuppofe it in his A& of ordination ) would ro: infringe his pretended right herein. Ergo. By their own Confeffion , and by paritie of reaibn , n cannot infringeor Impeach this power which isatrri- buted to the Fresbitery. Had the Apoftieinfieadcf Fresbyteric, put in Frelat and expreffed it, thus, By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop, or Dbcefian-Bi« fhep: I fuppofe our Adverfaries would have thought theEpifcopal power of ordination invincibly demon- ftrat therfrom , notwithfbnding of "Pauls faying , iTim 1:6* By the laying en of wyhandt, (vi%) to- gether with the Bifhop. Pauls extraordinare Apouo- licallimpofition of hands, beingno white derogatoric uniothe fuppofed Epifcopal ordinarie power, now, verte tabulas , the Apoftle fayes t by the laying on of the hand* s of the Pre:bitry> Ergo, the ordinary and equal power of Paftoies, and its equal exercife in ordination, is herin convincingly made out. Nixt , The Pielits monopolizing thus in hirofelf, the decifivefitjfrage of Judicatories , is crofs many (waves to'Scnptuir. tot , I Its afteppingup (inapeice of Biotrephefe-lik, or rather papa Wpride) above the A- poftles themfclves, who in Churches conftitut , did fiwayes take alongft with them , the advice « confenc A 5 ^ 3Hd i © A Confutation of the firfl: Dialogue and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Miniflers and Elders in Government : As is evinced in the premi- fed Scriptures], wherin it is convincingly clear, that Paul,though ane Apoftle of all the Churches, indewed with extraordinarie unconfined infpcftion over the fame, and Paftor thereof, in aRu exercito, having ex- traordinary Miracolous-gifts, &being the Mafter Buil- der and Spiritual Father, who by the Gofpelhad be- gotten both Paftores and flocks of many Churches, Yet would neither excommunicat the inceftuous Co- rinthian alone , but put it upon the Church Officers as their du:y to doe it by a judicial, decifive, joync fuffrage: Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane EvangiliRibut rook in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence. And in AS. IS- In that meeting or CouAfel at Jcrufalem , whei-ewasa wholl Colledgeor Presbiteiy of Apoflles, andmett aboutane ^3or de* eifion of a hi^jh Nature, wherein was put forth both Adegmaticki critick CfdiataFticI^ authority or power, in relation to the cleaving; of that great pointe of truth, anentthe abrogation of the Mofaicall ceremonies, and centring theonpofers of Paul and Barnabas herin, ] who had dilhirbed the Churches and belied the Apoft- les Doftrine: And accordingly in order to the reftoring and eftabliftiing truth and order in thefe difturbed Churches; The ordinary Midlers or eld:rs concurr with the ApoMles in every ftep : viz, In the confer- rence&difquifition, the authoritative decifion, the drawing forthof the fentence and decree, thefending out of the decreeing and centering Epiftle, theimpo- feing ofthedecrie upon the Churches toobferve and keep the fame &c. z4 This cuttsehe throate of that juridical forenfical joynt decifion of Church Judicato- ries * which the Scriptur doth fo clearly hold forth. Where is the s*x7i*«* the cenfureing juridiall court, drawing forth a joynt decifion orcenfure? Wher is the Preibi- ! Upon the point of Epif copacie. jjp Presbiteriesforenficall Acft in ordination of Timothie? To what end muft the Corinth Church Officers Meet twetier^nd authoritatively and joyntlie punifh or center the inceftuous man ? Wher is that fletfing of the Jpoftles and elders & the foundation of the Syno- dical decree and letter 3 together with , itfeemed gosd to the HslyGhoft, and to us, And to us, Mett with one accerd. Wher is, I fay, this joynt decifive power of Chuich judicatories, thus clearly held cut in the premiied Scriptares , if the Aft and Ecclefiaftick decifion thereof, be foly the Prellts 3 Jlc velo , fie jubey > masked with advice of Presbyters , of whofeadvice he may make what ufe he pleafes, and with a fimplc nego. make their judgment and fuffrage evanifh into fmoake. 3. This power of the Prelats cuts of from Minifters one half of their authontie andcommifllonreccavedin their ordination. They arc made therein ( as is clear i» Scripture, &ouradverfaries grant it)Rulers,Governours» Overfeers.Paftors&Stewards in theChurch;Have both the Shepherds bagg£:fiaft\ thekeyofdo&rineandthe key of difcipline intruded to them. By what warrand then muft they give up al! their power in goverrrnenc&: their decifive fuffragein Church judicatories, unto the domineering Prdatrand as to fpiritual power in Chui ch Judicaroiies , become meer Ciphers? They watch and rule as they that muft give accou rrt of all their admini- ftration to Chrift. Peter exhorts the Eiders futeablie to exetcile their Epifcopal Authority over the flock , that they may get the Crown from the chief Shepherd. Stewards (of God efpecially) muft be faithful, and im- p!oy well all their Talents receaved froan the grea: Ma- iler, that they may get his approbation and reward as faiihful Servants. The Elders of Ephefus were ob- teftedby Paul to take heed to rhemfelves, andtoall the flock ever which they were madeBifhops bv the Holy Ghoft, to feed and rule the Church which God hath pur- 2 ft A Confutation of the firft Dialogue purchafed with his blood. Now all rhes exhortations di- rpdted to Miniilcrs , are to no purpofe, if thev have no inherent immediat R^le , effentially included in their office , Andtobeexercifed accordingly , but muft only preach as aDiocefianPrelats Deputes , and be in the exercife of their ruling governing power, abfolutly fubjeftto him and at his diipofal Fina'Jy , This ufurped atr hontie in the PreUt fets him above the reach of allcenfureby Church Judicatories', So that though Minifters areabiolutly and at his beck,cenfurable by, and fubjeft to him, bothas to their dofirinc, convention anddifciplme (and every one of them thus cenfurablear^jointlyJyet^iVfoVp^l, who judges -dll , willbcjudgeA^wow himfelf, Either astohisboftrine, Life or Government. Some have faidof the Prince , that though major Singulis , ye: he is minor univerfis ,lefs then the whole body of the people , though greater then every one aparte. But the Prelac cxercifes a greater principalis in Church Judicatories , & is therein ma] or univerfis, greater then the whole meet- ing f° chat thogh he can (lop the Votes and Cenfures of the whole Synod , yet they cannot either by fuffrage or fcenfurc in the lead put a check to him , in any of His mb!l v icked Adksor A ntichriftian Exorbitances. Now, fcowcaaraiy thisistoScriptur, any mayjud^e. The Piopheis af.cr their prophfcfying muft be judged by therefl% as to their doflrine > I Cor. 14: 29, Ergo, a fortiori? much more as to their converfation & government, are lyable to b~ judged , and confequenthe c^nfured if de- fervingit : For he were a gieat Ciitick , that would dtfttnguiih thefc , fo as thofe who have power to judge, have no power to cenfure or pafs fentence upon their judging : And this is founded upon a general compre- hensive ground, viz. the Spirits. of the Prophets ( that is the gifts and cxercifes of the Minifteryin all Church Of- ficers withonr exception) are fubjetl to the Prophets , viz. to their difquifition, and ceniure in any peece of their work. Upon the point oi Epifcopacie. j ? work or official fids. Now unles our Prelats would deny ihemfelves to be Prophets and Minjflers, or the Presbyiers to be Prophets , they muft acknowledge this fubje&ion to their cenfure enjoyncd in the Scripture premifed.and confequently^that their exeeming them- felves frcm theiame,isananti-fcripturalufurpation. I remember, while a writtingt that propofing once this Argument to ane Epifcopal Clergie man , I enquired to what Church Judicatorie in Scotland was tet Sharp Tub- je&, as to either his lifeordo&nne ? He aniwered that he was [ubjeB to a general CounfeH, and this was very appodt and conlecuenter to their principles : So that onv Prelats (atleaftthetw© Arch-) are in no fear, but of a general Council if the Court frtmne nor. In our Aft of Parliament touching the mould of our Na- tional Synod, the Primat is the cjjential Prcjidcnt , &fini quo non % and fo is lure enough , from being cenfured there 5 fo are the reft of the Prelats as to all their Sy- nods 3actording to our La^es. But what think thefe exleges Pfifiopi, or hie Court Prelats , of fuch a humble Bifhop as the Apoftle Paul , who had hands laid upon him,and^wasauthoritativelie(entout by thatPiesbite- ry of Prophets and teachers at Antioch Aft. 13. toge- ther wi:h Barnabas , f about ane eminent Gorpei- Lega- tion ) and was by the fame Church and Pre How comes it , that his hie Bifhop fubjech himfclf to the authoritative blefliogand miflion of feme pettie Prophets and teachers. Ane arnazeing looking glafs? this is , (no doub t ) to our afpyreivg JkeUts, 4« The hold-'ng of the Diccefian Prelate .and obtrud- ing him upon the Church, as ane ordinary Church offi- cer^diftrnttftcm, andfuperionoPrcsbfcerijdoth many >wayss 1 4 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue W ayes Impeach Chrifis Kingly office as head and lawgivei efhis Church : whofe fatthfulnes above that of Mole ( who ordered > according to the Patern flicwed upon the Mount , the'leaft pine of the Tabernacle) muft needs reach tht appointment of the officers > offices, qualifications, work and gifts of thefe officers,who are toofficiatin hishoufe3 as our Confeffion of Fairh and Catechifim doe afTert For according to our Pre Jacical Clergie, and according to theLawes , thePrelathath a diftinU Work from tha-. of a Presbiter (viz.) to govern a diocefs.he hath the Aftus primus of a State ruler, to £tt in Council or Parliament. Nixt,hehath adiftin&folemne Confecration or inauguration to hi* Office. And*. Mult needs be fuppofed to have likwife diflinEl quAlificatiow and Gifts f'.omthoCc of a preaching Presbiter, confer- red by this folemne impofition of hands and bleffing a$his Coafecration , wherby he muft be fuppofed to have a fuperier difiinci mi\ftm 3 and to be in all the forcmentioned particulars, diftinft from* and fuperior to a Presbiter. Now, if non of all thefe points of hi* fuperioritie Can be found in Scripture, this Officer patched up thereof* muft either be unwarrantable 3 or, Chrift the Churches head and lawgiver , hisLawesand rules in point of Church Government, and in relation to the duties, gifts , ordination , and work of Church Officers, are not full and -ferfeS , butmankand defici- entastofuchane^eiDinent Church Officer. And where is then the ferfeilion of his tvordand Teflament > to make not only the ordinarie Chrrftian but even the man of God, the Miniiter of God , perfeft and throughly furnifned to every good work. That non of all the formentioned particulars as to this Officer diftinft from an3 fuperiorto a Presbiter , can be found in Scripture s but are contrazie therunto- I prove thus i. The Scriptur mentions no name > qua- lification, work, dutie or ordination of any ordinary Church Upon the point of Epifcopacie^ j^ Church Officer fuperior topresbiters, and which are not likewayes appropriat to them j who are called Rulers , Governours , Bifhops ; and both ordination andjurifdiftion arapropriattothfmina perfed pari tic iTheff. 5: 12. with 17. v. and 1 Tim. 5: 17. Hebr.13. v. 7,17- iCcr. y: 13. iTim.4: 14- 3 Epift. Ioh. 9. v. 1 2. In all the Holy Ghollhispurpofed recitalls of ordinate Church officers, and purpofed declaration of their gifts and duties , ther is cot the leaft hint of the premifed ingredients of the office of thisfuppofed Die- cefian Bifhop 5 as thus diftinfl: from and Superior to Presbiters^iCor. i2:2S.Eph.4: 11,12. Rom. 12.7,8. In thefe places wee havebefyds the Apoftles, Prophets & EvangeliftsfwhofeOffice^s extraordinaire^ ceafed) Paftores , Elders, Deacons; But no hint of the Of- fice , name, qualifications or Miflioo, of aae ordinarie Church Officer Superior to the Paftor , is either heire or in any Scripture elfe, which notwithftanding is ex- prefs as to the Office and qualifications even of the Dea- con , the loweft Officer. Strange! the fervcr of Ta- bles his Office and ordination clearlie fet down in Scrip- tnr: And yet Altumfilentium , as to either, name, Of- fice or ordination, of the Diocefian Bifhop. Jf the argu- ment of our divines be good from henceagainft the Pope, becaufe not mentioned in thefe Catalogues of Church Officers, Ergo, apart i\tmv& hold good againft thePrelat. And a* to that, that thePrelat hath the A8us Signatus oi a State Ruler, how crofs this is to Scripture, we may afcer (hew. Sure , fince Chrift fet all thefe hisOfficers in the Cbureb>and commands them dili- fpntlie to tvait upon, and attend their work and Mini- ftery therein j He never made or allowed tbera to bee State Rulers Chap. II $6 A Confutaalon of the firft Dialogue. Chap. II. Some more Arguments againfi the Diocefian Prelat. That his $ffice debafes the A 6b andcxerclk, of the power of order , cleared. It maims and di- verfifies tbeF/tftoral office, by ami - fcriftural new invented degrees thereof. His office , many wayes contrare to the very nature of the G of pel* Church- Government. TBeDiQcefianBishop , his office is in this contrare to the Word of God. i V. In that it Debafit tb: highefl ABs and exercife of the p* tver oforlsYyWi a GofpelMiniJlcry. For all do grant preach- ing of the Word and the AcJminiftration of the Sacra- ments and Seals of the Covenant of grace to be fuch : So that he who can do the? A&s , hath the badge of the highsftMinifterial Authority as ane ordinarieChurch Of- ficer , theft being among the mofr, emnient Aftsof the Apoftles there officeand Authoritie -- — - Go teach, baptise , &c. They muft hav~ fome to ferve Tables that rhev may ?jve themfelveS continually to rhe Mini- fiery of the EFbri. Timothy* our prelatical'mens Suppofcd- Bifhop , muft preach the Word , and be jnftanr in feafon, out of feafon ^ reprove* rebuke, exhort with all long fufferingandDo when by the Lord reftored to his office, and encouraged to its exercifc, byaThreefold renovati- on of his Million $ is thryce enjoyned ( as the great baslge of his love to his Matter ) to feed hisLambes and Sheep. Accordingly 3 the Scripture Bifhop mud be hhi*li*om Apt to teach ; andhethatteacheth ( by office fcilicet ) mud tvaitcupen teachingx and the wife and faithful Steward appointed by the Lord to give the children their meat indewSeafon , muft be found So docing when the Lord comes to reckon with him > and not lay up this noble Talent in aNapkine. To this, the key of difciplin is inferior and Subordinat 5 as themcan to its end. the higher honour above ruking only being allowed to the labourer ia the word & doctrine, 1 Tim, 5: 17. This being clear , I fay the office of the Dioccfian Bifhop debafes and tramples upon , thefe highe and noble Afts of a Paftor 3and consequently u- pon the premifed Scriptures averting the fame , and ithatin thefe wayes. I. In that the quondam Presby- ter only* whenmadeaPrelat.leavesorT, Thefecding of the flock, and layes by the preaching talent, the Church w'^er he did preach or officiat , it may be > fhall never fee or hear him againe , but is ipfofaSo , voyde to be polled by another, nor by his now -office is he oblidged to preach orMinifter the 'Sacraments any tr. ore at all, thefe petty peeces of work being below his new Lorcflrp. Trew , he may preach if hepleafe, and at the Church wher he rcf:eds, butthat isperacci* *fe«r exabundanti, andoatofcourtefie: but by his of- fice, QuaPrcUt, he /s bound to preach no more to any frocks nor ij he in the leaft judged faultie or deficient In his Epifcopal office if he be wholly lllent. Nay , in Epgland preachingPrelats have been highly upbraided land reproached by their fellowes ? and called pitching \fex Comber. Wee all kncw,v what ane odd peece o£ I work Mr Lightens preaching was efteemed by the ge« B ncru 1 8 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue neralitieofthe Prelatick parcie when he turned Prelat." Now , let any of commune Reafon or ingenuity judge, whatane office that muft be, which putts a Minifter intrufted with the Lords great commiffion to preach the Gofpel, under pretence of advancement to a higher Sphere in the Miniftery, to layby this work which is the nobkft andhigheftof the Minifterial Authorise, wherin the Apoftles tbemfelves mainely laboured and gloried, as the moft noble meaneoftheconverfionof Sonles : and confequentlie of the glorie of Chrift the- r/n ; Nay? to lay by this noble work under pretence of rew burdene of Government. Wheras the Apoftles who had the wholl Churches to plant and Govern , moft enixelyplyed this work ftill. If this man become not a dumb dog and a floathfull unprofitable fervantj let any judge* 2. The Diocefian Prelat debafes and tramples upon this noble work, in that be makes it in all the Paftores of theDioces,to depend upon his Lord- ly difpofal, and the authoritie thereof to be deryved from him as the fole proper Paftor of all the Diocefs , | whofe deputs the preachers are in this work, although himfelfisobleiged to feed no flock. 3 Hemaksthefe high and noble Afts of the forver of er'er , [ freachin* and aiminiflrMion of Sacraments] a lower and fubcrdi- nat work and office, to the work and office of ruleing enly , which is his CbaraHeriflick whereby he holds himfelf Superior to all the preachers of the Diocefs ? whereas the Sciiptur d©eth fasweheard) appropri- atthe higheft honour to the labourer in the word and do- Brine as the nobler employment and office, above the Ruler only. tf. In this the Diocefian Preljts office is contrare nnto, and reprobat by theScriptur, in that by Apocti* pbal , Antifcriftural , new invented, Degrees and order r,\ It diverfiries and cutts afunder what God' hes made oneij and the fame, I mean the Pafloral Office, andbyconfe^ quencc Upon the point of Epifcopacic. 19 cjuence other offices mentioned in Scripture , as that of Prophets, Evangelifts, Deacons; non of which offi- ces admites of Subordinat Sfbeeres and degrees , but all the perfons that are intrufted with thefe offices, are of the fame degree and authority ther in by the Word of God. No Lvangelift , Prophet, or ApoftJe is found of a Su- perior office or order to [other Apoftles, Evangelifts, &c Whence comes this diveriuy then ia the Paftoral office, that onePaftor rnuft have a Lordly Dominion ever (ome hundreds of his fellowes? Ifitbefaid, that the Epifcopal office fucceeds thatoftheApoftles orE- vangelifts ? befides that wee fhall difprove this after- ward* and Ihew that thefe offices izkznformtliteras fiH perior to that of the Paftor , are expyred, as found Divines doe almoft univerfally grants I anfwer that mod , if not all Prelatifts ancient anil modern , doe hold the Diocefian Prelat to be no officer Specifially dim pinft from the Presbyter or Paftor , but only gradually Idijlinft , as being a Paftor with a more amply extended authority for order of Government.Mr Buruet>in his pre- tended vindication of the prefent Prelacie, 4t. Confe- rence,pag.3 10,3 n.tells us?that he is not clear anent the notion (as he calls it) of the diftindt offices of Bifliop ind Prcsbyterand akonowledges the Presbyter to be of \hzbieft office m the Church, telling us that the Prelat is )ut a different degree in the fame office.Although in this le and the reft doe fpeak moft inconfequently,the fore- nentioned ingredients of the Prelatical function , being ■'uch, as doe certanly amount to make up a netvfpecies of ; neoffice, fuchasa different work, confecration ororr jiiuation.the actus primus o{ a State Ruler,different qua- i1 gcations (by confequence) above and beyond thefe of I Presbyter. The diverfuie of thefe diftinguifties the /."■•cppture offices of Apoftles j Evaageiifts, &c. which : *ul fetts in feveral Gaffes , as , firft, and fecond. 1 eCar. 12 28. Mr Burnet his reafon is the fame withthar ;J B z of 20 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue ©f ethers herin e ( viz ) the Paftors authority toadmi- nifter the word Sc Sacraments which are the higheft afts of the power or order-He tells us [ that fince the Sacra* mental anions are the highelt of facred performances: he cannot but acknowledge thatfuchasarc impowered for them, muft be ofthe hieji office, in the Church ] now I fay , iince they will needs have the Diocefian Bifhop to be only a different degree ofthe Prcsbyterat orPaftc- xal office , they cannot with any {haddow of reafon make him Succefforto the £vangelifts or Apoftles. in their formal office, which they will not dare to affirm to be only a different degree of the Presbyterat 6r Pa- {tores office > and will affirme it to have been fpecifically diftindtfrom the fame. The Aocients and Schoole- men held that the Paftor in his ordination receaved the fsms Power of Government that the Prelat hath , but that thePrelattith: [primm Presbyter,] who hath the raines of dl theexercife,ir> his hand. But how crofs is this to Scrip* rare, that any Church officer hath a power and authori- ritie which he cannot exercife ? To whomfoeverGod hath given the power , he hath certainlie commanded the excrcifeofit > and particularly Paftoresor Presbyters are ( as we have heard ) cnixely commanded to exercife all their Paftoral authority and pawcr,as they fhall anfwer to their great Mailer. Befy d$ , if the Pafioral Qfficc5oi its official power of order and jurisdi$ion5may be war rantably thus divided and cutt out in Sbrecds and par cdls, and divyded among different recipients , then it Wwre lawful todivyde preachingand administration oi the Sacraments , fcas one Presbyrer (nenvkhftandinj of his authority and ciiffion , in relation to botl word and Sacraments, receaved in his ordination ■ might have peaching only allowed to him, but nc * adminiftration of Sacraments : Another might b allowed to adniinifler Sacraments, but not to preach One Presbyter upon the pretence of order or noioj (P upon the point of Epifcopac/e. %x ( prerencv*s are never wanting ro humane inventions) might be fettapart and authorised toBaptife all the Children in a wholl Province, doing nothing clfe of thePaftoral Office > And this power by the fame autho- rity might be taken from all thePaftouires of the Pro- vince > Sure all would acknowledge this to be a mofl wicked divydingand diverfifieing what God the conjoy- ncd. And fuch is this Prelarical divyding of the Paftoral charge in relation to order and jarifdiction^or the keys of Dodrrinc & Government ?che power wher©£ thePaftorreceaves intirely in his ordinadon? as well as the Authority oFadminiftrating Sacrament*. 7.1nthisthe DiocefianBifriopis contrave to Scripture. In that hisOffice is in many refpefts crofs to the very na- tureof the Gofpel - Church Government , anc| is ane Office which the man thatexercifes, cannot but info farr ceafe to be a Gofpel Church -ruler, Which I prove thus* t\ Since all authority in the Oiocels , as to eir her the Word or Difciplin, is deryved frcm the Bifncp j as its proper fountaine and fubjedh this power oftheBifhopis properiic and cf its own nature, nota Gofpel Miniftery, But a dominion and principality, dis- charged to Church Officers of what ever forte , whofe authority is not a defpapicl^, nomothetic^ or architeBctvck paver, but a Miniit* rLl scevvardiriip only. Matth. zoz iyifotti 2 Cor. i: 24. I Ccr. 4:1. I Pet. 5:2, t. 3 Epift. John- 9. The work of all Church Officers , is called a Minijlery, Paftours3 Oo-ftores , yeaApoft- les , Evangelilts were appointed «$ t^p* &xyju'*s for the worke of the Miniftery > EpfeeU 4: ii. 2 Cor. 4: v. <>. P^u! calls himfdf a fellow fcrvantwithEpaphras, C0II0C17. withTichicus CoIlor. 4:7. And calls Mi- niflers his fellow- (oHldicrs and feUow.laborcsPhilip,4, 3. -2. 25- Rom. 16: 3. - 2. The Bifhops power invents Chrifts rule, as to the gradation in pirn cf centres &ni *??trfh > which is from one one to more, fiopathejpffer B 3 number a 2 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue number to the greater, from the Presbytery to the Sy- nod , as from the Presbytery at Antioch , to the Synod atjerufalem: Not to anyone Apoftle, Pop, or Pre- late Whereas the laft appeal and reference in thu Di- ocefian Mould, isto the Bishop. Our Lords rule is this in relation to the removcing ofScandale:* Firft, tell the offending: Brother Alone, then take two or chree more, then if he be farder contumacious, teS the Church ^ the greater embodied court or Judicatory, who ;iave the official ;power of binding or lowfeing. He bidds not toll it, «»*,toone, but nnitati, a multitud gathe- red inro one, for fo the Greek word doth neceflfarly Import, whereas in the Diocefian fea , the gradation is from many to one Prelat , whofe fole prerogative thishigheft cenfure,is. And withPrelatiftsthe rule runns thus, tell two, or three, laftlieandfinailieoneLord- Bifhop: Which is point blank contrarc to theScrip- turerule. 3. The Diocefion Biihops power, and Mi- nifterial Paftoral pretended duties, as Diocefian Bishop 2re>fuch as falls within he compafs of no command, and whichit is impoffible to performe according roScrip- ture rules , which I prove thus. 1. The PHar ac- cording to their principles is the proper Paftor of the whole Diocefs > for he being peculiarly Bishop of it , and confe- cratin order to his Epifcopal infpeCtion over the fame (for to the participation of his power & office, denoted by this term [ Bifhop of Edinburgh] &c. He admitts non in the diocefs , itbeing the clrra&eriftick of his Soperioritie over Presbyters)^ withall, it includingthe wholl Ecclefiaftick Authority both of order and Jurif- di&ion within the Diocefs ; It followes of neceffity that he is the fole and proper Paftor thereof according to this mould of Government. Now it being fo, lecjit beconfidered 1. That the trew Scripture etimon of Epifcopusot Bishop, imports all the Paftorall duties of feeding and ruling, and layes aae obligation upon the Upon the point of Epifcopacie. * J theperfon under this relation and cloathed with this Office , to perform all thefe duties accord ingly to thefe to whom he ftands in that relation. 2 That its im- poflible the Biihop can feed, Rule, Overfee, and per- form the Paftoral duties unto, and watch for the fouls of all that large flock , in which, fome hundereds of painful Paftores will find their hands full of work- So that the Biihop aflumes a charge, which it isim* pofQb!e he can difchag or perform, g- The Scripture alio wes no Derivation or Deputation of the Paftores work and Office to which he is called of God, unto other fubferviant Officers. Becaufe God intrufts no man with any peece ofStewardfiiip in his Family, but what he mud both overfie and execut immediatly by himfelf,and is likewayes difpofed and enabled to manage and over- take. God ftill conjoyneing the Office, gifts , and call together, for every peece of his work: Which the man that is intruded with, and called unto , muft himfelf im- mediatly waite upon and attend Rom. 1 2. 7. and not in- truft it to others for him. Hence 4. By clear confe- quence , ic followes , that the Diocefian Bifhopes worfaua talis, is fuch,as be can neither mannage nor hath warrandfrom the great Shepherd to exercifeor affu- me. In the 4t. Place,the prefent Diocefian Bifhop is a Perfon who isauthorifed tofitt in Parliament, Coun- cil , and orher civil Judicatories , as a constituent mem* hex therof : For they are reftored to their places in Parlia* ment & civil pretended dignities > which places they ar by there Office bound to managers civil Kulers.But fo it is that all civill dominion , & iVIagiftraticall Rule,isexprefly prohibit to Church [(tilers, fo that the Church Officer whoisinftalledin thefe Offices? falls from Heaven to Earth. The Princes of the Gentiles exercife Domi- nion over them , and they that are great exercife autho- tie upon them3 but it fhall not be fo among you* Matth. 20: 25,26. Thischarge our Lord gave to his B 4 Apoft* i£ A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Apoftles and ther SucceflorsPaftoresor BiiTiops^vho arc here forbidden all civill rule or Magistracy, t he na- ture wherof is property aD mi ion , and thus diftinft toto ccelo from the nature of Ecclefiaftick Offices which is a Minifteiial ferviceor ftewardfhip only. AH cur divines impugne from tin; text the popes civil Do- minion and the amphibius civily ruleing„or dominee- ring Prelat fells under the lafh thereof. Non who goe Chrifts errands 2nd his warrfarc muft be in- tangled with thefe things that arc temporal The Mini- ftcr mull: waite upon his Miniftrie. So the civil Mngiftrat is Gods Minifterin civiles, attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13.4* 6. Now, ;hofe being in their nature fo difparat employments , and both requi- ring a conftant waiting and attendance, heisaftrange man, That can be calted and fufficient for both : Who is fufficient for thefe things faid the great and highly giftedPaul* (peaking ofhis Minifteiial employments: Areour PreJats beyond hisfufficiencie, who can ait the Paftorofa whollDioccfs and guide S'are affaires too? Chrifts Kingdome is not of this World, and fo are not its Officers* the weapons of whofe warrfare muft not be carnal* Who made me a pdge, faidthe great Shepherd himfelf, when defired but to giue a deci- ding advice in a civil caufeLuk. 12: 14- Whereistherc anything Ike the work or qualifications oftheMagi- ftratinailthe New Teiiamenc Rules and inftruftions anent the work , Office and call of Church Officers* Chap. Upon the point of Epifopacie i$ Chap. III. The Diocefian Bishops Office J chafes extraoadittaric Offices , in confounding them with the ordinary. That Timothy and Titus power lay esn§ founda- tion for Prelacy , cleared at Urge. The deri* nation of PreUcie from them , loaded 'with grofs abfurdites. VII I. HTHe Diocefian Bifoops Office , is in this X conrrare unto the word , in that It debafes the Apoflolisal andENtngdtftickOjjices , and confounds the or* dinane'& extract dinar i junctions & aimmifiratums , wmch Scripture,Reafon,&: ail found Divines doediverfifie & diftinguifti. ThePreiats Advocats , & this n:-w informsr particularly , pleads for an4 derives the tpifcopai pj;ehe* roinencefrom the office and infpeElion $f the Affiles and Eucmgdijls, whom they aiftrme cohave been properly 3c fojTBaliy Bishop , in the fenfe they t*ke the Diocefiaa Biihep, and that the formal pov/cr and offices, - they exercifed are to be continued fliU in the Church. Thar Timothy was formally conduct Bishop ofEfb°fn>Ti* ' tus of Cr.te , fames of\crufa!cm. A nd that the Prda fice j is the fame, ana properly Succeeds them, and is as it were 5 A continuation of their ornceio a formal fenfe. Timothy's authority is is on^ main which the Epifcopal men at the Jfle ofP^jgbffind this Ju* tier alfo do plead to legittimat the fights office. This being clear, I fay, this pretendedMouldcf the pioc BiiTiops Office and Authority, is lyable to the charge Sccenfureof debafingthefe holy ex Az fundi* ons, and confounding them wich the ordinary, which I prove.thus. i. All found protectant Divines dohar- monioufly affert the extraordinary nature cf the Apo- ftaEck i6 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue. ftolick office as fuch , and hkewayes of the Euange* lifts, reckeningthc Apo(tlcs,Prophets,and Euangelifts 2$ the extraordinary New Teftament Officers, whofe proper formal Office 3 died with them , and admits of no fuccejfion: for thus they .'ordinarily defynf the Apoflles , thac they were Chrifts immediatly called and extraor- tiarily gifted universal Ambaffadours > fent out , to lay every tvhere the foundation fof the G«fpel Church > end to plant the Gofyel government therein : Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up thefe as their extraordi- nary expired prerogatives ( to which we will find this Informer in parte give affent. ) i. Their imme- diatinftitutionby Chrift. 2. Their immediat miffion to teach, (Paul had his from heaven.) 3. Their uni- \erfal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world. 2 Cor.iiuS. ■ 4* I" vifible badge , ( viz. ) the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of bands, f. Their extraordinary authority beyond any ©ftheirSucceflors, asbein^fetoverthe whole Church &c Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office , asfuch, muft needs be expired, And noChurch Offi- cer can be faid to fucceed them therein. Their Call was immediat, fare , noncan fucceed them in that. Their [fecial ox poper tvor^ was to plane Churches and the Gofpel- government in them , and fet up their Officers, of all which Churches they, were Mlnifters in aBu exerciti* fnre no Church Officer could fucceed them in this. Their Qualifications is fuch AmbaiTadours, were correfpondenc to this great work*, (viz.) their gifts of miracles > gifts of tongues , Prophefie , infalli- bility inDo&rinj Sure now can pretend to fucceed them in this. Nm, for the Euangelifts, their Office was equally extraordinary, it confifting in a planetary motion , from place to place , to water where the A- poftles plante d , to bring reports of the Churches ftate to the Apoftlcs 3 and cornmiflions from the Apoftles to them Upon the point ot Epifcopacie. xy j them. Their various motions, pro re nat* >upon &down, I even after thefe Epiftles ( wherein they are fuppof-d to j have receaved their Epifcopal charge J were written to them; and the Scriptures abfolut filence as to their ever j returning to theft Churches againe, befidesthe Apoftlc j Pauls fhewingexprefly in theie Epiftles, their occafionat tranficnt employment in this pJ aces 5 and exprefs recalling of them theretrom , to the further profecution of rheir extraordinary employment 3 and in thefe very Epiftles identifying the Office of the Bifhop and Elder: AH thefr clear grounds, I fay? do evidently demonftrat that the teorkjm& office of Timethj arJTitus as iiuangelifts^'s ex- pired, and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer, it being an appendix as it were of the Apoftolick charge , and fuppofing its exercife and exi- ftance, and the Churches then -infant ftate and con- dition.Now, to make thefe high and extraordinary fun- ctions, ordinary , and thus confound the two together j rauft be a very grofs ufurpation. 2. Hence it is roani- feft, fhat the Epifcopal function ( as above defaibed in the quality and mould of the piocefian BjfhopJ will never be found in thefe extraordinary fun&ions, either firmaliter, or eminentcr?2t)Q confequently it mtlfl be a grofs belying of thefSpiric of God \ to pretend this in the af- furoing of this ufurped Office. Firft > The Epifcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apoftles or Eu- angelifts/orw^tecr. For thefe were univerfalunfixcdOf- ficers, fee over no particular Church or Diocefs : But were fro renata toofficiat to the whole Church as bein°> ( or in the ordinary power whi the Apoftles orEuangeliftsexercifed, ortranfrnittc - the Church. And that for thefe Reafons, i. Kelt; the Apoftles nor Euangelifts in refpeft of their ferpeti ordmy Minijlerial authority transmitted by them in u Churu* aS A Co nfutation of the firft Dialogue Church, did exercife Saperior'ty Epifcopal over other Mi- nifters, but as to the perpetual Pajloral Charge, they held them their equals, and in the ordinary / otver of govern- ment, as wee faw above in the Apoftkspradiiem ordi- nation and Jurifdidtion amongftChurchcs conftitut, and farr lefs can we fuppofe that the Euangelifts were in fuch Churches to exercife any fm^le or Epifcopal prehemi- nence in govemm?nt. For it wereitrangc if Timothy vas ordained by aPrcsby trye wherein Paul himfelf was prefent 3 ftiouldnctwithftanding ufurpe prehenii. nence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane AroHie. And that whereas Presbyters did concurr paripajfu.viih a wholePresbytery of Apoftles in every pecce of a judi- cial Act and decree > yet that ane Euangelift inferior to any of the Apoftles ,(hould take Epifcopal preheminence over a Presbytery. 2 The Apoftles planted no fuch vtdinxry Officers in the Church , as had that Epifcopal Power, therefore the Epifcopal Power was nottranfmit- ted by them in the Church: And by further confer quence it is nor included in their Office eminenttr For his evident, that in the firft plantation of the Churches they fixed Ptesby termor Paftors,, as their immediat Suc- ceitbr'sinthe .V.inifterial powers and tikewifeia their laft fareVei's into Churches, they committed Unto thefe Paftors the ordinary power of government, with - out th: leaft bint of 4 Super - inftituticn of any officer of ahigher order. Ad. 2o;2$, 2$* Compared with 25. 1 Per. 5:2, 3. \vith2Pet.i: 14 *+* 3- It was in refpedtof. Paules ordinary Minifterial power, and in that Capa- citie y that he had hands laid upon him by that Prcsby- tety at Antioch j and wasfentout wi'.h other commif- fioners to that Synod atjerufalem by them, which looked like a humble fubmifiionpra tamo > unto them, and is far from the Epifcopal preheminence: fincethe Prelats diffoune ail Subjediion to theProphes in greater or lefler aflemblies. 4* The Prelats authority U this, he Upon the point of Epifccpacic. 2$ he is upon the mater the only proper Paftor of the Dio- eefs, whofeEpifcopalinfpediion reaches Pa (lores and flocks bor.h y as is abore cleared, fieis the fountaiae froai whom the power of order and Jurifdi&ion in the J wholl.Diocefs? is deryved, and the exercife of both depends upon his Lordly difpofal. Now , this is contrarc both to the Apo&les and Evangelifts their or- dinary 2nd extraordinary power, contrareto its vey nature in univerfurn , their office being; a declararive ex- ecutive Mimfierie onlie : And Dominion or I crdship be- ing difcharged to all Apoftles, and all Church Offi- cers whatfoever. Hence in the }d. place , This Epifcopal pretence, a- nent the derivation oftbeir Lordly grandeur, from the A- poftolick Office, fattens a grofle charge of unfaithfulneK upon them. 1- In affuming a power in its nature dijlinft from what there Lord allow ed and enjoyned them ( viz. ) a Lordly dominion , uotaminifterialSteward- fiiipe & fervice only.& fuch a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercife , even to have the sMus primus o{ a civil Lord ~ peer >y ez Cbicff-peer9bi Parliament man. 2. In de- bafeingand Straitening thdr Apoltolick Infpe£iion>and carrying ant QBi(Xt*comp4tiMe with it, and thus un- faithfully tearing ou: a parte of their commiffion. For 3 in becoming Dioccfian Biihops -> they jhotdd be fixed to particular dicccfits, and the; in exercife ane ordinary fixed "poever , wheras their commiffion was to exercife ane extraordinary unfixed mimftery towards all thev Churches, planted, and to be plar. ted. J. In letting up up no fuch crdinarc officers to fucceed them in this fo ne- cetTjrie swork.but committing the wholl governemenc tomcerpeilyterszs isfaid 4, Inemqaitinginall their ru- le* G? prefer if t ions anent Church Government, & theof- frees and oif';Cvr6 therof 5 the lesft intimation of this of- ficer , and gi\ing no rules for ek her the qualifications or ftdimtim of any higher officer ik?n a tneerfresbytcr- ?• la 3 o A Confutation of the firft Dialogue In exprefTiifchargeing of Lordly dominion & prehtrninencc among ordinary Church officers Now , if this be net a debating of, and hie refle&ion upon , thefe eminent extraordinary Church officers, both to make them car* ry ane office contrare and inferior unto, andincon- ixilent with ther holy functions , intruded to them by the Lord , and likewayes in their prafttce to contradict their doftrin in relation to Church government, yea and in both their Doftrin and pra&ice.to contradift & crofle the Lord: great commijfion and inJlrutlionr> If rhis be not , I fay , a horrid refledtion upon their faithfull- nes3 Let any jndge. Chap. IV. 7 he diocejian Prelats office, taks away the peoples right y to Call there Pajfar. This right proved from Siriptur and divine Reafon. It excludes the office of the Ruleing elder. Some Cheiff exceptions of the prelattck party to thati.Tim. jr. 17. An- fuered. IN the pr. place. The Epifcopal government is in this Contrare unto the word 5 In that it cutts off Congre- gations from all interefl and right,in Calling there Paftor. For in th;s government, the Minifters milfion , Call, Ordination, and Relation to fuch a people, over whom he is to officiat ,fiowes all from the Prelat. TheCon- gregationall elderfhip have not the Leaft intereftinir. Hence this power of calling Paftores was ranverfed by our Parliament when prelaciewasfetup, andtheold popish Cuflome of patronages was reftored.The Prelac (ends a man *o the poor people as their Minifter , whom Upon the point of Epifcopacie. j i whom pofiibly tbey never fawe in the face. Now, this is contrare both to Scriptur and reafon , contrare, to the pra$ice of the apoftolick Church- For 1. Even the deacons were locked out 3 and ehefenbj the people. A&. 6. 3. That the Apoftles might ordaine and Jay their hands upon them, and inftall them in their office with a pu- blick bleffing : And if the people were to have fo great ane Intereft in choofing thefe m-n ( though even the A- poftles5who had infallible knouledge of qualifications, were prefent to ordaine them ) that this truft of disb ur- feiog their A'mes or ch^ritie , might be committed to non but upon their eonfent £? chcyce. Ergo,a f ortiorij Peo* pie have a far greater Intereft as to their Confent and choyce of the man 3 To whom they are to Intruft their Soules condu&unto another world, which is of infinit more worth then all theEarthes trcafures, And while the are no fuch infalible difcerners of fitt perfons to of-| ficiat , as the Apoftles were* If the Apoftles would not fet apart men fot this mesneft employmen^without the Peoples Confent & looking them out > How abfurd is it, that the higheft ordinary officer [ the Paftor ] fliould be fent to officiat in that eminent office with out ther knowledge or Confent. * Wee find the choofeing and fendingout of Church officers in this hie minijlerial I employment > To have been upon the peoples confent and choyce: for A&. i4.The Elders or Minifters who were ordained *#tu i%K\wxt or Church by Church ,were thus ordained andfetta- part to their office, Compared with Tit. 1. 5.Beraufe ( not to ftand here upon the import of the greek word xhwntf which imports a hand fuffrage 3 and confent of the people , as shale be made good upon the ThirdDU* Ugtte and the exceptions of this pamphleter , upon thar paflage , examiaed ) this is clear, that this ordina* tion was to be performed in the Church, Er^o, ofne- tefiity, with the peoples Confent and choice : And Nix: 3 x A Con filiation of the firft Dialogue Nixt > If the Apoftles would not ordaine the Descent J bur after this manner , much ieffe Minifters unto fuch a weighty employment , fince in ther faithfulluesthe people are ( as is faid) infinity more concerned, Bejydes, the very Intimation , and Iitte, of the men out of whom a Succedbr to the Apoftlefhipe in the place of Judas > was by God immeuiatly.to be chofen,was wiih the peo- ples Content, Therfor much more ought this to be in the ordination and admiifion ot ar.e ordinary officer U'hofe call is mediat and ordinarie. *. The Scripture doeth clearly hold forth a congregational Church (3 \ur\di* cal eldership , reprefenting that Church. Which (befyes many other reafons adduciblc ,and accoidingiy pleaded by our writiers ) is evident in this , That as the Scrip- ture makes mention of greater Churches 3 fuch as that of Corinth, Jerufalem8cc« Who were certanly pref- byterial, btcaufe/ they are found, thoghconfifting of manv officers and Rulers and of leffer Societies, yet to be all poynted out as oneChurch , which mud needs Im- port aClaTcall or presbiterialunitie ofthefe lefieSocieties. So the Spirit of God doth alfoCall the«re leffer Societies Churches , in the plural* Let the Woman beep Silence ci 7i*7s tx*\y Elders, £9* Geuvemdurs were tett and cfrifr- , Miflied «^& iKK?.7iTixv Church by Church , that is , throw .all particular Churches AS- 14.25, Wifh Tit. 1. 5. For if the Church is found ro hive had both ruieing and teaching Elders, Rem. 12. 8. 1. Cor 12.28. 1, Tim- 5. 17. And upon the other hand.if tfcfe Jeifer Socieries are ca!!ed[Chu relies] It certanly followes that they had- ane eldership £? rukin th:m I fane elderfhip,and rulers, be allowed ro rule and reprefc-nt the Congregation in matters EccIeOafticall ,then bynecelTary conlequence it followes . that the Call of the Pallor and Clue ft elder and A confutation of the firft Dialogue j 3 and his choice, as moft futeable to their condition, muft fall within the compafle of thcr Spiritual authority. Finally, the denying of this unto Congregations ^ & the Epifcopalarbitrarie obtruding ofMiniflersupoa them without their call and confent > is in two great points, contrare unto divine Reafon* I. Unto that fpiritual and near relation, which is betwixt a Minifter and his flock, (which we will find this pamphleter after plead) which is certainly marriage like and very ftraite. A nd there being many peculiardutiewhich they owe|un- to him befide others Miniftersaall flowing from this re- lation , particularly a fpeciai revcrence,obedience,'and fubjeftion ; Thefe muft certancly fuppofe a voluntarie confent and call > and cannot be bottomed upon the meerwill and pleafure of another, which cannot make up this relation z, This denying of the peoplesright to call their Paftor , is contrare unto that judgment ef dtferetion, thatfpiritualdifcerning, and trying of the Spirits* which is allowed,yea & enjoyned to the people of God> If in any thing a fpiritual difcerning muft take place, furely in this efpechlly , to whom a people doe intruft their foules direction and guidance j If in any thing a Chriftian muft A& in Faith , and not give up his per- fwafion to ane implicit condudt, and thus become a fer- vantof men, fure it muft be, in a mater offo great weight as this is? If Chrifts flieep have this for their Character, that they kno we the voice of the trew She- pherd from the voice of the hireling andjlranger \ from whom they will flie , Joh. 10:4, j. Sure their know- lege and confent muft interveen , in order to their ac- ceptance of, and fubjrfton to their Shepherd} Ifthey .muft not belive every Spirit , buttry theSpirits, fure this caution and tryal muft beefpecially allowed in this cafe , that they admitt not a falfe Prophet inftead of atrcw? So then the Bpifcopal Government, is in this, C ag l J£ A Confutation of the firft Dialogue asinother poinres, chargeable with antichriftian and and- fcriptural tyt annie over Chnfts hoc kes. . fjj, Epilcbpal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God (viz.) In denyifig.and cutting off from his adminiftration ,and the totad laymg afyde of a finanlarely ufefull : Church officer appointed by Chrift in his H-oufe ( viz ) the rulemg elder. That Go- vernment which denies and layes ahae. any of the great Seroftha vineyeard, his fevvantsand officers whom he hath authorized and appointed, muft needs be highly deroitone to his ?lory and contrare to his word ; But fuch 8 Prelacie.The Prelats are like that floathful wic- Sfervantwho fmites and beats away there fellow, fervants, while they eat and drink with the drunken. That Prelats difoun and exclude this officer , isevide.pt hoth from their principles and practife. They all deny KdWnlJrarrandofSiii Church officer : And where Prelacy i eftablifhed, he is excluded from Presby tenes fn^vnod-s, and upon the mater alfo4 from the con- Seea iont For theyPdeny and exclude all decifive fuf- frale there, and take away all Authority of congrega- iragc uic , ' (• j^ow that th,s ruleing 3* %tTir^ J both the preaching Presbyter8, ?ndD«con, Is appointed by God, our Divines have ^e good from Overall Scriptur grounds. Such « ""ff Unm T,» (, 7. Where among feverall other h, • „i«'«.i.»', or he that ruleth. Here isane ordinary R 1« dXl fromall other Rulers and Church SXe cower. Againe3he is ranked among ordin«ruO§cers% fflfoPSSne«U beane ordinary ftanding officer, vet (bads diftinguiffied from other ordinary officers , ba- veina both a #tfw> from all the reft hkewayes ^SfcBmrfe, asbeingdiverfinedfrom the »«£«,* S5* J**™ itnd moreover, a pecuhardi. Upon the point of Epifcopacit,' 5 5 re&ion , as have like wife all the reft. So chat From the circumftances of this place, the divine right of this of* ficer., is clearly detnonftrate. Nixt , That paPag^is pertinently improvenfor this purpofe , 1 Cor. 12: **8, Where we read of helps, Governments: under difti rifl: pa- ragraphes, clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers , diftindi from the elders that preach, and the Deacon > and all other Church Goyernoures whatfoever.They cannot beGovernoures in theGeneral, for what doth this among a partial: enumeration of officers i Thefe arediftinft from helps , diftin<3 from the teaching elder 3 for he is already mentioned in this fame verf. So here is a Rule, and Government diftinft from all governoures either civil or ecclefinftick, except thisruleing elder, yctfetby God in the Church under the new Teftament. But the third and raoft pregnant paffagefrom which oar divines doe demonflrartbe di- vine right of this Church officer is ih t ofth- I Tim. 5: p7« Let the elders tha* rule well be cop ated wo;rhyof double honour, efpecialiy they who «?bourintheword and Do&rine. Here is a rulcing Civuch officer ; di-v ftind from the preaching elder : For here is a general, elder*, Nixt> we have two diftinft branches of thefe elders ( viz ) the ruleing elder , ?.nd the elder rhar both [rules and labouresin the word and DoBrine in rfce word |2Sthe Paftor, In the Dodtrine as the teacher. Again jthey are diverfified intwodiftinft participles and epi- thets y [ruling] is made the marke and'chara&erick of the one (viz) Ruling only: ^w^[both Ruleing and teaching] is made themarkeofthe oth?r,whereby diey are diftinguilhed in their nature And tffice* Bu: in ' :he 3d' place, the forementioned diftin<5fioB eminently ippears in the difcretivc [«pAjf-« efpecialiy] which is fet betwixt thefe twokynds of elder;, intimating thatas there were fome of thefe rulingelders who did labour iathe tverd andDtflrin,{o there were others \yho3id 3 6 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue Jtyfcand not labour in the Word : Both were worthy ot double honour, but efpccially the labourer in the trord, over and above this ruling. And to thispurpofe it js well obferved, that the word f&Mr* efpecially , is all— wayes in the new Teftamenr made ufe of to diftinguifh one thing from another. As when it is faid Ga!.6; io.Let us doe good to airmen > but t&>sr* expeciaHy , tothefe of the houfhold of faith»hereby dill inguilbing loom that were of the houfhold of faith,and fome that were not. In which fenfeitisairoufedPhiL4: x*. and i Tim. for be diftinguishes elders into tbofe who werefett over Ecclefia- fticl{Dtfciplin , yetfo as they did not publickly teach , & thoie who did teach alfo : Wherein he clearly gives fen- tence for us againft thePrela:ickpartie,in this point. Wet may hence Collet. that ther were ttvo fortes of elders at that time (faith Calvin, on I Tim. 5: 17.) For all werenot ordained to teach y for the words doc manifeftly held forth that feme had go* verned well and faithfully » to whemnotwithffandingy the epee ef teaching was not committed, /nh trewlyfrom among the peo- ple their Were grave andgoodmen cbofen. and ap-prcved,wh& did together with Paflores, b) cenmune CounceH '& authority admi- nifler ChurchGovernment.ani n ere in fome fort, cenforsforcve- reding of manners , which cuflome Ambrose ccmpleans to have Worms cutofufe, by the negligence , or rather the pryde of teachers while they covtt to rule alone- The pregnancy of thisScripture tramples into the duft the pitiful evafi- onesof all the Prebtifts in denying the divine right of this officer ; Some of which we fhall here take noti- ce of, and the confutation of the fame>otFercd by our di ■ vines upon this point. Some, by %u\eing we' I will hive hving well , to he understood : But the Apoftle is fpea- fcingof the office of ruling in a Church tjficer , ruling over others, not of ruling over a m2ns leifinaprivat «p.ciii:. Neither is the Churches lUionr.um . dou- ble Upon the point of Epi/bpade $ r ble honour , double maintinance > due to living well, as here it is allowed to [ ruling well ] And this will fay that the Miniiter thar preaches not, is worthy of dou- ble honour for living well, which will make very harfh fenfe. Some understand this ruleing elder, of the [Deacon ,] but the Deacon is no where called *7s who rather deferved the contrary. Paul will have all Minifters apt to teach , and able to convince. Some by the [ruling elder,] would have Inferior Magiflrats underileod, who were appointed for ending civil Suiffes ; but the Apoftleis here prefcrybing rules to Church cfice bcanr: ? no: ci- vile rulers , and teaching Timothy now to caiy in the Church. Againe , they had then no Chriftian civil Ma- giftrats, as all doe grant, and for their going to Heath* enstocompofe their civil differences" P:ul himfelf difla'lowesit I Cor 6. Some againe will hare the labor- ing in the word S? dotlrine to W: nothing clfe but ane expla- nation of ruleing wll; but this inadver:ant glofs will fet afyde My Lord Bi'hofzs no good ruler - Againe , as is laid p the A<^*f* here, or the word [sfpecially ] is dif- criminating, and difcretive, diiVinguimm£onei&hg from another, not explaining one thing by another. If H*>Jr* were thus fen fed , what odd work would ir make in other places. 1 Tim, 4: 10. Who is the Savi- our of all men, efpecial]y[f(^r«}ofthem that believe. This glofs will fenfe ic ihitf , tht Saviour of all men great* Cj hfoj 3 8 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue ly believing Other* yet, by [labouring in the word and (ieu--;i:j wilitave a higher degree of labouring which according to this exposition, mould ei* ther Have been totally omitted, or added unto both the branches or rhis fentence. Some, to efcape the dint of this text; invent yet another Shift [all Sort of Rulers, whither civil , ecclefiaftick, or domeftical, are worthy of double honour; fotheyfenfe the firft branch , and fay iney , this General propofition the Apoftle might premife to enforce the honour he enjoy ns to the labou- rer in trie word> &c. ] But the context fully rejefts this glofs, iince the Apoftle f peaks not generally of Ru- lers, but of elder? that rule well , and of fuch elders and rulers to all which he allows double honour. So that this glofs will irak pitiful woik , both in allowing the Churches honorarium, double honour, or honou- rable maintinance , to domeftick Rulers ; and likewa- yes will allow more honourable maintinance to Mini- fters then Magiftrats. Some woulde, by the labourer in fvord und DoBrine,: as : diftinft from the ruling elder, talf i jp tranfient viiitjng Presbyters, diftmd: from fix- ed^ieaches; but where will they fli-w us any fuch who tvere not Evangelifts? Wee find that meer ordinary Presbyters, were ordained for feveral cities and places as there peculiar charges, whom they were fixedly to feed, Aft. 14: ij. Tit. 1: 5- Aft. 20:2s. But •where findthey fuch Presbyters as had no fixed charge. Neither can £vangelifts be meaned \ as Dr Burnet would Upon the point of Epifcopacie* fi$ would gladely fhift it in his firft Dialogues ) the Apo" ftleall along fpeaking of ordinary preaching PresWftefs* Thefe, and fevcral fuch like exceptions? the evidence of this text hath long fince refuted > So that we may conclude folidely from what isfrid the divine righc of this Church officer , and by confequence the homde Sacriledge and ufurpation of Prelacie > id robbing ChriftsCh urch of the fame: And likewife th&B&bi- lonifhconfufion, which this Antichriftian Hierarchic hath intioduced ihro our Church: both in divyding and maiming the Paftoral office , in briagin^ in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed, and in ex- cluding and thurfting out offices arid officers ivhich the hath ordained 5 upon which grounds > and upon-all tire preceeding, wee hope we may nowfafely conclude the DioccfianPrclat , exifring among us, tobc aplant which the father never planted, and confequendy as a pifmns Weed, to be rotted up. C H A P. V; 'That tbe'prefent Prelacie is grojje Erafkianiftne. Some Arguments againfl it , under that notion. It excludes and denies all Church Government it* the bands of Church officers, liftinftfrom the ci- w/§ contrar to the Churches priviledge ,' both under the Old and New Tefiatnent , which is de- monftrat at large. Is in intny feints ane Incro* achment up on the liberties of 'the Go/pel- Church f and upon Cbrijls mediatorie authority over the fame. C 4 Having AO A Confutation of the firft Dialogue. HAving thus farr impugned theDiocefian Prela?, as apretcnded Church officer,, Wee ftiall nixt, offer fome Arguments agaimt him in his Erajiian Mould , as deriving all his power from the civil Magiiti at. All thogh the office of the Diocefian Bishop were acknow- ledged warrantable , yet this will help nothing theE- raJlhnPrtlat , thefe being very diftindt theamsand que- fbons. [What is that Species rfChurcb Government , allo- wed and commanded in Scriptnre]? and [whither there ^e any irHment Church Government , allowed her , di- JHn&from that of the Civil Magiitrat?] and whither Church officers, or the Civil Magiftrat , be the proper Sub\cii therof? that thePrefentPrelacieisgroi* trailu anifme, ismanifeft; for after all Church Judicatories serein Anno \6cz. discharged until! they were autho- rized by the Bifliops nominat by his Majeftie — - the difpofal of the Government is declared to be the Crown* right, and inherent perpetual prerogative : a"d thereupon the Bifcops are reltored , not only rothcir civil digni. ties, but to their Epifcopal funtlion , prefidencie in the Church and over aU "'Church difcipline,&c, And it is expief- ly declared, that there is no Church power. Jurisdi- ction or Government, in the Church officebearers or meetings , but what depends upon , and is fubordi- uat unto the Suprcraacie, and is authorized by the Bifhops , who are declared accountable to his Majeftie for their adminiftration- In the ^cl for the National $yn*d , the conftituent members thereof , the maters to be treated of, the authorizing of the conftitutions as Church Canons , is foly in;he Civil Mjgtftrat > there work being only togtvetdvice to him, without any de- cifive inherent fuffrage. By vertew of which Eccicfi- aftick Supremacie , his Majefty puts excommunication aad Spiritual cenfures, and confequently thepomr of thkfjs , into the hands of perfons meerly civil > in the A# Upon the point oi E pifcopacie. q j J\£t for the high commiflion. Hence it is aparent, that his Majelly as thefountaine of all Church Govern- ment , irnpartesthis Authority to (uch as he pleafes, and the Bifhops 2re nothing elfe but his Majefties Commiiloncrs in the exercife of that Eccleiiaftick Po- wer, which is originally in himfelf. Now, thit this traltian Prelacie,or Church Government, is a (hanger totheScripaure, is many waves evident. I- This Eraftian Prelacie , Dcnyesall Church Govern* mentin the hands oj 'Church officers > diftinclfrom civil Magi* [trace i which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written againft Eraftus and his followers, and is contrare many wayes ro Scripture. I. To that diftinftion betwixt the Ecclefiaftick arid ci- vil Sanhedrin under the Old Teftamcet, aflemd and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines , paraicularly Mr Gillefpie in the Aarons rode. I. From the ioftituricn of that Court of elders, fuppofed in Exod. 24. Who were not thofe elders chofen for the govern- ment of the Commonwealth, Numb. If. For this was done at Sinai fhonly after they came out of Fgjpt But on the lo day Of the id. Monethinthe id. \ ear they tcoke their/ourney from Sinai to the v. f.dernesof Paran N//#*fr. 10 ii> j.2. And there pitched > when the Seventie elders were chofen to relieve Mofes. They we- re not the judges chofen by advyce of lethro for he came nor, to Mofes till the end of the firft y ear,or the begin ing of the Second after they eame out of Egypt; Nor could they be judges , whe judged befor he came j for he ob- ferved that the burdine lay upon Mofes alone. So they muft needs have beenEcclefiaftickRulers under the pre- iidencie of Jar one arid Hurverf. i^Who were called up as the reprefentatives of cheChurch of Ifrael, after ihe Judi— cial lawes were given , Chap. i.», 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a tranfition to theCeremonial lawes,concerning the worfhip of God, and the Struflur of the Tabernacle. C 5 tt From _ <;r;rff0&m' ■ 42 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Deutr. 17. 8, p, 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges , therfor alfo the rext mud be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclefiaftick Court : For it caryes the authority & fentence of the friejis , as hie as the au- thority & fentence of the judges , & that in adisjun&i* ve way as Two diftindl powers? each binding refpt fitivfe in their oun properSphere.j • From thefe judges & offi - cers i.Chr.2j'4» &26:i9 Suppofcds&ret to their work when the Lcvits were Hryyded to there Charge, who werenottyedto fervice & attendances in the Temple , but to judge & givefentence concerning the law & it* meaning: and this faith the text, werlfrael, coming to them from any of the cities of the laiid,4.From Jehofrn- phats reformation. Z.Chron. 1 9,3 > 1 o3i 1. Who reftoring the government of the Church , did rettin lerufalemk- «&, priefts, Chieffof the Fathers oflfracl.for tbejudgmmt if the Lord , &for controversies Here is 1. A Court of prie- * fts &■ Levitt with power of Suffrage & thus confiding of "Ecclefiajlici^ memhres. 2. lnQcdefiaftict^mAttcn } Maters of the Lord, diftindt from Maters of 'the King j.Forane Ecclefiaftick end ( viz. ) to warne that they trespaiTe not, not onlyagainft one another but againfl the Lord. 4. All caufes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities, were to come to them unto Jerufclem. 5. They have Ane Ec- clefidjlic^ [Moderator y or preGdent , Amatiah the chieff pneft, over them in ail Maters of the Lord , ciftinftf as is find ) from Maters of the King. Thefe & many fuch Arguments are made ufe ot by him & others , To clear thispoyntofthe Two.diftinft Sanhedrim, which fully overthrowes this Erajlian Confujion of thefe two powers & governments. 2. This fountaining of all Church po- wer in the civil , and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers, di(tin<5l from the Civil go- vernment, is CrofTto that diftin&iqri of the GospelChtirch her government > from that of the Civil power> wichis clearly held out in thenetvTeJfamcm. Wherin it is evi- dent Upon the point of Epifcapacie. ^ dent I. That the vifible Church is Chrift the Mediator hisvidbic k'ngdfcmeas Mediator. And (bits Officers i Laves, & Onfurds falls with in the compaile of his Mediatorie appointment and infpetlion- Matrh. 16. j9, »_- &2S 29. joh.'c. 35. 1 Cor. 12.28- Eph 4. u, xi. ..- ,^2, That ihe gofpel Church was Comply, ted in for brin* & effence \ |poth as toRuleis& Ku.cd, Mekhbbrs 8t officers 3 and in rules 5c directions for the exercife of her government according!y3when no Magi. ftrat wis l'o much asamember of her. «-» ■ j Thatm all tv-;wf/wanentthe exercije of this power, it is enjoyned to the Church, & to thr;e Church as at the firft , & without the leaft reftri&ion & li- irritancy in cafe of the Magiftrats becoming Chrift ian ; AH the grounds made iifeofinpreftlngtheexercifeof this power , being moral & perpetual , & refpe&jne the Church her condition as a Church,. whither the Ma^i- first be friend 01 cnerrie. Inthe2o. Piace?ThU ErafHan pi elatick mould of go- vernment brings in manygreffe encroachments upon the liberties of thegofp/.!l Church. As .1. Denying her lib rty to'exercife her power 8z Ks? of Cenfure without the Magiftrit : Contrare to all the New Teftamentinftan? ces cffh exercifetherof with out him. 2. Introduceing a dominion >& arbitrary power upon all hsr government** Contrsre to her liberty '& the very nature of her govern- mentjwhichis a Mirnjlerial Stewardship- notadominioni for thus the Church is the proper objeftof the Magir ftrars dominion that being the Nature of his povyer Kom. il. And the prefent prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governbure as her Chiejf Church officerer, — — . 3 . Giving to the Magiflrat qua talis ( for this po- wer in Church matters, is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be aperpetual Croun-right ) r he proper 8c Sole decifivefujfragein allcaufcs falling under Ecclefiallick cogni- 44 A Confutation of the firfl: Dialogue CognifanceiforPrelatifts oncly meet toadvife htm in th*- rc Suprem Court or national Synod, according to the fore- mentioned A3. Now > this Cutts off all Church judica- tories thcr decifive futfrage 35 Church judicatories > which ( as is cleared above ) they did fully at firft exer- cife of thernfelves 3 without the Magiftrat. 4, This mould will make the Civil Magitiraz the propel imrnediot fu'jeEl of the Kgs , and Impaites all Church government to One, who, as fuch,isnotfo much as a Church member , and impowers him to give out thisfuppofedfountaine power to no Church members, or to here enemies at his pleafure, As his Majeftv gives to perfons Civil the po- wer Dfexcomunicatkm ? Yea it gives him a power, by his ounproper clicite ailstto difpenfe all her [external go- vernment ] as the law terms it , which ( if we Jook u- pon it as including all external! ordinances con:tadi&in£t from the interaal government of the inward man, & the.Ch irch invifible) will neceflarely import & include the exefcife of both the f^ys , & all the external dvgm** ticket duitaHic!^>Z3 Cririd^au.hority & power y intrusted to the Churcii representative : Which is a meer Civil papacic & the grofleft of ufurpadons which the Church can be expofed u:no,as ftnll be afterward touched. Finally, This will inferr, that Children, Heathens, yea women , may be chieff Church officers and heads of the Church too, fince they may poireflc ths Crown of thefe Kingdoms, to which this Headmip and Supremacy is annexed. But of this alfoagaine. 3 . This Eraftian government is a grolTencroachment upon Chrifls prerogative over his Church. And that in thefe wayes. 1. in affumeinga power over the Church which is proper to Chrift only , I mean a Magifierial , architetlo- nick power. That this is aflumed by this Eraftian mould of government , is evident ? He who can difpoie of go* vernment , and governoures of the Church arbitrary , and difpofe of all Chnrchmectmgs 3 and Church mater*, oflefles tbefe high tittles, ta be the Gwernoure( over his Church J by way of emi* nencie3Matth. 2. 6*That great shepherd of the sheep. Hebr.! Ig. 20. tfa shepherd and Bishop cf Soules. 1. Pzt. 2; 25. He: is that one Mafier over all Church officers ,who arebut Brethren ,Matth; 23. 8 ,10. To us there is but Om Lord lefm. 1. Cor. 8 . 6. Hee it is, to whom onely the im- perial! dls of power are aferibed : as, the giving of lawes to his Church, the gofpel precepis are his law. Gal. 6. 2* Hee it is who gave commandments to hisApollles, A&. 1/2. there is but onelaiv giver who can fave and de- ftroy. Jam. 4. 12. The Lord is our judge, the Lord is onr lawgiver or Statute maker, the Lordisour King, Ifay. 33 22. He it is whaConftitutes her ordinances, preaching of the word jVlatth. 10. 7*1. Cor. 1. 17. ad- miniftration of the Sacraments, as of baptifme, John* 1. 33* the Lords Supper, I. Cor. 1 1.20. difpenfing of Cenlures , Match. \c. 29. Hee it is who appointes his Officers^rophets^aftorcs.Teachers.Epher 4. u, 12. X. Cor. 12, 2S. In his name onely ail ordinances are dif- penfed : Not in the name of Magiftrats 1 or of any Mor- tall. The Apoftles fpake and taught in the name of Je- fus. Ad. 4. 17 3 18. In his name we are to Ask Joh. 14. *5> 14. In his name onely Minifters are to preach and baptize, Matth. 28.18,19. 2. Cor. 5. 2.0. In his name onely they are to Cenfure, to deliver to Satan. 1 Cor. $. 4» In his name only Church aflemblies are to be gathe- red > which feems "the Smalleft A#» Match, il, 20. [See 6 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue ( Sec jus divnum Regim: Ecclef: Apfollom Rivim. &c +-** a. This Eraftian government incroaches upon Chrifts , prerogatives , In taking and ufing the Keys a-ainft Chrifts donation and authorise Chrift is the only Lord giver ofboth the Keys, and all their power. But,inthia (J- furped power , the Keys are i. Divyded , a^ainft Irs ^re- fcription , who gave both th Ke s ofDoilrine and Difciflinc jojntly to the proper recipients therof^ viz. ) Church offi- cers. Mattb. \6 19. This Eraftian governrr^ncfriaches away One Key ( viz* of government ) from fuch to whom Chrift the great Mafter of the Houfe,hath Intruded bvtbi. Chrift in thi> donation of the Keys making no mention of the Civil ulers, but only of Church Officers then appointed, who were diftinft from the ALgiftrar* Hence 2* The Key ofdifciplinh taken and ufcd againft his mynde , by there ro whom he hath not lntrufted it, which is a great encroichement upon hi> authorise. In the 3d. place, this Eraftian government encroaches u- pon Chrifts auchoritie over his Church, Infuperadding Am officer to thefcChurch officers inftkut and appointed by rum. For in all the Scripture rolls of Chrifts Church officers > the Civil Rulers are noc found* Epb*4* lo3 1I4 1. Cor*l2. 2S, Rorru6*7, 8 4»Thisen- croachment appeares in making Church officers > as fiich, imedintlyfuhjeEt to the hUgiftrat in all their Spiritual! adminiJlration>\v\\ich isa hie Ceniure of the prim-rive ex- ercife of this power independantly > as we fhal fhew* y| In exeeming him from all Spiritual fubjection unto> and cenfure bya Chu: ch Rulers* For where, Ipray, fhal we find theMagiftrat excepted.and the hteh?rOvil power?, if wubirrthe Church 3 from Chrifts lawes and rules a* nent fubje&ion to Church cenfures and ro his Spiritual office bearers intruded therewith ? Chap. Upon the point o£ Epifcopacie; 4.7 Chap. VI. J£rafiianifm denyes the compleat conjUtution pf the Apoftolick Church in point of Government. Re* moves the Scriftur Land-markes^fet to dtftin- guish the Civil AndEccleJiaftickTowerSyWhick is cleared in feverti 'points. It is lyahk to gnat abfurdities. IN the 4th place: This Eraft'an Government prefumes to impeach the primitive dfojltlick Church , her cent" pleat conjiitution and faithfulneft ofAdmintftratiQn in relation to Government , and make* here to have had but a defe- ctive maimed conftitution and authority thereanent , while the exercifeofthe civil power in her, was waii- ting. Which charges a grofs deficiency uponChrifts prefcriptions in relation to her Lawes and Officers : Which are found in Scripture, very full y and fuited to her flare and condition in all times until alltheEleftbe made up , and here warfare is accomplifhed 3 and con- fequemly, it impeaches Chrifts faithfulnefs and autho- rity as Mediatour , whoie proper work this holy confti- tutionis J. ThisEraftian Prelacy takes a^ay all the Scripture Landmark and Limits, M hich are fixed thcrien by God , to diftinguiih the Civil and Ecclejiajlick Potversand Govern* mentSy and makes them every way the fame, in ail things wherein Scripture and Resfon do diftinguiih them, both as to their Nature and A8s > and like way cs as to their Caufes. 1. As to their Mature , this Eraftian Government doth confound them. .1. In that it makes the Church and Commonwealth ,< the Policical • and Eccleliaftical . Societies > one md the fame , which are formally diftindt. It \§ A Confutation ofthcfirft Dialogue It being a vifible profcffion that make a Church mem* ber , and outward habitarion and fubjedtion tothe ci- vil power 5 that makes a Subjects Which may bi where there is no profeffion , and confequently no Church - memberfhip. For in this mould , the Kings Government Ci^ii , is Church Government , for it is his Government as K^ngy in which capacity this Ecclefi- aftkk Supremacy is his prerogative, and his Ecctejiajliclf, Go vernment is alio Civil Governmeut , for it is his Govern- ment as the Supream Civil Magifiw: And thus the Church , refpefted by his government! is the Common- Wealthi &viceverfa. 2. This confounds the Officers of Church and State, which the Scriptur doth aboundantly diftinguifh. For, asisfaid, TheChurchhadall her Officersof Chriftsappointment, when no Magiftratwas a Member thereof; and on the other hand, Common- wealths hid all their civil Rulers, btfore they became Churches; But in this Eraftian Prelacy, this order is confounded , The chief Officers of this Church are the 3Vl2giftrarsCommiffioners to Church and State -, where- as Church Officers are given by Chrift as Mediatour to his Church as a Church , 1 Cor. 12: Vcr. %% ■ <- 3. The agings of civil and Ecclefiaftick authority are thus confounded , Spiritual church Rulers Atlonelyih Spiritual matters by Gods appointment, asd civil RuUiS there immediat proper A&s are only in matters Civil. But here Church Officers are ?arltamtnt Conrniflioners , and civil Rulers in the high comiriffion do excommunicato Againe in the 2- place : This Eratiian Prelacy con- founds theft two powers in their caufes s which ar*» wholly diverre4 I. The efficient cauie is diverfe* God as Creator, is Author of MayAracy vRom. 13. But Chrift as Mediatour appoints Church Government, Matt. 2%: fS. But here, the Magiftratjiw m/iV, is a fuprem Church Ruler? And thusisfuppofed to have his power fr m Chrift as Mediator and Head of his Chur ch : Which i s ane Upon rbe point of Epifcopicie.' 4£ ane opinion fully confuted by thofe whohavewrittena- gainft Eraftus, particularly MrGillefpie in the AaronsBgL 2. They differ in the t?iAterialczdk 5 the matter on which the two powers do aft, are diverfe: Ecclefiaftick power dorh aft in the exercife of the Keys,the adminiftratton of the Word and Sacraments, having this for its proper ObjeEt and matter: The civil power confiftsin theci* viland fecular Sword; the one reaches the inward , the othere the outward man . But in this Eraftiaa Prelacye, the , Sword and Key*, are made one , promifcuoufiy u- fed, and put into the fame hands.3.The two powers dif- fer in their formal caufe : the civil power is put forth in political punishments, the Ecclefiaftick in spiritual ccn fares. But here , the fame power is the firft Radix and Foun- taine of Spirituall Cenfures , andCivill puuifliments , and gives them their formal eflence and being,asfuch. iFinalie. The proper immediate^ of Civil power is the Temporal, External* political peace of the comraonwe- jakb. itywa. 13.1,2^ 3*£ut the proper end of Ecclefiaftick i power. Is the Churches Spiriual good and edificatim as fuch , \W.atth. 18. ifti-Ctf. ?•?«*. Cor* io. 8. and 13. io*But | here , theMagiftrat^*f will find this ab- ' undantly clear. To fliat up all with One word more* Ther are thefe * j hcrride abfurditit^ in relation to Church government, : which the premifed mould of this Erajttanptttecic will '•• neceiTarly inferr. I- Tbat a man may be borne , not only n i Church member,buf aChiefChurch]Rulcrl Nay , that a : leathea , and a man that never profeffed the true re- s ipon , but lives and dies ane u jraiad eoemie to it , an and exercifc ane arbitrary at le3ft a legiflative}po' \ver over all her ordinances and officers. And if this will not Clearly fet the popes Treeple Croun upon his head, ancf ! difowne all that ever the proteftant Churches have writen and;actedagainft hisblafphernous Supremacies let common difcretion judge, Amhrofe ( Epifli 33. ad va} / op- UticoYum tibi mumrumjus concc]JumeJii nan Sacr or urn* Grie- ve nor O Emperour > (o as to think that you have any Imperial authority over ihefe things which are divine, the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee , but doc of Sacred* Chap. VII. The Informers deceit full shifting and ebfcuring the true State of the Quefiion anent Epifeofacie , and flinching from the point debatable , dijcove- red Sever all wajes. He declines a direft pleading for prelats civil offices , Tet offers fome arguments defence therof: Wherin his prevarication f and Contradiction to himfelf, is made appear. TO come now to examine what this new Dialogift » Jaath produced in defence of the prefent prelacie eftablifhed amongft us , And to examine his anf- wers to our plea againft it > We fhall not Hand upon the trifling .debate about the perfonal good qualities of feme that have been prelats 3 with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue,it being altogether extrinfick to theQue- ftion anent the lawfulnes o£ the office it ftlf. And would be no argument in ©ur cafe againft him , as this man can- not but acknowledge , elfe Hee muft give up the caufe ? upon his conceffion of the Unqueftionable eminent pietic, and integritie, of many burning and Shining lights , who have been the Lords ConiUnt witneflcs igaisft oreiacie* That which is here mainely confide- ^rablcj Is his prevarication ia Stating the Queftion a* 4'jiear preiade* (viz.) [ TVhithcrtbt ancient Bisboftsbsd a Q 2 S«|t*. f 2 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Sufirioritu over other Miniflen ] wherin he utterly $mb& away from the points debeatable. i. In making ibis th* State of the Qtieftion [ what Bifhopes were in the pri- mitive Church ] wheras the true State of our Que- ftidn , is , whither the prctat now exiflent in this Ckurtb^le a ScriftKTC'Bishop arid cfofonant thcrunto , Or , ane officer ap- pointed by Chrift in his boufe > Yea or not. A nd not whither there have been Biffiops, or fuch as we now have, in the ancient Church. Thef Queftion is not of the mater of faii ) but of the right > yea and the divine right of the pre- fent prelats in relation to their power. 2. In ftating the difference betuixt the Bifhop he pleads for , and the Paftbr, Hee Smoothes it Over in this general, [ whither there have been fuch Bilhopes , as have had a Suftrwitie over ordinarie Miniflcrs ] but doth not explain ne what that Sufericritie is which he pleads for, whi- ther of order or juvifdi&ion , or both ; whither fpecifi- call, or graduall ; Whither a Superiority of meerprefi- dencie, or of principality ; The [Epifcopus prefes, and princeps] fharing in this general name; Dolus latec ingeneralibus : Since there have been various Superio- rities yde fdRo , He fhould have particularized that Su- periority whichHeundertaksto defend 3. His Doub- ter fuggefting [ that they were not Lord Bishopes J He muft needs make him referr to 1. Pet. 5. 3. Unchar- ging to Lord it over Cods heritage; But how poor is his evafion from and folution of this difficultie , in ftar- tin£ this notion [ whither there have been , Ve fatlo , B;ihops with a Superioritie over Prefbiters, Or Bif- fiops who had Civill dignities in ancient times?] The pinch of this debate lying in this , whither the [ t&7*Kv- &ii$»7it Or Lorfliip ] difcharged in that Scripture , will not ftrykeagainft fuch a Superiority or dominion Whither in Ecclefiaftick, or Civil rule, as our prelat bow affutne ? and not what fort of Superiority in Ec clefiaftick, or Civill government* prelats hate former Upon the point of Epifcepacler jT J lyhad. The prefent prelatexiftent in i Scotland , having fuch a dominion over Church Judicatories, andlik- wayesin Civils, as is above expreft, and derving all his power from the Magiftratin Ecclefiaftick , as well as in Civil rule, Helhouldhave Stated his Queftion thusdiftindly,and then fenced for his great Diana. But the man probably found this a taske which be durft not undertakers hich appears immediatly after.in his decli- ning the debate ancnt th* Biftiopes Civil rule , telling us , [ That he will make it none of his worke to debate with us , their a&ing in Civil affairs , Sometimes ] But i. Since he undertaks the patrocinie and defence of Epilcopacie now eftablifhed among us, And ia his preface profrffes i; his defigne to prove it lawfull, and therby to take off one of our arguments for with- drawing from Conformifts , And it being likewayes Certaine that the prefent prelats are Civil rulers, He muft either undertake this debate .,or acknowledge them Wnlawfutt pro tamo at leaft ? And that he proves but a maimed pleader for their prefent office, and falls fhort of a great part of his defigne in this pamphlet. %. He pitifully Snakes away from this debate alfo ,inminc- hing their State - medling 5 thus, (viz ) Their aftingin Civil affaires Sometimes , which may be faid of any man or Minilter , His rare rranfient > occasional, accidcntall or privat actings, and even in domeftick affairs. But can- not this man diftinguifh betuixt this, and a Stated officio! aSing , as conflituent and so^JJant members $f Civil judicata ties, as prelats are according to our lawes , and that cvea ex natura officy as they are prelats j Surche cannot di- ftinguifh the Mountaine from the Molehill, that can- no: fee a difference betuixt thefe. Either this Informer muft account the prelats prefent State aftings lawful, or not > If He account them lawfull , then He falls hh- [i der a Three fold premunire in this point. I. Indc- :* fiyning the defeaceofoneofthepreUuUflqtt^icMit- $4» ^ Confutation of the firft Dialogue blclcgal privileges ( difouned by presbyterians ,and by him efteemed lawfull ) notwithftanding of his under* takeing to plead for them. 2. In Undertaking only tos plead for their aciing Sometimes , which (as I faid) i far from the point and matter of faft , which he muft defend. 3. In confefilngatthe foot of the page [ That Church men fhould not needles/lie, or ofChoicet intangl* themfelves inthefeincumberances] wherin hepalpa- blie contradi&s him'felf as to his Scope. For doe not our prelats of m^ft free chciceanddeliberatljdKamt State Imployrnents ? Or are their fhoulder* burdened a- gainft their will with thefe State honourcs^Befydes, He cites 2. Tim. 2.4« In acknowledging this intan- glement in wordly affaires , to be unlawfull in Church memThe text fay es> no man thatwarreth entangleth himfelfin affaires of this life. Now , if this text dis- charge univerfally , and abfolucly > a Miniftersintangle- ment in wordly affaires ? How comes he to foijl in his limitation of [needlejlj% or of Choice] whcie is this limitation in the *m?lfalIintangiementsorincumberances5a* fuch> be unlawfully as is here exprefsly a(Terred,as being inconfiftant with the nature-and importance ot the Minifters Spirituall funftion > which requires the grea- teft abftra&ednes from all worldly things , and rhc mans conftant waiting upon y and giving bimfeff wholly unt$ the things of God > Then furely whimer he intan- gle himfelf by choice , or not , it is ftil J am inunglcment , andconfequentlyfinfuli his acting deliberative butane agravation. Againe, fince He maks aneintanglement Of choice jobeancedlesintanglement , and confequently fin- ful, He muft needs acknowledge that fuch is the prefent prelatickmcdling, which, as is faid, Ke cannot deny to be mod deliber3t and of choice. But nixt, If He ac- count our prelats Swe-afl'ngs unlawfull ? Then 1. Why doth He not in termini; acknowledge fo much, and BotJifp it half out? i. W.,/ doth He allege fome"" tbin^ Upon the point of Epifcopacic; 5*5* thing from Scripture precedents to prove it warranra* ble? But Let us hear his Scripture arguments wherby He would prove this State afting lawfull, Kis firft Rea- fon is [That the jewifti Sanhedrin made up of the Se- vinty elders, Mofcs aftiftants in Civiil government > did confift partly ofpriefts ] where I. Wee £c He over- ftraines his point, ?nd overftrctches himfelfinhis pretended proofed for the Thefehe undertaks to prove > is, [That Church men may ad in State matters>though not of Choice , and fo that it be S§metimcs only 1 which he cannot but diftinguifh from a Conftant official mtd~ /wg , if he fpeak fenfe. And to prove this , He brings anc inftance of priefts under the oldTeftamcnt-dif- penfation/ their being conjlitucnt member; of a civil court ? Now, how doe thefe quadrat? Were not thsfe prieftsto z£t dcliberatl? and of Choice? if this prove any thingjat all it will prove thac Mimfters (asbeingfuch members) may deliberatly and of choyce involve themfelves in Civil! sfluirs, which this man holds to be difcharged 2. Tim 2* 4. And fo this Reafon, becaufe proving too much ? and beyond his afle don , proves juft nothing- 2. As we clearcdabove,thedirTerenceberuixt the Ci- vil and Ecclefiaftick Sanhedrin, and that thofe Sevinty , mentioned in the 11. Numbr. who were chofen for the government of the Commonwealth , are diftinft from thofe mentioned Exod. 24. Who were Ecclefia- ftick and not Civil officers ; So it is more then this ln< former hath orfered proof of , that there were priefts in that Civil Cpurr, finceasisfaid, the Two Sanhedrins Civil and Ecclefiaftick, did confiit. of diftinft members , and the re was not one Sanhedrin only? as this man feems tofuppofe. But J. Though the concurrence of forne prciftsin that Civiil Court, were granted * Our writers have abundantly cleared the inconfequencof any argument drawn from that inftance as to this foint j Ir that though the Civil and Ecclefiaftick gp$ A Confatation of the firft Dialogue Sanhedrin, were diftinft original/ , Yet the judiciall Civil law being given immediatly by God to the jewest as well as the Moral and Ceremonial , the priefts by confequence3 under thatdifpenfation, had amoft ne- ceffary intereft as to its interpretation & decifion in many cafes j for the law was to be lough rat their mouth. The difference of which condition of x.hz Jewish, from that of the Cbriftian Church ( Spread over the world , and in Countreys where are different moulds of Civil go- vernment and lawes , and which are not tyedtothat fudici?! Jaw ) doth caft the bailances and over- throw his argument. As for that of deutr. 17, Wee have fecn ho v it holds out a Twofold Sanhedrin which had diftinfl: members > aBs , and objcBs. In a xrord , if his argument from this inftance were good ( upon h's fuppofition that priefts were mem- bers in that Court ) ic would prove that Christians could not have a lawful civil Supreme Judicatorie, un- les Minifters were conftituent members thereof? And that Minifters were eflentialiy & neceffarly ex natara of- ficii (asthefe priefts) conftituent members of civil Ju- dicatories? which is more then he dareaffeit, and the abfurdity thereof is above cleared. His 2d. Ground is drawn from[the,examples and inftances of Eli thePrieft Who judged Ifraei fourcy years > and of Samuel the Pro- phet, who, though lent to the Lord from his birch , yet went in circuit yearly judging the people] But 1. The force of this reafon leaning upon ane 'example meer- ly , of Church officers under the old difpenfation , and the gratis fuppo fed imitablenes thereof, ic is (like the ©ther argument) very unfoundand lax. He will not dare to averr that every deduction a faclo ad jus , is fcund i All fcripture examples, are for our improvement* but not for our imitation. Even good and laudable Ads of the Saints, are of this nature, many of them. Some wereheroicai, as Elias bringing fire from hea- ven Upon the point of Epifcopacie. y~ ven> which the Lord difcharged James and John toi- roitar. Phinehas hisAft, he will fay wiihhis Aiafter thefurveyer, was of this nature* Some Aftsdid flow from ane extraordinarie emergent of Providence , and a call flowing therefrom , as Abrahims attempt to offer his Son , Ifraels borrowing from the Egyptians and not paying. Some Adfcs had their iiluefroma fran- fientand occafional jun&ur , procuiing a nee; flits' pro rune, as Pauls preaching gratis, and working with his hands* Some aft s were to confirme a fpecial extra- ordinary call, So our Lords fourry dayes faft , and that ofMofeshis tipe. Now, to conclud fiom the prerni- fed inftances5the lawfulnefsofthefe Adis (viz) Sacri- ficing Children, borrowing and not paying, rbe po- p'\{hquadrantumSzc, This Infomer will granuo be ve- ry poor and childish Sophriftrie , yet fuch is his rea foil- ing here. 2. Divines doe tell us that thefe examples only are imitable , whofe ground and fcope are of a moral nature , which the per fons did, as LinrsorChri- itians : iuchareall examples of morallfranding duties enjoyned in the commands. They tell us. 3. That there are two Rules neceflarly to be obferved (and which this Infoimer muft of neceflity gr?,nt) as to a conclufion, 2b cxempload factum* or afaftoadjus. which cutts the finnews of his argument here. 1. ^oexawple which erodes amor all precipt can ground a Rule , for this would make die Rule croffe it feif. And to bring this neer thepoint in hand, I will fhew, thac this Informer fights a^ainft himfelf , and muft needs adm:tt this anfwer, from th? very mould of his argument: For he thinks to imforce the lnftance from Samuel his civil! agings , by telling us that be was lent to the Lord from his mothers tvomb : Which will fay, accord- ing to his pleading , Thac a man though Angularly devoted to God in the facred jViniftry , yet may de- Jiberacly and of choice become a civil judge, yea D5 aftu -g A Confer* tion of the firft Dialogue afupreme civil judge; and [then I would know, how hewill reconcile this with the great gofpel preceptaTirm a: 4- m Which himfelf pleads as diichargin^ dehberar medling in civil affairs, becaufe the facred Mimftery is a warfare, or a dedication of theMiniftcr to the ferviceof Chrift? And what will he fay if one fhall argue thus , if a Minifter , though dedicat to the Lord from his mothers womb , may notwrhft mding become a civil judge , then the Miniftry its b^ing ajwanfue under Chrift, canno: hinder a mans medlingby choice in civill affaires , which notwithftanding he denyes : So that either he muftdiiown this Inltance, orhisfenfeof that Gofpell precept. Butofthisa^aine. 2. Noexam* fUs of Ads done from anc extraordinary calling& gifts yzvc tobe imitated by as he will eontradift himfelf, fo he will not c vite a great inconve- nience from the fail of Phinehas, from Ehud, &c. Jncafefome perfon of a boiftrous heart 3 and unruly hand 5 fliould plead thefe initanccs to offer violence untohim. Be fide > if this rule benoe admitted* he will hrangle the boundarieandlimirs of 'different ordinary sailings y (and leiation* by confequence ) which the God of order hatb &*£&• The examples of Magiftratical ©r Minijicriall duties , obliges no: privat perfons to anc Imitation; The Apoftelick Adts of working Miracles, giving the Spirit by laying oneofhands, univerfalun* fixed preaching (he will grant) are notimitable (as neither the peculiar duties of Relations among privat per- fons , doe obleige every one) becaufe thefe extraordi- nary gifes and callings are now gon: : And fo fay I of thefe examples of Eli , and Samuel > who are by all found divines ranked among thejufaes whofe call and of- iic* Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 59 fice is acknowledged to have been extraordinary * God keeping at that time the regal rights in his own hand , beforhefetupany fixe ordinary Rulers 2nd Kings, snd creating >& calling extraordinsrly, his own? deputies in the Government, fornetirrie- out of one tribe , and fo' metimes out of another , whofe aiinioiity died with rhemfelves and admitted of r,o fucpeifion* Wherfore Gideon told the people that God was their Kin£,and refit* led that o£cc when offered 5 and the peoples guilt i» wearing of this holy immediat Government of God himfelf, apd dc firing a King , h aggravated from this , That they had reje&ed God who was their King, So that his argument from thefe extraordinary inftajice^ « wholly inconcludentiit being from auc extraordinary , to ane orA- nary ctMngJr cm ane extraordinary//tfr/ that it containes rheHiftory of the tiro laft judge ty Eli, andSamuel andof Saul the £rftKing of iirael. And upon that place, Chap.7: i5,itf.Anent Samuels judging of ifrael , notwithitandingofhis being lent to the Lord fr03ihisbirth,i Chap. 28. They will Inform this infer* mer[thatasthiswasthe)urifdiftionofajucge,whichGoi called him unto all the timeoffaul, »«lb, hevascpo d$xn 60 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue bound by his Mother: vow > Chap. I. Whereby he was de- voted to the fervice of the fan&uary, to continue his re- fidence there , both becaufe God had forfaken it for the fins ot the Priefts, and alfo, becaufe the Lord himfelfhad ta- \:n him off from that tevitical fervice, an 1 called him te another imployment , namel? , to be a hob Prophet andajud^eover his feople y which places he could not difcharge , if he had been confined to a fettled place. ] The du.ch. Annot: in the argument of the book of judges, defcribe them [tobe fuch perfons , not ( whoadminiftred the ordinary funtlion of \udges among the people > as the Word is oTh-r where taken , but ) whom God now and then as theitateof Ifiael required , fometimesoutofon tri- be, fometimesout of another, extrawdimrlyrjiifed, cal+ led , and with his Spirit ofwifdome and couradge endctved &e. In the argument, of the firtr book of Samuel, they (hew that therin is defciibed the Government cf Samuel dt judgeover Jfrael&c ] So that until our Informer fhall i litruct rhe Pielats extraordinary call from God, and alfo their extraordinary enduements for civil Govern- ment, thefe inftances of Eli and Samuel , will not [in the Judgment ofthefe divines] afford them the lead: ihacdow ef warrand for there civil offices. So this man maybe afhamed tharhe ever mentioned fuch aa argument. Finally j ThatHeeisin the bre^rs of a contradiction here,is(as is hinted)evident?in that to prove that Church men fhould not ofChoice medle inCivil affaires ,he gives this reafon , for , no man that tvarrcthintangleth himfelfwitb the affaire? of this U(c. 2. Tim. 2.4. Now, if this [fir] or illative here , fignifie any thing , and be not nonfen- fe , this He mull be luppofed to hold , that , this texE forbids Chinch menall deliberat mealing in Civil af- faires. Bun will He dare to fay that Samuel and Eli their judging of Ifrael wasiior deliberatan&o£ €fai*e> Ergo , Ic was fiafull by this rule 5 Yet he ple- Upon the point of Eplfcopacie. C j ads for its imitablcnes as lawfull > though a deliberar involving themfelves in Civil government , yea a Su- preme rule j and thus holds it nor crcffrorhisgofpell precept. So that to efcape this Scjlla or Charybdis, He hath no imaginable refuge but one , (viz* ) loaf ert with us, their cxtraordinarie Celling for what They did, and that lingular old Teftament-difpenfation un- der which they flood. But then He muft quit his plea for prelats civil Imployments from this Jnftance, and confeffe it to be inconcludent. But for the new Teftament times>he tells us Hew much Bishops were employed in Civill affairs, when Emper ours became Cbrijiian.afSmeSyfnmus c9nfejjes.But i. Since he pretends 6cnpture Inftances under the old Teftament , his new Teftament lnftance is very apochryphal and hettrogeneus therunto, being of Bifliops medling three or four hun- dered years, after the Canon of the Scripture wasclo- fed. Eumam Qapiticervkempingaeequinam* But his new Teftament precept 2. Tim. 1.4. Chaied away the ln- ftance of Bifliops medling in civ ill affaires , Three or four Hundred years forward. Nixt,Iwould know whither our Informer holds thefe Bifliops medling in Se- cular affairs, to be lawfull or unlawfull r If lawfull, a»«d confifling with their Calling (which He would feem to infinuat in telling us, that Saravia defends at large > (even limply and abfolutly) Church mens medling m Jiateaffjires ) Why then doth he tell us in the nixt page That the fathers comp leaned of this as aburden ? Sure the y were very froward co iret under a peece of lawful! im- ployment. If it was unlawfull, or adeliberat finfnUin* tanglcment , why obtruds he it upon us as a regular pre* cedent? And what will SWftywwi/wacknowledgment of the//*#///7iimpoit,toinferr £/i/,or Our acknowledgment of the jar. He tells us likwayes, That ancient CounceBs [upon the ground mentioned, l. Tim. 2. 4. ofaMtniftersfm- .ff&ixxangtemsnt } difebarged them to foSotv Militarie imploy - ment* 6x A Confutation oi the firfl Dialogue. ments,ortotakcfcrms?slc. Hence I inferr,then thefe Couii- cels hcid,thac deliberat medlingin ftate affaires, or worldlv incuniberances , is inconfiftenc with a Mini- ftcrs calling, and a linfull intanglement difcharged in that text ; for fince they difcharged Milirarie cm- plovments and ferms upon this ground » they doe confequenriy difchnre;ea!l fuch Inunglemcnt.FoY.a qua* tenus , ad omne > &c> This he cannot but grant. And from hence i infer, two things againft him* I. He fetts thefe Councils by the earcs wrh his Serif ttn injiancts* For fince they condemne thefe formentioccd civil employments upon that ground, 2 Tim. i: 4. As a finful mranglemenc in a Chnrch officer j he rnuft either fay , thar th-y condemned thefe old - Tcftament Inftances of the Priefts > of Samuel and Eli , as finful : Or elfe acknowledge, thai iheyheldthem ( with us) to be extraordinary > andno regular precedents. 2. It will hence follow, thatthefe Councils do- coriitenWe Saravia , who (he tells us) dotbatfome length def nd Church mem aFting in State affaires. And S and likewayes by way of mnifte- tial teftim*nse agaimt what is finfu] in ftate Rulers, which is ail that our principles do own as to Minifters inter- pofins; in ftare affaires in our late times; but he that can0 rcr diftineuift this, from aconftanteffcialmedling at a civil fudges andeonjlituent Member tn civil fudicateries, isjvery blindes And as ftupid that man were, who could not di# ftinguim this from the privat domefiicl^care mentioned,! Tim.y:8. Which is a part of thxEiconomi* founded uonp the Law of nature,and competent to a Minifter as aMa- fter of the Family , who is to govern and rule his hcufi under that notion. Yet we muftherc tell him, that Gods allowing the Minifter his honorarium > or mainte- nance, is for this very end, that he may not by any over* ftretch of the demeftick care, be taken off from his holyimployment. Here , we mall offer to this Informer; grave judgment, theReafons of ihzAffembly 163S. SejJ x 25. againft the civil Offices of MiniiUrs. [l. Chrifts notable example Luk. 12: 14. Refufinfc to deal in acivilcaufe; Mint- fters are his AmbaiTsdours fent by him > as he was by the Father, ]oh. 20: 21* Joh. S-He would not fentence that woman who deferved death, 2. Civil Rule is dis- charged to Apoftles, Matth. 20: v. 25,26. not only Supreme which is competent to Princes, butfebordi- nat alfot Citing that panage of Bernard to" Eugenim. Lib 2. Jlpoftolis inter dtcitur dominatut, ergoju tiki ufurpare ande.au! dominant, Apofiolatum am Apoftolicus , dominatum Dominion is discharged to Apoftles , Go thou therefm and dare to ufurf t$ thy felfy wkiiheyth Apoftleship, if holding a civil dominion , or beingdpofiolic^ civil dominion* Where theyrefute the ordi- nary Epiicopai&Popith evaiion as tol*vpw*&:ty&Kvpuv*. 3. That Minifters having given up their names to this holy warfare, they ought not to be involved in things ©f this life , as the law denyes this to fouldiers. C. d. Lib;*. Tic 13, So the Apoftolick law, z Tim 2:04. This 6± A Con f utation of the fi rft Dialogue This work tobe heavier then that any man can be fuffici* em for it 3lone 2 Cor. 2; 16. Hence Minifters are called watchmen, labourers, fouldiers> fiihers, &c. 4. The Apoftles 1 Tor all their extraordinarie gifts > were not fie for ferving tables and preaching; the word both , Aft 6. although tbefe were both ecclefiaftick funtliones ; there- fore farr leff^ c^n any Miniiler now aifume both eccle- fiaftick andciyil offices. Gregorie 'he I. (cited by Gra- tianin Decreto difi: S9 ■ ■ Cap. Singula.) proves that twoeccleiiaftick offices are not to be committed to one, from that place of the ApoftleRom. 12:6:7. As it is unbefeeming that in mans bodie , one member fhould A& the pare of another. The tfch, of the Canons cal • led Apoftohck, appoints tint the B.fliop or Presbyter affuming civil places , be depofed (which will make fearfullMafliCie among our Prelars, that day the Par- liament rides) fo Can* 81: and 8*. Cyprian, lib; I , Epift. 9. fayes, that long before, It was appointed in aCouncel of Bimopcs.that none appoint in hisTefta-. ment, one of :he Gler^ie > a Tutor or Curator > 2{/dw- dofinguli divino facer dotio honor at i^non nifi altar i & ficrtficitr, preabus & orationi vacare detent* Since every one honoured with the divine priefthood , ouoht not to attmi but to the Altar and Sacrifices , to payer and preaching, for its written , no man that warrs &e. Clemens the 1. ( whom many make BiflhopofRome > and out ofwhofe writings , the de- fed of ecclefiaftick hiftory after the A&es of the Apoft- Jes > they affirme , mult be made up ) in the Epiftle to James the brother of the Lord, whom- they make A Fifhop^ hath 'hefe words, neque]udicem > aut cognitorem fecularium negotiorum f te ordinare vult Chriftus > ne prafoca* tus prefentibus hominum curis , nm poffis verbo Dei vacare > & fecundumveritatis regulam , fecernere bonos amalis. impie- tatis tibi crimen eft , neglstlis verbiDeiftudiis , follicitudiner fufciperefeculares. Thar is , neither will Chrift ordaine thee a fudge and arbiter tfcivill affaires, left being involved in the fYcfent Upon the point ofEpifcopacic^ C% frefent cares of men , thou be not able to attend the word of God , and according^ the rule efverity^tofepar at the good from theevill 5 Itblotts thee With the Crime of impietie to take up iecular cares 3 neglc&ing the Studjcs of the word of God. Synzfius , Bifhopor Prolemais 3 cited b\ lipfius in p^iticis , inid . thatit is unlawful! to \oyne the Civil! power With the priephood-namhocejfet mifcerenon mifcenda hoc eft Sacris civiliaconfundere.For this were to mix together things which cannot be mixed } that is> to confound Civil! maters with Sacred. See feverall other* cited b> theaffembly, and recorded in the Hijloriamotuum , pag. 283 , 284. Where there is atie Anfwer to the objection drawen from Au- gujlins pra&ite ,and from that of 1. Cor. 6. 4. The informer comes nixt ( page 5. ) to his defence of the EpifcopaSofficeitfelfy But dill goes on in themift of confufed generalls, never condescending upon the nature^ power 3 and extent of the diocefian Bifliopes of- fice, as it is noweftabliiTiedbylaw. However ^letus remember that our prefent prelat is , according to our law [ A ne ordinary Church officer, afiuming the go- vernment of fome Hundereds of Congregations^ mo- nopolized in him, and conveyed according to his plea- fur , unto the Miniiters therofj Having fole power in ordination, and jurifdidtfon* andanezative voice in Church judicatories, & whofe proper worke is l^uleing only, rot feeding by do&rine ] This is the Bifhop which all his pleading nvuft becommenluratunto , clfe He but Wats the Air* 1. The Doubters] leases [Theun- , lawfullnes of the Epifcopail office for want ofaneex- 1 [prefe warrand for it in the word] To which He anfwers ' \\.By gwntwg that this will prove it to be notfimply necejfare9 , \bfff not unlaw faU^nce it may be lawful! and expedient as falling .\unde? fome general! ; as the command of decencie and order t thcughnot commanded ,v or warranted by am particu- £ lot 66 A Confutation of tbc firlt Dialogue Jar Scripture precedent , tier yet prohibited , but left to Cliri* ftian frudence a: it i; found expedient and conducting to the good of the Church.] To which ifanfwer. I, He riofly rniitaks the Import of thckrthiiics ,4 command^ jtad thcnecejfaie of a thing flowing therefrom, when re- (fricJing it to ane exprejfe tParrani or command: there being,masy things heceiiarie • n aftatc precepti , which have no exprefic warrand or command. Divines doc teli us , that Scripture commands are thherimmeduu, or mediae ; the immediat , are either explicit , or in ex- prerTe terms , enjoyning a thing : as [ honour thy father and thy mother] or implicit , holding oik , either that which is comprehended in the command, ssfuerable midfe.s leading to the dueties enjoyned , or deduced by confequence ficm what is expreffed > As Minifters preaching is deduced by confequence from the com- mand thereanent which the Apofties gott:the Circum- ftances of the command pointing out this to be a per- petuall duetie of Church officers. Againe2. There are divine commands which are mediat , comming mediatly from God , but immediatly from men , by a deter- mination of the generall divine principle, 2nd ane application therof to particulars : which thev illuftrat by that paflage where Paul Dyes 5 to the rejlfpeal{l% not the Lord, applying Gods generall command anent divor- ce,to the Corinthians particular cafe. There are like wi- fe [mediat accidental commands,] deduced from Gods .generall Ruk , upon rarctranfienc occafiones , yetne- ceflitating to fuch a determination : So the abvbining from blood and thingesftrangled , was enjoyned (Aft. iv) to the gentiles, and as necefiarie upon the ground of Charitie when the ufe grew fcandalus , although the law hereanent wasabrogat, as being originallicCer^ moniall. Hence we may Iriferr3 that this Informer in denying the nece(fi;ie of what is commanded only undsr fome generall [head , Cutcs of from the Categorie ot chiojs A confutation of the firfl: Dialogue £7. things neccflarie, all the duties in the decalogue>whkh are fubferviant to the duties cxprerfly named : and thus deftroyes the Spirituality and extent of the law, ac- knowledged by all divines ; yeaCutsbff ailneceffarie Scripture confequences, and duties founded therupon: rs Miniflers preaching the gofpell , adminiftringthe Seales > Infant baptiftn , womens receaving the Sacra- ment, the Chriftian Sabbath &c. But (to come neerer him ) in the Nix: place , I fuppofe this man Iviil not de- ny 3 That there arc many things fufficiently difcharged, and confequently unlawful! by Scripture rule, becaufe theyare not commanded either mediatly or immediatly, and that ail ordinances of worfhip, Sacraments, and the fubftantialls of eovernmentalfo, doe require clear divine commands and injlitutionsby the acknowledgement of ajl pi oteftanc divincs;So that the not commanding of any part or fuppofed ingredient therof ,is a fufficient dif* charge , difcoveringthe thing fuperadded tobefinfulK No: that which fczms good unto thee, ihalc thoudoe to the Lord thy God but what He hath commanded , thou ftult add nothing thereun:oanor dimihifh from ir. adde thou not to his words left He reprove ihee, and thou be found a liar. In vaiae they doe worihip me teaching for doitrines thecommandementsof men. See, dent.. 4» 2. prov; 30. 6. rev: 22. I8.deut:i2. gi.Ifay, 29:1}. Thefe Scriptures do clearly fortifie this principle :Otherwayes if he deny this,He will open a door to all popifh fuperfti- tion, yea & deny the very definition of it aligned by all found divines 3 in calling i t, am oppojite extrem ( in the ex* e'efs) to true religion , aiding to Gods tvorj hip bey onde what is emmandei, Our Lord reprehended the pharifecs their Worthing of hands befor dinner ( a decent cercmonie in it Ilfelf) as (imply unlawfull , when' they made itapointcif (Religion, Becaufe icwasfp-wrfiib command. That text jlfay. 2^:13, Invaine they woifhiprne , teaching for £ x doftri; 68 A Confutation of the firfl: Dialogue doftrinesthe comtnandements of menjisjapplyed in this cafe unto them. Our anfwer to the Papiits demand . [Where finde we their baftardS3craments,and other Su > perftuiones difcharged ] is , That they are difcharged as finfull in Gods worfhip , becaufe not commanded : Should they rcjoyne with this man , that this will pro- ve them to be not fimpy neceffarie , but not unlawfull , upon the gr^nd which He alleages , let him conje&ur what his amer would be, and correft himfelf. For the fubftantials of government > Me cannot but grant that theyifall under the fame confederation; It being moft certain , and univerfally acknowlegsd , that the Scripture layes down rules as to the excercife of both Key es of Order and jurifdi&ion , the officers and cenfu- res of the Church. Nay, himfelf afferts page. i*S. That the fubftantials of government anipolicieofthe Church are utterly necefiarie and unalterable- Now it being thus, the Queftion is [whither thediocefianBimop, orE- pifcopal government , be among thofe things vihich muft cither have a clear Scripture inftkution or war- rand, or elfe is to be reje&ed as finfull and unlawfull] ThatthediocefianBiftiopisiuch, J prove it thus: the Bilhop which He pleads for , is fuppofedbyhim to fee a Church officer diftin&frem, and Superior to a Paftour or presbyter, haveingadiftinft workc , ordina- tion, and qualifications ; Therfore, fay I , Heemuft either have clear warraad or inftitutioninthe word, or Hee is unlawfull. The confequencc leans upon thefe clear Scripture grounds. I. This officer cannot but fall, in among the fubftantials of government , wherin tti? Scripture is full and perfeA ( as himfelf acknowleges } So as to make even the man of God, perfect: It is full in fetting down all administrations relating so the Key of order , as prayer.andthankfgiveing, I. Tim. 2. 1,2. 1. Cor* 14. 14- 15. Singing of Pfalmes, preaching of the word * publick reading of it, and Cathechifeing, fafli Upon the point of Epifcopade* 69 falls" within the con: pafTe of Chrifls commands and re- guiations., ColJof. 3. i<5. 1. Cor. 14. i5,i6.Ephef 5. 19* 2. Cor. 3. 14. Matth. 28. 19, 20. 2. Tim- 4. 2. Hebr. 6. 1, 2. So dotb the adminiftration of Sacra- ments 3 Baptifme and the Lords Supper , Matth. 28, 18, 19. j.Cor. 11. 23. And asthefeadminiflratiensof the Key ej Order , fo all rhe adminiftrations relating to theKeyofturij&ittion ordtfcipline , falls underChrifts dear inftuuuons. Such as Ordination. Tit* 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The dogmatic!^ fowcr j as to Aiirnfteriall judgeingof dodrine. Ait. 15. The cr kick potver^s to the publick re- buke and purging out of the Scandalous , and receaving of the penitent. Matth. iS. 15, i6> i.Theff. 5. 14. Compared with Matth. Jtf. 1 9. John. 20. zi* So th$ diateUicl^ power , in relation to Ritualls and and altera- ble Circutnftances , is clearly afferted ar.d rules laid downe anent its cxercife 1 Cor. 14. And as the admini- ftrations 5 ordinances, and ads of Church government ,; So the admwiftrateres, officers^, yea and Courts falls under clear Scripture warrants and inftitutiones. Paftoures r Do&oies y Elders , Deacons , their feverall vorl muft either produce his warrand and in- ftitution , among the foiementioned Rules , or he muft be holden unlawfull. t. The Scripture coming this length in the foremen tioned condefcendenciein point of Church government , as to Ordinances > Officers* La^eSjCenfures, Courtes Sec, itrauftneedsamount E 1 to jo A Confutation of the firft Dialogue ro determin Some fpeciesef 'government, andprfibitery , and Epifcopacic ., being ©t contrary moulds, itmuft needs appointe and authorize the One > and difcharge the other. For all Church offices and officers have a pofitiyc inilitution, I. Cor. ill iS. God hath fen &c. Ephef. 4. 1 1 . God hath given &c. Rom. n. 6* 7. The of- fice not given is not a giftofgrace. And furely the com- mand [not to add to tne word ] includes a command not to add new fpirituall officers , who rhuft have a new work &c. And the Bifhops authority rnuft either be comprehended among the rules anentthefe officersen- umerat , and the exercife;of their power , or he is ane- tpocriphal officer and unlawfull : Or he muftfay we may add new officers, and offices, and institutions in poynt of government, to thefe contained in Scripturesandfo our divines argument againft the pope, from the Scriptures iilence ancnt him , in its enumeration of officers* is naught. 3. Chiift exercifing que external vifible king- dom over his Church vifible , and all Church officers, and their adminiftrations, being in his name and authentic as is above cleared » every Church tjjicrrs miffion and tvar- rand muft be found in his word, other wcy\ she runs unfent.and cannot expect his bleffing ; all that come be* for him, and anticipat his cal I , are theevesand robbei s- 4» All Cbrifts officers , and their gifts aredriflsrojaU *nd mediatorie donations to his Church , and by him pecu- liarly fet and authorised therein, Ephef. 4. rs7»8 &rc, 2. Cor. 12. 2&.He,asthegreat Marferof rhehoiife,gi« vesall his Stewards their Keys, their Orders; Now > how Chrift the king and hertftdf his Church > htsdona* tion , his commiffion, hisgivinghis Kffts, Should beinflru- <5ted other wayes , then by his char trarr and s and mjiitu* tiones in his word and Tejtament > i would glad iy jearne of this Informer. Is there any officer of State, any fubordi- nat Magiilrat allowed in a kx&gdotoe » which hath not the clear warrand of the lawes ? Surely not , and fo the cafe Upon the point of Epifcopade, 7 x care is here. Finallie. The ground and reafone which he builds this (h'fting evafion upon [ viz. That many things arc not othcrwayes commanded , then under feme generall : as that all things be done decently or to edification , inftancing in the moderator an&Clerk of a meeting of Miniiters] is very poor.* For fince the authoritywhich God gave Paul was to edification ) & ail ordinances which have the moft clear institution, muft be thus qualified, and to this end, that which is not O- thcrw ayes commanded then under tUs generally muft needs be the therable circumftances only, commone to Civil! and Sacred actions, and fuch as fuppofes the thing it felf, cloathed with thefr c.rcumftances, to be [that whtchisto bedone,] and by confequence falling HaBenus under the Compare of a command or institution, lor it is thefe only which are left to the regulation of Chriftian prudence , according to the generall rules of the word. But, as we have above cleared , fuch ane eminent Church officer asthe Siihop is fuppofed to be , or any Church officer , can be no fuch circumftance > but is fuch a fubftantiall point of government as requires aclear andpoficive warrand , or elfe muft be holden unlawful! ; and this he muft acknowledge or contradict himfelf, for He da« re not fay but that Church officers are other wayes commanded then under this generall? and himfelf ailed- ges the prelats divine inftitution : &fo He can be none of thefe things which hath only this generall warrand. Befides, £ would know , if He will fay that this officer , the prelat, muft be fete up and Aft with decencie and orders furely He will not deny this : Ifthenthe prelat himfelf is but a peece of[decende, and order] (as being only commanded under that notion>2nd a fpeaes under that generall ) then he fayes that [order and de- c 'nctejmuft be managed & cloathed with [order and dw cencie] which will be very hsrd to reconceale to fen- fe ; or He muft fay , that the prelat muft a& with difor- E 4. dcr jz A Confutation of the firft Dialogue der and* confufion , or ( toevit thefe;rockes ) that the prelat muft be warranted under another notion then that ofacircumftance ofmeerorder^andfo muft have a particular warrand. His inftance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolifh , the Clerk not being; necef- farly [a Church officer ] and the Moderator [no di- ftinS Church omcerjfrom the reft of the members, and fo is utterly Impertinent to this poime and que- ftion, at>ent a Church officer diftmB from and Superior to a presbitei , whither he^ought to have a particular Scriptu- re warrand* Befides that the fame divine warrandrhat a judiciail procedor by difquifition , votes, &nd fuffra- ge hath, and is exemplified in that Synod Act. i?. ( this being the nec^lTary frame ef judicatories, asfuch, and confequentlv of all Church judicatories ) the mo- derator hath the fame foundation of his oirice ; but He will never let us fee a fhaddow of tnis for the prelat.' Now to ihew what ^cod Harmonie this Informer keeps in this point with iome chieffmen of his way (&c others alfo J let us hear what they hold Jnflitutum Apofiolorum de regiminei.ee lefiajiico >■ — — &eagubernationis ratio qu* in hisfirft snUver 10 his doupter , is fo unhappie ., astherin to juftle with loom chieffchampions of hiscaufe. Chap, IX. The Informer undertakes to anjwer the Argument* of Presbyterians againd Epifcopacj. His an- fwers to our Ar gurnets from CMatth. ao: x?, z6. and i Petr. 5; 3. Examined at Urge. The ge- nuine ferengtb and ntrvts of our reafoning upon thefe Texts , which he dare not medle with. His anfwers found inconfiftent with themfelves , the fame with Vapifts anfwers for the papacie , and centrart to thejenje of found divines. T He doubter in the nixt place [alleages Prelacy tor the forbidden , and therefore unlawful: bringing for proof Matth , 20: 25 , Z6, 2?, 2S. And the Argument from this text , he makes his poor doubter fienderly and curth* to reprefent tfius , That CMftfrrbids any of bit difciples to he greater then andther. This paiTage with its pa* jalld Lulc. Z2: 25. Is much fcanned betwixt thePapifts *nd us , in relation tp the popes Dominion, and as it ftriks £ 5 clearly 74- A Confutation of the Grft Dialogue clearly againft Prelacy, fo Papifts and Prelats Joe as clearly joyneiiTue in their anfwers. Inboth parages ic isapparent, that uponoccafion ofafinfull and ambiti- ous emulation among the Difciples, which of them ihould be greatefi , our Lord did fharpely reprehend them , difchargeing them exprefly the Lordly grand- our of Earthly Rulers or Princes, and to exercife Lordihipc or Dominion over one another,commending inftead thereof, and in oppofrion thereto 3 a humble }Ainifteml fervics » andfpintual diligence in their fpi- ritual itcwardfliip or Miniftery , preiEng both , from his own exemplary humility in his cenverfe with them. Now, our Argument againft Prelacy is very ftrong from this text , and hath thefe Ncrver. i. The Lord moft exprefly difcharges Superiority and inferiority among officers oftbefamekinde: Nonaregrea- ter then another in their office; no Apoftle above another, but a compleat parity in their ojficialfowcr is here holden ou: 5 ergo , byneceffary confequence, he commands a parity amongPaftoures,and difcharges fuperior and infe- rior degrees among them. 2. Whatever priority of order among officers of efferent Icindes , be allowed, yet he difcharges Dominion or yrmcipalitie in any of them , all mafierly power , fuch as is allowed in civil Governments there being but one Maftcr or Lord over the Church , and all Minifters being Brethren. This is clear, in that he mentions the civil Lordfliipe of Rulers who are called benefa^ors in exemplyfiing what he difcharges them , and likewayes in oppofition therunto, commends a bum- lie Mimfterial fervice , not a fort of warrantable Domi- nions that parallel i Pet; ?: j. Makesit evident j So thathe givesiwo deadly blokes here tothe Diocefian Lord Prelat. I. In that he malccs himfelf a higher a 'der and degree of the Paftorall office , whereas the Lord dif- charges this among officers of the fame kjnde* 2- In Lording it over his brethren (other Paftoures) both ir Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 75* in a pretended fpiritual capacities arrogating to himfel' afo'.e powerin ordination and jarifdittion , and ama* fterly power and principality over Church judicatories, (as is cleared above)and likewayes in hisafiiimeing theE> arrhlyLordfhip, place and grandoure, of civil Magi- ftrares , which is here exprefly difcharg^d. 1 his being preroifed, let us hear what this new Advocatfsyes to this Text. 1. He tels us that [ It is a great miftake to think j that ail fuperiority among Church men is here forbidden , which he fortifies 1. With this,Reafon, tba: the twelve, though equal! among themfelves, yet were fuperior to the feventyD'ifcipies who were alio font to preacher thisHe proves, becaufc Matthias who waschofen to fucceed Judas in the Apoft!eftrip, was one of them.] Anf. s. it is here convincingly appa- rent , that this man fnifces , but dare not grapple wirh this Scripture, and the argument drawn from i: > while he fcuffles in this glofTc and miftake (which is hi- &wth not oures) viz, thtit all fuperiontie is here dtfibar* gtd amvni Churchmen* ss our inference or medium a- gainft prelacie from this text, as is evident from what is faid. We grant with ail found divines , that among Church men or Church oificers, there are fuperior and inferior degrees* Firft Apoftles,fccondarly Prophets &c* Biitwe fey^that hereby fuperiority among thefe of the fame degree is forbidden , and likwayes pnncipalitie and lordship m any of them of whatever order or degree, ever another. So that we aicrot concerned to enquire* whither the Apoftles were Superior to the feventy Dif- ciplcs, or whither they were lent to preach , and not ra- ther (as fotne doe judge; intrufted withatranfienc rr.iifion to prepare our Lords accefs ro thofe places whi- ther he was to come , with out any foimallMiniftcral rnifuon above ordinarie Difciplcs. Only I mud fay, his proofe of this Superiority of the Twelve above the Seventie , is very edd ( viz. ) Matt kids waschofen one 4pftki though one of the Sevintie. Now 3 to give Scripture -jG A Confutation of the firft Dialogue light and proofe of this topick, both branches of this aflertion muft be proved from Scripture , not only that Matthias was chofen in Judas roome* but alfoand mainely, that he was one of the Seventie , wherof the Scrip- ture is utterly filent r and infteai of Scripture proof of this i wee mull take Clemens and Dorotheas , their Saidfe , which maks up zheterogenious proofe , like the feet and toes made of iron and clay, z* He tells us , That ambi- tion , and mt inequality y is here difcharged. This ane old fliift ofBettarm: and the Papifts, we fay that both ambi- tion , the root and principle of this defire , and the thing it felf which was the ebjeS of chis ambitious defire ( viz. ) Dominion, Principality , and Lordfhip one over another , is here forbidden : Subordinata non pttgnant. 'tisftrangfottifhnesinthis man to imagin, that am- bitioruthe inward principle of chis unlawful primacie or inequalities fhould be forbidden onelv, and not thein- equaKtie or primacie it felf ,the outward aft and accotr- plifhmt nt of ehisambition* Btllarml anfwer to our divi* nes argument againft the popes Supremacie from the text, is y that dominion is no* here difch*rg*d> hut raiherfip* ■pofed, an I that it is only fuch am ambitious luft of overriding as is among theKjngs of theGtntiles, that isfoi bidden Whit- taker(de Pontif: Cap: I.) Anfwcrg him^batth'ts dominion it [elf not the ambitious affectation onlyjs difcharged. Bern ird writing to Etfgew'/^&expounding rhisp3ffage,&thatof I. Pet. 5. Underftands them both as ftriking againft do^ minion, and enjoyning a Minifteriall careinoppof- tion therunto , Dominion ( faith hee ) is difcharged and Mini fiery is enjoyned y So at length he concludes afcet fe- yerall things to this purpofe. XI us Bernard dearly teaches ( faith Wbittaktde Pontif: Queft : 1. ) that humilttieis not required in dominion ( as our Informer diftinguifhes with bellarml) but dominion it felf is difcharged. But Bellar* min admitts to flay the Lords if they he modift and humble tn their dominion. Chriftus de re if fa &c. (faith furuus, de pon- tiftlib ; I-) Chrijlfaid of the thing itfelffhej exis the fame with that of the Papifts in defending the pa- pacie. But his Reafon of this his gloffemuft beconfi- dered, [viz« ] wc&uft otberwayes,our Lords argument ta- ken from his own examplev.zb*. Would not fate his purpoje , fince he was in power and authentic above the Twelve, Anf: (Not to ftay here to tell him, that this defence and glofs will equally ferve the popes turne, and bear the blow of this text off his head in Correfpond?nce with BcHarmins Notion above touched ) Our Lords fcope in propofeing his own example , is to aritidot their in- ward pride , the root of their defireof this dominion , and powerfully to commend to them humility and low lines, as the raoft excellent remedy therof: And his ai* gumentrunns a fortiori thus* If I your Lord and Mafter be as on that ferves , and am fuch a pattern of felfdeni- al and humility among you , much more ou°hr you to ftudie humility 9 2nd to guard againft all ulurped authority and dominion > over on another, whoare fellow Difciples, andfervants4Sohereafoned }oh 13* IflyourLord 3c mafter have waihed your feet,you [vizr much mere asbeing equalls] ought alfo to walh one 2no» thersfeet^fothatwhich he imagines doth makChriftsar- gument not fute well, maksit the more forcible & fuite the better. 2- He here contradicts himfelf, while making the argument from Chrifts example , v* 28. to fuite the difcharge of ambition only, not of inequality ft he terms in which he impertinently dates the difference and op- position , as to what is discharged and not difebarged ) for he grants there was to be no inequalitie araong the Apoftles 5 and when he thus limites his general anfwer [ that Allfupeiroritic among Church men is not here dis- charged] he grants ihitfimefupcriarfcic (viz,1; among the Apoftles themfelves, was difcharg€d,and confluent* 78 A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue Jy difcrnrged upon this motive Chrijis otvn example* How then j 1 pray , will he mike this argument from Chrifh example , who was in dominion and principal lity above the Twelve, andthejr, and all the Char* ches monarch and head , fuite his purpofe of difchar ging Inequality , Superioritie , or nrimaci'e among the Apoftles? Hisreafonht cxp!aines/hu> further* thatta* king Chrift onelytvfpea ^ againft ambition , or dfmful defire of [uperoritie , wbieb was Diotrephes fault , the reafin from bis own example fuites ivelhvho, though above all > yet teas , apat- titntoalltn humility* Anf. i.VVee have heard that Cbrifts argument fuites beft inthefenfewe have propounded, which is the fenfe of all found divines* 2. If it was only a finfuldefire ofa fuperioricie in ic (elf law- ful , fuchas he (ayes Diorrephes had ( rnw rational- ly we (hall after fee ) which our Lord dthorted from by bis own example, then all our divines have mift ihe marke in pleading from th s test againft the objedof this defire, not th; finfu! maner of defiling only, and the Papifrs glofs holds goodagainft thetn>viz: thatChrifcs example will plead only agcx.nfc ambition. 3. Our Zfl^«r yet ajainefalleth here into a twofold con* tradichon. 1. He makes the Superiority^ theobjeftof rhis ambitions defire, to be in ic fclfla'wfu]/ and their fault only to lie in the ambitious or finfuldeSre 5 yet in anfwer to the nixt obie#ion he grants>thatChrift dif- charged dominium civile&defpQticiirn>^\o\v)\z muft either fayjthat rhiswas the objeft of their defire3&confequent- ly that it was finfol in the objedt , or elfe that our Lords difcourfe and exhortation was not to the purpofe 5 A* gaine 3 this dornineum civile £? defpott'eum , is more then a meer fupenoritie # But i. the fupcrioritie here difchargedwas amongthe dpoftles tbemfeher&this was the objed of their defire s the ambitious queftion and de- bate was. tvhichofthem should be greateft, and higheft above all the reiK No vv he grants that tvh-re was to be nofupc r 1 or stic Upon the point of Eplfcopacie jy ricritU , farlefs principality among them; How then can he fay that Chrift difcharged only ane ambitious af- fectation of afuperioritie in it fe If lawful; fuch as Diotrephe: had, whom we will find him after afTert to hare ende* avoured to put himfelf into a lawful pre- exigent office. Surely if there was to be no inequality among them , their defire of inequality was moft Jinfulin the cb* j>3,upon that very ground. Againei he grants that Chrift fpeaksto the Twelve, and likwayes cannot deny, but clearly infinuatcs a conceffion with the text, that the A- poftles were ftriveing about inequality which he acknow ledges was unlawful mtbem, yet in the fecond anfvvcr, he will not have this difcharged ; which how inconfiftent it is, let any judge. Eefide, fince Chrift fpoke this to the twelve, among whom there was to be [ no inequality in refpedi'of power jas he fayes, & confequcntly difcharged this^fince he is rebuking them for ftriving aboiu a primacy, the higheft degree of in equality in refped: of power, how abfurd & nonfenfical is his 2d anfwer, which denies [that Chrift difcharged inequality $]couldCbriftdifcharge them an inequality of the higheft pitch, and yetnotdifcharge inequality i Or could[all inequality inrcfpe&of power] be unlawful among them, and yet not be difcharged when our Lord di(charged[a primacy of power?] he will prove a ftrang critick if he diftinguiih thefe-He tells us laftly here that humility S3 imparity can wellccnfijl. But fan humility, 5C a forbidden imparity cpnfiiVrCan humility inaChurchman3& [Dominium civile and defpoticum]confiit?Bothwhich he acknowledges w7ere difcharged to the A poftles here.So he infinuats that their defircd imparity , was fbll lawful in it felf,finceit may be poifefled cvcnbumbly, & thus heaps up inconfiftencies. He objects to himfelf JhatChnJi in denying to them, the Dominion of the Trinces oj the gentiles . difcharged aHfuperiority among Church men.To which he anfwers That he $nely difcharges - Dominium civile, &dejpcticum] aprincelyhord* ly power , juch as they excrcife % but the fiwer of the Church a sf 'another nam*. *Anf j. [ ISot to meedle with his makeing go A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue makeing Dominium civile > and iefpoticum , adequat ter* mes > \hctc being a Dominium pliticum , otdinarely contradiftinguifhed from dsfpoticum, which is alfo a Dominium civile) He grants here , that it was more then afimpledefireofalawful fueriority, which the ApoftUs were tainted with , forgeting what he laid immcdiatly before. Hixt ifChrift difcharged this civil Lordly power to Churchmen , he difcharged them to be Parliaments Lords , and to hold civil ftate offices , contrare to what he pleades from the inftancesof thcPriefts Numb. n. and from Eli & Samueh and fo he muft grant the new Te- ftament Church and its difpenfation , to be in this diffe- rent from the old, fince he acknowledges that Church p$wer was he; e allowed the Apoftles and their Cucceffors* and civil! power difcharged. Thus our Informer muft errant, that Chrift did here rid marches betwixt thefe thin<*s'which he before confounded . and their Erafti.an Prelacy confounds. Again, this is the very fhift of Bellarmin to fave the popes fuprernacie: The Lord , faith he , in forbidding them to rule as the Princes of the Gentiles , ftgnified they were to rule , but not after that manner [ viz.] EccleGafticalJy ; So he thinks it touches not the popes Ecclefiaftick fupremacy , and xh? Informer in this ftryks hands with him.For if our Lord discharged only here that kind of Dominion as he fayes ; But allowed a Church po- wer or dominion of another nature, furely for any thing that is here difcharged , ane Ecclefiaftick pop or pa- triarch his noytreftandsfure, and is never touched by any prohibition which the Difciples here got, againft the fenfe and pleading of all Pro!:eftants- Moreover , will this Informer adventur to fay that thepopes primacy, or €cclefiafiic!^Uonarchy , even asabftra&ed from his Civill Dominion 3 is not here difcharged j And if it be [ as all our divines affert it is ] then our Lord underftood another forr of abufe of power then invadeing a Do- minium civile , even all defpotick or Lordly power, thither Upon the point of Epifcopacle. 8 i whither civill,or pretended ccclefiaftickinChurch offi- cers. Befids,if he difcharged Lordly power,bedifcharg- edthar which Peter difcharged i Pet. ? . Even to Lord over Gods heritage. What? will he dare to fay that it is ,only a civiU Lordship which is there difcharged & not ra* ther ane ecclefiaftick dominion,Which bath Gods herita. ge or Church for its objeft: And if fo, then thePrelatsDo- minion is expreily ftricken againft, fince (as we have a0 bove.clearcd ) his power is a meer defpotick Lordfhip or rule^ For to be the proper objedt & fountaine of all ecclcfiaftick authority in theDiocefs,to have fole power in ordination & jurifdi&ion;the fole decifive fuffragem Judicatories,is either a dcfpotkkDomimon and Lerdship or it is nothing ; and if ihe Churches power is of another nature then thtsciviW Dominion , as this man tells us, of what nature is it? Only of another nature, becaufeic touches fpiruu*loh\etlsy Then for any thing chat is here forbidden, a papall ecclefiaftick monarchy is never touched. Or is it of another nature becaufe in itfelf Ste#4rd*likcandMimfteriaty notdefpotick or Princely, like tbatof the Magiilrat ( which is the fenfeof all found divines, andmuft be his too, ifhc fpeak fenfe ) then who fees not that the power of thePrince-orLord- P>elatismoft formally difcharged ? It being evidently of this nature. Yet againe , it is in this apparent that he (iiifees and (huffles the queftion , and its terms here , anent the power ofthePrelat and the po- wer difcharged in this text* For in faying in the begin- ningofhis An(\ver , that Chrift discharges that fad Dominion of ondy which civil Princes exercife, he mud needed be fuppofed to contradiftinouih from this » ane ecelefitftic^ Dominion which is allowed , y?t when he ipeiks of this he alters the terms , telling us [that the Churches power is o£ another nature] hefliould have faid the Churches rfervtd Dominion , if he hid fpoken confe- «jucmly,as that other kind oiVomw ion which he allowes, F and % 2 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue and by the confcquence of his difcourfe , holds that the Text will allow, Inaword, thatall fort of [Domi- nion] whither pretended ecclefiaftick , or civil , is here difcharged to Church officers, and confequently his offering violence to the Text, is apparent from the con- text two wayes. I. In that the ftrife among the Apo« les , flowing from this defire of unlawful greatnes , and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition un- der debate , was not about a civill defpotick rule; proper* (7J0row/y,butanentaLordfliipt& chief rule in the Church, aniinmatters ecclefiajlicl^, under Chrift as their heads So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he difcharged them, in that of earthly princes , ( there being no other then exiftent and apparent) yet it was n ot this primarily , but ane ecclefiaftick. Lordshippr domi* nion, which he ftrycks againftj Since he is dire&ing them both negatively and pofitively anent the nature, And exercife of their fpiritual and ecclefiaftick Au- thority and Rule. 2. The pofitive parte of his injun- ction touching aMinijierialJervice , or humble Miniflery , excludes all fort of dominion in what ever fenfe it can be taken, and not a civill dominion onely. Our Informer tells us ) nixt. That fundrie interpreters y interpret Chrifts Word*, asdifchtrgingonly T\rarmy,fuch as earthly Princes ex- ercife. A nd in this he Informers us rights Onely he fhould have been foingenuus as to tell us that they are inter- preters beyond our line , that is popifh interpreters, for this is dire&ly hcBarmins fhift , to which > fince he ftands here upon the fame ground with him , I fhall return learned Whittakprs interpretation and anfwer, which hitherto I believe hath paCTed current with all found Proteftants. Cbriftfits before them the example of the fcngs of the Gentiles , not to the end they may fixe ambition cn'y ( as this manshifts it) hue to let them underftand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule. —— For ( faith he J though the words treated [cxmife dominion or autho* j rityU Upon the point of Epifcvptclel if rity } which Matthew makj ufe of^doethfometimesfignifleim - moderat dominion, yet Luke Omitts the prep ofttion in both theft Words \ But Jo it is that the fimple verb, is attribut to theji who obtain* power and dominion , notto tbefe who indolently ani tyrannically wererule', forallthofe who among the gentiles ob~ tained principality did no tr eigne tyrannically orunjuftly, na} the Clemency of many fuch > and their juftice is payed. Thus he, de pontift Queft: i. To which I may add, that our Lord fpeakes of fuch Princes as were called Benefafto- crs or gwious Lords, a very unfuiteable defignation for Tyrannes. How eafie is it from the Informer reafoning here, and with his net to fifh out a papacy. That which the Apoftles here defired was in it felf lawful , and the fault was onely in the ambitious defire, as it was with diotrephes who defired a lawful preexiftent office: This he clearly aflerts: Ifubfum: But that which they defir^ ed , and were driving about, was a primacie or papacie^ Ergo that office is lawfull in it felf. The pope ^will thank our Informer for this* The ntxt text obje&edbyffo douhet , is that preg^ nant paflage I Pet* 5: 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage! And from this he maks him mutter out this flender ar- gument , [ is not fuperiority among Church men there clearly forbidden.] Stifl we fee our Jnfcrmer keeps him under the covert of bis own eroundlefr fuppofition , that we doe from this and fuch like texts Impugne , S«* perimty among Church men, as he terms it, whereas wee allow (as he cannot but know) with all found divines, I and fcripture it felf 5 fuperiour and inferiour degrees a- mong Church officers : And he cannot fhew that any Presbyterian did erer draw forth from this text fuch ane 'liofignificant notion as this againfl Prelacy;But hee beho- ved to make the knot eafy, fincc himfelf muft loofeit. 1 Our Argument from this text, is this , That the Apo- 'jlifti* here injoyncinj Winiftcrs their duty [both nega- F a title 84* 5 A Con futatibn of the &r ft Di alo gue tivil and politively > he firft dehorts from cvills rhcy are lyable unto , fuch as hear* relu&ancy at their iaborius employment 3 covetufnefs and ufurpation or Lord* ftnp and Dominion, whither over their fellowes, which Victrepher affe&ed, or over the people* by taking ane arbitrariemafterly imperious way wit hi hem , or a way of force and rigoure , as thefe reptehended Ezek. 34: 4. He nixt,pofitively exbortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie , Shepherd - like Method , e'xpref- fing the word of grace in their praftife. Now [ I fay ) from this genuine fenfeand fcope of the place, wee argue againftPreiacie, thus. 1. The Apoftle exhorts thefe elders orMinifters as their [fellow-elder] (uppo • ' feing them his immediat Succeflbrs in the higheft Spbeere of an? or dinar ie Miniftery,£or he fuppofes them to have non higher over them now when he was fliortly to put off his Tabernacle. 2.Hecnjoyns them to feed and take theovcrfight , or extreme Epifcopal authoritie over the flock, as Paul aid likewayes the Presbyters or elders|of Ephe- fus , in his Jaft farewel. (Aft, 20 ) a fcrybing a com- pleat Epifcopal author itie 10 them , both as to jurifdi<3i- on and ordination. 3. Yethedifcharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage , commending inflead thereof, ane examplarie humble fervice orminiftery, Hence wee inferragainft theDiocefianPrelar. 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presby rer,left by the A- poftles as their ordinary Succeflor , fince the Apoftle as their folio wPresbiter.exhorts themas the higheft or- dinary officers , andtherfor thePrelat, pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer, is Apocriphal. 2. AIL Epifcopall authority is in Presbyters , both as to ordi- nation and Jurifdi&ion , and they have both name and thing of a ScriptureiBisbop , and therefore the Prelat* ar rogating this name folely to himfelf, & all the Epifco palpowcr of ordinationandjurifduihon as his folely J and denying it to Pre$byters> isane Anti-fcripturall Monfter; Upon the point of Epifcopa:ie. gf Monftcr: Since thefe Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of thefe Elders mud exer rife a mafterty power and dominion ever the flock* therefore the Lord Prelars imperious Lordly tfotver is palpablv condemned, which he cxercifesover votb Pajlores and flock*. Now t this being our argument from this text, let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity , while reprefenringir infuch a difgttife > that be may feem able to grapple with it- Whereas we fn ill find that hisanfwers to his Argument preferred thus in its genuine ftrcngth> are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee. But what fay es he to the Argument as in his own mould. I . He anfwers Thatfuperkrity among Churchmen u not dis- charged. By [Churchmen] ifhsunderfhud in General, [Cnurch officers] (though the terme be fome what odd) wefhalieafily Admitt that this Text difcharges not fuperior and inferior degrees among them > but this will nothingfoelp his caufe, as is evident. 1 f he mean fuperiority among preachingYrefbjtcrs, or Elders>we have proved it to be here difcharged , fince the Apoftle attri- butes epifcopal Authority to thefe elders in, common-* and difcharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them. Well, what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here difcharged < domineering and Tyranny ;faith hcjvhich may be the fault ofane or dinar y'Minifler towards hisflocke. This is the oldpopifh fong made new again* to wh ch Irepontwo things. i.Theword t&mKv&d»r**s is parallelwith thatof Matth*2o. andLuk.ii. Where peter learned the pro- hibkion,and (as is faid) imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering, it being made life of by the fevcrity interpreters to expreis Dominion unqueftionably lawful. 2-The pofitive pine of the precept refines this glofs, he fayes not, No* Tyrannically domineering , but u!ing Do - minion moderatly (which ought to have been the other alternarive branch, if this mans glofs were true, and the Apoftle had allowed a lawfull Lordsbipe) but He adds for the other branch in cxpreffing what is in joy ned F 3 being S£ A Confatation of the firfl: Dialogue being examples totheflocI{. Injoyneingthus to feed by ex- ample, and a humble Miniftery s And this is oppofit to all Dominion and Lordfhip whatsoever, and doth not difcriminat only one Dominion from another 5 which is alfo apparent in the alternative branche, and pofitivs precept of the above mentioned paralcl texts* Befides we might here tell him , That the Epifcopsl prehemi- nencc, being fo many wayes crofs to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government, may be truely called a moflTyrannicalDomineereing. But the reafons of his glofs follows. He tells us, That this domineering and Tyranny may ' he the fault of arte ordinary Miniftcr towards his flack , and that the Apoftle 1$ not here [peaking of Church mens] carriage towards tne another, or of their equality or inequality amons themfelves , ^ut of 'their behaviour towards thepeople,who are called the flocks or Gods heritage. Anf. This is a ftrange reafon , and very hard to comprehend , only Tyrannical domineere- Ingmuft be underftood becaufe it relates only to the flocl^. Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy alfo? And becaufe the Apoftle forbids to Lord it over the flock, therefore he forbids noc Dominion over the Clergy; The quit contrare concluiionwill better follow : If the Apoftle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks, who were fubjedt to them as their fpiritual gui- des , therefore, a fortiori^ he much more forbids them Co Lord it ever their fellow Presbyters , who were their cqualls in this Spiritual truft and Authority over rhe flocks j And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock > it mult be much more un- lawful to Ait this Tyranny over fome Hundreds oi both paflores and flocks. So that Minifters, or ( if hi will) Churchmens carriage towards one another, mud be here clearly pointed out by a very necefTary confe- rence from the lefsto the greater, and theequalin of Miniftersin their fpiritual Government and Rule* b; he faraetopick ftrongly inferred fiomthis place. It wexe Upon rhe point of Epilcopacis. 87 ftrange that the Apoftle fhould difcharge to Lord it ever the flocks y and yer allow aLordfhip over both Clergy and flocks. But another wonder is , how he comes to cxcludMinifters from that tittle of Gods heritage , which his party (from whom our Informer here proves a fe- paratift) do often make peculiar unto [Church Ru- lers ] one would thinke that they fhould have a fpecial Intereft and ftiareinthat which grounds this deno- mination; Are they not the Lords purchafe , as well as the people Aft. 20. Nay they are in a lingu- lar manner fuch , and Chrifts glorie ; Are they not fuch as he will never caft off and alienat Pfal# 94: 14. They are the Iter rs which Chrift holds in his right hands nay , as being Angularly dedicat to him, they are Angularly his : as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a fpeciall way > So they were Angularly hi$, fctaparte for him beyond all the reft of the tribes. And are not Minifters taken from a* mong the feofle for bis Priejls and Levits ■ And called therefore men of God, ftewards of God , Minifters , Servants , AmbafTadoures of Chrift » becaufe of their Angular relation to him : And as this is a ftrong diffwaftve from Lording over the people, that they are Gci; heritage 3 who therefore moftjnot bezhefervants of men, So upon the ground of Minifters fpeciall intereft in this denomination , the Apoftles argument as to them, is the more forcible, ^gaine, Ance he fo! exprefly forbids any ot thefe Paftou- •es to Lord it over Gods Heritage ( enjoyning them a hum* >le exemplary Mmiftery ) and far lefs to cxercife a Lordly Rule over one another, he eftablifhes by clear ronfequence (as I hinted) ane equality among them , n their faftoral cjjieial power and authority > Withall, he ApoftJe fpeaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the leaft exception anireferve as to any one of them : and making their efifcopal infpeilion relate to the F 5 M 88 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue flocl^ ( as this man htmfelf pleads ) both thefe grounds hold out their equality among themselves, and inferrsa difcharge of inequality. This Iw/orrwrrj-likewayes would rem3rke that the Spirit of God here commands Fresby- terstoaHths Bishop?*) thus indentifving theBifhop and Prisbyter , but without Lordingit over Gods heritage , the prohibition not to Lord it, is remarkably joy ned with the command to Aft the Bifhop : And referring their office to the flock, he muft confefs the Apoftle ac- knowledged no "Bishops whote infpedtion wasover Pa- Jt&urs fhcmfclves. Thus we fee hisanfwer to the Argu- rnen: againit Prelacy from this Text is contrare unto thefcopeandfenfeofthe Words > yea and inconfiftenc with k (elf . Chap. X. The Informers an fivers to our At gum ent from A3, no.jtndfrom Tit. I : 5,7. Philip, itt} Ephel. 4: it. For thcidemitie of[Bishop\&[Presbyter9]win no- wed9 the infffficiencie^ and inconfifiencie thereof together with his begging of the yue/tion>difeo Bifliopand Presbyter fignifie one and the fame office bearer, that in Aft. 20: die elder; indie 17. y. are called Bimops in the 284V. So in Tit. i:?> 7. And therefor Bishop and clfcr are the fame in Scriptur, and the word elder figniftes no more then a Miniiler of a particular Congregation] Hser he tou- ch's' Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 8 dies a parte but not rhc ftrcn^th of our argument from thefe texts. We argue not meerly from the Samcnes of tbeXamestbut the identitie of all the ejjsntialer of the office, Dunes , and Qualifications of the office bearer expref- fed by thefe names>when applied to ane ordinarie office bearers Particularly f.om A&. 20. \?e diaw forth thefe weapons- 1. The Apoftle fpeaking to the ci- ders, tells them that the holy ghoft had made them [Bf- ftiopes over the flock,~iliewing chat the Scriptur Bifhop fctupby theholy ghoit 5 is the Minifter or elder who feeds and rules over the flock, 2, The Apoftle gives them nor only the Name of Bifhop , but alfo the thing, commanding thefe elders or Minifters tinsxeirti, and tt**- f&HiulrnitxMto*f'r*®** which takes in all thepowerof order and jurisdiction > and whatever the Diocefian Bifhop may pretend unto. g. f Which is very rernar* bable) he gives this Charge fo thefe elders beforTimot- hy, who was now prefent with the Apoftle, and after the firft Epiftle was written to him , for it was writtin when Paul was at Macedonia , and after this Paul have- ing Timothy with him came to Mikturn, and gave the elders of tphefus this cDarge. Finallie. This was Pauls loft charge to them, for they were never to fee his face mores Sojthat we have here a pattern of the mould of the GofpeN Church in relation to Govern- ment as this great Apoftle of die Gentiles left it , and confecuentlie as 2II the reft left it, which is coovin- ceingly apparent by comparing this with the parallel 1 Pet. 5. compared with 2 Pet. 1: 14. Hence we ex- terminat the Diocefian Prela: thnar. 1, The Holv Ghofts Bifhops were Minifters which he fct up to feed andfrule thefiock immediatIy.Thefe3and thefe only.the Apoftle and the Apoftolick Church knew, therefore he diflownes thePrelat , who pretends to be fee over fomc hundreds of Paftoures and flocks , and is bound to 'feed noflockehimfelf. 2. Thefe who' watch over the F 5 flocks 90 A Confutation of the fi r ft Dialogue flocks immediatlj , 4wJ oji/jf , have all the Efifcopal power, both the key of do&rine, and Government committed to them by the holy Ghoft : Therefore the Diocefian Preht, taking and arrogating to hi mfc\£ the file p$wer of ordination and jurifdiBion , and leaving Presbyters noth- ing bur the DoEhinal key,as his deputies, while he him- felf preaches to no flock , is ane Antifcriptural Sacri- legious robber* 3 . The elders or Paftoures of Ephefus got all Epifcopal authority as to orderj and jurif- di&ion, committed to them by Paul as the Holy ghofts Biihops,& thehigbeft ordinarie officers ofthatChurch, in tne prefence ofTimotkie, without the lead hint of any intereftthatTwwffa'ehadinor over them, as their Bi- fhope or Overfeer therein, or theleaft hintofany di- rection anent their dune io Timotbie asin thatCapaci- tie , and this after he had gotten aU his directions in the u Efijlle written to him. And therefore limothie was ne- yer fee up as a Diocefian Prelat over that Church fas this Informer would perfwace) and the infpeftion which he is fuppofed to have in that Epiftle,was occa- fional, tranfienc> and extraordinarie, and by confe- rence layes no ground for Prelade* FinaHie, Paules direSionsheve were his laft and far etv el directions ^ there- fore this Church was to continue thus governed by thefe elders or Bifhops in common : and the Prelatifts Plea .[that the Apoftles fetup Presbyters at firft, keeping the reyns of Government in their own hands, till to war- des the end of their life, and then fettup Prelats over thefe Presbyters] is here convift of fatfhood, fince nei- ther Paul.nor Peter , the great Apoftle of the Gentiles , or the great Apoftle of the Circumcifion , doe in the leafthint any fuch Super- inftitution , but both ofthesi in their laft dire<5tions to the Churches, commit the wholl power both of order and jurisdiction,*) the Yaftou- res of the flocks , in common , as the only Bifliops fct up by the Holy Ghoft. From Upon the point of Epifbpacie 9 r From iTim.ii: 5> — 7. The great Argument is not only from the fromifcuoufe ufe of the Name[3ifhop]5c rpf esbyter] bat from the forme and mould of the Apoii- lesrealoning; which inferres not onely the id-nticieqf names* but of the office alfo* For the Apoftle fhewing Tiuus how the elders are ro be qualified , gives this re- afons for a Bishop mufi heblameles. This [y&g or ciufal For] exprefling the knot and connexion of t.ieApoft- les argument or reafon, doth clearly Import that the of- fice, expreffed by both thefe words 5 is one and the fame ; for there is neither found matter or forme > in fuch reafonmg as this [ Presbiters muft be fo andfo qualified, becaufea Bifhop>of a Superior order and decree muft be fo qualified] So that from h^nce it is evident that the [elder] is the [ Biihop], fi? vice verfa^nd that no higherBifliopes wcreb-y^hcApoftles conftitut in the Churches . Here then , as in the preceeding [text , we have not only Bifhops and elders getting the fame defignationby the Holyghoft (who knewbeft the na- ture of the things themfelves , and how to exprefs himfelf thereanetst ) but likewayes the fame qualifi- cations , tvor!^ , and office ; and fo the office is f uppofed to be every way ooe and the fame. Now let us hear, what he (ayes to the argument* [He grants that the two words oftentimes doc point out one and the fame officer , but denyes that the officer meaned by thefe words* is never underftood above the degree of ane ordinarie Mtrdfter. Or that the word [Presbiter, or elder] fignifies only the Minifter of a fingle Congregation,& no more.] The in- fufficiencie aftd prevarication of which anfwereuident- ly appears. Fori. He grants that ihefe two words Bishop and elder fignifies one and the fame officer , oftenti- mes , fuppofeing that fometimes they exprefs diverfe officers, but where can he fhew us that the word Epif- copus fignifies one officer, and Prwfefranother , whea iiie Spirit of God is pointing outthcrby the Churches (landing pi A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue. ftanding Officers and Minifters, and not when either the one or the other is in a gener all fenfe applyed to ane Apoltle. 2. The ftate of the Queftion is [whither the fcriptur tm^ov^ defigne a higher ordinaryofficer then a Presbyter ] And this Informer ihould have adverted, that the drift of the argument from the texts mentioned, is to prove theApoftles promifcuous ufe of thefe words in describing the office ofthc higheft ordinary office bea» rers in the Church. tMoreover,tfre Dioce(ian[EpifcopusJ is ane ordinary officer,haveing the infpeclion over fome handcreds of flocks , a«d the fo!e power of jurifdi&ion and ordination in the dioceffe, & is by him held to be ane offcer of Gods appoint ment , & by this defigna* rion of B*yj^,as the Charafteriftickofhis office 3 is di- ftinguiftied from ?aftoures ox ciders. Now, if prefby- terians doe prove that wherever the word htfhof is ufed to point at ane ordinary Handing officer in the Church , it imports 4 ptftor er presbyter & no higher officer, they fufficiently over throw the iiocefian Epifcopus or Bifhop of his mould, as having no fcripture warrand. And if he grant that in the forementionedScriptures, 5c other paf- fages where the word Bifhop is ufed to point at a neceffa- rie Handing Church officer , itfi^nifieth no higher of- ficer then ane elder or ordinmc Minijler > he grants enough againfthimfelf , & all that the prefbiterians de- fire t for there from ft followes neceflarly that their dhct/fanEpifco/usorEifbop contradiftinft from, & fu% perior to the preaching prefbyter, is apochriphal 5c antifcripturallrSince th* preaching prefbyter& Bilhop, are the fame ordinarie higheft officer in all the Holy Ghofts exprsfllons theranent. 3. Whereas hedenyes that we con prove [That the officer meaned by thefe wo- rds> is never underftood of any above the degree of ane ordinary minifrer] Let him add this necelTary limitation [ when.the words are applyed to defigne ane ordinary (landing officer ( which he mult admit , if he fpeak to put- Upon the point of Epifcopacie* $ 3 purpofcj and theproofe is very eafy ] fince the fore- mentioned Texts, and all the parallels where e/deror Bishop \s thusufed, doe evince it. Again 4. Since this Informer with his followes have diversified the Bishop from the elder in the manner above expreft, we diall- ing him as theaffirmer , to ftiewin all the newTefta- roent where the officer meaned by this Word Epifco- pus or Bishop* when pointing at ane ordinary ftanding officer in the Church 3 is to be underftood of any above the degree of a Bresbyter or Btftor of a con- gregation 3 This lyes upon him to mak good, elf« if Epifcoputs denotte only a Bresbyter , fure the cau- fe of the Diocefian Vrelat is loft. He fortifies his anfwer with two Reafons-i We find then*me[elderlgfven t$ theApofllesthemfelvcs iPetl^.i. \ohn.i. 1. 6? Epifl. pil j^ndifApoJllesbecalIed{elders]tvhynotAlfo[Bishops}y Anfx 1. The pointe debeateable is [ wherher the word [Bifliop j and [elder] doe Import the fame officer 5 when ap- plyed to a conftant ftanding officer in the Church. ]His Prefbyterian doubter offers the forementioned Texts to prove this , and he anfwers , That one of theft names' are fjmetimes attribut to ane extraordinary rffictr whofeformaloff.ee u ceafed. Now how impertinent this^is to ihe pointe and Quefton let any judge ? To prove that E fife opus or Bi- fhop,imports-ane ordinary ftanding officerabove [a Pref- by ter, ]and that the Word Bishop and Presbyter fignify not the fame ordinary officer? because fomctimes the Word elder may beapplyedto zne^poflle, is a confequence , asweufe fofay , abac'uload angulum, and known to no logik. 2. We told him already that we prove enough %againft him when we prove chat the Scripture - Episcopus, orBpshopiis never found to Import any ordinary officer a- bove the Presbyter , and that the Office, Work , Qua- I lifications , & Duties of thefe officers, as ordinary dand- ling officers, are one and the fame* 3. The Jnftance of \he Apoftle$ affurneing the name of elder , doth in this 9* A Confutation of the firft Dialogue further appear to be ane impertinent exception to the Argument adduced, in that the office of ?neA/?$/?/e, is in Scripture both by a proper name, work , qualifica- tion) > call, &c. diverfifiedanddiftinguifhed from that of ane crdinary elder; fo that though in a general fenfe the Jpoftles be called elders, their Spectfick difference from the ordinary elder is apparent: But this Informer will never fhew the leaft veftigies of the Diocefian hvbops diftinftion from the preaching elder orPrcsbyter in any of thefe re£ pe#s?And therefore his reafon added here viz. TheBx. hop may be called ane[elder]as well as ane Apoflle, and yet he\ane &fficerfuferiortohimtiszbcg%ingo(the Queftion,fince he cannot fhew that there is a higher ordinary officer then a Pajler orPrcsbyter appointed in theWord,nor can hefhew any deflation, qualification, work, or ordination of his Diocefian Bishop> as diftinguifhed from the Presbyter by the Prelatifts; And therefore the Apoftles being cal- led elders can no more ground a diftindtion betwixt the Bxbopznd theelder, then betwixt the Paflor and the el- dcr. whomheacknowledgestobeoneandthefame, or betwixt the Minifler and the elder* I fuppofe one fhould alledge thePzslcr to be a higher officer then the preaching elder and Presbyter , notwithftanding that in Scripture their names , and qualifications are one, as of the Bttkop and Presbyter, and fhould ground his opinion on this Informers reafon here , ( viz- ) [ that though the two words are profnifcuofly ufed often times of the fame of- ficer, yet the officer meanedby oneof thefe may be fomtimes underftood ofoneabove the degree of ane or- dinary Minifter] what will he fay to his own reafon, pleading for this foolifh diftin&ion ? Would he not fay that the [Apoflk] and [elder] are elfewJiere clearly diftinguifhed on Scripture, not the Paflour and the elder , which anfwer he muft here beftow upon himfelf. Sure this man will not deny but that the various Church of- ficers both ordinary and extraordinary have their proper fin Upon the point of Epifcopacie, $? formall office is deciphered,and diftinjuiflicd from other offices and officers, As Apoftles, Prophets > Evange- lifts? Paftors: and particularly he will not deny that there is fuch ane ordinary Church officer as the Faftor or Vresbyter, diftinguifhed by his proper defignation from others , notwithftanding that the Apoftles took this name in a general fenfe : So that from this it followes that if the Bishops proper defignation, work, ordina- tion , qualifications, as diftinft from a Vrefbyten cannot be produced, hemuft bealwayes underftoodin that fenfe (viz.) ane ordinary Paftourand no more: And not as the Affiles when termed elders, whofe diftindi Sul perior operand proportioned defignation , is clearly extant in Scripture. Hiszd. Reafon and exception to the Argument is that with us the word [eliUr]fignifies both the preaching, and ruling elder , and that he can, upon as good, and bitter ground fayjbatitfigrtifies the[BHsb6p]& tbe[Minifter]both being elders^ but of different degrees Anf. I. When he fhall make as evi- dent from Scripture > the Ditcefian Bishopts diftin&ion from, and Superiority unto the Faftor or Fresiyter^ishop or MinHler of a congregation , as we have fbown the fuperiority of thepreacbingelder, above therulemgelderand the diftm&ion of the one from the other , then his pa- rallel will pafs current, but till then it is ameer non- fequitur. The Scripture clearly diftinguifhes, as we have feen5 the elder that rules only, and the elder that both labour estn ike word and doBrine, and rules alfo , clearlydi- verfifying the offices, and allowing honour to the one above the other. Now , let this , or any thing like this, befhown as to the Diocefian Bishop and Presbyter- Bishop, where will this I nformer point us to fuch a tiftis** B'ton ofBifhopSfQr their office and honour as there is here of the elders} Nay, fince in all dii e&ions as to peoples obe- idience to Paftors? their is not the lead intimation of hi$ iuppoftd different degrees of paftours we ftrongly con- clude 3 from the Scriptures clear fpecifying of different offices, A in the ApoitolicJuymes , we need notdetermin as to our defence here) and untill he prove that either of the na- mes doe fignifie a higher ordinary officer (which will bcaicaUndas Gracas) the argument ftands good againft him. We may here mind this Informer that hereafter be alledges that 2 Tim. 4. The Deaconta or Dtaconfhip is , in a general fenfe attribut to Timothy ane Evangelif}, yet heweuld reject it as ane abfurd inference to conclude from this that there are dijftrent degries of deacons allowed or appointed in Scripture. Which notwithftanding is bis own consequence here , and the ftrength of his anfwer to the premifed Argument. As for what he adds. That Bifavpstvere afterwards fornetimes celled? rejbyters ofthe'r Churches >tbogb unqueftionablyBifaops in his fenfe jn nmbtm- ranee Upon the point of EpifcopaciV pft leranccGftheindiffurencie of the names in the times of 'the ne& Teftament, though they were ordlnarly called Bishops, We fay itis certanc that the firft fuppofed Bifaops , named in the pretended Catalogues frorrbthe Apoftlesand E* vang^Iifts(of which afterward) were war Presbyters; and ifthev were called Presbyters m rememberance of the newTeftament tymes, the more guilty were they who afterward made the wordBrifcopfcontrare untorhenew Teilament times and language) the Chara&eriftick of one office Superior to a Pdflor or Presbyter , and the rather iruhat whereas the word Presbyter or elder is feverall times afTumedby the Apoftles in a general fenfe, the word Efifcopus or Bff&opalwayesdenots ane ordinary Pa- per (if we except that Epifccpattum AQli. Which oar translators on the Margin renders office or charge in z general fenfe)fo that when Prelats ambitious invention was upon the wheel", itfeemsthey ihould racher have appropriat ro;themfei vesthe word Presbyter or elder, a fit defignation for Fathers of the Church, as this man calls them. Th? doubter, nixt offers ane Argument againd prela- ciefrom Philip- I. [where the Apoitle fpeaks of pjishops in the plural number in that Church, who were only Minifters, fince there could not be many Sir* 'bepr cvj Minifiers in that inChurch.)v;e fhail take up here with this hint ofargument, paly adding, tbatbycon- ftffion of Prelaeifts , there was never in onecity more then one P #/; even when the inhabitants were all pro- jfeiTed Chriftians , much more here where the genera- litie of the inhabitants were Heathensand theChrifti- ansbuta fmall remnant ♦ So that the Apoftles falut- ing here the I tsbdfs in the plurall number , Bishops of that one Church of Philippi , and con tracillin gin thing them from th- Dsacons whom h~ immediady fubjoyns Jto mem, he mult needs be understood of the Pafi cures , kndPresbnersi ax the hiehef; ordinary officers of thac G Church $3 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Church. To anfwer this Argument? th? Informer hathgathercd together feveral fcrapesand fomevery odd and inconfiftent notions, i » He tells us that Am* brofe takes theje Bishops t Hot to be the Bishops at Philippi , but certan Bishops prefent withPaut when he wrote, & in whofe name he writs to the Vhilippians , joining them with himjelf. But thisglofs , as it is crofs to the current of expofito- res, (bto common feafe* Paul, who only was the Spirit of Gods penman , joyns here Timothie with him- felf in the infeription 3 as in feverall other Epiftles , and having taken tohimfclf, andTimothie,thedefig-. nation of Servants ef Ckift , he doth nixt after this defcription of: himfelf and Timothie, according to his ufual Methode , defcribe thefe to whom he writes* (viz.) [to all the Saints inChrift Jefus which are at Philippic with the Bi(hops and Deacons ] viz, there, at fhilippi, not with Paul, they being ranked among thefe to whom be writes , who are contradiftinguiflied from Paul and Timotfy , the direUorsofthe Epiftle, and fuppofedtobe with thefe faints at Philipp; Jtherwa* yes there is no fenfe in the Text to read it thus , Paul andTimothius , to the faints at Phiippi , with the Bishops with Paul. Had the Apoftle joyned them with him- felf ,as he doth Timothy,m the inscription, they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verfe toge- ther vvich him, and not caft after the adrefs, and the defcription of thefe to whom he writes. The Apoflle -inGaU i. After he hath defcribed and aflerted his Apoftolick authorise, he nixt adds , and all the brethren that are with me, to the Churches ofGalatia. Thus he takes in many with himfelf in this inscription , before he defcribe thefe , to whom the Epiftle is addrefled, And fhould not thefe fuppofed eminent Sifliops havebcen lifter this manner joyned with him; Befids will any fay that the Deacons, joyned with thefe Bishop in the period of this verfe, were not at Philippe © belon Upon the point of Epifcopacie.' 99 belonging to that Church , but with Paul ? But they are mean men5and their credit needed not to be lived by fuch a conceit as this. All the fear of that Father was , lead thefe Bishops at Philippi, be found meer Presbyters' of that Church s And how to ward off this blow, hoe opus hie Ubor eft. Well, what fuither anfwers he? He tells us nixt. That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about ,coyrveened at Philippic, which Paul knowing ofyfalutcsth.mwith the Church* Since he firfi falutes [the Saints ] as intending mainely to write t$ them; and then [the Bishops- ) So wee fee the Prelatifts faile every point ofrhecompafie,tofavethe credit of thefe Bishops. If Bishops cannot begotten fett befidethe chaire with Paul, when addrefting the Epiftle ( this glofs (landing clearelyantipod to the Text ) the nixt fhiftis , rather then thefe Bishopsbt degraded to meer Presbyters ,to fend for fome other Bishops to Philippi at this tyme of Paules Writing , that this casual Muftere. of Bi- fhops oj other Churches* may warde off the deadly blow which the caufe will gett, by featin^ all thefe BifliopsatPhilippie, as officers of that Chuch,- and to compafsthis defigne> they muft be but occafienally Jaluted here, and not as fixed members or officers the- reof; upon the Apoftles Information (comeing to late to his ears from our Jnfirmer and his fellows,) that there *werefeveral Magnates there , befides the ordinary ?rc{- byters at Philippi. But, which alfo odd, thevmuft become fo humble as to fall behind the Saints, the per* fons mainely written to. Had our Informer left out this claufe ( which notwithftandinghisanfwer did require) Oar Prelats Parliaments order, Who are before, becaufe behind the mod, would have faved their reputation Hill. But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous , Thodoret confefles that Presbyters arehere understood, becaufe their could not be many Bitbops in one city , on Philip, f'j Oecumenim , on Philip* 1. Tells us > That we are not ji G z toun+ io o A Confutation of tbe fir ft Dialogue to underfland it as if thereiVer: many Bishops in one citty, but {hat the Apofile calls the Presbyters, Bishops. Chnfoft. ibid. cknowice^ejs , That they tvere Presbyters who were called .bus , becaufe the names were then common and the bishop rimfelf was called Deacon , and that the difiwtlion of names camc afterward. Tnis conjecture is fib to chat other fhifc totakeotf(heftrengthof our argument, from Aft. 20. vify [That thefe EKiers;'were not Church Officers of E- ph jfus oneiy, but the Bifhops of all Afia mett together at Ephefus , and Jent for by Paul from thence ] lead if the Epifcopal authority be found feaced in thefe Elders if Ep'rcfuf ; at Pauls iall firewel, it breake thtDocefian PrelatzM'm peeces. But as it is wellreplyed thatfince Paul fent to Ephefus for the Elders of thcChurch , it is 2 groundless conje^ure to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he fent, and ihar there is EO hint in the text of any other Elders ;here at that time Sothisfancieis as fond when apply ed to this paftage , and may receave the fame reply. What fhiddow of proof can be produced tha- therewere any other Offi- cers thereat this time then the Bifhops or Minifters of this Church / And what Logick , I pray > orfenfe is there in this inference, that becsufe the Apoftle firn; flutes , all the Saints or the Chureh collcclive in bullae , and then the Church Officers > Misloops and Veac-ms , or the Church leprefenuative in (pedal, that therefore he falur^s rhere Church Officers as cafuaBy there » and not as Officers of that Church* Befide, had the Apoftle faluted them as cafudly prefent , they would have been falu- ted with every Saint inChritt, Chap. 4: *i. rather then in the infci ipt-ion. The English Annotations thus fenfe it [,-That by the Bishops and Deacens, we areto underftand the whcleMintirery arFbilippi confiding of Presby- ters , to whom the government of the Church was committed ^ and Deacons 5 who pot only bad the care of Upon the point of Epifcopacie to* of the poor , but aifo afiiftcd the Minifters in their Ec- clefiaftickfin&ion.] But o'-ir Informer hath a third Anfver , wherein, H; grants that thsfe Qisbopr and Deacons tvere [Officers tf this Church) ani as!{?s where wtre the ruling Elders ] here , and */** flj thy arc includedin the word -3iih>r> , then he tells us that upan better ground he c^naffir me , that Bishpsheufi^ nines' loth the fuperiour bishop and the ordinary Minijier , who maybe called Bifhopas wellzsEpaphroditus is ci^i- kdane[^pjf/^.] Anfo. I. Our Argument from this placcfariaiachlike, bdide the Scriptures filence as to the Dhcefian ?isbopy is , That the Scripture bishop doth therein (land fodefcribed and qualified, chatitisim- poifibe- to und'-rfhnd himofany other officer then a merr Presbyter, which is moft manifaft here. It being impoilible that a multiplicity of Sifhopes could beat P.iilippi > a> is univerfally acknowledged. And if he grant that thefe Bishops were officers- of that Church in Philip- fiy hemuft either fay they wevemeer Preebyters 3 which is all wee fe'ek , and the yeeldin^oflus caafe» orhe inurt prove that either here or els where 3 the word Bpifcopus or Bishop defignes the diocefian Bishop , and place a multiplicity offuch Bifhops here againit the old Cannons, particular!? that of Kice. Buti. As co whathefayesof x\\erukingelders,\x. is utterly impert'-. nent and ■ anfwered already. We proved the ruling elders office , as diftmdt from zhepreaching elder , by cle- ar Scripturegrounds , and didihew that the Scripture points ou' twoforts of elders, giving them both this gene-" ral! name'oFe/^r,& then difti nguifhine them into fueh as rule* and fucb as lahour in the word and doctrine: But this Informer will never prove thit [ Epiicopus, or Bifhop] d-fi^nes twoforrsof Paftors a higher and a lower, or that there is any difference of degrees in the pafl oral of- fice* So that he cannot indudehere hisSupcrior imagina- rie Bilhoo of whole office the Scriptureis utterly filent. C5j As ix>%* A confutation of the firft Dialogue A*wemay5 the elder in the Bishop. And till he make the Diocefian Prelatjappear in Scripture, we muftftil] hold than whenMtTii/fett are called Bishops, they ger the proper jpectficl^defignatim, and chara8eriftic/{cf their office, &are not called 10 in a general figurative , fenfe or Catachre- ftice , as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apoftle, ormefTenger. But how ? viz. rheir mefienger fent to Pdul,who minijiered to his wants > Phil, z: 25 . So 2 Cor. 8; v.23. Titus and others are called the ^pofilesanJmeJJin' gersofthe Corintbianes viz (as it is there innmat ) in chat buflines of the colle&ion for the Saindb at Jerufa- lem, for which end they were fent to the Coumhi- ans- So the Spirit of God in Scripture, both in holding out the diftinft office of Apojlk properly fo called ( for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make dif. ferent degrees of hpoflles as he doth ofPaftors ) and like- ivayes in the very mannerof rhefc defignations, and their circumftances, when atribut to fuch inferiour of- ficers , doth ftatethe diftinChon betwixt them and ane Apoftleinhis proper acceprion , clearly holding cut that they had neither name nor thine of the apaftolick office properly fo called, but that Minifters are foimpo. perly only called Bishops, He will never prove* But tiowivhatis hislaft fhift ? ltmaybe (faith he) their svereno bishops fettled as yet at PJxhppie, & fo it may very well be. But our lnf$rmer here fuppofestwo things in Queftion which be will prove ad caknddtgweas- t% 1hat\their tvcrcBishops>fuperiour in office & degree to? resly* ttrs>appointedby the /.poftles. The finrand fecond Anfwer tells us of BUhops (he means diocefian Bifhops ) ei- ther with Paul when he wrot to Philippi « Or come from their dioccflTes( forfoothj and prefent acci- dentally there: Andhavemg told osthat the diocefian Bishops were among the reft of the Prtsb)ttrsP>nhops\x\ bis third anfwer, His laftfbiftis , that they were not at may be, yet fett up at Philippy Bat renwl^, that as all Upon the point oi Epifcopacie, I o$ as all thefe pouus like ihifts and anfwers contradicts one another, So they all lean upon this Egyptian reed, that the DiocefianBisho^ is ane officer divinely appointed , and then exiftant. Now , how impertinent dealing ihis is , let any judge. We prove from this and many fuch lfke texts , that the fcripture Bifhop is a meet presfo- ter y they in all there anfwcrs doe coy neplofles of thefe Texts, which doe fuppofe the ]us ££ exijlence , of the diocefian prelat,which is the very qutfitumfc the thing iri Queftion. 2. He fuppofes tnat the Bifhop over presbyters (the Chimaera of his own braine) though he was not fettled at thistyme i yet was to be Settled after - tvard at Phtlipps. But how proves he that the Apoftle was to fe tie after' ward fuch a prelat there? This is ano- ther of their fhifts, that the A poftlesnrft feu up pre- byters , keeping dill the government of the Churches in their oun hand , ullatlaft towards ihcir end they fett up prelats, committing the government totherru But how doth he or they prove this afcer-inftitution of thediocefian Bifliop? we have already abundantly evinced the Contrary, both that the presbyters were the higheft ordinary officers eftablifhed by the Apo- ftles , & that without any fuch fancied referveasthis is , the wholl power both of order & jurifdi&ion was committed to thcrn, & exercifed by them, & fuppofed by the Apoftlestocontinowfoin their laft farewclles to the Churches: andthcrfor may conclude that the Bishops of Philippi were meer presbyters ;: and that Paul ac- knowledged , & knew no other. Arnold: in his LuxinTinebr. : (on A&; 20. 17-H* eaVedtbc elders , &c. reprcfents the Orthodox opinion 1 thus y kpjfcopos &Presbyteros , &c That Bi- fhopsand Presbyters are not names of diverfe gifts in the Church, but of one and the fame office , becaufe they who are here called Presbyters , verfe 28. are cal- led Bifhops. The Papifts objed ( faith he as this 1 04-^ A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Informer that in thefe times the nxmes were common,' but yet the [office] of Bifhops and Presbyters diverfe. heanfwers i. This is toaffirrne,not to prove 2. When officesaredilrinci, there alfo the names arc diverfe, ?. there was one off.ee bothjof Bifhops andPresby ters vi z+ the office of teaching. 4. Upon the Papifts fuppofiti- on there can and oug.hr to beonly one Biiliop in one ci- ty ? but To it is that there were here many, therefore L Bifhops] fignifiei[Presbyters.]Thus Am§ld. clafTes our Informer among the Papifts in this point*, and repre- sents our principles as the Orthodox principles ofrht Protectant Churches, and fo in feveral other paffages as we may after fheu% Chamier , (de Oecnm: Pontif: lib.io. cap. 3.)Haveingrcprefentedthe Papifts gloffes npon Matth. 20. —if [ the Kings of the Gentils] &c. ! the fame with our Informers, viz. That our Lord discharged' anly that fort of Tyr47inkatDomination,&hzvc'\n arjdhaveing proved PrcsbV-' ters power in ordination, from [ their impofcing of hands upon Timothy], he afterward confuts the Pa-, pifts,(& thislnformers) pretences forPrelacyfrom the Government of the jewifb Church, &: the Apoftles .Su- periority to the fc verity difciplcs: and adducing Bel- larmin'sargumentfromthispaflage (aft, 20: 2$. ) to prove that the Holy Ghoft feet up Bifhops, he anfwers thus - loctfsexaElisalicnuseft , tkc.—~~~ that place of tbea&sisimpertii>eatly cited, for from thence it is, evident that Bifhops and Presbyters are the fame, Wit-r nes \erom. and others , for they whom Luks before cal- led elders, or Presbyters of the Church , thofe Paul afterward affirmw to have been made Bifhops by the Spirit Upon the point of Epifcopacie* t o j Spirit, and indeed for feeding, 2nd ( as the latinc In- terpreter) for governing the Church, J" So we fee Cba • rnitfi daffeth alfo our Informer among the P^pifls in rhofe hisprelauck principles and gloiTes upon tho'e Scriptures. Calvin uvonTir. ir 7. -Ccllefts the iden- tity of Biftop 2nd 'Presbyrcr,frora the Ap oftlt' 6 casing them fythois, who were before called Frcslyters, and (as we heard above) reprehends, upon this ground, rhe diftinftion placed betwixt rhem , as profane and 2n:i- fcriptural.The fame he inferrs upon .A ft. 20. where the Presbyters of Ephefus are called Bifrops , makeing our irjbftr.efi g*eat topick anenr the'calhV-g of fuch Minift ers Bifhops , quijrtmas tencbdrb infingulis civitati* his, cr.had a precedency in every city, a ctrrufticn \ andfin cfthofe times. TheVutch armzt * on Act. 20: 28. dbferve that thofe termed Vi-fops in this verle,* being called elders in the 17. verfe 1 it doth then appear that m the Holy Scripture there is no difference made be- twixt elders and Bilhops.] referring us to Phil, i* 1 verfe, upon when palTage they sfiert the fame thing: and efpecially from the plurality of fuch Bifhpps. m one and the fame Church , conclude tfijs, referring us to I Tim. $♦ 1. verfe* and Tit. I chap..^ 7» v. upon which places they obferue , th# by bishop an-' \ Elders mi \inde ofivUniftry is fignifiid > viz. the labcr' irefs 'in the woraand doctrine > citeingi Tim. 5: /• 2 Pet. 5 : 1, 2. and from the ApoftJes description o.Wff Bifhop in the 1 Tim. 3. they conclude thc }Sf) Bishop we are to underftand a!! teachers of the Chu^Wtb- out difference , referring again to the fbrerP'ml0ned places. The english annot. expreffc the far*e fenfeof thefe places under debate , and up<*. Acts it. 30, v. adduce both fathers and councells to prove this po;nt- 7 TheNixt Scripture argument wtich the Doubter bin ;s asainft prelacies and thcLafttoo, is taken * ° ~ ■ r C k from 1 06 A Confutation of the firfi: Dialogue from Ephef. 4. 11. [where | the Apoftle reckons up Church officers, & makes no mention of Bijkopf] *Our argument from the Scripture enumeration of Church officers here, and in the parallels i.Cor. xz: 28. Rom. i2:tfi7>Sj Isthis[That the Holy Ghoft therein de- ferring purpofly the various kindes of Church officers, and (peaking of the office ofthepaftour, makes no diftinftioncjf^ higher and lower pafteur , nor ^ives the leafthintof either Name or thing ofadioccfianprelat^ although both ordinary and extraordinary officers1, be enumerate even the ruleing eUer and the deacone: from which filence of the Scriptures to this imaginarie Bif- hop, weconclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting, by the fame reafon that our divines conclude the pope tobefuch. To this our Informer anfwers. 1. "That it is ill reaftning , that beeaufe fach one offiber is not in fuch a particular place x or* enumeration , that therefor he is no]where to be found in ftriptvre 3 for how prove we that the A pojile intended in that places cempleat enumeration Ans: he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here , whillmakihg-his Doubter inftance in this place mly> as if we held , that there ishere a full enumeration % vherashe cannot bnt know that pfesbyterians in this rgument againft prelats , as alfo proteftants in oppofi- f^ntothe papacie, do^ > together with ibis paffage, J°>the parallels. 1. Cor. 12:28. Rom. 12: 16. In whivj piaces collated, there is found a compleat , enutr^auon 0£ajj Church officers ordinary, or extra- ordinav^ and adifcoveric of their duties, and gifts who areordilxry officers,even of the very|Da*aw..Lyk*vaye$, we take h. with thefe Texts , the feveral defec- tions of ordi^ry officers , and particularly of the Bif boP j &hisgifcs>nd duties , found in any other places of rhenew Teftan^ment. And fiuce this informer can- not deny the Apples, or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a fa enumeration in thefc places Colla- ted Upon the point of Epifcoptcie. 107 ted (Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found) our argument from the Scriptnres utter filence of the Diocefian prelat in all thefe places, ftands firmeby his own Confeffion, uncil he ihall di (prove this filence and prove the Contrary. 2. Wee might tell him alfo > that upon hs otvn ground > even theSilen- ce of this Text as to the Prelat , will prove our point ; for it being upon the one hand the Apoftlesfcop to enumerat the mojl illuslrous excelling gifts and [offices given by Chriftto the Church, for her'giou'th and Edifica- tion , as his royal Mediatoric Donations upon his af* cention into heaven : and upon the other hand ^ the Apoftle descending as low in his enumeration , as the Paftor , and teacbdr , whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to thcDiocejian?relat ^Cerzzinely upon both chefe grounds, he would have mentioned him in order to this (cops , had fuch ane officer been allowed or ap- appoinced. And as for this Text , it is enough if we prove that the Apoftle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all, yet of the moll excellent fun&ions sjkJ officers given by Chrift to his Church 3 amongft which the Diocefian Bishps office bath the prime place in this mans Judgement. How then ( 1 pray) can he behereommitted, and ane inferior officer name^, His 2d. Anfwer ii. That Bishops are comprehended unler [pasloures]and teacbersBisbops being fuch though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pasloures* Ant. &&>thsLzSeriptwc&if- hops are comprehended nnder the pattor and uacher > ucertan, but that the Dwof diftind&rofficers offices,*if they had not all there proper dittinS names anddejjgna- tims. loS A Confutation of the firft Dialogue tions. A ad fince A pottles , Evangelifts, Paftors , are proper deflations ofdiftinft officers, an J offices, why ought not theDiocefianBijbop :o have had h;s proper epithet 3 and to have come in between the fcvangehft.and the Parlor > For this was his proper ClafTe as the higher Church officer. Againe , ThisanOver and fliifristh* fame with that of the papifts to fave the rope, for rhe/ anrwer our divines Argument Foti this Text, thatheis included in the ojftc: oj 'the\Apoftle. But as we rell them thic according to th.ie account and Character of him, he ough: to have had a more p-culiar designation, So1 we may fay to this Informer here* Befid.js, may not Pa- triarch:*, aVid all ;h: rabble of the po;ts locuftshave this pretended for them , that they arc included in fo-" me of thefe officers? Sure wc may in Charity fuppofe that if a Papiftwere pleading thus, This man would tell him, that it were no defence to flupe out officers of their own devifing , & then alledge they are included infomeof rhefe fc ripture defignations •; which anlWefl fui:es his own cafe, Sincche cannot m:-ke it appear that the DioccfiaDBiilv;p is appointed in Scripture , And we have proved his office to be conrary nn;oit. Laft- !;. Het U u s [ That ifwewillhave here ane perfeel enu- meration tf all Church officers , we muft ccmpn'kend[rufeinr tihrs. and deacons1 in feme of thefe Words and why mi) not bedoefi with[Bijh:ps-. ] Anf. I. Wc need not, in or- der tcourfcope nor argument fromthis text, aHedge either aful! enumeration of all officers, or j*oe about to i nclud|[eldcr] and [ Deacon]! under feme of thefe words , It being , Enough if v.-ee confhew that the moft eminent Church officers given for trfe Churches edification are h ere enumerate rrtthe enumeration comes the length *f ane officer inferior to 'the Pretat , in this mans efteem', down from ane Apofrleswhich renders ou^ Argument f om this Text impregnable, i. If we fhould include the elder and 'Deacmfm oke of thefewords^ weftiould but in- clude Upon the point of EpLfcopacie' 5 05 £iude therein infer tour officers of divine appointment il} the dcfigjnatioD of Superior,"* hici: 1 e \n 11 acknowledge to be [no unulual thiagip Scripture. But his including rhe Thoctfian B slop is both the including of a forged ami Scriptural officer of his own deviling: and likewayes > if he inclua him under the P4/?or and teacher, ane in- jeludingand comprehending of a Superiour officer .under :he designation of*we infer iour , both which differences idojcuttthefinnea'cs of rveafon andanfwer. Ckap. XII. r/;e Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bi- shop. His Argument from the Government of theChurcto under the old Tejl amen t , and from the Apojlles juperioritie to the feventit dif ciples , examined. 'The fir ft Argument conclu- des , a lawful fubordination of Church - offers; in general > but reaches no help to the Diocejiart Eraftian bishop , The fecond beggs the quejiim infufpofwg VreUtstofitcceedthc Apoftles imme- diately . and Pafloures , the feventy difciptes; and from a Superiority among officers of different kindts graundlefly concludes a fuperiority among officers of the fame kind. No Image of our Pre- lacy tnthe 'Jewish- Church-Government) or in the Apoflles fuperiorkie above PtherChurch offi- cers. Ti?e Id former contradiBs hts fllowplea- ders in this caufe and himfelfalfo. rH E Doubter over come by this Iffarfoers mighty Anfwers (forfooth) [Confefiethiipifcopacieno'c ibc unlawful 2 and only pleads thrt it may become : i j o .A Confutation of the firft Dialogue inexpedient^ and a better put in its place] Whereupon he promifes [That if we will not ftand out againft lights he wiUkt us fee warrand in the word for Bi- shops] and To he may eafily doe. Bur the Bishop he tnuft let us fee the warrand for is theDiocefianFraftian Pi- shop i baveingfole power in ordination and juristic ion , bound to preach to no fiocl^ , and deriving aH his power from th «'- vilMagiftrat Now3 when he hath e;ivcn us Scripture warrand for fuchane ordinary Church -officer, as is of this mould under the new Teftament > erit mihi magnm Apollo. Wee fee he ftill walks in darknes as to the Sutt of the Qiieftion > and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the prefent Bifhopnow exiftent, when he offers to produce Scripture warrands for hirru His I. Warrand is ; that under the oldTeftament( fetting aftde the hiePriefl who Was a Typ of Chrift ) there was a Subordination among the reft of tlye Priejls yt mention being made of chief Prieftt ZKjn* i9t?>. H^r:8:z9. (§e. Matth.z: i.Atl. 19: I4» And over theft againe a chief prieft under the hieft preift, who only was Typical, fwe two hie prieft s are Sometimes mentioned , Luc. 3 : 1, So there was a fubordmation ameng the Levites txod. 6; 2. Numb. 3: 18, 19* with 24, 30. v. Neb* 1 1: 22. One is fet over tbeLtvitest called bv the Greek, Epifcopus, and another over the Prieftsv 14. From ah which places he conclude. That fubordmation among Churchmen is no fucb odious thing as feme believe ] Anfu »• If this be all the Conclufion which this man drawes our agavnft us from the premifed trite areument of TSeHarmhi and others i viz. that there is a fubordmation among Chunhmen^ It will never help him, nor wound our caufein\he leaft; for as we grant without the leaft prejudice thereunto 5 that there is a fubordination both of Courvs and Church - officers under the new Teftament, Pahoufs being above ruleing elders, and they aboue Deacons. Presbyteries alfo being above Kirk Se&ons , Syrpds above Presbyteries, National \ 'afleor Upon the point of Epifcopacie* . x i i tflemblies above Synods , as the {ewes had! there Su- preme Sdnhedrin ,• Exod.»x4- 2, Chron 19. Andalfo >etwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue , a middle Ecclefi* iftick Court called vt^vt^ui the Pre bytcry Luk. 12: tid. A<3. 21. 5 -andalfo their lead Sinagogue - |udi- catorie,wherein was both ruleing,and cenfuresAft.x^: 11. Compared with A&. 9:1,2. And wi'-h Mark. %* 35,36. Aft. 18; 8. Anfwerable toou^KirkSeflions. which is largely demoaftratby Mr Gillejpicy Aar- rod. lib* 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to ? 8- As this ( 1 fay ) is clear, fo it is evident, that it is much more then a raeer Coor- dination of Courts or officers , which he mod prove if he will conclude any thing topurpofe againll us , viz , ThePrelats fole decifive power 9 and negative 1 voice in judicatories , and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magiftratas his depucs, in their ;adminiftration. Now , from the fubordination of Courts,or officers, mentioned uuder the old difpenfa- tion3toconclude[thelavfulnefs of a Prelat(a pretend- ed Minifterof the newTeftament) histakingfrom o- ither Miniftersall the power of Government>contrary to our Lords exprefs command > his laying , afide the ,preachingTalent3and giving up all the ecclefiaftick au- 1 thority which he pretendes unto3to one who isnot > Ops ulk , fo much as a Church memberjis a wide and wilde conclufionryet tfiat this is the conclulion which he muft infer to prove his point , is beyond all Queftion* 2. Giveing > not granting to him that there was un- der the old difpenfation fuch a Hierarchy as he pleades for , aid fuch a difference of degrees amongChurch officers^ as he reprefents , how will he prove this con- sequence [ that the Government of the Church uuder the New Teftament muft be thus moulded , and have M the fame degrees of Minifters>as the Jewes had 0f 4Priefts and Levits ] this Connexion he fuppofes herc y rJJ and offers afterward force fmatterings in proof therel of, jiz A Confutation ohhsiirft Dialogue of • but with what fuccefr we fnai) fee -with in alirtle. Will he fay that it is lawful to bring into the chriftian Churchevery point of the jewifli policy? Bilfon, ane Englifli Bilhop (even in pleading for PrfclacieJ will give him the lie if he-fay fo, and '(hew himthedifpa- ritie betwixt their Church government and ovttis : J?erp:Gov.Cbap.z.[for the tribe of Levi (faith he,) Was nei- ther fubjedted to the Gavernment3of another tribe,nor without manifeft confufion could it want nil Govern- ment.whereforeasall the reft,fo this tribe aJfo had its proper Magiftrats,to\yit,irs,Pinces Elders, judges &c. We adds; that the Jewes Law contained in the books of Mofes, comprehended the mould of their ci> vill Governmcnt^and thePriefts and LeWts being rftoft skilful in this knowledge, we need not wonder that they were placed in the fame benches with the judges ] ( this wc offer to our Ijj/www observation , to ihew how this BifhopPulles his eare inargueing from the Priefts fitting in civill courts numb, n> To Juftifte ourPrelats civill rule) but now to our purpofe in re- lation to Church government, he add? further [that the offices of theSanftuarie, and ritesand ceremo- nies of the Sacrifices , from which all the other tribes except the Lcvires were re (trained , were not of one kindcsSo that it needs be no wonder that thefe degrees oftheadminiftrat^rs were diftinguifljed according to the divcrfitie of ijjicts Andfervice?. But in the Church of Chrift> the \V ord and Sscramcnts concredited to all Minifterswithoutdiftin£tion,as they areof owe kinde, neither admitts any difference of admimftration,or cc lebrafion 5 fo neither doc they require different degrees of hiiniftersJi Thus he. Sure had cur Tw/&wierlifteneu unto this information of this Father of the Church [as he (peaks) he would have fpared this Argument as not worth the repeating. TheMiniftryofthe Leviteswho fcr ved in the fojourncing Tabernacle > is compared to wan fare Upon the point of EpifcapJtcie." 1 1 J warrfare Numb. 4. Becaufe of the Militaric order which the Priefts and Levies obfervedin their ex. tcrnall Miniftry. Where there was one common Temple, a common Miniftry of the priefl±ood3 a rhoufand adminiftrators in every family ( the twen- ty four families who ferved each their week in the Temple bein^ called axtrfes byLuke, Scftationes by the Talmudifts , the term being borrowed from warrfare, as Scaliger obferves (in Canonibus ifag$gicis)\t is no ftran- ge thing if in this Miniftry* and ir'riefthood , their werefach degrees of adminiftrators; bur thePrieft- ftood being changed,there is made ofneceffity a change of the law, faith the ApoftleHtb'r. 7: 12. And the policie fuitable to the ftate of that Church muftby celTarv corfequence be changed alfo. 3, The antecedent of the Argument fromthatpo- licic , will be a harder taske then he imagines, and this Mfformet would be quite out if put to draw us the Image and lineaments of our prefent prelacie in the Jewifti Church Government. Fori. We cleared above that the Ecckfiaftick Sanhedrin was diftindt from the civil, and that the priefts had a diftindt independent authority andminiftery : But the prelats derive ail their fpiri- tual authority from the Magiftrat. 2. He cannot ihew that either the Hiehprieft , or any inferiour priefts had the Joledsafive Suffrage in their ecclefiaftick Courts 3 or fuch a negative voice as the prelats exercife & affumein their pretended Synodsand presbyteries. The learned Junius will informe our Informer f Ve Cler. Cap. 24 "Not 13 ) That , par cenfortium honoris G? potcftatis fuit in- ter facer dotes , fed or dine impari , qua fa.miliarum,<]uatetn- peris refpetlu. ?enes concefum facer datum ex lege fmt ordi- naria jtmfdiErio ecclefiaftica That is , Among the priefts there was a like participation of honour and p otver , though in a iifferent order : Partly in refpetl of families s and partly in Mftft of times } tbctr dinar it cceltfiafakjwfdiSionhhngeJ H4* A Confutation of. the firfl: Dialogue totbeajjsmblieof thepriefts according to the Law. Thus he. Sure tnc« it belonged not to the H^hpricft alone > farr lefs to any infci iour priefts , and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories, or a fole decifiye Suffrage , fo that they were farr f:om our prelati principality as to directive and corre&ivc po- wer. And therefore though we flxould grant that his " argument will hold as to our being obhdged by the policie of the Jewes3 and to have the government of the Gofpel Church this moulded , yet our prefent hierar- chic is fo different from it 3 tha: it will not help his. caufe in thcleaft. But the doubter cbje&s [that there ought notto be fuch afubordination under the new Te frame nt. ] To which he anfwers, [That the Old Teftamcnt- fubordtnation being to maintaine order and unitie in the in thz Church, there is the fame reafin for it under tl e nav , andfiron^er , be* caufe the Cbrijlutn Church it of larger tx tent then the fttvifb , and the danger of [chi fines , and the neaeffity cf preventing them, the greater : And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us , although the Nert' Teftarnent gave no other ground>Gods own model being befifur theChurch.] I anfw. i. He mult plead for much moie thtndmem fubordination of Officers, if he fpeak to the point, as is clear from that is faid. And his Doubter (if he had dealt faiielyl fhould have objected Tthat rhe New Teftamcnt ChurJ ought not to have the fame mould of government that the J?. wifli had, and that there is a vaftuuparitic betwixt their prelatick Erailian Hierarchies and the* Jewifti Church* Government ] Both which grounds doe break thci force of his argument. But it is good that our Inforwm hath the doubters arguments and objections of his o^tii moulding, z- Though he know reafonof afubordi- naticn under the OM Teltamcnt { hefhouJd have fcid of that particular mould jf government tvbicb the \ewifl Church iWjbut his general oncj to maintaine order and uiuor Upon the point of Epifopacie. i if union in Gods Church ( he fnould have faid in that Church , under that fpecial dtfpenfaticn , ) yet wc ISavti fhowen him iomekeaions of their particular policie which doe not reach us. And fhall onelyrcfume to him thac we have neither. I. Such adiftin&ionof tribes. Nor 2. A common Temple , and common Miniftrv in one Temple for the univerfal, or for any National Church , as they* Nor 3. Have we fuch types and ftiaddowes, from which (as upon the former grounds ) this mould of government did flow. Nor 4. Such various fandiuarie offices, and degrees, and va- rieties of adminiftrations, requiring (as Bifhop Bilfon hath told hirn) fuch varietic and different degrees of ■ A'dminiftratores > the Word and Sacraments being concrediced toall Miiiiftcrs Without diftmdtion&c. B^Udeshath not the Apoftle in the forementioned paf- fage5 Hebr. 7:1a. Given this Informer 2l fufficient Rea- fon why wee are not tved to the famejJoIicie.,vjz becau- ' te zh.zz t\v Priojlhood is changed }[Le.)tneiv particular frame of Church ofiicers,&that therefore there is made a change >f*fee'L4.*>,thatis,of the legal ordinance both oi worfh. fo&Governipentj.parcfcefay thatChrjfts Church un» ier the NewTerluinctit.may have every mould of go* /eminent which roiy be in it felf, or in refpedt of fome mrcUniftances, ccprmendable> and (ubfervient to thefe nds of order and union ? Where is Chrifts faith fulnefs isaSone over his own houfe, beyond, that of Mofes;? where are all the New Tcftamcnt prescriptions in Hint of government, Officers,* Lawes , Cenfures, f the Church thereof like a Tabula rafa may have any »oyernmenr introduced into it , which maybe inns runtime and place good , and Miniftcrs framed accord- ing to the Oxd Teftament difpenfatiori > 4. How will our Infcrmer extricar himfelf a? to ths ifewiili High prieft in maintaining this Anf-wtr to his :io^bter ? \yas not his office a fyectai mean of order and Ji t. union ii 6 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue unitiz in that Church , and to prevent fchifmet anddiviJjont> And is there not the fame reafon that the Chnftian Church Ihould be thus kept from that evil by afupream Highprieft or bifhop ? Whatbetter way for this , then Gods owne waj ?And what better pattern for modelling the New Teftament - Church in point of her govern- ment, then this pattern ? Surely the Pope will thank him for this. Iknowhefets afide ( in contradiftion to Saravt* , as I fhall fliew ) the Highprieft in his argu- ment^ a Type ofChriftVhe man forfaw that this w ould caft his argument in to ane intirePopifh mould jbut he is not fo forfecing as t,o prevent his being fnared by his own reafon , Sc caught in the brieres of contradictions . For I. He dare not deny that this Officer was afingu- lar Mean of their crier and union. Hence he muft grant that his anfwerto the doubters objection is naught, i and that Gods way of preferving order and union in the iNewTeftament Church, is different from his way, and the means of preverving it under the Old, and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and inftitu* tiones under both difpenfations, will not plead for hol- ding the fame inftitutiones. Was not order, union, and the edification of the Church, the great end of all the Mofaical Ceremonies andPedagogie, Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their folemneFeafts < Togo up to Jefufalem folem- }y and joynly three tymes in the year ? To have one common Temple , one Altar, &c. And muft there- fore the Chriftian Church obferve the fame ordinances and inftitutions i 2. How will he prove that the in] feiiourPriefts were not Types of Chrift as well as the Highprieft ? Dare he fay tha t their praying for the peo- ple, and their facrificeing, were not typical of Chrifts interceflion and facrifice , as well a? the praying and facrificing of the High prieft , though not in the fame degreeof eminencirf I grant that the Apoftlc(Heb. 5./ fpeakinf Upon the point of Eplfcopacie. 117 fpeaking of the authority and honour of Chrifts Prieft* j hood, prefentes the legal type ■ thus iEvtry Hie frieftta- \ ken fiomamong men , &e. Yet if we fhall confider that (Hebr. 10. diicourfingof the efficacieof Chriftsfacri- fice in oppofirion to the legal, he fayesin theu^ Ii. Ver. And every Prieft fimply,notcvrie High- prieft) \fiandeth dayely mmiflermg & offering the Samcfacrifices, which can never take away Jin , but his man after he had offered ont [Sacrifice for fins , %c. It will be evident that the ii infenonr pnefts were alfo Types of Chrift* So that he fliould either have taken in the High- prieft into his ar- gument, orexcluded together with him, theinferiour iprieftes upon the fame ground. For majus & minui ntm variant fpeciemrei. If he fay that he is not fpeaking of their Sacrifices , but of their Government , which was not typical* Anfw. Why might he not then have taken in the High- prieft upon this ground, fince thefearcas swell diftmguifliable in him, as in the infcriour Priefts? So that he might have been excluded from having^ny thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government las well as they. And for his fingie eminencic, it 'drew along with it thofe degrees of inferiour pricfts |andLevits> ( in his principles ) which are mentioned; fo that if the one muft evanifhasa Type, in the fame ^manner muft the other. 3. It wilLmuchpuzele this Informer to prove, that the Highe prieft in refpecft of his governmentwzs zType of Chrift j Sure he will find this denyedby his fellow brother in thecaufe, Tikn'mhis Parenert( Cap . 2 ) infummo Socerlote ceu fontifice , mn typi fo - Jum fed ivbbus ratio confpicua (3 —[In the highprieft,the type is not only confpicuous , but the reafon of order, for he bore not a typeorrefcmblance of Chrift in ref- fpedoftheKingely and judiciary power whichChrift hath, whootherwayes ihouldhaue had the dignitie, both according to the order of Aaron, and the order ofMelchifcdeck, ihatisi bothof a King and a prieft.] H 3 V*niu§ *i8 Confutation oUWdnl Dialogue Junius , a greater then he , {dcVentiflib.i. cap. 6.) di- itir^uifries rhefe in the Hi2;hpriett. ■ in \iamm Saccrdcte ■canfideran**', ntn folummodi ratio ty pi , fid ct tarn ttr&im &pohtftel\s us of another fingle Chief and High prieft under him , and Ms us nanfwerto the prerniied objection y rhattAisAa ■ f rnmenc (.in rhis Chief --rhifth prieft. diitin-ftf:-o.ri thp typical priefKj is exewpUr te pointed out to Cirri fans at Gcis p4tternefor mod- dehng thegoCpcl* Church government bo that without all ihac{:o» of evaiioo hi argument p a cl ::f pz% triarch over the Chtiftian Church, as being a parteof the Jetvifli pohcie obh'dgi'ng us, and exempiarly com* mended to us for ourimiration. Moreover, I would know what he would fav , If one thou Id plead for re* taining of all the judicial lawes of the jewes upon his two grounds, i. /\s not being typical, z. As bring Gods excellent meani for order and union , and com- mended exempiarly unto Chriftians to the fame end, \rhat better pacern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern ? Likewaycs will he fay that every peeceof the jewilli antiquated peJagogiewas properly typical: And that we are bound to ret einc as of a moral perpetual nature whatfoever thing ifl their policic was not fuch. Surely there were rmny things depending upon the particular exigences, and ftatc of that people , both as a Church under that old (difpenfation, and as a Commonwealth regulac in its ciuil Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 1 15? civil Lawes immecii2tly by God , which no found civines doe call Typical , and yet doe hold that they obiidgs: no Church or (late under the New Te- ftament. For a cendufionof this argument, I fliall tell this Informer that he grofsl) miftaks ttcfe Scripture exprcf- fions ( at JeafHn the judgment of feme learned) apent the Chief Priefts 2. King. 19*. 2.. &c. When taking them to denot different eccltfiafiiek. degrees among the priefts in their for it ual function : thefe cbucfnefs (to fpeak fo ) or principality among the priefts , being meaned cf a civil principality exiftent in that Tribe before the prieftbood was therein eftablifhed : and that they were called Ckief '-'friefis > or Elders of the priefts,did flow from thisuhatthis Trybc(fubje£t to the fame Princes as at thefirft ) was after ward jet af art for, the prieftbood* for Aaron and his Soones were choft n to be prieftsii.x0d.2S. but the whole Tribe was not afTu* meduntorhepritflhoodbcforeNun:b. 1. Yet in the msane while the tribe ofLevie ( Exod 6. ) had the Heads of their families 5c their Princes. The Scripture thenfpeaking of the tribe of Levie as aTribcfimply ', a- fcribes to it the fame policie with the reft of the tribes, . S' Princes cf the feveral families by the right ofprimo- genkur : Thus both priefts and Levirs had their chicfe rnenandprefidenrs. Eat as a Trile feparat to holy things , it had its peculiar politic. One was chief pried onely by Cods appointment, atwhefehand ail the reft of the priefts were. iChron 24: 24. And at the hands of the priefts were the interior Lcvites , in their fcveral fervi* ccs. David in dtfhibitfing them in their feveral Temple offices , did not fet the Princes over them as iuch? but onely having numbered them after the Heads of their families, and by their lotts or Couifesj did affigne to them their fervice of the Temple , upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad andNathan, the more H 4 to i%o A Confutation of the firft Dialogue to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe, their comeing unto, and retumeing from the Temple. The Chief of the families rhen, are not upon this ground Princes ar Chief as to the HolyMinifierie'joi' there was but one onely high prieft , ail thereit as well the heads, as the families themfelves , were at the hand of the highpriett in the Minifterv of the Houfe of the Lord , i Chron. 24: I9» Where the Chief or head in matters facred , had no more power then the wholl body. So was it in the di- ftribution of theLevits into their feveral clafTes by their Heads Chap. 23: 27, that they might beat the hands of the Jons of Aaron in the Temple Miniftery. Sotha* none of his citations doe [amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and fubordination among either the priefts or Levits in their fpiritual functions » or any other wave then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe; neither had the two high priefts (mentioned Luc. 3.) Theleaft warrand inGods inftitution,but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creeptina- mong other corruptions : andfincehe drawes his firft inftance of the Levits fubordination from Exod 6. before that tribe was tei apar; at all to the Holy Minifte- ry, that pafTageatleaft,' and (aslfaid, in the judg- ment of lome ) irs parallels alfo afcermentioned by him , doefpeak of the Civil Government and fubordi nation of the Le vites in that capacitie s and that any of their Chief rulers are by the Greeks termed Efifcofut, is a very poor argument to conclude their Eccietiaftick rule, it being notourly known that the bell Greek Au- thores put his designation upon Civil Govcrnoures. This fubordination among the Levircsin Exod. 6:15. is unqueftionably civil upon the ground affigned. 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- andinNeh: IH 14. He that is fee over the priefts % tithe fin of ene Upon the point of Epifcopacic, r i % rfthe great: men ( Ha*gedolim ) , or eminent in parts and place as many take it. I Chron. 24: 4< before the divilion and order is fet down , its faiei , there were morcCkief men found of thefones ofEleazar>then of the fo- ■es of Ithamw 5 &c* all which doth much plead for- this aflertion, but we need notbeperemptor in pref- fing this , fince the weight of our anlwer lies not upon it. Our Informer comes nixt to his New Teftammt proofs for Bifhops.and produces firft , the fuperiomy of the twel- ve Aplftlcs above the feventy Difcipler. Where I. Wee fee, He is ftill in the clouds of a general fuperiority , which iifjrr from the Prince -like arbitrary, and Eta - ftian fuperioritie of the Diocefian Prclat now exiftent , and whom he undertakes to plead for, which this Informer ( Had he intended to have informed right ) fhould have condescended upon, Had the Apoftles fuch a fuperioritie over the feventy Difciples? Were they fubjedtto the Apoftles as their Re&orsand judge? ? Did the Apoftles ( as our Prelats ) aflume a Sole De- ciftve, conclufive luffrage, and a negative voice over Church Judicatories , notwithftanding of their extra- ordinary and high prerogatives ? Did we not fee the contrary exemplified in that meeting of Apoftles with ordinary Minifters, A<3. 1 5 ? Had the feventy onely a derived precarius Miniftry under the twelve Apoftles 9 as their Vicars & Subftituccs in their Mini- ftration ? Had they no Intereft in the Church -Go- vernment but upon the Apoftles meerpleafure* As Curatr are now in all thefe refpefts fubjeci to their Pre- lats ? Had not the feventy their million , their infti- tution/immediatly from Chriftas well as the Apoftles themfelves? Were they not confequently to exercife ! their Miniftery upon this ground, without fuch a fervil dependance upon the twelve as Prelats doe arrogat to themfclvesane arbitrary principality over Minifters > Wer* 1 z% A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue. Were the twelve to rule only , andjto committ the preaching worke to the fevesty as iJicir deputes , as ourPrelatsnowdoe i Or were they not rath ;r to help forward the great harveft, and the work cf the Mini- ftery* together with the Apoftles themfelvcs* So that this Jnfirmrr will never find theleaft fraddcyjr of ane Epifcopall fuperiority here. But 2. Canting that the Apoftles were officers in afupcriour degree tothefe- yenty , which isthcutmoft ConcluilonVhich he can draw from Scripture , how will this infer afope- rwrityamonJ. officers of the fame dtgrse. We gram the Apoftles were fuperior to Lvangciuis , they aga:neto Baftoures, Ergo, onePaftour maybeadioceSanPrelaC ,over hunderedsof other Paftours, is a confecuence knewn to nologick. Chrift appointed both extra- ordinary, and ordinarie officers in their fereraji 'de- grees , as Apoftles, E vangelift«> Paftours: Ergo, he appointed different degrees of Paftours , ha?h no con- nexion imaginable* 3. Tht bafis of his argument Jm in this [that thePrelacsarewwmttfo* fucccfi ours of the Apoftles in their degree of fuperior ty to the iev:?nty Difciples , zvAFtftourr come after the fe yen ty ir. .their, fuppofed fubje&ion , and arc not the A pop Us immedut fucceffmrs m the ordinary -Miniftery] but this, as the w gtiTvui'ov, the qucfttum or queftion, muft be proved,, not begged and fuppofed by him. We did already evince the contrary , viz , That the Paftou: to whom is committed the Miniftery of the Word and Sacraments , and both the keys, immediatly from the Apoftles , are the higheii ordinary officers , and the Apoftles immediat fucccflorus as to borh order and Jurifdiftione. But the doubter and I objedt furder [ that the Apoftles fuperioritie over the feventie, was extraordinary , perfonall , temporarie, and to ceafe with themfelves.] In an-fwer to this, He grants th^t in fome things their privileges werecxtroardi* nary Upon the point of Epifcopacie. n j nary, and to ceafe trie') themf elves , fuch as their immedtat cal. ling , tfxir fending n all nations, their infallibility , gifts of t ensues , or whatever was necejfir* for the firft founding of the obriftian Church but in other things wherein they were jupe - nor to other Ministers , their power was no: exrraQrdmary and temporaric ? but fill to be continued , fucb as ordination of Minifers , and governing them by ccclefeftick authority ; in which power the tiishtps fucceeds them, who are [the clnidren in Jteadof the Fathers ' as Atiguftin applies that of Pfal 45 , v. 19. Ant 1. ihen it teem* chat wuh him the Fpijcopal 'office properly fucceeds ro that of the Apoft* Us , and 15 a confirmation of their power in crema- tion and jurifdiction over Paftours, which contra- didh hisfecond anfwer to our Argument from Ephef.4 viz [that BifliQps inthn place may be comprehend- ed undcrth- the tffice of Peftour: ($ teachers) For here he makes their cfikc the lame with that of the Apoft]«as importing ane authority in ordination anti Jurifdiftion over Faltors and teachers 3 and (o he fcou) their ., ApoSohck power in ordination and Government ^as exercifed by them at firft 1 W# necefi arie for the firft funding of the Church. For I. 1 he ir power of or- dination j 24 A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue dination was of equ*llim;ts and extent with their mif* fion to all nations — Goe dtfciple 4S nations , I hope he 'will grant was extraordinary, as being neceflary for the firft founding of the churches, Ergo , fay I. fo was their power in ordination and Government of Minilters, fince itwasof a like nature, and of the . fame extent; for to wrnt ever nations they were fent together a Church therein , there thev w crc to or daine Minifi?rs,& govern? them by ccclefiaftick Difciphne, which he makes to be the tiiibops ojjice.z. Their fole p«wer in ordi- nation and Government, herefuppofed, bvhim, did certainly prefuppofe theChriftianChurch*w/w/, where* of they were to be founders- Firft They wercas Chrifts immediar extraordinary Ambafladours* to convert and bring in Cburchcs.then to plant officers, & the Gofpel Government in them ; Now, who will fay but this power wzsneceffary for the firft planting oftfo Churches* and fo comes under the Character of thefe things which this man acknowledges to be expired : Surely where no other officers were to concurre^the Apoftles of nc- cefTity behooved toordaine folely, and their Apofto, lick Infpe^ion over them did necefTarlv depend upon » and flow from, their Apofiolick extraordinary miffion and infalibilitie , So that this power info fa eas Epifcopall like, was indifpenfibly needful for the firft founding of the Churches and confequemly muft be expired by his own confeflion, rhe nature and cxercife of this power fup- pofeing, and requiring their peculiar million, infalli- feilitie , and gifts of tongues , which are acknowled- ged by this man to be expired privileges, neceflary ryonely attrmtime. Moreover, xbe Apoftles power in ordination and government did include extraordi- nary miraculous ro Jes and cenfurs> & a power in coer- ccing the rebellious , thus Peter (broke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful A- poflojick Cenfure , put forth by his Apoftolick autho- Upon the point of Epifcopacie.' xi£ authoritie at that time 5 Paul ftroke El mas the forcerer blind for withftanding the truth ', b elides, their power in ordination at that time , included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Impofition of hands. 2 Tim. %i6 Adf. 19: 1, 2^6. Mow> all thefe Apoftolick priviledges ( which 1 his man muft needs acknowledge upc?ihis twnground to be expi- red and extraord*narie ) being necetlarily included in3 & eflemial unto the Apoftolick power, the nature and exercife thereof muft be expired alfo. Wee fliall offer h*re to theIw/ he ftroke dead A- tianias andSappbira. lnrcfpeft of this cctrimonrodc (faith hc^ Paul faith 1 Cor 5, ■ [\ou being gathered toge- ther with mv Spirit in the name of our Lord Jefus ] but as to thisfingular one y be faith [ Shall I come to you witharodc 1 Cor 4* 21] this common rode he denyes to have him in tkehand of any one man whither Apoftle or o- ther, cr that they had any file orfingular pr eheminence in Chur- ches conftitute. And this cutts the winde pype of our J«- /orwemopick and argument here for the ptelats power. Which leads to a 3d. Anfvver. 3 We proved already that the- Apoftlesexercifed no Angular Epifcopal preheminence in Churches confti- tut , and what they did in churches not as yet conftituC - and infieri, is not to the pnrpofc by his own confrfiion, finceitfalles in among thofe things neceffary for the firp flaming of the Churches, which priviledges the acknow- ledges are gone, That the A pottles excrcifed no fiich fingle preheminence in churches conftitut, is abun- dantly Ii6 A Confutation of the firfl: Dialogue dtntly cleared in the 2. Argument againft Epifcopaeie, where we mewed that neither in ordiaation3 nor ex- feommunicadon , nor in Ministerial decifion of con* troveriies, the Apoitlesailurned aneEpifcopal power inChur^hesconititut, but had the ordinary Church- oftcerspresbyterialy concurring with them. Wee likwaves'proved in the 8. Argument , that the Epifco- pal power is rc\tt:fbmutlttn 3 nor emmenter * contain, ed in the Apoftles aurhonty , but is inconfifrent there Urith3and contrary thcrunto3therefoIediredive»corrc- £tive power over the diocefs , as being th- proper folc paftoures thereof, th*ir fole decifive ftiffrage , and Lordly dominion over C burch - judicatories , be. fides their civil rule, like chat of the princes of th * ^en- tilesa-enJeringourprelacs power exfua natura ($in u* nivcrjum , different from the very nature of the Apojiles a nhori- t)-> ana the authority of a Gofpe] Miniltery alto c- ther : and confequently itcould not be tranfmitied by the Apoftles /o the Church , as any pecce of the(*ofpel Church Governmen?:and bv further confequence they are none of the fathers or Children \\ hem 'he true church, or the # potties brought fo-th, but the Sfr inn breed of Satanical Antichnfim pride* As for w hat hr addea of the Jailers n*kwg h-jhops tucceffours to the Apojiles , fymus Will tetl h ini ( De cler. C3p 14. Not. I ^ ) That thru net tobeundcrftooi of a Succeffion frcm Cbrifts inftituticn* quia mnquaminftitu&Cbriftm ut Apojtohsjecnndumgradum tn ecclefiajucccdtretur , becaufe Chrift mvir appointed Sue- ceffors to the Ape]} Us in the Church according to degree — And that the fa: hers understood it of a lucceffion ex fimiii , non ex pari % a fucteffiincffimiluude net effarttie and of a finulitudp Jecundum quid, cr imaginary y ac- cording as Pre has were then moulded* Chap, Upomhe point of Epifcopacie. 127 Chap. X. The Informers great argument for Prelacy , from the pretended Epifcopacy of Timothy and Tit it* . Their Efifcopal office difproved^ from the office of £vangelifc, ajepbed exprejly to the one , and b j good conference to the other f from many cir- cumflances of the [acred text , and the judge- ment of Interpreters. The Jnformers pleadings from there power in ordination and )urisdiclion , fpfppojcd in ihe precepts addrejfed to them therea- nent\ from thenecejfity of this power , the c0n% cernmentof of after ^ ages therein y &c% examr ned. The unfoundenes and inconfijiency of his arguing and anfwers uf on this heady feveral wayes dijeovered. THe/fl/omjerprefrnrsuntons Nist* th** pretended Epyxopacy o/Tymotby and Titus At Ephefus and crete , and the Djtffcttr allcd^ing [that Paul calls all the Mini- ms at Ephefus ard crete , Btibopt , } Kc rejeynes Th.n Tymoth and Tims were Bishops as the word iTr.-^vr®* or bishop was after \vardt^ the condition of thefe Churches, as being- but in fieri as to the, r organick fettlemenc and conftitution : Particularly , that their power in ordination and Jurif- di&ion was not epifcopall, I prove from thefe grounds. I. In Churches already conftitut, this Authority wax XKKfolely refident in Tymothydnd Titus. Falluntur , qui futant (faith Calvin , Iw/w:lib:4« Cap. 3. ) &c. that 3) is * 53 they aremiftaken who judge either Timothy ,? at Ephefus or Titus at crete to have exercifed any ^impire or Dominion to difpofe of things each at his 3, own pleafure, they were fet over the people (no 3, word of their being fctoverMimfters ) to go before M them in good and wholfome Counfells in relation to >, the placeing of Minifters* not that they might doe as ,* they pleafed excluding others. Since Paul himfelf neither impofed hands nor did excommunicat aJone, and *ince fas Ifaid above) awholl colledgeor Pref- bytery of Apoftles adted nothing pro'mperio, but in Churches conftitut hadelders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour A& 15, Farrlef would Timothy and Ticus affume this epifcopal preheminence, who were ioferiourto any of the Apoftles > therefore their power in this was not epifcopall. i- Thatautho- ritie which was intrufted to the eldersand Minifters in commone , was not intruded to any one officer , fuch 2s Timothie ; But fo it is that after the Church of Ephefus wasexedified and compleated in its organick being, and afrer Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination „ and Jurifdi&ionin hphefus, Paul committed ,, the „ whollepifcopa! power to the elders (as is faid)befoie ,, Timothies face in his laft farewell, A&. 20. there- fore he intruded him with no epifcopall preheminencc in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being. 3* They whpfc power ftands fo circ«mftantiat as I Upon the point of Epifcopacie, i %y as to ordination and jurifdi&ionover thefe Churches^ thackexcludsEpifcopale preheminence, properly and formally fuch, their power in ordination and jurifdi- ciion, cannot be prelatical > nor ground anc argument for prelacie : but fuch is the power of Timothie andTi- tuF. For i. As Diocefian Bifhops they ought to have been dercrminatly anddefignedly fet and fixed there, as the officers of thefe Chnrches>but the contrary ap- pears in the text [Ibefoughtthc to abide at Ephefus] and againe [I left thee at Crete5 and to fet in order things [that are wanting] which words point at ane occafonal tranficnty employment there, not a fixed inftalcment. z. In thefe Epiftles they are both Called back without the leaft intimation of their returneing. 3. If their power was Epifcopall aad ordinary, then in theapoftlespre* fcriptions and rules anent their SuccefTours,their power and aurhority ought to have been defcribed3 andrulcsgi* ven touching the gifts x Call, ordination &c. efthedioce* the time fpent in them, the natuie of their employment, which was to be the ApoftJes Copartners in their Apo- ftolick function, and negotiat the affaires of the Chur* dies where the Apoftles traveled, and the Sciptures iilencc touching their being Bcfhops of any one Church, Thefe divines conclude that they could not be diocellan Bishops. Others doe remarke feverale other pregnant Circum. fta»cesinthcfacredtex:.fpecially relating to Timothy which doe evince him robe neither Bifnop at all, nor particularly at Ephefus in the prelatical fenfe. As i( That paulftirres him up to diligence upon this motive, that thus he (hall be agood mimflcrcfChrift, not a Bifnop ofChrift, I. Tim.4.tf Hewa's therefore aMinifter Bi- fhop, but nothing elfe* 2* That when Paul wrote this 2 firft epiftle to him, he was but newly entered into ther miniftcry. *. Tim. 1. 3* with Aft. 1*. 1. i43.&c. And | Paul will not- have a Ncvicc^ to be a Bifbop. 3. He is com1 Upon tie point ef Epifcopacie. 129 :ommandes to intreat elders as Fathers. 4. To Honour, them doubly that rule well, therefore he was not to ba he fecit Ti- rnothic into Achaia, himfeif flaying at Ephefus and Aliaforafeafon.Adl. 19* 22. ro4o.Tt and from then- ce he returned to Macedonia 5 and through it unto |Afia, accompanied with Timothy and others, afcer which wc never read that he returned to Ephefus. 8. That Timothie was fent to many churches toconfirme andllrengthen them, as, to Mscedon.a Aifl. 19. 22. To ThrfTaionica.i. ThcIT. 1.2. 3* Tophilippi. chap. 2. 19* %o. but never to Ephefus afcer his firft departure. 9, -1 hat though he b joy ned with Paul in the Inf cripiion of fome Epiftles. Coliof. 1. philipa. and frequent mention is made ofhirointhe epiftles tofeverall Churches, i* Cor, 4. 17* Philip. 2. 19. 20. iv Theft J* 2.6.Hebr. I uzj. Yet there is [altum filcntiumjofhim in the Epi- ftles to the Ephefians, his otvnfuppefeddioceji. 1 0. That Paul laid hands upon the difciples who were ordained in that church after his fuppofedepifcopacie. That as Ti- irothie was fent to conrirme. Inftruft and Comfort other Chinches, asPhilippij Troas^ So Paul writes to him. 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this fame end. fent to Ephefus :and that he wrote th- npiftle of Paul to he Ephefians from Rome, whom theApoftle(chap. 6+ 2i. V. of the Epiftl-r directed to that church) fen c to .them as a fejth fail Miniirer, who therefore lookes Iiker ,ttr:;r Bifliop then Timothie. That the fame is fuppofa- fceof Titus is alfo apparent, both in that he is called (as Timothy ) not iifbop, but Pauls ftlhp helper, and I % that 1 5° A Confutation of the firft Dialogue that concerning tht Corinthians 5not tnzCretfans, and like* w ayes in that he is imployed to the church in corintii, after he was 'eftbyPaul atcretc, 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 atNicopohs, his flay is fouHd very fliort at Crete, fo thar after halfa years refidence there he was fentto Co* mth and Dalmaria &c. But the Doubter acknowledging [Timothy and Ti- tus, their power over Miriitersat Ephefus and Crete, fince they are taught how to crdainethem5what qua- lifications are requifite, how to proceed in their tryalls 3,anJcenfures, alledges ihat 'this they had „asevange- >3 lifts & companiones to the Apoftles in their laboures „ and as appointed to fettle and water thefe Churches „ which they had planted.] In what refpeft thefe things are attribute to thefe Church officers, will be after exa- mined , when we fhall confider how our informer pleads for their epifcopall power upon thefe grounds. But to ^ this exception of the Doubter, he anfwers 35 That this fuppefes them to bcexcraordinarie officers, 5>whofeoffice was not to continue in the Church. And the Doubter affirmeing this [ Becaufe Timothy is cal- led ane Evangelift t. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not beatifbop] To this our Informer Rejoynes j, That in a large lenfe, he was ane Evangelift or a pie- sy acher of ;h- gofpell, but that he was ane Evangelift in „ aftridt fenfe,can no mor be proved from that fcripture, 3, then that he was a deacon: Becaufe the Apoftlein 9, that fame place fayes, fulfill thy deaconfhip , as the f, Greek fignifies. Or that Philip wasaneextraordina- 39 ry evangelift, becaufe he is called ane evangelift Aft.; ,, 24 S.forhe was adeacoi* A£ttf. and Aft. 8. 5. did 3, preach the gofpell, but was not therefore one of thefe 3, extraordinary evangelifts whofe office was to ceafe in >3 the Church. And Finalhe, He tells us that ordination ji and jurifdiftion is properly no workc of ane Evange- Upon the point of Epifcopacie^ i?i j^lift bat rather preaching and fpreading thegorpell] Anf i. This man cafts up but a nuft or Ihfignificant wordsinthis diftin&ion, whereby he endeavor.: so elude fo clear a fcripture. Timothies Evangeiiftick p - .:e, wee feed's a gripping argument which our Informer would fainc Elude, but wi h what fuc&fsffaalipre- remly appear. He grances he was ane Evangelift in a iarge fenfe or a preacher , but not in the ftricft fenfe, Mi what ihnflriEtfinfi is , in which he denyes Timo- hy to be ane Evangelift ', he doth not clear, and ib lis drift fenfe is left without fenfe* and his diftin&ion null Hie with one wing. He knew that his afiigneing me explication of his lhidt fenfe, would have fo palpa- :>ly included Timothy , that his evafion would be xefently fhut up : therefore he left the other branch rf hisdiftinftion,a meer mute under the clouds,andgi- /esusa diftinftion which ftandsupononeleg*2. If he #ill take Eufebius fenfe (H/jf. lib. ? or fuch as taught theGorpel, andthefe agai- le were either fuch as had ordinary places or e,ifcs, x whofe plaees and gifces were extraordinary , :hatis, v*ho;were not fettled upon any one char- ge , but were Apofiolorum vice , having a vicarius :are of all the Churches, as the Apoftles had the princi- pal care. ] The Evangelifts ( as Ambrofe phrafes it ) did Evangelism fine Cathe&r* , or preached without a fix- id charge. Hereby the way I cannot but admire the nconfiitant fubtilty ( may 1 call it fo) of Saravia (de iiverfi grand, minifi.cap. 6.) wiio, in anfwer to Beqg> pleading [that the appellation of Evangelift is given not to every on who preached, but to the Apoftles tem- porary coadjutors in watringtheChurches,notvetful- [lycQnftitut&c. ] tells him that Apofiolm nunquam Ti- 'pntbeummmmEmfigeUJta nomine cwnpettat. That thtApo- 1 3 fik i 3 i A Confutation of the firft Dialogue file no Where -puts the Title ff^vangelifi upon Timothy i and that this title was given to none but Philip 4 Yet immedi- atlyaddes- k vaugelifta: nomen non nego limotheo^ mem Pan* lus Evangelijla cpus facer ejubet , / deny not th% name of Evan - gelift to Timothy , tvhom the Apofile bides. y do thavorl^ of ane Evxnge lift. If he denv not this name to him and the thing therein imported, how can he quarrel th2 Apoities not putting this title upon him, or deny h;m the title , and the peculiar office therein imported. Gt/ww takes the Word hereto Import that fpecial extra- ordinary office mentioned* Ephef. 4- Now that Ti- mothy was fuchane EvangeJift, is already fully pro- ved and by eonfequence that the objection (lands un' touched and unanfwered bybim. viz. Thathewas am infixed extracrdmarie officer , and not to continue , aud there ~ fore any authority which he isfuppofed to have over this Church , iayes no foundation of PrtUcie. tor he iayes nothing to thtsconieqittT.ee, but ad mitts it upon the fuppofition that Timothy wac3neEvangeli(linaltrithe Jarer expounds the foraicr, fo chat in the veryphrafe it felf, the evangeliftick office is afferted and thedeaconfhipd'nyed.TheDhrafeofEv^e/^, Scefpe- cia!ly the tvork&f ane Evmge life, detcrmns his peculiar of- fice; there being nootherEvangelifts in the fcripttire fen- fe,but eiiher thofe that wrote or pubhfhed the gofpe; 1 in that extraordinary way > and Timothy bein* clearly one offuch, it mufl needs import th~ Evangeifein a pe- culiar fenfe, and is diftin^l from thegenerall phrafe ofMiniftery in the latter branch of the words, v^h crt ftands limited and reftricted by the firft part as 7: :d. 1 4 Agam 1^4 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Again, fince he includes in the generall terme [Epifeo- fus] his diocefian Bilhop^aj diftinct from a presby ter,in pbilip* i . and Aft. 20. Wee may with farr better eviden- ce take in the peculiar evangelift here, the office proper- ly taken, being both afcripture office,, and likewayes fo clearly applicable to the perfonto whom this precept is given,non of which he can fay in his cafe. Moreover3I wonder whither he would admitt thishisgloiT, if this phrafewere directed to a Paftour as it is here toTimo^ thy[ doe the worke of a Paftour, make full proofe of thy jVliniftery] would he think (his a good argumentor ieafonto deny him to be a Paftour, became the latter branch of the fentence expreffes a deaconftiip f Sure he would not: or had the ApoftleexpreiTed the firft branch of the precept thus.doe the worke of a:cisboft would hehave taken this anfwer fcomusjhat iimothy might be as svellproved a deacon from that place ? Sure> he would here tel us that the firli reitncUve phrafe,dete; mines the fub- fequent generall one> and that difterent offices may well fharein generall names. 3 . T he phrafe of Joeing theivorke ofane Evangelift^ if we compare fcripture with itfelf, wiilj'appear upon Two grounds to import a peculiar Evangelift* i^Such a fenfe muft needs be admitted in paraliee] phrafes where the Syntax and conftruction is like to this, As [thefignes ofanejj)oftle]z Cor*i2: 12- [commands of *>4foftles] 2 Pet. 3:2. [foundatun of Apoflles } Ephef. 2 2o.wiio will deny but that the word Apojtle is here peculiarly defig - neing the office,&why not d\io[the worke(faneEvangeltft\ efpecially it being his fcope toftirr upTimothy to ddi- gence from the confederation of the office>and others to the greater reverence of him. 2. The terme o£Evan» £*///? occuring only thrice in the new Teftament (viz J ACt.ii.8 Ephef 4.11.2nd in this place under debate.-fin- ce the firftTwo places, doe beyond all.queftion fpeak o & the Evangelift in a ftridt and proper,fenfe,hr^f I pray) & why doth it change its fignification here? Extraordinary fun» Upon the point of E pifcoptcic. f 3 5* fun&iofls corximunicats wiih inferiour offices in the ge- neral names^as when the Apoftles are called presbyters in a general defignatione., bur extraordinary names are not madeufe of to point at ordinary fun&ions, atleaft when the office is fo diftin&lypointed at as in this place 4. He ftumbleth yet againe here into 2 material! contradi&ion , whil telling us , That Timothy was am evangelift in a large fenfe , that is> One who preached the Gofpel > which he contradiftinguilhes from ane Evan- geiiit in a ftritt fenfe, denying Timothy to be fuch , and that itn&iv termed Evangelift had it for his work topreach and fpreadtheGofpell, ashcieems to infinuatin theclofe of his anfwer ., if atleaft he mean it of his firi&ly called evangelift (for his wayofexpreffingic is very indiftinft. ) But however he will not fay that Timothy was nootherwayes ane Evangelift then in the fenle wherein any ordinary Minifter is fuch. And if he underftand him to be ane Evangelift as ha- •veingamore large unfixed or univerfal office of prea- ching :he gofpel with extraordinary gifts, and as coa- jutor of the Apoftles > as Hooker himfelf, together with Eufebim dotakeir as being thus con :radiftin£t from imters of the Gofpel , how comes he onely to ac- knowledge him ane Evangelift in a general fenfe , as a pre - acheroftheGofpelfimply ? 1 would know what this Infor- tner calls ane zvangzLiRinaftriSfcnfe , furche will not fay that it is meerly preaching theGofpell jwhich makes up this office, for that he makes the large fenfe 5 is it preaching and fpreading the gofpell wirh extraordina- ry gifts ad unnxedly?(as he feems toinfinuat by making this the proper tvorke'ofane Evangelift ) then furely he will not deny but this was Timothy's tvorke, andfo he mull be ane Evangelift in the find: fenfe, againft what he firftaflerts. Ke acknowledges the ordinary Evange- lifts or preachers 3 were to preach and fpread the Gof- pell within their Sphere , and fo the ftrift Evangelift I 5 muft 1 3 6 A Confutation of the £ r# Dialogue muft be diftinsuifhed from them by unfixed preaching dndfpredding tbeGefpell: which (befides what is mention- ed ) will bung a new inconvcnienc upon our Informer anddatb him agamft his principle of fixing Timothy Bifhopof Ephelus'. Ifetagaine, though Philip prea- ched the Gofpell upon the difperfion and fpread it unfixedly, yet he denyes him to be one of thefe extra- ordinary Evangelifts whale office was to ceafe: So that he doth (as to this) dtfkinguiih preaching andjpreai dingtheGofpell from the proper wcrke and ch r 6krillick of tne EvangeHflJlritlly taken Thus it is hird to know what he calls aneEvangehitorhowheu: deritands it: For neither will he admitt power in ordination and ju- rifdi&ionto be ane ingredient in this office, and thus it is neither fixed nor unfixed preaching of govern^ men: either, that with him will make up this office properly taken , if we confider the whole ftrufture of hisreafoning. 5. As for what he fayes o£phMp , That it will uot follow, be was one extraordinary Tivangeliji, though termed arte van « gjhft.fincebcwas a Deacon, lanfwer, mat Philip was no: ane Evangelift properly fo called, is by him poorly and'gratis averted, and worfe proved ; Learned Calvin upon the place tells us „That hisDeaconfliip was 3 „ temporal and tranfienr funftion , then expired, „becaufe otherwayes it had no been free to him to „ leave Jerufalemand goto cefaria ; And tharhcis „ not here propofed as a voluniar deferter of his office, „ but as one who had a more excellent office intruded ,1 to him , Which two grounds will put faire to prove tint he was not a deacon (fill. Then he adds [ Evan- gtliftx meojudiciointer Apoftolos& doBoresmediierdntjnunm enim ohihant Apoftolis pro^imum Ut pajfim i.vangelium pr£* iicarent , nee pneficerentur ccrtand Doftours, had ane office nixttothatofthe A- 5,poitles Upon the point of Epifcopacie 137 7%poflles sndDo&ours, had ane office nixt to that of ^ the Apo^les , that they might every where preach the 2;of?ell and were not fixed to any Station* He "atoes this reifonofhisdefcnptionof theEvangelift, *' becaufe , ( Efbef. 4> ) the Apoftle defcribing the order of the Churcbdoth in fuch manner fubftituc /,rh-mto Apoftles* ashefhews that they had a more V.inlareed o'Sce of teaching intruded to^themchen to ^Paftoars whofc workers tyed to certain places. ,, Hence he concludes that Philips deaconfhip atjeru- ',>falem3 was onely temporalis And for fo roe time 3, there exercifed by him, and that he was aftcr?by 11 the Church affumedtabeane Evangelift. In which words wee fee. 1* He doth upon weight^ grounds prove hiiii to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called dnetLiangeUft* z That he was ane Evan- gilift id the ftrict and proper fenfc as it is taken. Eph. 4# 2. That Evangelifts are ofiicers above ordinarie teachers or paftours, and in this diftincl from them ( in the judgement of this great divine) thai they tver* fixed to no ctrtan charge, as they, but as being nixt Apo- itles had ane mdstinit unfixed Miniftery 5 all which is crofs to this mans blunt confuted difcourfe of this ma:er,.'andcu:ts thefmewsof 1 imothy's fuppofed E* pifcopacy. Laftlie, Where he affirms that ordination and jurifiiftion tvereno proper tvorkeofane i.v angel ift , but preaching and fpreadingthe Gofpell. I* I urge him thus , if preaching and Spreading the gofpelwas thecharadteriftick of the Ev^ngelift (He muft mean it in a moreextenfive way then ordinary Paftoursif he fpeak fenfe ) then fure he cannot deny but that Timothv thus preached and fpread thegofpel as the Apoftles Coajutor in many Churches, as is cleared above. Whence it followes by his own Confeffion. 1. That Timothy's office ivas extraordinary land is ceafed, for he afirmej that the of- fice ijS A confutation of the firft Dialogue fice of ane Evangelift [whom he calls extraordinary tras t&ceafiin the Church, z. That he had no Epifcopall autho- rity in ordination andjuri[diBion> He being ane fcvangelift in a fenfc beyond any ordinary preacher 3 and upon the other hand ordination and junfdi&ion b\ h\c> confef- fion5 not being his -proper workje who is ane YLvangilift. So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelift mult lay him by from being a Prelate and confequenrly .all the Infer- men pleading from his fuppofed power in ordination and jurifdidtion in thei. Epittle written to him, is frivolous and vaine. For in his fenfe he could not A& both the worke of evangelift and Prelat 3 thefe being ac- cording to his pleading, mconiiftent. But nixtjthe wonder is , how this man comes to divide [preaching andfpreadmg of the gofpell] from [the power of ordination jurifditlion] fince he cannot but acknowledge tlm the Apoftlesdid both thefe, and affirms thattheir office was epifcopal, as we heard above* And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bifhops are drawen f om the A- poftles , and by lerom sfcom'marke the Evangelift who was Biftiop of Alexandria. Then itfeems this power in ordination ( wherein, with him the Chief parr of my Lord Bifhops office lyes)was very well confident with both the Apoftlesand Evangelifts their unfixed in. larged preaching andfpreading ofthego]pelIf[hcApoitles un- filed preaching Scfpreadiruot the gofy ell, fure he will not deny -'nor ca n he deny to marke,thefcvangelifts offi- ce in the ft ri deft fenfe he can imagine: fothat both are with him compatible. Thus we fee in withftanding the truth, hee is ftill in the briers bf Contradifliones. The Doubter excepts aganifthisreafon [That philip might be boh a deacon andEvangilift]Towhich he anf- ™ers[Thatbythefame Reafon Timothie and Titus might be both bishops and Evange lifts J I anfwer I. We have fhowen already, That philip ceafed to be a deacon at Jerufalem when he became ane Evangelift. z. Suppofing he were both Upon the point of Epifcopacic. x 3 ^ yet the Informers anfwerand parallel., is naught* Forr Philipes becomingane Evangelift was ane advancement to a higher office,holdingftill ane:nferiour3whi ch is emi- nenrer included wit, as he will grant, butirakingane Evang lifta Bifliop is a degrading of a high extraordi- nary luperiour officer, to ane ordinary inferiour. %. A ane Evangilift properly fo called, his n ork was top achand fpreadthe gofpel unfixedly, asaBifhop, hiswoik he will fay, was ordination and jurifdicftion, which Two wt heard him affirme to be incompatible. Befides , in feparating the power of ordination and jurifdi&ion, from the Evangeliftick office, he is con- tradiaedby SarAva.whoin many places mantaines the contrary (degrad: cap, 1. — * and Cap. i$. andcap.23) And here Ifhall (hew our Informer how he hath run crofs to his great Matter in his gloflcs uponfeveral ofthefe Texts under debate, that it may appear, what babel- like builders our prelates Advocates are. Upon that paffage ( Mattb. 20 ) I finde he 'is a little more ingenuous then this is Difciplc ,and plainely fpe^kes out what he but mutters (examitraEl: de epifcl triplqueft 1. pap 70. after he hath repeated that Text wih its parallel in Luke > he adds. Fx his verbis queer a numcuiquamfano videripoJfitD. fefum Juftulijfe autprohib- uiffe primatum autprmcipatum*- (3non fotius docuifje quid eumdeceat 3 quiin Ecclefia primus & princeps futuruserat &c that is , FromthefeWordes 1 demand whither any that is found can judge , that the Lord fefus did take away primaci and principality , and did net rather teach what beeome: him , who was to be fir ft and Prince in the Church — and thereafter he tells us that Chnft by his own example did ihew what fort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church, fothat he Ooth in downright exprefs terms plead for a fupreme patriarch or pope reprefentkig Chrifts pritcipality over the Church, & what harmo- ny this keeps with the judgment of proteftant divines upon that paffage , any may judge. The Informers „holdes 1 4'x A Confutation of the firft Dialogue both befor and after their officiating in thefe Churches. z> It is alio cleared above, that as the (capture is utterly filent of their return to thefe Churches againe, after Pauls recaling them from the fame, and after their tranfient Imployrnent therein: So we have made it like- wayes appear, that they didofficiat thereafter in many other Churches, performing to them the fame duties of Evangelifts as in Ephefus and crete. And that in Ephefus, elders were called Bifhops, and had the whole Epifcopal charge before Timothie , committed to them in paules laft fire well. In a word » it can never be made ^ood that any who were fixed to particular charges> did fo traveil up and down as thefeEvangi lifts are proved to y9 have done. Againe he tells us „ Shit Gerard thinks ,, they were firft Evangelifts , then made Biihops by 9, Paul at Ephefus andCrete. Anf. If he think fo too, hemuft quite all his plea for th-ir Epifcopacie from thefe Epillles: for Paul calls Timothy todoethe worke of aneEvangelifi here , and Tuus worke was the fame; And hemuit underftand this in theftri&fcnfe fifhe of* fet Gerards exception to any purpofej which, according to him,fccludes powerin ordination and jurifdidtion. So that a worke and office being enjoyned Timothy in this Epiftle, which hath nothing to aoe with ordination and iurifdidion, he was not yet made a Bifhop, and if not yet, it will be hard to find out his commiflion and patent afterward in fcripture, fince he was in perpe- tual evangiliitick Imployments, and fure if Paul ever defigoed him Bifhop over Ephefus. he would noi have called the elders of Ephefus, Biihopes, befor Timothy „ in his laft farewell. We heard Saravia plead „ that 33 Paul intitles not Timothy anEvangelift [noncom- ^pUat nomine Eva^gehfta] how didbe mt fee that [ that Paul , numquam compellat nomine epifcopi* ne- ver puts upon Timothy or Titus, the title or na- me of 4 Bisboper neither in the inferiptiones of the epiftles Upon the^oint of Epifcepacle. 143 Epiftles writen to them , nor in any place of thefe £- piftles, or elfe where in fcripturc 3 nor injoynesany of them to do the work of bishop* Ashe injoynes one of them exprefiy to do the work, of ant Evangelijl. And fince th? Apoftle , difertii verbis , in titles ihe.fe el- ders of tphefus 3 Bishops , and ( to ufe Saraviar phrare ) compellat nomine Epifcoporum . and hat with the fignal emphafis * of heing made vishofs by the HolyGbofi, his reafon from epithets and compeiiauons, Will the more ftrongely evinc them to be fuch. 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelilh anddero- gatorie to his high fundtion3to make him a Bifhop.The Counce] of Chaidecon judges it faerilegious to de- grade a Bifliopro a Presbyter , fuch mud he acknow- ledge this degrading to be , and therefore that being once Evangclifts., of neceffity they behoved to con* tinue fo. Next , the Doubter objects , what we have been Oving , ,i that Paul gave to the elders of Ephefus 3,rheCbarge, not to< Timothy 3 which h'2 would not 3i have done 3 had he been B mop, fince ic isproba- 3)blehe wasprefent at this time > for v. 4 He was in Pauls companie- Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument leaft it prick him , omitting thefe pregnane eircumfhnces of the context* 1. Thu this was Pauls laft and farewell exhortation. 2. That he not only gives thefe elders the Charge over that Church be- fore Timoihv, and no: to him, hut alio the tvhcll Eptfco-pal charge , TMfi&nu, to feed and rule as the Ho* lv Ghoib Batops fer over the fame , which com* prehends bo:h ordination and jurifdiclion. Buc what fayes he to th's Argument. 1: It maybe he Wets not jet fettled ' ishep as Gerard thinks- Bw fure h- had all the fettlemem as Biftop which the firft Epiftle afoords him, from which his man derives hisEpifcopacy , and po- wer in ordination and jurisdiction; and if, for all tl'efe^ our Informer will grant that he might have been noc as yet bifhop> buc anefiyangelift. Then 1. he malt' K acknow- 144- A Confutation of the firfl: Dialogue acknowledge that all his pleading for bis Epifcopacie in therixt pages, from the power he is fuppofed to hi vein the firftepiftle, is but a beating of the aire and impertinent* mice ic might be Antecedaneous to his Epifcopacie; and by the Informer* confefTion, he might have had yet no more Epifcopal relation to that Church* then any who was never Biihop there. Hence 2. Not being yet 8iftiop, butane Evangelift (till , (as Gtfrfrd takes hi in) inatravelin* pofture upanddownc wirh rhe Apoftle ( as alfo bishop Hall , Vorvnam and -Hop* * ker acknowledge him ) I wonder how this man will * ftfteanhisdefiyai, that be was ane Evangelift in the proper and ftriSfenfi Such a$ this was. Sure,if this his fuppofni- on , or [may be] will hold good-', timothies office, as fuch znzEvangdiil) was toceafe in the Church, as heexprefleth it, and Pauls bid ding him doe the wor^of one Evangelift, fufficiently Unbifhops him at leaft pro tunc> which notwithstanding we heard him deny. 2. He tells us] , ,that henaus who lived not long after the Apeftles, ,t tfr nks there were Afian Bifhops mingled with the el- 1 5, dersof Ephefus, and with Timothie their B'fhop, „ to whom in common Paul made that exhortation J ,, comprehending the[Bifhops]under the name of [el- ,,ders] a> Apoftles were fometymes called] AnA We may be much in love with this fcripture in the pre- i fent debate, finceic forces adverfaries upon fuch1im-| pie incoherent flliftS. Firfi, it may lehe Was not y at made bishop "then leaft that cenceffion prove too g^p- pin£ . there muft be other ¥.isho-s of Afia , mingled with thefc elders , and Timothie of ncceffitie muit be now a Biihop, or hardly well after, and their own Biihop y and the extraneous ones, muft beallihuffledupunder the name of elders , and exhorted in common , as he fliifts the argument from Philip. 1. But the textic felf fufficiently difcovers the folly of this poor fiiift. For t, Paul called the elders from Ephefus > and the, Upon the point of Epifcopacle. 145* tre elders of the Church there 2 not imaginary' elders or Bifliops from other places. 2 He lent for the elders of the Churchy in the lingular number, noi~cf tbrChurches, and (bail he lent for had a particular relation to that . Church, for had the. e been elders of other Churches there, I: would have been expreRed elders of the Chur- ches : If other elders or Bifnops of Afia had been there, thev would hive receaved the Scripcure deno- mination of pro\ inciaiChurches, which are expreffed in the plural. So 'wcr^dof Churcbes of Afia, Revel.i: II. Churches of tud ar^\ 1: Zl^sext, Thisanrwerftillfup*, poles ['I he exi fence of the diocefian B if fop over Pref- iytersat that time] which is a poor begungofthe que- ftion. Wee prove from this and luch like texts, that the Bifhopsof Aha, and hphelus wererneer Paftours, who had m Common the Epicopal charge over the Church, and that the Holy Ghoft let up rhefe, and none elfe. Infi'rie, This isbnt a meerfhift in thelucgment of Chryfoftom y Hterom, Theodoret, and the Current of In- tel preters ? who rake rhefe elders for meer Presbyters, and is contrare ro thr Syriack tranflacioiwhich reads it, Pres* byteros ecclejia Eptmfime* So the Ccncilium Aqwfgrti- venfe. But now come his proofe of Timothie^and Titus, theirEpifcopjici- firorn thefe Epiftles.Hisfirft Keafonin general ,is jabot :n thefe E fifties mere fully then any where etfe in the new Tcftam-?:;, Paul gives diretlicn to Timotbieavd T*- tus hotv to carry in ordination and jurifaiclien^ tvhich Two comprehends ths Eptfcopail office. Anf. 1 » With him there is a pofiibiliue , or may fc,that forall thefe d::re£tions>Timo- thy ana ileus were evangelifts ftiil , aridnotyet Eishops ; and fo thefe directions might be given to them as extra- ordinary ofriccrs>who:according to him :w ere to ceafe,2n& eonfequently though cornprehenfive ot the Epiicopal office , yet the oi^e might ceate with their perfons as exerciled inthatmanner^and ihe power of ordination K z and 1 46 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue and jurifdi&ion be deryved ro different recipient^to be exercifed in another maner5 (viz) by prefby ters in com- mon,. 2* By what confequence will he infer ane Epif" copall authority and infpedion, from the Apofiles prefers bing rules to them anent ordination andjurifdiPaon ? May not all Minifters be herin dire&ed , as well as Timothy and Titus ? or will his giving directions to them in this poynt infer their foleand lingular authority therein? Surely not at all in Churches conltitute • and as for what they did intheframeing and conftitutionof Churches yet in fieri) as to their organick being, is not to the pur- pofe. 3 . We did flie w above that the prclats pc wer 3 and their way as to ordination and jurifdi&ion, is in its very W4*«re, different from that which either Apoftle or E* vangilift exercifed, as being a dominion and arbitrary po- wer, yea including in ltd civil dominion , and derived from the civil Magillrat. None of which can be faid of any authority which Timothy and Titus are herefup- pofedtohave: In a word, as it is clear that the elders ofEphefus, atPaul'slaft farewell > wereimrufted with the whole power of ordination, and jurifdi&ion , and as the Epifcopi were commanded -miwinu to feed and ru- le with out any refpe£t to Timothy : which clearly de- monftrats that he (and confequenly Titus) had no E- pifcopal powerof ordinationfand jurifdi&ion>over thefe Churches , eftablifhed in their pcrfons, by any prefcrip- tionshere delivered 5 Soitisas evident thatthefame prefcriptions might be delivered 10 an) Moderator of a Synod, or vnto a tranfiently vifiting Miniftcr , though even in relation to a province, which being neceflavly to be underftod Salvo jure Ecc'cjia, would import no E- pifcopall or folc authority, and thus the cafe is here. Butwhat'were thefe directions importing this power? He inftances 1 . \ln the qualifications whichtloey mufl require infuch as were to be ordained* notfuddenly to lay on hands \ which ttfpecis ordination* mm the rules anent government, how to re* bulg Upon the point of EpifcopaaV 1 47. bukp offender^ nottoreceave ane accufation, but before two or three iVitnsffef , how to deal tvitb bcrsrikes , &c Anfi. Thefe Apoftolik directions in point of Government^ pood & excellenr,biK how dothhe prove that the adrep fing of thefe direftions^r* Jimotbie, will infer his Sole and jingle authority in all thefe, io as to feclude Presbyters from their fliare therein? And if he prove not thist it will fay no:hing to evince ane Efifcopal authority. What if fucft direilions v\ ere adrelTed to a Moderator** would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod ?Na>\ fi/iceaPresby try laid on hand's usonTimothy himfelf> Since the Presbytersof this Church of Ephefus., had the Epifcopal power in Common^committed to them as the Holy Choirs Bifhops , Since theCorinth-Prel- byterydidexcoramunicattheinceftuous, we inay cle- arly infer, that tbefe direi3ions3though immediatly ad- drefled to Timothy y yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches, as well as him. 2. Suppofing that this adreff will give himafpcciall Intereft herein > yet kow will the Informer prove that it refpc&s Tirno. thy any oiher way, and in any other Capacity> then, of ane Euangetift , which he fayes it might be , he yet was » andnotaBifhop? He dilTallowes not of Gerards opi- nion, who hyesjbat he was not jet made Bishop', Now,if thefc Rules were to be obfervedby him> and this his fuppofed lingular Authority exercifed [as aneEvange* lift , whofi office was to ceafe ,] It will plead nothing for the Epilcopaif power. Surely upon our fuppofition, that he was a fellow-helper and afTiftant of Paul, in his Apoftolik fun&ion , and had a tranfient occasional Imploymcnthere,, asisclearely held out in the Text > thefe rules are very fuitable unto him in that capacity. Befids, thefe Directions are for inftru&ion of every man of God, or Minifter > in point of Chuich-Govem- ment i.Tim. 3: 164 1 Tim. 4. 6: But doth notgive them Fpifopal power. Or will he fay that every man hath I4-S A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue hath the formal office.or p.Iace,ih the nature whereof he is inftru&ed? The dedication ofa book to a man anent- rules of kingly Government will not make the man, or fuppofe him3 either King or Governour. In the g d. place. As tothefe Dire&ions tfyetnfelves, particu larly as toTimothies direction ,2s to laying on of hands/tis Anfwered,that laying on of hands in ordination > isfound inScripture cFresbytcrial ,:\ ^competent tomeer Presbyters,which(as I faid) they exercifed upon Timo- thy himfelf, though Paul was prefent* 1 Tim 4- *4- 2 Tim.i,?- And therefor Timothy could have nofwgle , or Epifcopat authority therein in Churches Conincute Sothacthe precept diredh Presbyters as well ash'.m in that point. Nay, this addreffed direftipn mainly lefpeded them , as the -proper fubj eel of this power , and the Presbvtery received their leii'on here {not to lay on hands fuddenly) rather then Timo hy. Nixt , As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking andCerfures. I an- f&. That neither can this be T/mothv's ok prercga* tive 5 for either it is meaned of a Fnvttrcbii {e^nd this ^ every Chriftian hath authoriiyin: .,, Thou malt in any , /wife rebuke thy neighbour, andnorfurfei ; fin uoon 3, him.Levit. 19: i7.Pr.0v. 9: £♦ Or of a mtmfterialre- hukt\ and this is competent to every Miniiter of the wordJfa. f3:i. 2. Tim. 4 i> 2.Tr. 1: 13*2; Sam 12: 2. Andbefides, Inftitutions and reproof* of Church officers 3 will not prove a fixed Epifcopal power. Pro- phets rebuked, but had nojuriididtion ov^r Priefh 3 nor Paul over Peter 3 though he reproved him. As for that which he particularlymentions about receiving me accafation againft ane Uldsr, It is anfwered , That this alio belongs to the official juridical power of Eiders , fince Ruling & Government act! ibure to them in Scripture, doth ne<:cflarily import ane authority to recdveaccu- fatiotis,and corre& delinquents bv reproofs andcen- iiircs^Match.8:i^.i7. There is ane accusation to be de- lated Upon the point of Epifcopacie. J49 Jated ecckjia, to the Church, or the juridical Court , no t to one Pie]a,asis above cleared 5 and therefore the dire&ion anent the receiving of the accusation, refpects them who were to judge uponi*, and not the Prelar. Com- pare this with t Cor. 5: 4, $, The Presbyters muft meet together to rebuke the Jnceituous there and they jthat are Spiritual muft reftore the delinquent Gal. 6: 1. ihz Church Officers, orMinifters of Th^ffalonica muft note and admonish authoritatively the difobedient Brother , 2 ThefT. 3:14.15. To which I may 2dd^ that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rehuk* one el- der, and pofirively enjoyned [doubly to honour them, when faithful] So, the reeeiv ing ane accufation * i s n o m o v e then that whichever/ pnvatChnllian andMinifter is ca- pable of,even again ft the fuperiour, whither in f:ate:or age, in relation to admonition, Counfel or Comfort accordingly. Levit- 19: 17. Gal<6: ?, 2 Joh. 10, II, None in whatever capacity are excemed from this pre- cepts not to receive accusations lightly. Hence the 4th. Council ofCarthage ( cited by Blond- ApL SeB+4) ena£ied Tbtt no Bishop should hear one accufation without the Clergie , and that Without their afitnt 3 thefentence should be voyd* where was the negative voyce here, Whittaker9 thus anfwers the Popifli pleading upon this text? and our Informers too (controv. 4. Queft. 1. Cap. 2.) „That 3, Timothy is commanded not rafhly to receive aneac- 3)cufation > proves rot that he had dominion overEl- asders, which according to the Apoftles minde is to „ bring a crime to the Church, to bring the guilty 3, into judgement, openly to reprove, which not only „ fuperiors may doe, but alio equals and inferiors.' In ,, the Roman Republick, the Kingsdid not only judge 3, the people, butalfo the Senators and patricii; and „ certainly it feems not that Timothy had iuch a Con- ,3 fiftory land Court as was afterward appointed toBi- ,3 fhops in the Church, what this authority was may be K4 under 350 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue. M underftood by that which followes, [thofe that fin re* _,, buke before all J 3 which equals alfo may doe* 3> Thus Bifhops heretofore , if any elder or Bifhop had 3,aneiil reporc, referred it to theeecIefiaflickSenat or, j, Synod, arid condemned him if he fee'med worthy, ?.by a pubUck judgement, that is , did either (ufpend, ;, excommuniczir, or remove him 3 the Bifnop condem - .,neir.gnocent elders or deacons 5 not by his authority a* 59 Ions, but with the judgment of the Chutch and clergie J9 - & in cafe ofanpeals. even to the Metropolitan /# c quid doe nothing without the Synod , (3 what they did was rati- fied The fafneis the ahfvi et ofBucer devi&ufu,SacrMi- mfler. WiUct SJnopf. ?apif Conn. 5, Quej.y part$> In the appendix Huccr. deGub, pag 300. to 598* T ~z Informer ie\\s usmthe nexc place that ,,thefe 5>direftions concern after, iges and are of ordinary life: 3j> and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers v inthefe A&s ...*■ that in calling Timorhy and 35 Tims, extraordinary officersin thefeAcJts, we lead ?J the way to their errour,vvho rail ordination and jurif* ^di&ion., extraordinary. Anfa. As we li2ve proved, that none of chefe directions will infer in Timothy ane tpifcopal Power properly fuch, but that any power he had above Presbyters , was by his fpecial Evange- iiflicl^ Legation , fo the concernmeir of after ag£s in theiediuaions3and their being ofconflant ufe> isa piti- ful argument to prove rhe contimianc of the power 5n that manner. Are not all the old Teftamen: pre* cepts anent the antiquated ceremonies, all the acfis & directions given to extraordinary officer^ , both un- der the Old and NevsTtttzmentycfferpetual tifetn after ages} But are they therefore to be imitated and retained? What will he (ay to the Papilla, pleading for the anoin- teing of the lick upon the Apoille James his precept[/e* ihe elders anoint the ficke with cile , and pary ) this Is aneAfi: enjoy ned to ordinary officers, viz, toel- deis^ • Upon the point'ofEpifbpacie. iyi ders , and joyned with with prayer , a conftantftand- ing'dutie: and he will not fay that this Apoflolick precept is to be ex punned as ufeles. What? mult we therefore retean anointing? would he not in this cafe diftihguifh bet wixt that, which is a conflant dutie , anda tempera ie concomitant and appendix. A&ed not the ApoitlescX'raordinarely in their very preaching, both as to its extent j its confirmation by miracles, th^ir gifts of tongues , and are not the A&s of preaching and baptizing of conftant ufc in the Church ? Muft not zh\ informer grant that thefe Apojlolic^&s of prea- acMrg and baptizing are perpetual, chough the mould and maneris extraordinary and gone , in 10 far astheir extra ordinal y Apoftolick power interpofed therein. Thus the £ fts of ordination and jurifdi&ion are moral, but ihtrmdusrei, is extraordinary, mfofarras their E- vangcliitik authority , and fpecial legation, interpofed therein. He muft either acquiefc in this, and ac- knowledge this his argueingSopi//?^ and pueril, or he vail contradict what he laid before, anentthe Apoftles extraordinary Privilcdges, which are gone with them, viz, infaiilibilirie, their immediat call , fending to all nations , and what elfett 'as neceflary for tbefirft founding of the Church. Now, is not that which was thus ne- cefai y, of perpetual ufe ? Are wz not built upon the foun- dation on he Apoftles and Prophets? Are not the ordinances and Miniftery receaved from them, of perpetuall ufe? And their moft extraordinary Afts,ifwe mean;it ef improvement. Nay,did not the new-Teftament Church receave th^ Law of God,and ordinances from theje'\es? Muft we therefore Judsize?2*How will he prove ? hi: the averting, thar any orlicer hath ane ex- traordinary authority converfant about fuchane Aft, will give groundto fay,that the A 8 itfelfis extraordinary, or the ordinance touched b> th*t Aft , expyred ? WiB hisatTemng, that the Apoftles exercifed aneextraor- K 5 dinary 1 1 % A confutation of the firft Dialogue dinary authority which is now ceafcd , in their preach- ing unfixedly , by ane immediat call , and confirming their do&rine wirh miracles , and itrange tongues , give ground to concluded the ordinances of preaching and baptising are expired alfo } I trow he will not grant this, How then will our afferting, that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangeliftick autho- rity in ordinanon, and jurisdiction infer , that the Atls of ordination andjurifdi&ion ? or thefe ordinances themselves , are expirei ? c^n he notdiftin :uilh betwixt the power it felfy and the different fubjeB ,and manner of its exercife, or- dinary or extraoriiinary?can he not fee in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived, and cut out in afucceflion of different and ordinary channels , and diverjlie exercised ? Saves he not that the Apoflles had ane extraordinary power, of both ordination and jurifdidtion, and both the keyes. But I crow heaflcrts that, there arc different recipients, who bring down ane ordinary power by fucceffion. Some ( Prelats forfooth ) have the key of Governmant, others ( viz,) Presby ters*have preach- ing fortheir work , but no rule properly. And fayes he not that the extenfive authority, in which theApo- ftlesexercifed their Miniitry, i> gone, and a limited ordinary Mimftry derived from them. If the extraordi- nary Million of twelve Apoftles, hath derived frcm it a Minifteryand eccleSaftick authority fpread throw all Church -officers in the world, who fucceed them not into the fame office ? let this Informer (hew me , why may not Timothies Evangeliftick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction , bederyvedbv, and feat- ted, in a Prefbytery, though ihe EvangehftickOffiee is ex- traordinary , and fas (Bfeh ) not fucceeded unto* i The fervice, and worke of teaching, and governing to I ( continue in all times, doth not render the Apoftolick J: miflion or commiffion, ordinarie, nor infer their I being (acceded in idem offxium, & eundem gradum , the I ordinary Upon the point of Epifc<*pacie. iyg ordinary po^er being infti tut and fettled in the hands of ordinary officers, by a new warrand and comrnifiion, according to the Scripture rules of ordination. 1 he office ofMofes was not rendered ordinary,becaufe ma- ny works cf Government exercifedby him , were re- committed to the Elders of Ifrael; and fo the c .:feis here. TheEvangelifts extraordinary office and com- mifTion ( neceflary , as that of the A poftics, for the fit ft founding of the Churches , and watering and building- them up in their or2;anick being, &for fettling ah their ordinary officers J is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination & jurisdiction; which we find was in the Apoftoltck Churches exirci- fed, andev<:n inthisof Ephef^. His 2d Reafon to prove them &\{hor>$,\$ ,Becaufc their comrniffion at Epkefus& Crete, wasn t voyded upon the fir (l fettling ofMinifiers in thofe places^ her efore their office was to be conftant , fince ifmecrlyas tlvargeufts the} were to fettle a Church there , then they were to give place to the Presbytery when fome Mimfters were ordained : but they did u ct fe: —— ! itus needed not ordain Eiders in every city, if fome few ordained might 'ordain the reft- Anf i. Tlvs is a poor ,5argurmr;:, and hath no twill: of a connexion [,? their J3commimonrac thefe places vvas not voyded upon the j, firft fettleing of Minifters,] ergo, [they were not ex- traordinary officers, but hadaftanciing Eprcopace ,, there] which is ameer rope of fand. The Apoftles of- fice and commiffion was not vovded overall Churches when fettled, Ergo > they had no, extraordinary in- fpe&ion , office, or commiinon towards ali thee Churches. What confequence is hercr.So may it be faid of theieVicaricusApoftleSjtheir cornmiffion to thefe or otherChurches could not be voided or expired .though thev were never fo much fettled5but they were pro re nata to viiite and water all the Churches, and bring Apo-c- lick inftiu&ions to them5 and reports from themanenc their 145 r ^ Confutation of the firft Dialogue their cafe. We have proved that Timothie andTitus ex* ercifed their extraordinary office, and commiflion, to" wards many otherChurches,after their return from the* feofEphefus>&Crete,fothat their commiflion towards thefe or other Churches, could be no more voided whil the Apoftles Imployed them thcrin, then their office. B~fid, this Informer fhould advert, that Timothy is left To charge fome that they teach no other doBrine which was a cornmiiiion beyond the meer fettling of Minifters, and fuppofing fome already fettled, t* Will he fay that Timothy and Titus were ordinary {landing officers or Biftiops,over ihefefeveraHChurches3where they might refide fome time, and have Imployment therm, even afcer they had officers of their own ? did they hoc vifite and water many other Churches , were they therefore theirBifhops?if fo, he muft quickly tranfport them to be Bifhops of otherChurches,after they wcreBifhopsherc: 8c exalt them to metropolitan's as feme of the ancients make them, j .Their Evanieliftikinfpe8ion,dite&iou , and a(fiftence,even afcer fbmcordinary officers were fettled, could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of thsfc officers , then the Apoftles extraordinary infpe£tion> 2ndinfallibleuniverfaldireftive power, could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority, in ordination and ju- rifdi^ion. The Apoftles power (which could not be voyded , nor expyre, whil they were alive) being Cu- mulative unto ,but not privative of, the Churches ordinary power , fo it is here. 1 would ask our Informer, was Paul s apoftolick commiflion toCreteandEphefus,voydec!,af* terj5i(hopswercfetupthere?Nayjhe will not fay it.Buc did this Null the Epifcopall power of Timothy and Titus>over thefe Churches?! trow not* Well, no more could Timothys extraordinary infpedlion make vcyd die ordinary power of presbyters. 4. We told him al- ready that hotor longfoever Timothy and Titus were £-cfi jent there, they were to doe nothing pro imperio, and Upon the point of Epifcopacie. t ? y and were not to lord it over the presbyters. 5. Although elders once ordained>have power to ordaine others, yet the btm efjc, did call for the Infpection and direction of fuchhighejy gifted and extraordinary officers herein> as thefe were. And Moreover, in that Infant* ihte of the Church , Apoftolick jxrecepts and rules in reference to Church government and the exercife of both the key- es,were to be delivered by thefe extraordinary officers* &confequently might call for,8cprotra& their continu- anc therein, even after ordinary officers were ordained. fnfine.Hc cannot deny but that the Apoftle recalled both Timothy and Titus from thefe places, to the fur- ther profecution of their employment in other Chur- ches , and that their tranfient imployment therein is held outiafter their return from Ephefus and Cret > as likwayes their occafionall employment in boih thefe places, which will info fan voyd their cemmijjicn in rela- tion to them , as clearly to reful the fuppoied epifcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they excrcifed.Next, from the Authoi es of jus divinum Minijl: evangel: [con- cluding againft the peoples power of ordination, upon Timothy and Titus being lefcat thefe places to ord?irie elders] The Informer in ferrs acrainft them thus,whywas Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders , after fome Were ordained by Paul , \f)AimJlersfo ordained could ordaine the reft? and of* terjbme were araainedby Timothy and Titus , they were left Jiillu;ontkat imployment. Ianfwer his inference touches not thefe Reverend authors in the leaft.The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue effe, even after feme elders were there, and thefurder dire&ingandcom- pleating of thefe Churches in their members and offi- cers , did require ane Evangeliftickinfpeclion, though ,% the or dinar ie power ofordaineing, remained with the ordi- nary elders and Church officers, as the fcripture doth clearly hold out. Paul haveing after committed to th~ eiders of this Church of Ephefus the whol power of government i<$6 A Confutation ohhefirft Dialogue gove^n^ enr.B. t the fcripture gives nottheleaft hintof the peoples power to ordatncbutmribms this (till toChurch ouiccj s as proper to them. So that this Inference ftands good in the generall [though fome were converted to Cruiilianity theie5yet they could not ordaine officers, but Church oncers were (enrupen that Imployment] ergo. Church officers muft orient, and not the people t but the fpeciall inference will not hold, ergo , Biohops muft only ordaine for the reafons already given > no more then from Paules ordaining the firft elders, it will fol- low [ ergo Paul , or Una Apostle only b musl ordaine] which isaConfequenceour Informer daie notadmict, elfehe willcontrndifthimfelf^Itisagood confequence [Paul* a Church officer , preached and baptized] ergo [none but Church oncers mutt preach and baptize] but [ ergo* none bu* ane Apoftle muft preach and baptize ] is bad lo* gick. So his inie.cnce is neither logicall nor theolo- gical. His 3d.Rearm ro prove Timothy a Bifhop, is taken from Pauls folemne Charge i + Tim. 6.\%. to keep tvhathe had commanded him > till tfpe appearing oflcjus Chrift. That pesbyterians(^\ic\\\zx\yj\\* divinum Minift . pag. 74 ) hold thefe Directions to be for all ages of the Church, making them paralleel ivuh Matth. 28.20. anent Cbrislsprcmifedpre- fenceto the end audi: Tim*$.jltizi. Anent Pauls Charge to obfer- ve thefe things. Vv h nee he concludes that they were to have fucceffors in therr office, and were not extraordinary officers fince thefe divines fay , page 160. [That Apofiolici^ examples in thing »' neceffary for the good of the Church, and which cary a per* fetuall equn 9 and r ajon 1 them, have the face of a rule] and the Apoftle sfettingTimothy and Titus over thefe Churches As ane example sApoftolicl^for the good oj the Church and hath a per- petuall reafon and tquitiemit. Anf. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timo hy will a- mcunt to dernonitrat any epifcopall dominion over thisChurchj and thai he had no fole or arbitrary power either Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 157 e:ther in ordination or jurifdi&ron^&confequenrly that the charge of [keeping char which was comroanded'him] will import & inferr no keeping of ane Epifcopall charge. 2. Wee have alfo ftis wed what a bad confequence it is ,to argue from the perpetual ufe of precepts or dire&ions, given toextraordinaiy officerv'n relation ro extraordi- nary adh, towards the Churches imitating of tbefeatls-, and retaining thefe ex'pi'edfunSions, which is palpably a noil* fequuur, as this Mob can noc deny, elfe he will /wallow horrid abfurditics. Every thing which is for cui conflant #/e? and improvement, is not likwayes for our Imitation. Againe. 3 . I would ask this Informer, if the Command 1. Tim- 6. 1 j. joyned with the prornife Matrh. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Apofto- lik and evangeliftik office ? Sure he cannot deny this, and yet he acknowledges there were feverall peecesof their work temporary and expyred. Will he dare to fay that what the apoftle commanded Timothy in this Epi- jjle, was confined within Ephefus, or reached him only as overfieing that Church, and not in relation to his E- vangiliftick office throw all the Churches? and that the prornife i\l3tth. 28- did not r^ach the moft extraordi- nary Apoftolick A&s ; So that himlelf muft diftinguifh funlefshe beinconiiftencwithhimfelf)betwixt what is moral, and extraordinary, in this command and charge, and accordingly reached by thepromife.4. His citation from che&j divin. Minift:8ccC\\ts the throate of hi'scau- fe :for argueing thus againft privat pcrfoni intrudeiog in- to the miniftry [That riie icripture layesdown rules for calling men to that office] theyinftance in the quali- fications of the perfora , Oreing 1. Tim 3. £, 3« anent the properties of the fcriptureBifhop or presbyter. ,>Then chev add [ That the Scripture dire&s as to the :,maner of his calling, viz,whoaretoordaine,how hee „ is to he ordained, citeing i+Titn. 4- *4* viz, that J3 the presbytery is to ordaine, aad ordaine by thelay- itig ij8 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue ing on of hands — - adding, that thefe directions are for all apes, and citeing fiTim.^: 13, i4.]Now,if the- fe perptmzff directions for ullages, be touching no other Biihaps but thele in 1 lint. 3: I. And anent ordi- nation bv the hands of the Piesbytery, Curdy thole are Fresbytenal not Ffifiopal directions , and doe pal- pably exclude Timothy cs ftanding Epifcopacy^ So that he did not wcJl.to raifethjs Ghoft. Next, ane A* poftdlical extmplefor the good of the Church, is not that which tney hold tohave the force ofa rule, as the In/or* roerbeWes them, but zne example in things necejfary for the good of tue Church. And as this , To the nex citation out of thatbook.,burnes his fingers. For the autbores having cited. 2.Tim z\z,\n order to their fcope of pleading for ordination as a perpetuall ftanding ordinance , Timo- thy being in that place enjoyned to commit thofethings which he had heard from Paul , to faithfull men who fii^ll be able to teach ohers Thsyinfer.i'Aneceiuty of fetting apart fome to bJ teachers in Chrifts Church* 1. The qualifications offuch, viz, 'hey mud be faith- full men ,and able to teach. 3. That Timothy is en* joyned to comrnitr what he had heard to faithful men, which they undcrftand of oidination of minifters , that ihei e might be a perpetuall fucceflion of teachers. And comparing it with the former citation , it appe- ars thu ih.y hold thefe precepts to import the dery- vation of che ordinary power of teaching and Govern- ment to Qidinary Minifters. And when rhe Anti- JViiuifteiiall party object [ that thefe are but examples, which doe. not amount to makeup arule) thev give. this anfwer [ that Apoftohck examples in things neccf- faryforthe Church, and which have a perpetuall rea- fori and equity in them, have the force of a rule] now, this example is anent the committing of ane ordinary power ofordination3and jurifdic~iion,to faithful! Mini- sters and teachers, which quit juftles out the prela- ticaJ power. For fince they hold Timothys lingular way Upon the point of Epifcopacie, I ? the Presbycerlal , and the lingular power being in- conriftentin theiame fubieft ) they muft needs place this Jivangeliftickpotver among thefe examples which dot not obleidge, and it is ordination iifelf, arid its continu- ance in this manner by ordinary teachers which they cxprefiy plead for > as the Apoftolick example, which hath a perpetual reafon and equity, and the for- ce of a rule 5 not Titnot hies fingular power herin which they hold to be expired.So thar the Informers aflumption viz s That Timothies Evangeliflicl^ Infpeftion by the Apoftles anointment ever this Church , as aljo that of Titus, isfuch ant exemple , as hath a perpctuall reafon and equity in it He might have found to be rejected by thefe divines (had he read that peece attentivly )as no way following from ( yea con trare unto ) their allertion and it is ftill leftac Irs door toproveand make good. His Laft Reafon , to prove the Epifcopacy of Timo- thy and Titus, is taken from Teftimonies. That Polyera- t es mi. Eufehius affir me Timothy to have been Bijhop ofEphefur. —-That Leontius Bijh : ofhiagnsfia in the general! Council of Caked™ Attn* punts out a 5 erics of Tueniie Seven Bifhops in Ephefus, from 1 imothy &c : Anf\ Since the fcriptures doe clearly hold out his extraordinary Evangiliftik fun- ction, and there is nothing therein 'which can in the kail infer his having aae ordinary epifcopaHpower, The Informers pleading upon this head being found frivo- lous and leaning upon that known fallacy viz3 to argue from f The fingukrityof ane extraordin?ry officer] to :he [ Singularity of anc ordinary perpetuall officer] in Churchgovernment which will as well ferupfupon the fcoundof theApdftles univerfall infpeftion) patriar- chs 3 br popes as prelats : Surely, the improper fryles and defoliations which the Ancients put upon Timo- thy or Titus, who fpoke in the language of their owne time?, is a very infi^nificant proof to Counter ballance L Scrip- 1 6o A Confutation oi: the firft Dialogue Scripture light in this mzm'.TertufJiam fayingf cited by purk, 1. 1. C , 7- ) is her? remskable, Siconftat id verms quod prius id prius quod ab initio , id ab initio quod ab Apoftolis ?$c ' that is trueft which is firft that is firfl which is from tht beginning, that is from the beginning which is from the Apoftles. Their opinions who call them Bifho^s, are for moft part borrowed from Fufebsus, of w hole hallucinations Scalier gives large prooies, and yet all that he £ patri- archs, and this becaufe (farh WaloMeffalinus) they did thefeA&s which afterward by humanCuftome.were ap- propriate B< (hops, which (faith he ) they did as Evan- gelifts,as oneofthemisexpreffly called. Asforjerom, it is certain that he both mamaines and proves theJBi- fhopand elder to be one in Scripture , when difputing that point in hisCommentar upon Titus: and therefore when at any time he gives thefe evangelifts fuch appella- tions, he doth it allufivelyjand improperly according to the degenerat cuftome of his time. As for the Caralo- gues of Bilhops/romScripturtimes, they are found to terminatupon Apoftles or Evangelifts, as that of Ieru- falem,comes up to lames the ApoftJe.-tbat of Anrioch, to pe^er: So that of Rome, to peter, and Paul: that of Alexandria, unto mark &c : Now, they were not or* dinary officers, nor fucceeded ineundum gradum. And befid , there are ecclefiaihck cuftcmes uactd up >bi fome to the Apoftolick tymes,?which not with (landing are acknowledged not to be of divine oppointmenr, Some firft Bifhops were but primi presbiterifas wefhal after ftiew) How loll they the fole power of ordinatior and jurifdiftion, which their firft founders had, in fo fcort a time? This fole power ia ordination andjurif- di&ioa Upon the point oi Epifcopacie, 1 6% diction (which our prelats nowacclaime, and this man pleads for J will not be found till Three hundred years after Chrift5if at all then. The gi offmiftak of many an- cients in their configuring of Bifhops>appears in this in- ftance. That many fathers affirm peter to have been Bilhop of Rome, and to have continued Bifliop there for manv years. Yet Marflius patavinus pars:x,c: 16. Carolus Molinaus Seen : Confuh: franc conn: alufut & c : Paparum) proves by fcripture and reaf n that peter wa> never ac Rome. In a word, the ancients call them I ihops,asIikwayes Apofilesfuch, not properly (faith Bucer, de Gub: Ecclef:pk4j2' So fox , AcT: mon: p. 114^5] but in a large or general appellation, becaufe they Hrft preached thegofpelto thefe Churches— and to this end, To prove a perpetuall fucceffion of found preachers, and found do&rine, in thofe particu- lar Churches from the ApoftJes tyme to their ownjna- mcingfheeminenteft Minifters for parts and gifts, the Bifhops of thefe Churches: which Method & fcope of Catalogues, appears by Irenaius, Tertullian, cited by J^rpnn. fun B;fli : of Tim:ard Tit : p. 34.] TheDoubter objects agai nil: Timothies Epifc. Thathe was ordained by the layingon of the bands of the presbytery 1 . Tim 4. 14. and therefore could not be a Eijhop , SinceaPrcsbyte- y which is a company of M snifters .camtot make a Bifhop.To this :he Informer returnSji. i hat Calvin thinks thatbyprejby- ery is meaned the office. I anfwer, Suppof- Cahin think fo vhat will that Jay to theargument it felfC Againe Calvine lpon the place, doth not viholly diffoun th? ordinary otnmentj which takes the presbytery tor a company of Iders, but thinks it may wel {\ihtix\iPresliteriumquihia faith he) ColleBivum nomen effe putantyfro collegio frtsbite- QYumpofitum} reBe Sentiunt meojudicio. Such asefteem the Artsbiterybere, to be a collective word put fir the affembly of el* en* doe rightly judge in my judgement. Befidsthat the greek /ord ?rps«-£mg*e>QrPrc5byterie, efpecially asicltands L z here 16 2, A Confutation of the firft Dialogue here conftrudted , cannot in any tollerable fcnfc im- port the office, for the office hath no hinds to lay on. 2- The Jnformsr flies to his old fhifc of jhruding the diocefian Btfhops under the Ufp of thefe presbyters , which he tell s u s tve need not thinkjlrange of fince he hath sketvedtbat the [Apofi(es]arc called elders or[presbyters.} Anf Wee have al* ready difproved what he alledgcs from the Apoftles being called elders ( in agenerallfenfe J here, as before hebutbcggesthe Queftionin fuppofing his imaginary different degrees of preaching presbyters or Pa* ftours tobeatthistymeexiftent, which ( until! he ma* ke it appear from Scripture) is as eafily denycd by us, as affirmed by himi What a pitiful cau-e mud that be which needs thefupport offuchvaine fhifts? Inphil: 3. and Aft. 20. Bifhops (diocefian Bifhops) mud be fetup among the presbyters. So here they muft be brought into this presbytery, whereas the very Que* ftion is anent the being and exigence of any fuch Biihops atallatthistymc. Next, if this man were pofed upon it , why he males *&e presbyters here to be of his imagined hieft clafs ofdiocejian Bifhops , and not alfo in all places wh-re they are mentioned 3 as Dr. Hamondoth: And how it comes that there were fo many Bifliopsfo early here befor Ephefus , Crete, and other Churches had even his inferiour elders or ordinary Minifters? He could give no anfwer but what would render him redi- culous y in his running the Circlcftick , and begging- the Queftion. Betides Timothy was yet no Bifhop;for he was advanced to this office when fet over Ephefus in tjbe Informers judgement : and he was now only (vit-h him) a fort of unfixed pjreacher of the gofpell , or ane E vangelift in his large fenfe. And Hooker faye's the E- vangeliits were presbyters of prime fufficiency affii* med'by the Apoftles to attend,thsm« This rcfolver will have him to be no other waves ane Evangelift » thea Upon the point of Epifcopacie.' 1^5 then Philip y who 3 hefuppofes, was Hill a deacon when, fo termed. Thus it evidently appears that Timothy, according to him, and upon ihefequel of thatanfwer * receavedattheutmofi butameerpresbyteratinhis or* dinationj and then I wonder what needs a number of Eifhops be muftered together for ordaining him? Might not Paul and the Inferiour presbyters or- dainefuchaneone ? Thus we fee he is ftillinconfiftenc what himfelfin all his fhifts. But he hath a 3d. Anfwer taken from theUying on ofpauls hand?, mentioned z»Tim. I. 6. which (he (ayes) gave the fubftance of the ordination ^ al- though the presbyter: might [hare in the Ceremonial part of it. Am: 1. Ii itweredenyed that the Apoftle 2. Tim. I* 6 affirmes That Timothy Was ordained by the laying enecf his hands fince hementionss onely [the gift conferred by the laying on of his handes which] Paul might confer upon him antecedanioufly to his ordination y fince he laid on haivis in order to gifts of the Spirit abftrafting from ordination as other Apctfles did Aft. 8. 17. Andalfo b?caufe the different maner of expreffion in 2.T{m. 1.6. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz, andch* trdination, or at leaft wil plead that Pauls laying on of hands was in order to the Conferring of the gifts, and nor neceflarie for the ordination it felf, which he recei- ved intirclv by the hying on of the presbyteryes hands, j even fuppofcingthst they were both contemporaries if I fay , Some presbytetiin Doubter ftiauldfuggeftthefa difficulties to our Informer, he would be puzled to come liquideoff with this his anfvyer. Surely f the Cha- rifroa] the gift , is a differ! fig thing from the office* And the Apoftics laying on cf hands as ane Apoitie , being in a (pec iali way in order to the end mentioned thouk contemporarie wich the presbytryesafticn , yet migrc be temporary and expired, i. What Calls he ihece- monkl tart ( diftinguifhed from :ha: fubftamial oac J-3 'of rj64- A Confutation of the firfi: Dialogue of his ordination , which Paul gave) which he admitts the presbyters unto, if we will. Nay Sir, we will not; 'tis knov^n your party are much in love with ceremo- nies, and we quite them unto you 3 where thev want fubftance. Was it the Ceremonial part to lay on hands ? Then I would propofe to our Informer. I. That fince this was neither in order to the gifts, which Paul gave, nor any part of the facred authority and mif- lion as a Church officer , which Paul only gave accor- ding co himjwhar fignified their laying on of handesat all ? Was it only to "fignifie their confent? Where can he fhew i:i all the (captures, where laying on of hands is mentioned, that it Imports onely confent, and notau- thoritie ? this Ceremonie , borrowed from the old Te- ftament > doth alwayes prefent a badge of ane Authori- tative bleffing , flowing from Prophets, Patriarchs and others, to which though there were many affenters , yet none of thefe affenters laid on hands. N~xt , fince this Ceremonie was ufed by ourLord,towards his Apoftles, and thereafter by them,and particularly in this work: & withall, fince it muft needs Import here a folemne blef. ling of , a fetting apart unto God, and fending out into his vineyeard , the perfon thus ordained ( not to debate whither thisCeremonie be of the eflence of ordination, as fome judge, yea or not) let our Informer fhew me, why it may not, upon all thefe grounds be looked upon as a badge of JWinifterial authority , and fuppofing this authority inherent in the presbyters. Iwoulda^k him, 3 ♦ Since Paul commended the whol official power of ordination & jurifdi&ion ,to the presbyters, A&.2o. & Peter, i. Epiir. 5. Ch: 1 inputs ane im^cxcZfrt 5, or aftuallexercifeofEpifcopallauthorityjfo^f/d'erx.who were ( as himfelf acknowledges ) fet over the flocks one- ly, and fo none of his imaginary VreUt elders } With what ienfe or reafon,can he or any elfe fay , that they could not iharein the fubft annals ofordination.mwy no doubt con- curred Upon the point of EpifcopacieJ 1 6 ? cnrred with the publickbieffing at Timothies ordinal tion :forI fuppofe it was done in the view and prefen ceohheaflembly , But did any of them lay on hands' Befyds , we might here tell him that the1 word ir^v-n' £ andlayhands upon ane Apoftle. And when he hath cleared this, he willeafily expedcur difficulty in this point, 2. Though it were granted, that a presbytery, confifting of meer or dinary officers , could not ordain ane Evangelift, jti I hope he will grant,that a presbytery, whexefucba one 4f paultvas, might doe it, who as ane Apoftle, might ordaine alone. If he fay , what is then become of our f resbyterial ordination , which we draw from this text t Ian(wer, it is {much confirmed, 'but not weakened by what is faid , for if the Apoftle L 4 Paul *i 66 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Paul took along in this high A ft [ the ordination even of ane Evangeliil ] the authoritative concurrcnc of a Presbytery , therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now 5 in rela- tion to ordinary Chuich officers or fellow Presbucrs, when the office of ApoitlesandEraneelifis is ceafed. 3* If the ground and topick of our Iw/orwfrxargumer.c [Jheytvhoordaine 7nujt be greater then he who is ordained] were denied, he would be more ptfzeled to rmke it good, then he Imagines. Becaufe I The bieiTing in ordination being only minijicrial and Injlrumental by way of fervice but not by ane criminal pntmtive authority (as a learned man djlhnguifhei here ) GodandChriit alone ordaining thus, whofe feivanrs.snd Minifters , both the ordained and ordainers are. Ephcf,4: u, 12, i Con 12:2s. Maurn 9: 37, 38. 2 Cor, .4: J. 1 Cor. 3:5', 21, 22. Aft* 13:1,4- The ordination will no more infer a fuperiority over the oidained, then peoples bleffingof God will make them greater then Hee, Jacobes bleffing of Pharaoh, will make him greater then Pharaoh , the peoples bleiiing ofSolo* mon , greater then Solomon. The Kings A&urney (fairhhe) who drawes the nobleman or officer of ftate, His patent and commimon \ is not greater then hee, But the King who is the original of tempo*vall honour. So Minifters in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it, but Chriftonly is the original proper crdaincr. As for that text > Hebr.7:7* Hefayeskis meanedof Chrift himfelf who by Mel- chifedeck his type 3 bleffcd Abraham by his own in- herent authority and power. 1. Admitting that the ordainers , behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination ti execut , yet it will not neceflarly follow, that they muftbe ftill greater after the or dina- ciontspaftSc finifhed,the very end of it being joconferr upon the ordained a UkeMimSery with thac which them- frivolous and vain , as alfo his new Argument taken from [diotrephes's love §f preeminence^ wherein hetmbraces Bellarmins evafioncs , and offers violence to this? and parallel Texts. OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy, is taken from the feven Afian Angels Revel. 2;. Whom he holds to be Diocefan Bifhops: Becattfc tbeugh there were many Ministers at Epbefus Aft. 20. Yet when thzt Church long after this is mitten to. and when increased there L5 ' * 1 6 g A Confutation of the firft Dialogue is but on* Angel addrejfei , and commended, or blamed, accord- ingtowhat was well, or amifie in the Church: And in all the reft whatever is commended or difcommended , is dirt Bed to$m Angel, who by his place and authority, was maineb concerned therein. Anfi This man 9 if he had been fo ingenuous and feen in this debaters he would appear, might have found all this, and much more then he hath offered , fully removed and anfwered by many Godly learned* But they muft (till tell over and over; their old baffled arguments, to which fatisfying an- fwers hare bein often returned. But to the point , the weaknesof this proofed is many vvayes evident. I. It is grounded upon a Mifterious Meraphorick terme of Angel, and ftarrs ; Revel, i: zo .the mifterj of the Seven - ftarrs, fo muft the expreffion of Angel, beiikwayes a part of this miftery. TheM?xim u known, Theoh- gia >ymbolica non eft argument ativ a. Far lefs can this be rationally oppoicdun-ro fo many pregnant clear fcrip- tares5as are produced for Presbyterian Government, Beiides that,the word[Bishop] is no where in Johns wri- tings, made ufe of ; who calls himfelf a Presbyter , and never menrions fuperiority of one Presbyter over a- nother, but in condemneing Diotrephes. He calls Chrift the word , and the Sabbath , the Lords day ; thefe are expredions not found before inScriprures Surely he (hould have made mention of a new office, as well as of a nev pbrafe , had any fuch thing as a bishop, been al- lowed by him. Befides , the Metaphorical terms of Starrs* or Angels > doe import the qualities of light , heavenlines of frame &c: which are proper andfuite- bletoall Minifters of the Gofpel : and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over man v Minifters. 2. The great ropick of his argu. mentis [that one is named* though many are fpoken to> and where many Presbyters arefuffofedtobe, asatEphefus , who t before muft needs be aBahop,] but this ground will not hold Upon the point of Epifcopacie 1 69 hold good. Becau fe, l- This is no more then what is fui table unto the (hie of this book, which is by mi- ftickvifional reprefcntations, to include many mdivi* duals as one lingular : So all the individuals of the Church , both members and officers, are reprefented by one candleftick : and why not alfo all the Mmifters, by one angel , which is a tcrme that of it felf , and in this place , imports no jurifdittion properly , but is imrnedUtly referred co the qualuiesof Minifters^above exprefled. 2. This is alfo fuitablc to the ftile of this book as it is epifiolar , th - addreffe may be to one , but it will give no Authority to that ene, over the reft , no more then ane addreffe from the King, to a fpeaker of ihe Parliament, will give to thatperfon , jurifdi- ftion and authority over them 2 Or then our Lords faying to Peter only expresfiy , not to the reft of his fellow difciples , I mil give unto thee thekges &e. Will conclude that he was Frmcc or orimatover 'he Apolt- les,and that they had not equal authority with him, in the ufe ofthekeyes. Our Informer and his fellows here, docjuftifie the Papifts plea lingfor the Pope. 3. This h fuitable unro Scripture prophetic^ writings* and to this book j asiuch , :o reprefenc many individuals by oncfingular, Thefourbeafts, and twentie four El- ders , are not founndividuall peribns , or twentie four fingle Elders. The lingular names of Woman, Beaft , Whoor, Dragon, fignifie a collection of many individuates. So the one Spirit of God is called the feven Spirits, m the 1 Chap: With reference to his manifold operations. Dan. 8: 20. Om Rjtm figni- fies many Kings oftheMedes and Perrons. He that will not hearken to the Priefi. Deutr. 17: 12* That is, thePrieftSy intheplurall. So the Priefts lips fhould keep knowledge and the Law is to be fought at his mouth Mai. 2 .-7. That isthePriefts^Bleflfe'd is tbatfcrvaM,wh°m his Lord Sec. that isjhefe fervantt. Particularly , as to this x7o A Confutation of the firft Dialogue this term Angel, Ic is faid Pfal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly, that is, minf Angels, 4. It lis Suitable to Scripture* and to this book, Toreprefent ane indefiner number, by a definis. Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four homes, Zachr. 1:18. All the Godly , and the un- godly? are represented by the five wife, and the five foolifh Virgines Matth. 2 v and in the S. Chap, of thil book , The Seven Angels {landing befor God , re- present all the Angels. For in the 7 Chap: Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus {land. So we are to understand with the fame indefinitnesofttimes th: Septenary number, as the Seven pillars which wif- dom hewes outProv. 2.The (evenPaftours or fhepherds Mic. 5 . 1 he Seven eyes Zachr, 3 . And in this very book the Seven condlefticks , Lamps, and vials, Revel, 4$ f5i 18:17. Or3 ?. Is it the ruling Governeing power ? Surely all Minifters are fucfc A ngels,All that watch for the peoples foules have a joint rule over f£«»,HebM$* i7.Andiherefor none can challenge it folely to hi mf elf* In the Church of Theffalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine 5 joplie 2nd indifcriminatim fed, joyntliecew/r/reiandadmoniftied, and were joyntly the *rp«.Wfeiio* or Rulers , to whom confequently the people were indifcriminatim (or with out any diffe- rence of one of them from another) tofubmitt tbemfeh ves, iThelT. 5. 12. There was therefore no fole An- gel or wgasj®* and ruler , but this Vrojtajia or ru- leir.g power was in many. So was it with the Church ofEphefus Aft. 20* So with thtfe elders or Bifhop* I. Pet- md contrary to that plain text,to fet up one Angel or Diocefian Bifhop over that Church, with fole power of ordination and jurisdiction. BiutheDwtw objeits what have bclJn faying, viz» I7X A Confutation of the firft Dialogue That the Angel is to be taken collc&ively, and not for one Jingle perfen,butfor all the Minifies, i o whkh (n a eece of pe- tulant folly j he Anfwers That he hath oft wondered at this reply , that itfeems this Scripture pinches us fore* when we flic to fuc1 a shift • That Scultetus , a learned Prote-. ft ant , affirms that the moft learned interpreters underftand • the Angel thus , ana that without offering violence to th* Text.it cannot be other w ayes under ft xd ♦ Anf I. We hop- is evident from whansfaid that the moft native fcriptural acception is to take theAngel colle&ivly.To which we mayadde, that although the Lord Jefus (the beft interpreter of thefeAngelsjdoth expound the Seven candliticks, to be the Seven Churches > yet in expounding the Seven Starrs , he lofTes the number of Seven, and calls them not the Seien Angels (ashefliould have done according to this man1 meaning) butinde' finitly the Angels o£ the Seven Churches ; from which it is convincing^ apparent that though there were Seven Churches written unto, yet there were not Seven diocefian B'VMwjaccording to the number of the Seven Angels : but that all the Minifters or Angels aie thus collectively underiiood* And wheras this man profefles (in the deeptofhis win forfooth) to wonder at this anfwer and taksittob.afriift. He fliould wonder atAugu- ftinfHomiL 21* upon this booke,) who thus taks it,ex- pounding theAngel of Thyatira3the froe'pofitiecclefidrum> the governoures of the Churches. He fhould wonder 2£Aretas>X\\>- t. Cap : t, 2, 9, 10. Wonder ziFrimafius in A poc : C : 2. A t Amhofus , Anbcrtus, To : 1 , 6 p : I . Anfelm, ?ererius% ViBonnus, lirinus , Haymo , Beda , ferkings. Fox, in his Meditationes upon the Revel, p : 7,8,9, 17* who cites alfo many Interpreters thus ex- pounding him. Yea more, he wonders atKingjames and the Epifcopal clergiein England, under and by whom, in the contents annexed to the Bibles of the lafttran- flation, the contents in the*, chap : are reprcfented tbus Upon the point of Epifcopacie 175 [what is to be written to the Angels, that is > to the Minifters of the Church of Ephefus, Smyrna Stc] Its pit e diey had noc this grave dictator to corredl their miftake, and to prefent them with his new fpe&acles 1 ta difcover therewith 1 the Bifliopin thefe Epiftles. He should have wondered at Filkjngton Bifbop 0{ £)ur. ham (in his expofition upon Hag: Chap* %• y. j%. ) who expoundes the Angel thus colleSivJy. See Ger£ Buc.dcGub. Ecdp 1 20^393,4^8,419,422,433. Now, what pinched all thefe Authors to embracethis Silleptick expofition of the Angel / As for Sculrems- , although a Proteftant, yet he is a high Prelatift , and a partial witnes in this point , & cannot concerballance thefe Authores mentioned, .But next > what wil our Informer gain though it were yeelded that this Angel is ane individual or fingle perfonf Some learned men doe fo take it, as Bq^and Reynolds, who notwithstanding were far from thinking him a Pre- lat. Becaufel. He may be the An/elus Frefes, or the moderatour Angel, not. the AngehisVrinceps , or Lord Angel ', yea , and the Prefer and Moderator for the timers a fpeaker in the Parliament. Ephefus had ma- ny elders (Adt 10*. 171 Tim. 5: i7Jof equal authority, who were made Biihops , and they are fpoken to in the pluraljthoughthc Angel is named inthe Angular num- ber. 2. This Angel is faid to have no ^urifdivflion and fuperiorky over the reft of the* Minifters. And we challeng our Informer to (hew where this Angel is fpo* ken unto, with reference toMinift rs,as fubjedt unto him, which notwithftanding is his fuppofition & peti- tioprincipii,all along in this Argument. 3. TheParo- chial,and Diocefian divifion of Churches.were long af> ter this and not until 160. .Years after Chrift 4» Nothing is rtquired of this Angel, but that which is the common duty of all Minifters, Finally, Suppofe it were granted tohim.tbaufupeuority were imported in nameing this Angel 1 74 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Angel, It may be a Superiority of Order , Dignity , or Gifts 9 not of power 2nd Jurisdiction. ButtheDcwker Objects 'That [Rjvel. Z' 24.} Chrifi byfyhnfftakesto the Angel in the plural r orYoiv]and that therefore be means all the Minifttrs.] butt To this he an- fwers j That Be^a by this phrafe under fldnds the prefident and the company of. Miniflers with the reft of the people , tam hing the Angel fill for a fmgk pcrjon , snd folds that mors then the Angel arefpoken unto. He tells u s , that the words areane Apojlroph: , wherein the fpea^er amplifies hisfpeech* turningit to fome others thenriofe who are fir ft fpoktn unto. Aw/* I. We have already fhown that this, and he other parallel phrafe mentioned, doeftrongely piead'for ihc Angels being understood Collecftivly : fince the Lord makes a Plural of the lingular A*ge/, as I Tim. *. *5. Shcc fhall be faved if they con- tinue &c efpeciallv the ab">ve evinced equal power, and authority, of the Angels or Presbyters > who wherein thefc Churches, being pondered. BcGds, how doth this remove the objection , that Vc^a under* ftands it feme other wayes then collectively, what (ayes that to the reafon and argument it fclf P But 2. If^eza underftanl by the bpu o\-yo\v , the modeiator or pre- fident Angel with thcreQ of the IVliniiters* wherein (I pray) is olt argument infringed? viz, ,,Tbattois *> Angel is not a Diocefian Prelat, fince other Mini' , 1 fters are taken in wijh him here as o( equall authority ,, in this compilation* In ?c^as fenfethisis no other lam>u*get hen what might have been fat d orwriten toa presbyteri.mSrnod with it's Moderator all being equal* ]y concerned therein , andfuppofed equaly Angelsin this Church. And if this Cutt not the (in new soft his mans deiune and argument hete, lerany judge* 3. Noncan rationally call it a turneing of the fpeech to any other then fiich^s were firft fpeken to » *pit £ My* B«* to yowl Sit. ■"isaconiinuancofthefpecch to the fame pet- fo^Sj Upon the point of Epifcopacie; x ~£ fors, with ane cxegitick eiplicaticn of the [Angel] by lu!f , or \yoiv,] especially fince they are diftinguifned from [thereft] or the ordinary Prefeffores , by the Co- pulative, and. In our ordinary language > weufuaijy reinforce our fpeech to the fame perfons , and to the fame purpofc, with ane emphatic^ [lfiy)*s it is here. SomePrchtifts have a 2^ac/( fwhichl wonder ourlfl- 'former (tumbled not upon) inalledging that fome cop- ies leave out ;he Conjun&ion ■— • Reading! it Aiy*? *rfi *n7s X6i7r§7f that is , to jow , the [reft in Tbjatira ; making the terme[y«0,]all onevvith [the reft inThjattra*] but the plaine reading of the 23 » v. confutes this. But that \% hich the Informer thinkes ftiould put it out fcf queftion wkh us , That thefe Angels were Diocefiari Pifbopsj [ „ Is the Teftimonies of the Ancients, who 3, came immediatly after them, andcondefcend upon ,, fome of rheir names- Then he repeats to us againe the ■ i, ftcrie ofPolycrater Bifhop of Ephefus, borne neer the ,, Apofties rimes, \\ ho, numbers Seven of his Predece- pi fsours before him and tels usThatLcontius Bilhop of li MagncpA 3 Numbers Tuenty feven Biihops of Ephe- ,\fus from Timothy. That thefe Seven Bifhops of /fid ,3 are at the Council of New defined by their ftyles » Epkefus, Smyrna, fifo That Eufibius > Tertullian , »\ren£ns aflen that Ichn made Fclicarp Biihop ofSmyr- ,,«, That he is thought* to be the Angel to whom :, John wrote. That ]gn&tin: writes to him as frxh , ,.&c.Thefe he thinkes as a comment upon this and fuch „ like fcripcures, fhould convince us. ] /nfi I. He forgot one maine point of this argument from •Antiquity ; before it convince us, he muft cende- • fcend upon the moeld , and power , of the Bifhops ' which thefe' Ancienas fpeokes of,* he holds that the word [Bishop] is variouily taken in Scripture , and why not alio by the ancients? But if he had offered usTe- ftirnonys ff eating of fole power of thefe Bifhops id i]6 A Confutation of the firfl: Dialogue oriimtion and Juiifdi&ton r leaving nothing to Presbyters but the key of doclrine , of Bifhops wich a tiegarive voice in judicatories , haveirg Colt Domi- nion over a dioccfs y the only proper Ptiftoures there- of; andPrelats of £™/?«niis Curt, Then I fhould confefs there were ea.ly inch Bilhopsashe pleads for: and wefhould acknowledge their power to be a com- mentary upon the Scriptures he pleads from 5 But wire this pravifo , that he could quiparat them with then firfi progemtours, and fhew usthefepriviledges in the fcnptttre-Efcutctones of their founders. But till then, I thinkeour conviiiion mull be fufpended. That Presbyters have the k& °J Do8rine , he will not d?ny > That they have the power of crdination > and jurifdiEiion > and that key likcwayesentruited to them, hata Deen proved t:om Scripture. 1. Tim. 4. 14. Luk. 22. 66. A&.2o:i8. f.Pet. ?:x, i.Cor 5 y. Nov let hir.\ fiy ,did thefeflrll fucceeding Bifhops ( in their fuppofed dioceffes} alwayes take this power in ordina- ' tion and jarifuiction from the firlt Seripture Bifhops, and Hood inverted thervrirh in after tymes ? How .-then corves jerornzo fjy [That even in his time] elders were [ub* jecl tc the Bishsp only by Cujlorne , not by Difpenfation ftom the Lord. [ Jn his Comenr. en Jit:) and 3 ! en Ija. 3 .; I hat they bad even in his time, a catus prejb iter ur urn > a meetingcr Court of Presbyters , and ane Apojioitcf^ fenat.] Ho w co- ir es a nrptrpvTi£i*ifOV Piesbytery to be mentioned , Ccunc- aneyr.Can* >-$. How comes Ambrofe >(ahtber of the Church) upon Ephef* 4. to an'ert [That after the Church was enlarged , Cepit alio ordme Gvbvnari* It began to be governed after another maner then at fir ft, -■ an- that nonper omnia conv eniunt , &c. That ihe Govern- ment then in the Church , was nor every way fuitable to the Apoftles appointment] me thinkesthefe afHerti- ons might convincethe Infirmer of the folly of this ar- tuinent. But Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 177 But 2. What iTfome of thefe firft fucceflours , be found but mecr Conftant moderators ? What is then be- come of his Series of a Succeffionof Diocefan Bishops from Timorhv , and Titus , and ihe AJian Ange Is .<* faith nor jerom (ad Evagrium) Alexandria Presbyteri unttmexfe dctlum in ixceljiori gradu Collccatum Epifcopunt nommabant, 0 c J hat the Bishop at Alexandria was only a Presbyter Chofen toprtfide. &C Ambrofe fayes that tfaii diftincti- n b^tdixr bifho? ard Presbyter, cam in by Coun~ fil (Cubi prius) therefor he holds it was not derived fxmn divine nsluution (and therein gives the Jietoour Informer;) for rhat he fayes was different from their pre- lent cuijome. Aimif\m( pifit 10.) fayes (withjerom) that by Cufi.me oft he Church , Epifc^patus , W» > Majo r presbyteiio , the Epifccpacy was greater then theprcsbyte- rat How comes 1 rmilianus (apud Cypr, evi?§. ) to afrertcrw the presbvters > pejjident ordinandi potcftat bishops ani Deacons , in his Epiftle to the Philippians. Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart, proves chat the ni.R'Bi- M z iheps 1 7 8 A Confutation of. the firfi: Dialogue ftiop who came in after the Apoftles, was nothing but -the Tr^is^- r» TjKoyrepjj, Moderator of the presbytery. In a •word, as many learned men doe prove the discrepancy of the ancients among themfelves , and their variety of names, arjdfpeech in relation to thefe firft fuppofed Uifhcps* and that feveral authores areSpurius and counterfit who are Brought in to give Teftimony in this point. So it is certain that this manandhisfellowes in pleading thus for Timothies Epifcopacy , doe put the blctt of dread full Apoftacy upon him , in making fon\ fall fas the Angel of Ephefusis charged ) fromhis firjihve; fo that 3 if they will not runn on this inconve- nience , and ftage this eminent Saint for fuch ane Apo- ftat, contrary to the Scripture account of him , they xnuft wholly quit this plea. As for what he adds [of Several writers acknowledging the Angel a Single fey [on] we have fhown how vaine,a reafon this is, to prove his point. But xheDoubter objects to fome purpofe [ that Be- $* and others mLht take the bngelio be bu:Moderat§r.] To this he anfwers „ [that the Angel muft needs bea ,, Bishop, becaufe he is cheifely con-mended or difco- 3> mended , as haveing a cheif hand in what was right, ',,oramifs, in thefe Churches. That the power found „ in Timothy and Titus , proves it wasfo with thefe „ Angels.-"' -That Bezafayes thefe Angels power 3, wasmore eminent then the reft of their fellowes. j jfef. u As for Be^a , its true he expones [ihe Angel] ^TOwoi'TOlftotheprefidem]— bin adds. ■ 3) [Sed hincftatui epifcopalis ilk gradus &c : . j „ that is, Buc that Epifcopal degree, which wasafcer' „ ward by human invention brought into the Church „ of God, nether certainly can nor ought to be hence 3, concluded , nay not fo much as the office of a perpe- tual prefident, fhould be of neceffity , as the thence 3, arifcing oligarchical tyrranny > (let our Inforrm Upon the point of Eplfcopa:ie. 17 9 ^mirke this ) whofe head is the Anrichriftian beaft ,, now at length with the mod cercan mine , not of did „ Church only , but of the world alro, maks manifeft. And this alfo is all which Dr. Reynolds acknowledges. Now I think he will find no advantage nor credit here tohisDiocelian Bifhop, fince Be%a maks him buta hv.rmn invention , yea and thepoyfonous egg out of which Antichrift was hatched. 2 As for his Reafbn 3, [Tim this [Angel] is chefly reproved or coalmen- ,> ded , as havei ng the Chief hand, in what was right or 3, amiffe. ] He muft prove, ( before this Keafon wil pafs current) that one Jingle yzrfmis Chiefly reproved or corn- mended, and iikewayes that his having the cominen- danosF orreproofe adrejfedto bim>mll evince a Chief authority, or Chief hand, (as h? calls it ) in government. Wee told him that in Be^V, and Dr. Rejnolds judgment, the [A ngel] is only the f refer Moderator receiving the E- piftleoraddrefs. Now 3 willane Epifrle containing commendations or reproofes of a Synod) and addreffed to the Moderator , make him Coief as to what is com- mended , or taxed, in all that Synodall aflemblyor. Church ? Surely not at all. The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein, andpoffiblylefs, then any of the meeting. Or will the Kings MefTageor Charge to a parliament, adrefled tothnpeaker, con- taining reproofes and commendadones of that great body and afTembly, fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the fpeaker,orprefidert-He will not fay it. As for Timothy and Titus ? we have proved that they had no fuch power, as he pretends , and that their infpeftion was extraordinary and Evangeliftick, which cannot with any fhewof reafon be faid of rhefe Seven Angels. As for B*;r* [his acknowledgment of a more emi- nent Authority in government , which thefe fingle perfons had] this man cannot with any fhew of reafon alledge Br^4 to underftand thereby any other thing beyond the M 3 eminent I So A Confutation of the firft Dialogue emtnency of his Epifcopuf divinuf > which with Be%a is the Paftour, among whom jure diving* he will not a omit fo pouch as a perpetual preiidcnc , far Jefs a Bjfhop : for the perpetual prefident or Moderator , is with Be^a y the Epifcopuf bwnanu: , which he diftagiiUhes from //^ dwme,or{cripture bishop; and fJta diocefian prelaw Cpleaded for by this informer) who hath the Chief , a*idi fole power in ordination ,and uarifdi&ion , is rh • $4- tanical F if hop. ( In his Tre^ife detriplici Epifcopatu . J So chat Beza cannot Imputto thefe finale penons*ny authority over their brethren . orafenbe to them any other eminency , then what the eminencyofa Mode- rato-ftiip will give, If Be{a doe not compare them with tlu Elders of the Inferior lorr, who rule only , as fotne would readily admit , who take thefe Churches to be Congregational* AsforMftfc, it is no great matter Tvhitherhe take the AngelsColledivly, or for Single perfons,if he Imput not to thefe Afian Angels ane Epif- copal Authority, which this h.former proves not, in „ telling us,, [Thar the Tucntie four Angels about the Thron,doc with him > reprefent rhe 'Bifhoos j unieft becanihewthat he means hisDioccfian kisheps i for he inay mean the Biftiops indefinitely, acceding to the genuine fcripture acceptation. Hk Holds there are Se- ven Bifhopsof Afia here only written unto , where are the Tuentie four Bifhops, if Mr Mevfetake ih~m in his fenfe ? -As for Mr. V.rightman, bis, expo Being ordinnjy the Angel ,ofafinftlc perfen, as the Informer jlletdgcs. ,,Let us hear Vrightman himfelf. 3, [Tothe Jn&l &tc*] ,,TheEpiftles aieiutituledffaithhe)oneby one,tothe f1Paltours , Becauf the fafecy of the Congregation de- 5^pendsupo"the foundnes of thePaftours : for there ,jwas not one Jngel alone zz Ephcfas .but many y Neither „yet^ny prince among thefe, as is manifait by Paul, i, who to Miletum fent for the Elders "or Biftiops of . wEphcfus» — adding, that nothing is fpoken ofiheir obe- Upon thcpointof Epilcoptcic. x Sr i» obedience /, Princehood camcafter thcApoitles, and was not 3, yet borne 3 fave only that Diotrephes gave fome i > fhew of it. hence he concluds thus [therefore under nthemme of one Angel, the Epiftle is written to the „wl:ol order of fdjlours &c: ] And by this account of hrightmans acce. ration of the word Mgtly Let any jud^eot our Informers fidelity . But now conies his laft Argument for Epifcopacy ( which iurprifes not only hu Doubter, but 1 believe, Moft , if not all clfc, who have fecnit ) taken fom y, [Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence ,. 3. Joh. 9. who (he fay esyambidoufiy loved tobefirft* „ and to have the Chief place : and that this ambition „ only John fpeaks againft,-—headds, that ane office 3 may be good and lawfully though ane ambitions fee- »kingof it, be fin full .That Be^a renders it, qui „ primatum ambit — that our Inference of the unlawful- » nes of che office he aimed at, will not follow from his „ fceking of this chief place, but rather that their was 3, fuchanc office at this time in the Church, and now „void, into which he meaned toputhimfelf , or had 3, already done fo> out of ane ambitious defiretobe „ great , which was a finful end : that , he looked afiir , , himfelf, not the good of the Church ] A nf \ is long fince we hadthi5an(wer5 and glofs from Komaniits, though not as ane argument. Wee fee popri and pre)a# cy in delpi^ht of all contradiction will Itrick hands* When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion or primacy among his Di'cipies , is ob)e or loving of preeminence) to mew that iucha Prince or primal wasdefigned, dc Pontif. Lib: i. Ch. 9, Thus the Papiits gloffc generally the Text under de- ba:e8 'Tiien[\n his Not. 67.]anfwering him ,,[ That if ^itwerefo, then Ohrift rather inflamed thenquen- 33 ched their ambitious thoughts 5 which they whil , > m sy or loving preeminence, intertained] jnakes'this firi of diotrephes the fame with theires U'hichth-Lordreprehcnded^viz.A. finful|defireofane unlawful! forbidden primacy. Adding, , [ That the 3»Lcrd faid nor, he who by my appointment fhall y be Chi*r> , but he who from his (infull deiire would 3, be Chieff. Bcl/armin and the Papifts fine notions, and old exploded evafions , we fee ftands theft men in much Head : And doe furnim ufefull materials to dreis up Prelatick pamphlets. But what will this man fay? Will he indeed ownethis popifh Argument andanfweruponLuk22. Which the topick of biff ar- gument here will neceflarly inferr? Was their *Uw* fuH frimacy fuppofed among the Apoftles,& the ambiti- ous dtfirconly forbidden? Bcllarmin preffes that anc exorbitant dominion ox tyrannicail only was forbid- den fince the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned ( .vhich this man alfotaks hold of) which (eems to pi.it a jertrifton upon that prohibition, but there isno(asl faidbefcr) if none of thefe fcripture-Biftiops were to lord it over the flock, farrlefsover their fellowes. So that ro be zprotos or Chief 'over them , was inhibit, as by the lord befor, fo by the Apoftlehere.and confequently this lover of preeminence is Amply condemned. The InglisbAnnot: make the two placesofPeter & John,par- alieel»& th~ fameevillto bedifchargedin both. So doe the dutch anwttxp-efling that which diotrephes fought, in the Apoftle Peters terms, of lording it over his bre~ thren. Now I hope he will not fay, that wirn Peter dif- cbarges Miniflers to be lords over Gods Heritage , he difchara:ed only zne ambitious affectation /and Suppofed* la r-f-iU Lordship over the flocks, abftradfang from this ambitious aflfeflation* Surely then this Prohibition of the -\poftleIohn, where Diotrephes is fuppofed to be pradfcifing, what is by Peter difcharged , can admit of no fuch evafion either!; udefs he would make thefe A- poftles toinrerftr together in this matter: for it were JSrange clafhing of weapones , and contradiction of the tongues and pen* of theie Apoftles > if Peter ihmild difcharge all Lording even over the flocks, in any Pa- ftour, and yet Iohn fhould allow unto a Paftour, a pre- eminence, and primacy , both over the flocks , and jbis fellow Miniflers and labourers with him in the Lord Upon the point of Epifopacie* 1 8 f Lord* vineyeard. Infine , If to be apnmator «er<^» was a lawfull office , co De a p* a®* or lover of it ( v\ h.ch is all thac trie word will Import ) could tfoferte no cen- fure. The informer knowes who (aid [He that defires the office of a Bishop* iefires agood tvorl^] t>ui o&rL^d whaipoke rhis by the pen or Paul, iaidaifo himielf immediatly to the ApoiUes, &by the Apofrle lohn in thib place, he that defires to be a prom or Chef \ muft quite that defire- Hence thefe are different objects of de- iire , to be afcrifture Bishop , and a prttos or prima. To affedtthe officeof afcripturBifliop, anda primacy , areAmipods; fo that it was not a lawfull, nor conse- quently pra^Xift^nc office in the Church, allowed by Ithn , which this mandefired, and therefore he is finely ^onviemied by the Apoftle, both a: to tbedtfircit ftf\ andthtobjeel of it. Hee who thus affe&s to brjfrj?, deferves to bellied leaftin theKingdome ofOodf and who thus exalt ihemfelves, mall bcabafod. To ail which I might add , that diot: ephes Imperious lordly carriage in cafting out and c n.ureirg , and not ad- mitting into this Church f fuchasthe Apoftle appoin- ted to be ?hemn rsceavedl , is a lively effigies of are Episcopal primacy or preeminence > and of that ar* bitrary prelacv , rhat fole power in ordination 2nd cenfures > wh ch this Informer pleads for. Againft which dKorcerlines of this earljprimat, the Apoft ies thieatningofnisholycenfure,isat]i«jnder-ciapp\v;hich may ternfieallwho carry thisu'urped office : and may make hisSuppofcd Angels orPieJats,fo- rhis their af- pyrein^, fear the iTroakeand pu nifoment of thofe Angels y tvhy keeP*d not therrfirH eftatc, but left their own habitation. Iihail dimifs the Informers laft argument, wixh one; remarke further, which is this ,.iftheafre£ring to be a protos or Chief, tainted the Apoftles th-mfelves, u hile the Cnriftian Church was in its firft Infancy , if tn Pauls time the miftery of Iniquity , and of propry , was wor- king j 8 5 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue- king (the monftrous embrio of a papacy , andconfe* quently of a Prelacy) If peter found it needfull to dif- fchirge Covetoufnes and lordfhip , to mint iters, It the holy Apoftl? John was contradicted and coun- teracted by am afpinng frimat , Surely we need noc wonder at that oaiterial Change of the Apoltoiick Holy , humble Church Difciplm and parity among Mimfters,whichoverfpreadthe ChriftianCnurch noc l$ng therafcer. And to our prelatifts ordinary que- R[on[tVhen began the Chang* of freshyteria i parity among Minified Weemav amwer, That the buter routes of a Primacy or prelacy , were fprouring in the Apo- ftles times ; and therefore it is no ftrange thing tint this destroying weed grew up fo quickly thereafter the 0*9- ?*£*$ or evill one , did quickly fow his Coclc among the wheat , and blew up this fire of ambition, prirnaey pride andfhis own proper fin) till it cam: to the flam, firftgof a human proftafie, then of a Hierarchy , and unto the Culoien or tope , of a chief univcrfal Pri" macy at laft.For that which he adds ofB/ his rea Toning from pretended Teftirnories ofihe Fathers > and vin- cicar our Caufe even in point of Antiquity. I. ISuppofe this mar;(ifhe will not renounce bis pro- teitam profeiiion) cannot but grant , that it is not *An- tiquity 2$ he calls it, or human Tejfirmmes , but the Scriptures ef truth, which molt judge mthi; debate, So that I hop \ may fuppofe thut he lookes upon his Anti- quitity as ane accefforie appendix onely to hisScripture arguments , and that the Scriptuie is not foi him < but againft him , I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is laid above; we muft to the law and the Tefti* monyin this and all other points offairh. Antiquity without the fii ft Scripture anriquisy 3 defcrves not the name. Id aduherum quod pcftenus , idverum^uod pi mum y laid Tertullian. i hat is adultcrac which is Laft, and trerc which is firft. I am the way , the truth and the Upon the point of Epifcopaci.e 1 8? the Life , faid Chrift , but not lam Cuftome And Cyprian cells us , chat Conjiictudo fins veritateefl vetufus erroris 5 Antiquity without truth , is but a moiildy error- Our Lord himfelfi ejected this argument [it was faid of old] and appofes unto it [but I fay ] Well may w c then oppofe the Scripture fayings cg QUxlnformer\ [it was faid of old] and by our Lords warrand > rqed his pretences from Antiquity, to warrand any thing which the word condemnes : and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it felf: forthe fathers univerfaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures muft uidee in points of faith- Sunt libri Dominic i quorum author it at i utnque confentimui, utnque credimus (rhere being in th<*m a I thmes 10 be believed and praftiled) unique ftrvimus, ibi quaramus ecclefum , ibi difcutiamus caufam nojtram , is >5 great Auguftms advice >,The books of the Lo; dare ,, t'ney to wnofe Authority we both conft?nt,whah we 3,both beleive, To which webothfubmit, There Id „ ws feek the Church, There let us difcufle our Caufe. JeromonChap-ij of Matfh. tells us qued de fcripturis anthmitatemnmhabet , eaiem facilitattconttmnitur qua probatur That which derives not its authority from Scripcure^he contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered, and (on the 1. ) Chap, of H*%Qujeabfque atboritate £? Tefiimoniitfcripturarum quafi traditwne kpo- - ftoitca fponte refertunt atque confingunt , percutit GUdius 3,D«.„Such things as men of there own accord find our 3, & for j;e upon pretence of Apoftolick tradition with ,, out the authority and Teftimonies of Scriptures , the 35fwordof God (hikes throw the fame. Befidesthis difcovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impcrti- ment in this debate: Becaufe the Queftion betwixt us is not defade , bwx.de jure, not what fort of Bifliops have b*en as to matter oifaB , introduced into the Church of old, or of late, but by what tv art and and rigbtthcy have poffeffed their places ? We allcdgeana prove that t<>6 A confutation of the firftDialbgue that the prefent Prelac now exiftent ftands condem- ned by Chrift? the great lawgiver, his rules in point of Church Government , fet down in his Teftament* Now , toanfwer this Charge with humane Teftimo- nies > as to Cuftoni orprfa&ile of the Church, (even, granting that his Teftimonies did prove the matter of f*H , viz , That our prefent Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bifhops) what is it but to oppofe, humane cor- ruption to Gods ordinance , Thepra&ife of men to Gods rule , and mens Teftimonies who are liars , to the divine 0 racks of the God of truth. This man thinkes it a Herculean argument,when he drawes hisjhuman Teftimonies , as to prelacy ncer the ^poftlcs time (as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars ) and wonders how we can fuppofe, that the Church could fo foon alter the divine inftitutions. But 1 pray , how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven, by his own terrible voice, that the wholl Church of Ifrael, toge:her with Aaron himfelf, fet up and worfhiped the golden Calf, contrary'unto the very exprefs letter of the Second command ? Now* (uppofe that idolatry feveral hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity, or ancient Cuftomeofthe Church of Ifrael, (after frequently imitated,and which had its plauiible pretexts of intention to worfhtp C/od , ■tortbefeafitras proclaimed tofehova, and to haveavi- fibleiigneofhii prefen-we) Wil the J nformer fay , that this had been a good argument to war '■and the breac h of the Second command^ i Hough this Pra&ifc was but fourty dayes youngc r then the promulgation if felf. So the cafe is here, Though he could fhew us human clear Teftimonies ,nav more , even Scripture Tefti- monies, as to the fac~ium , that the diocefiari , yea, and Eraflian Prelat , had been exiftent andfet up in fome Churches in the Apoftles own tirire, yetifwe •an from oar JLord, and his Apoftles doftrine j and Upon the of point Epifcopacie^ 19 1 pradtife , prove this officer to be a plant not of a di- vine plantation , and-conrrary to the divine inftituti- oncs , He mud needs grant (that though efteemedgo?- denj it ought to be Nehurtitan , rejected and pluckc up by the roots -The Papifts, who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule, made up by traditions, yet will no: dare toown (profeffedly at lead) any principle , or pra&ife , condemned in the Word, fuppofe he could bring thoufands of Teftimonies from ancient writersj touching his Prelat he pleads for; they are but human Tejltmonies > and therefore cannot beget 4 dim vine faith , which is founded upon the word only. S u rgt veritas ipfa Script mas tit as inter f ret are , quam c nftti - tudo non mvit . namfi noffetnon ejpt , faith TertuilUn* A- rife 0 : truth itfilf, and ex pone ihcy Scriptures , which cuf- form hath not kmwn , forbad it known them , it had mt been. Whclnformar%sTcRimomcs may induce to be-< lievc that there were Biftiops i n the Church j but whi- be office which thefe Bi&ops are fuppofed to hold, be of God, yea or not 5 this quefton muftbe brought ro a higher tribuaall ; aud Gods Oracles muft determine therein , before the Conference can be fa- tisfied, as to the owning of fuch a -Church officer: And if God diflbwne him, I may be ane fijbana- fius contra orb em , in withftanding him, It being ftill cerrain that thefe human witnefles are teflesfafti as mod , but not judices vers &retli, Atteftersof matters cffatl j buz not judges of what is right and equal th^rftn. Tbus we nav- fcen, that though all our informers plea- ding from antiquity, were granted, hiscaufe, profliga by Scripture weapons lyes groVeJKtig in the daft. wheras healleadges [ lefimonies andTitus&c. I Anf Although this be the very Marrow and ftrength of all his argument from Antiquity, yet when tryed, ic will be found many waves dcfeSive, andunfound. For clearing wherof I ihall offer fome things , both to the Major , and af- fumrion of this argument, which will be found qnite to * breake the force of al his pretences this way. For thus th ■ argument mult run. ' If Diocejijn Bishops , by the Tejiimonies of the ancient fa- thers > did exifi tn the primitive times- , and Catalogues of them are drawn hy thefe ancients from ApojiUs , and Euan' ffBfts , then I muft believe thefe 13 is hops t$ be of divine infti - tution : but thus it is by the Tcftimony of the ana nt fathers: Ergo, I mufi believe Diocefj an Bishopes to be of divine tnftttw tion. Now this being the argument in its genuine ftf-ngth, this pitifall pleader offers not a' jott in proofe of the major proportion , whofe connexion he cannot but know, the we all deny. All that he offers is in protffe of (he afiumprion , which is alfo de • lived, &: vvill be„ found very maimed. I. To the Major, I fay, that it is of very dangerous confe- .qlience, to make that whjch men call antiquity , or [ ancient cuftome , ] the infallible rule , and commen- tary , as to the. nature and office , of Church officers , mtntioned in ^criptur. Becuie I. if mens praBife muft be the key and comment in this cafe , fo as we mnft not contradict orcoumeraA it, then why may- not alfo human praftife, andprofeffion offucceding ages, determine as to every Scripture truth , and duty therein held out ? 2* This were to fet up a high- er rule, and tribunal, then the Scriptures, ana tc ma\e cur faith to ft and in mans tvifdome , net in Gods y and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation , as il the Prophecy had come by the will of man. For if I mud believe no otberwayes anent the Scriptures relating to Upon the point of Epifcopacie? i 93 to the offices of Timothy, and Titus * theft accord* log co the praitifeoffuppofed Bifhops, thoir fuccef* fores, and that they heid no other offices , but fuch as thefe fuppofedfuccefioresare laid to have had , then the Cuftome and pra&ife of fallible men, becomes tome, the Act:, the ratio; a priori, and the chief ground, why I believe thefc Scriptures to have fuch afenfe and no other ; and fol give men a dominion over my faith , and my faith herein refolves ultimatly into a human praftife, and Teftimony of fallible men* which is a principle no proteftant will allow. Next, as to the afumotion of the argument, I would demand ofthis informer Jhov Imufi be infallibly affured anem this univerfal judgment and pratltfe of the ancient Church ,ani of this true fuccejfion > and how he will inftrutl the tinker* falhxrmomus judgement of all the ancient Fathers in thii p great pint , (vizj ,3 [That fuch prelates as we have >5 now? were thefirft recipients of the ordinary power „ of government., from the Apoftles and Evangelifts, „ as their only immediat&r ordinary fucceffors.] The topic k of our Informers argument dorh fuppofe the certanty ofthis mater of faft. But to clear this will be fooad a hard peece of work.Becaufe i.It is certan thac many of the ancients wrote nothingsmanyof their wri- tings are loft jmany writings going under their name are jtounterEtiSc naoft efpeciallyto thisdebate.lt were pof- J&oiy none of the hardeft Tasks to difcover fome wri- tings herecited ; tobemecr counterfites- Howfhall I know , that the Teilimoniej ofthofewho have writ- ten, are not contradicted in this point, by fuch men Of their times, who either have not written, or whofe Writings are perifiied? 2. There are many things* which the Ancients fpeak of as derived from the Apoftles , and have had ane.. univerfal confent /as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us) which are ac- knovriedged to, be contrary to the Word of God N 2 an& 194 ^ Confutation of the Grft Dialogue. and the Apoftolick do&rine, as,the error anent the vi- fion of God, [that the SainCts fie not his ftce till the lad day.] the error of [free will,] which until Auguftino^* pofed it was univerfally receaved. the[Millenary error,] anent Chrifts perfonall rei^ne upon the Earth a Thou- faudycars^callejdbyLrtfftfw^W^thedocSnneofthehcly prophets, and chriftian wifdome, which chriftians follow.] fyfiin Martyr , holds them to be no chriftians that diflbwn rhis;and this is owned as anekpcftoUck tra- dition. ^So [childrens partaking of the Lords flippers] and [the neceffity of baptifme ] was by Auguftin and o# thers owned as fucha tradition (lib : i# de pecc : mer. ) BaJIlmnxes four Apoftolick traditions, figneing with the crofs ; praying to the eaft ; anointeing with oyle j praying in the (landing poftur from Eafter to whitfun- tyd. Szexh^'fippendixtojus divimmminift. Evan (prop. 2.) The informer and his fellowes , make a great buttle anent the condemneing ofAerius, for holding that Bifliopsandprefbytcrsareallone. But Be^a could fiive informed hirn. de grad : (346, ) that Epiphanius ( H^ref: 75 ) imputs to him, as great herefies , thefe Tenets, jfi That he held it unlawful! to offer and pray for the dead:. 2. That he held thit Saittfts departed were not to bcinvocat. 3. That the re were not fixed fail: daycs to be k-2epr.4 -That the jewiflipafcal was not to be 6blerved.becau(eourpaffoverisalreadyoffered.Now,if milnformer condemne him for thefe alfo,we weed care the lefle for his condemning him inthe point of prelacy. i . It is certain, that the account of the firfl: times imme* dia'rlv after the Apoftles , is , as to mater of fadt , very dark & uncertain, '& consequently a very flippery rule. Hcgcfi pus ( apud Eufeb: libr J. Cap: 2,8. ) tells us, [ that lmmediatly after the Apoftolick age was gone } tuncimpiierroriscmfoiratiOi per fi&uBionem eorum qui al* imam doftrinam tr*del>ant% initium c#pit « Then tl\Q coafpiracy of wicked error , but the feducings of thofc Upon the poin t of EpiTcopacie 19 f thofe who delivered another do&iine , took its begin- ing. Eufebius himfeif the prime writer , ( from whom in a manner is the whollofall that is delivered anenc Church Government and Biihops, and whoprefents thefe fragmens of writers outofwhiehour epifcopal men ga' her b^aeirproofes ) intheprcem cfi'rsHU ftory acknowIeS&es that he is in thatworke entered into a dark defert , therein he hath no footileps of any goeing before him , but only o-utic^g ^^aais SomelitleoccaOonsj orfomepitty naraaons? which every one in their own time hirh left and delivered ♦ let any read haumer (ane IngHfh Rlihop) , his tranf- htion of Yufebius, wherein this wiij be found very clcjLi.ScalUger (projegom in Chron, Eufeb. ) Saith , 3y Intervaliurn illud ab ultimo capita actorum &c. ,,thenterval from he.laft chpttcr of the Acis of the • 3, Apoftles > until rhe midft of the reigne of Trajan \ in „ which croft* Syadratus and a Ignatius flouriihed 3, (let our informer obferve this as to Ignatius) may be ,, truly called with varrc *?^a> or obfeur » whe^in no- 3, thintha: is certan,hath come to our hand concerning „ the affairs of Chriftians , except fome ve y few filings , which the enemies of godlines catches up 3, by the way, fuch as Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Plenr ^us Cecilianus, which gap that Eufebius might fill ,,up, hedrew fome things without difcretion and jjChoifeoutofcheupotipofes orexemples of I know not what Cement (for he is not that learned Clement j> who wrote the Stromata ; and out of the fyve books 35ofhegefippus a writer no better. Tilea himfclifz great pleader for the Epifcopal caufe ) yet tells us (Contr : 3 : 1.x: c,z: Not. 39. and c 3. Note. 6 ) That ,, the hiitory of thele firft times hath great blanks „and gapes, which the Spurius Clemen: s 2nd other j, writers of the fame ftamp3 filled up with petty j, fables drawen from their own braine. — That from 3, the end of the afts of the Apoftles, untillTmWrti- N 3 J;mes, \$6 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue *> meSjthereis almoft nothing extant which is certain: 3, hence (he (aich) occaiion was taken by men of bad j,, difpofitionsto make hold tofaine anything r whom 3, even the Apoltles times wanted not. Not to infill upon the many things written and obferved of Eufebius, which may invalidat the credit of his^Jfery 5 and his many grofs errors therein , andindmer poynts , ob* ferved by Scalliger and others. How fabulous is that hiftory of Cbnites Epiftle to Agbarus, rejeded even by pope Gelafius in a Counce! ofb'evemy Biihops at joora. Thit which Fhilo the jew wrote of the Fffa jinsy a Seft among the jewes , Eufebim affirms that he ■wroti: °f Cbrrftian monks , which Scalliger ftiewes ro be falfe out of Phiiohimielf ( inelenchotril: exhibit ro us from she Apoftolick times a he might have found them abcun9 U pon the point Epifcopaeie. 197 aboundantly invalids by many of the learned ,,whofe judgement and Teftimcnys are colle&ed by Didoclt (cap: 4 p. 121 : I2t, 123, I24,&c.) Which we may well challengthis man to anfwer. Therefore we fhall difmifs it with thefe obferves- r. That Tertullian 3 henaus, and others, who make life of this Argu* menc of Succeffionj a?ainft hereticks , defigne only to fhew a derivation of true doctrine from the A softies againft them , and that the Church had the Traducts Apoftolici Seminis > a derivation of the Apoftles Do*, drrine , but never meaned it of a Succeffton of men of the fame office every way. Tertullian faith, [ Arifeo truth, andexpone they Sciiprures &c] lrewusin his time* fpeaking of thisSucceflion from the Apoftles, & pref- fing adherence to the truth which they delivered » makes mention of Presbyters [ epportet adkarere tit &c : We mull adhere to them who keeps the Apoftks doctrine , and with the order off presbitery] mentain the w6rd. And again, therefore we muft obey thefe [presbiters] who are in the Church , who have their Succeflion from the Apoftlcs, as we havefhowen. Then he adds qui cum Epifcopatus Sucrejfcne , cha- rifma veritatis certum , Secundum placitum patris ac- ceperunt. That is 3 who with the SuccefTion of Epif- ' copacy , have receaved from the father the fure gift of , truth.] thushe ,(1.4. 0*44 ) Andbecaufe th:s Informer finges their old long who before him # will (till Shpfflj^ in Bishops y when the Ancients fpeak of Presbyters. Let him rcmarke what he fayes (lib: 3 . cap. 2.)Spv aking ofthecontumacy of the adverfaries of truth [quumau* tern ad earn iterim traditioncm, qua eft ah dpojtolis , qua per Succeffiones presbyterorum in 't cckfiis cufaditur > prcvocamu: „eos&c: — „ But when wee apeall trum again to 3, that tradition, which from the Apoftlts, is pre- served by Succeffion of Presbyters in the Churches •— They will alledge that they are more wife then the N 4 Apo- ?5) 8 A Coufutation of th e firfl Dialogue A pottles themfelves or thefe Presbyters ] dare this man fay , that Irenaus meaned that it wasfbnly a Sac* ceffion of Bifhops in thefe Churches who keep ihac jfrpottolick truth. ' That Presbyters are fuccefloures cf Apoftks pro- perly and immediatly in the power of rhe keyes, is evi- dent by a full Teftimony of ancient fathers, }gnatius (about whom our Informer makes a great buttle-in fe« veral places of his Pamplet) intheEpiftle ad Trails*; nos> callcs the c&tum Presbyterorum > the Affembly cf Presbyters , „ Con^unBUnem Apoftolcrum Chn* &fti, a meeting of ApottlescfChtift. lrwaus% (lib: 3, 4- Cap. 4 J ) holds Yresbyteros in Ecclefia ah kpo* ^ ftolis fuccejjienem habere, that Presbyters in the Church have there fucceflion from the Apoftles. Cy- ^prian (lib 4. epiftoh9 ) affertsi omnes prapojitos ztvicaria ordinaticne Afofiolis fucceder? > that ail o* 33verfeers (lb he calls Presbyters) fucceeds t^e A? pottles by a vicarious ordination, Ierome , on i. Chap, of mica 3 ( cited by Gratian in decretis di* ilinft : „Ifwe be in the A potties place , letus 3, not onely imitat there doctrine , but al'b their con' ,, verfdtion. Aueufiin (Term: 36. to thefrairesia Eremo ) and thefe too Pre byters , call themji/ terra, Apofiohrum fuccejjcrct i the [alt of the earth and the Jpojt 'esjuccejfcurs. 2* As it is certan'j that thefe Catalogue- drawer.^ did not underttand veri nctninis ept'eopos \ or diocejian "Bishops pre? erlyfucb, thogh fpeaking after (he manner of their times they gave them all ore name : So it is equal- ly certain 5 that the Teftimoyns out of which thefe Catalogues are patched up , are mod inconfiftent and contradictory to cne another (as the divines at the ile of Wight, and many learned men have made appear ) and Upon the point of Eplfcopacle. 199 and ftill the nearer the Apoftles times, the Catalogues arc the more darke and various. They make Peter Biihops of Rome ( a fable contradicted by many of the learned & proved to be inch ) but whither Clemens was firii O: Third , and who or in that order next arter Suc- ceed them , whither Linus, or Anacletus is never yet cleared, Seme make Titus Biihop of Crete > fome Archbifliop • Some Biftiop of Dalmatia. Tirrolhy >nd John are made by many Eifhops at the fame rime. Some fay Policarp was Sift Riihop of Smyrna. Some make him fucceed one Bucolus. fome make Arifio firff. " Some give Alexandria one Biihop , fome tuo at once. Sec appendix to jus- divin.min. Evangel. And wheras caw Informer replyes [that notwith- ftandingofthis, yet all agree that aSuccefiion of Bi- fhopswas, and that thefe different relaions cannot impeach the certainty of the Succeflion it feline more then difference about theSucceffion of princes will invalidat the -certainty of the Hiftoiy] lanfwer, if lie could nrove thn they underload Bishops properl. focal- lcd,or hisdiocefims in a!l thefe Catnlogue* of bucceifim > this evafion might have fome Shew of truth , but it is certain that they did not- Patrescumlacobum k'pfcofum vocant&c. therathers%ti\x.\\WbittAk* (depontifqlcfttl. plf fexi. ) When they call James Biihop or Peter, lake not the name of Bishop properly, but they call them 3- hopes , fore het hat is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apoftle , Becaufe the Biihop is fet only over one Church, but the Aooftles were founders and overfeers of many Churches], After he rells us , tbatnenprecul diftat ah inf.mia&c. it differs little from mad nes to fay that Peter or any other Apoftles were Bifhopes. Andtothispurpofe hefpeaks afterwards at large(Qj N 5 3; aoo A Con f utation of the firft Dialogue 3 c: 3. Seel : 9. [proveing this from the unfixed extra- ordinary nature of their meffage or miflion , who were to follow the Spirits conduft towards all places whi- ther rhey were called. Which argument reaches evan- gelifts upon the fime ground. 80 thztWhitakzr will fend our Informer to Bedlam, if he mend not this in- formation 3 anJrevocke nor this principle anent the Epifcopacv of Apoftlesand Evangelifts, and the Suc- ceffijnof Bilhops from them. The learned luniuszU fo fContr: 3 lib : I. cap. 23. not. g.) mantaines ane a?quivocall acceptation of the ^ovd[Bishop}m this mat- ter, fothat his paralleelholdsnot j as to a difference about theSuccefiion of Kings, when aMonarchy all a. e Suppofedfuch , buchere che difference and equivo- cation is, as to the authority of thefe Succeeding Bisbcps. When He fhall read $calli£. {Animadvert": 277* ) Tne Informer may poffibly fufpecl Hegefippus his naration anent James 5 yet jerom and Eufebius depend upon him. Scalliger holdsClemens^omanus tobe nobetter.likwayes jerom ( Catol : Scrip: ) is a Counterfit , not the true je- rom, fince he mentions pope hilary, who lived long after jerom was in his grave* Ant- whe^as the Informer maks a great outcry of je- rom [ thar ]erom begins at che Evangelift Mark > in the Alexandrian Catalogue 3 which our written leave out in their citations ] us eafily anfwered that it needs noe be putt in , fince the Author, fayes [ A marfo > from 1 or after him , the Presbyters choofed : our one whom they made prefident ] wherein its evident-, that he fpeaks of this cuftom, after Marfand excluding him> who was ane Evangelift before, and needed not be fet up by the Presbirers. And furcly if the firft Bifliop wasane Evangelift > the reft were very'heterogenious to their firft pattern. Betides , in that jerom fayes Yresbitiri amarcounum [exfe] el Bum 9 &c. Hee clearly infin- uars that it was thePresbyters thereafter,not Mark that did Upon the point of Epifcopacie. xor it. for if by Marks Apointment thefe Bifhops were- fetup, he could not attribute it to the Presbyters e' tion. Should one fay > in Scotia , a rcgimin* prsjbit : Anm.tz.Epijcopiint'/dduHii Ergo > abifioregimmeintr** hov this Epifco- pal autaorky is proved, his fairely affumed againe, as if ic were granted, [that the Apoftles made them Bifbopsof Ephefus a id Crete] So the laft medium is- ftillthic which is inQueftion. Let him ponder alls; whatD/'Jflc/: (pt 125. and 139J hath produced, aneat theconfuficn and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succeflicn. Ttlen himfclf ( de ponrif : J. 1. c :z^. no:: I.) acknowledges that [De Alexandriri no not from theFathers who flo- 5, riilied before th" council of Nice. Baronim ( Anno* 44* 11: 4%> ) faith cum hpoftokrnm nomine urn facia quam fcripta repcriantur ejje fuppofitia , &C; 3, Since there are fuppoiiiiou^ both words >, and Acts under the Apoftles name, & fince what is ,> related by true writers? remaines not incorrupt , it „ may make one difpair to reach that is true and cer- ±01 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue certain. So much is the great popifti hiftorian forced toconfefs. The Informer fliould like wife have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter y Jofeph Scal- liger, hisgrave difficulty about the fucceflionofrhe Bi- fliops of the Church of Jerufalem. ( Relate bv Didocl. Cap: 4' p*l^3-) Wherin he proves Eufebius rcia ion to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anenr the de- ftrucUonof Jerufalem, and to Jofephushis Hiftory. To this ladd, that he will find many learned men doe hold, that tht firft fucceffors after the Apoftles in thefe fappofed Catalogues 3 were meer Presbyters , [who according as they were more eminent in the Churches , and confequently their memories refer- red therein , whofe Natales ( as Junius fpeaks ) thac istheirdayesof banifhment , martyrdome, or death were keept in the Churches records > according- ly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up thefe Catalogues, though they were contemporary, 6c thofe they named [Bifhops] > in conformity to their own times. For this I recomend Fran* cijeus Junius his learned difcour-fe to this purpofe tont. 3:1.2:0 ff. not. 18 — [crrori caujam prebuit , &c. the c*ufe of the error ( he means in tho *e contra- dictory confuted Catalogues of Bi&pps) tr that the Fathers ufed the names indifferently. So by this time wee fuppofe it isconvinceingly evident,that our Informers great argument from his Teftimonies is loft. There is a great confentofthe learned in this „that >, for the firft pureftage, the Church was governed by ,? Presbyters, without Bifliopsblondel (Apol;Sedt: 3: p.*3: I4*jti ■ p. 30$: 378 J Shewes the con- fent of the learned heerin. tor this Church of Scot- land j we have the Teftimony offyanes Major (de Ceft. Scot : 1. 2.) of Fordon (Scoto-chronicon , lib. 3. Shap.S.) likwifc of Blond. (Sect. 3.) Allowing, that this nationfhaveingimbraced the Chriitian faith Anno. 79.)-iH the year 43o.(When the pope fentP^- iius as our firft Bifliop ,) was governed only by Presbyters without Eishopes ; fothat we had our union to the lee of Rome together with Prelacy. Clemens, of the firft century, in his Epiftletothe Phi/ippians, maks 3, but two orders of Miniftery, ,, Bifnops and dea- „ cons , thefe only he fayes the Apoftle fet up to pro* 33 pogat the ordinances to believers. And this to be a „ remedy to end all contefts about Epifcopacy. (page, 57. 6c c. )The fame we heard of policarp (in his Epiftle to the Philippianes) we heard of Auguitins Teftimony (Epift. 19-to Jerom. ) Dr. Reynolds (in his Epift. to Sr Francis Knolls ) cites Chyfoftom > \crem , Am* brofe , hugujtm , Tbeodoret , and many others an- cient and modern , to prove , that in Scripture, Bi- ihop and Presbyter are all one. Jeroms Teftimony upon Titus, is famous for this point 5 whoaffrrtes* andproves atlarge, fromPhilip. 1. A&. 20. Hebr. 13: 17. I Pet. 5, That by Gods appointment, and in the firft 2 04 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue $» firtt Apoftolick times & afterward, the government ,, was by Presbyters, communic&nci/ioPresbyterorumt [by 3, the common coimcel of Presbyters. ] that by divine .3appointrnent5Eifhops& Presbytersareone, that the 3> difference betwixt them had no better ground then 33 cowf«^otC///? Tilen, 53 &c. To infringe this Testimony, i. HeiayesfThat 33 \crom fpeaks onely of the firft «ofpel times , when 3, mentioning the identity of Bifiiop and Presbvrer.* 5, when theApcftlesdidby their own prefence&in u« 3,ftrv Supply the rovvmeofBifnop*,butas they began 3l to fail by dea*h,or their bufilnes called them elfwhere , ; and upon the Churches inlargernent, & the Schifme 3, thatarofe upon thePresbyters equality ,Bii1iops were „ fer up over Presbyters This he-proves , becaufe » j, jerom . aves.. ihar from Mark the Evarigelife. The Pref- * by ters choofed out one, and called him Bishop, even , to the Bifhops herac/iusana Diomjius, but Mark died 5)b.- fore Peter and Paul. Then h'ecompleans of l*w^ ^Bimriuusa*, dealHng defectively in leaving out this in ' I, their Citation — * And of Mr.DurhamfontheReve^ '2s. land thitMr. Durham takes no notice of je- „roms (imilicudinfpfakin^ of this Election of Presby- ^ ters in relation to their Bifhop, viz, ^sthearmy doth choofethe Emperor) Thus far we have our Informers fiift great defence , Which brings to minde a remarkable laying of Marcus. Anton* De Dem De repub EcclMb.2. cap q.Numb. 46* SuntquiHieronimuminreSam fententiam vel invi urn velint trahere , ille tamen dum confuetudini Sola cccUfiaftic* , ecclafiaque human* decrcto tribuit Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 105 quod ab Aposlolis jure divine 5 ejl faclitatum aliquamum certe ieflexit — nequein hoc aut excufav potef,aut in aium contrarium fenfum trahi verba ejus , neque a Ham Senten- tuim neque defenfijnen neque exc fatimem 3 admittentid 5, funt bac in Epift.[*d Titum : &c „ Some would (he 3>faith) draw \erom to a contrary minde aga*nft ,, his will > butwhil he doth afcribe only toEcchJia- $; fickjluflome y and the Churches human deccree,\vhn was ; t done by divine right 3 he went out of the way > and 0, in this he cannot be excufed , nor can his words ad* „ mitt of any other fenfe, ormeaneing. So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer. But to the point, I Anf. ic Wee have;nothing here bu^ the old Song j which hath been anfwered by many, f unius [Seder: c. if. Not. i6.] tells him [Thzttria difnnguit tempora Hieronimus. Primumjuo Ecdefi this period he fixes afcer Iohns time, and fu af- ter all the Apollles- Z.Wheras the Inform r[fo]\o\v\ngDofflnam defenf. l\b: >> 4. cap: 3. Sedbio.) alledges ,, That the Prefbyters in 5, jtromes fenc did in the beginning of the gofpel go- ,}vcrntheChurches[M^pyiv^o] .in aprivat way,&£in >> foro confeientiae] feeding with the word and SsCnaV 3> mentjche Apofties them(eives,by th^r own prefenc . Supplying the roumeof Bifhops j and that there- 3, after Bifhops werefetup by them to prevent fchifm ,, among Presbyters. 1 anfwer. He will aiToone fqui- ze water from a flint, as this meaneing out of jeroms words. Fori jcrom fpeaks of a frame of government , yea a divine frame, whehpoftea and'Paulatim , after* &ard and by degrees , came to be altered and changed* but this unvac government of Presbyters in foro interna, toa never changed 2. jenm in fpe?king of thit govei n- mem which was afterward changed , and by degrees, proves its divine right fromminy|fcriptufcs asaD/jC pfitio divina, era divine appointment. Now I befeech him. did theApoltles firft pracbiea divine fame of Government , and then changed it into a human cu* Jlorne } ( which is the Character thzt jcrom puts upon the Epifcopacy which afterward came in. ) will any of com- Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 207 common fenfe or difcretion , fay To ? Far lefs fo lear- ned amsnasfewflewas. 3. Ifths Apoftles themfelvcs didfupply theroum of bifhops, b:forc the change which ]erome fpeaks of, then leroms could not fay of t'nar period of rime before the change 3 that s ammunicenfiUo Preslyterorum eccteji* gubernabantur , the Churches: were governed by the] common Council of Presbyters 9 but according; tothisglofsof his words, before the change , the Government was epifeooall. Bnt foitis> that j-:romfayes, idemepif- cofm & Presbyter 3 the Eislep and Presbyter are one and the fume* by divine r'gbty and that before the change which came in h^a^uman cuJlomc( 'which he diftinguifhes from that difpejitio divina or divine frame, which fuft took ph- ce)ihe presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counfel, according to divine appointment* 4* If the Apoftles upon their with. drawing, ortheincreafe of Chu ches>fet upPrelats, let the Jw/crmrrfhewme why and how Jgrom could draw his proof for the fide'nty of Bifhopcs and Presbyters, from A&. 20. Where Paul was taking his laft farewell of the Churches ? was he toinpply theroumeofa B;fti>p by hrspre!ence with them , when never to fee their faces more t how could ferome plea J for the divine right of or contradift what he faid before of the inconfiftency of thefe offices in a ftridt fencjn on and the fame perfoi jfor he faid noth-J ing againft this confeqaenc, Timothie is called anc Evan- < gilijl in api3 fenfe, ergo He could not be a Bishop. Now I ; lay lerom calls Marks ane Evangilift . for he teJls us that 4 Marco evangelifta from Marke the Evangilifi, the Presby - ters at Alexandria fet up one to preSde. trgo he fpeaks tfsclufivdy , and cannot put Mark, among theferies of them Upon the point of EpifcopacieJ top them for Mark was anc officer of a higher nature. More- over, the Informer cells us, that Mark died before Peter and Pauls hence I infer againft him, ergo, lerorn cculd not reckon Marl^ among thefe Bifliops of A- lexandria: (orhrom drawes hisproofes for thePref- byters divin right of governing in Common, f$pm A&. 2o* phil. i.i. Pet, 5. And from Iohn the laft of the Apoftles> and maks this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apoftles time, and tells us that the Bifliops who were fet up, came in by cufiome y and afterward , and by degrees when it was mo orbedecretum , decreed through the wor!d> to put the power upon one^ ergo thefe Bifliops of Alexandria behooved to be fete up long afrer Mark was in his gra- ve, according to jeroms calculation- And vtheras he compleans that Mr Durham* leaves our that Claufe [Where jerom maks ufe oiafimile anenc the armies choofing ane Emperor ■ Thar he may make the Bi/hops po^er when brought in ,aslirtle as can be.] Its anfwered.thatpaflage will as little help him as the other, for Jeromes fcopeis,tofliew That the Bifliors firft rife and power over Presbyters> tvas by their ownfrec eleBion , not by divide difpofition , as th~ Army choofes the General), Now no limile muft be ftrained and hold in every poynr» elfeit were nota fimile. Scriptur- parablcs themfelves mart not be ftrained beyond the fcop. A nd beiides , jerome cannot be fuppofed to give at 'hat time, csendefaclo , far left jure divine, an Im- perial or Lordly power to thefe Presbyters thus cho- fen out by their brethren, and made Bifliops over them, unlefs hMvouldCrofshisowndodtrine, fince he maks this choic qnd Election of the f.pifGopus'prefes , to be the hum n Cufiome, pofteriorunto, and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity, U/faich firit took place. Likeway csjerom fayesin his cwn time suidfacit exceptaordinatione Efifcopus, aucdmn fait Presbyter* What doth theBifhop except ordin*- O % rioa fcio A Confutation of the firft Dialogue tion which the Presbyrers doth nor4 So that ihey had pot then arrived acany imperial! power. And becaufe^his roan tells as even ad>?dufiam of this parage , a Marly Evangiliftt. I will turn h<:r the u ea- po s point upon him, and demand, Since lenme rmke thefe Alexandrian Bifhops from M*r£, to have been fete up by Presbyters free election , how comes the Pre- lats he pleads for, to be EleRedandfct up at Court, while the poor Creatures , the Curats , over whom they are fet, to play the little emperoures, have no more In- tereft as to their choice and Elcft ion, then the filiieft Moncl^in choofing ihepofi Iaddfecre, that this fup- poinion of his [ that lerom holds the Apoftles to have fupplied the Bifhops rowme for a time , though no fixed ordinary Bifhops , untill the Churches growth, and their neccfiary abfence, did neceflirat i o fee rhena up for preventing fchifm,] wiilCroflc whathimfelf and Downamalfo doe plead , defenf. 1. 4. c. ? . Seft* 3. ("Ifat lead they will not nzkelereme oddly to contn> di& binafelf, viz.) that Jerom[in Cdtal.Scrip.Ecclef]>ho\d$ that Iamecimmediatly after the Lords furrering , was Conftitut Bifhop oileruftem. Befids that nei- ther of them will prove that to be the true jerom. But now the \nf$rmer will refolve the great doubt 3)againft what he Hath faid^viz. „ That lerome proves J3from Scriptur , Bifhop and Presbyter ro be all 3, one and that fchifmes by Satans inftindi , ga- 3Jve occafion to change the government frcm the „ Common Council of Presbyters • to another 3, mould of fetting up one over the reft , to whom 5>the whole Care fiiould belong &c. To which he j.anfwers, that Jercw* fpeaks of the power which Bi- a,fhops in his time had come unto beyond what the 3> nrft Bifhops hid y viz* That at the fir ft Pie.sbyters ,3 had a hand in government, but after , $rmis^£cclefu i, euraadunuTi delata, that is , the wholl care was pui •, upon the Bifhop. jbuc if we take lerom to fpeak of the 1; Upon the poi n t of Epi/bpaciV z i x i, thefirft inrrodu&ion ofBifhops, then he muft be 5> underftood as (peaking of the Apoftles own times* Anf I. Upon this ground the Informer muft grant, that in leromt fenfe > Bifhops who only in ordination , were fuperior to Presbyters,had a greater power then the Bifhops firftfet up by theAjoftless which will clearly exclud his diocefianPrelats? who have folc power in ordination and jnrKdi&ion , as no divine Bifhops. And Next, it will follow that the ifh- or es fet up-4 Marco, or after Mrfr^, were meer pre- fidents , or Moderators ; fince they were lefs in po- werthen thefe Bifhops, who onelyin ordination, differed from Presbyters. So we fee the rebound of this aniwer will ftrik his caufedead. And he muft feel ano'her rebound of his own blow 3 as to his Com- plaint of our leaving out wh2t maks againft usin Je- roms words. For I aik why he leaves out here hrems fcnp:ureproofes,evincingthat Biftos fc Presbyters zreonejuredivino} Why leaves he our leroms Ooiie&i* on upon ali thefe fciptures (w-iich runes aronzthe through ^nololickage) viz. 7 bat theBiihops are more by Cufiom, then by any true difptnfation from the Lord fet ever Presbyters'. fo* although h eaftex bringes in this asanc objection, yet it ought to have been fet downe here, a$ the main conclufion of \eromes arguing : and his in faying[thatthe Apoftlesby their prefenc andinduftry fupphed the want of Bifhops over thefe Presby- ters.] So that he compares not the Bifhops in his time, with the firfl Bifhops who came in by Cuflome, but thefe kumanBishops who thus came in, with the firftfiripture lishops. we know not wher to find this ter- fatil prott us in hi* anfwers here , and may triicly al- Icadge , that this Tcftimony pinches him and his fel- lowes. Uext , will he ftand to this exposition of feroms \y words, which he here offers, viz, „ [ That the a,fnft Bifhops adrnkred Presbyters to governe with „ them a and the after Bifhops in ^er&ms time, go- verned alone.] Then hemuft grant, that thefirft and fecond Bifhops, were of very different cutts 5 and fohe breaks his Argument from the Catalogues , all inpeecesj and muft grant that the word epifcepus > or Bishop, is varioufly u!*ed by the ancients, And that our prefent Lord - prelats can receave no Pratnciny from Bifhops of the firft ages , wherein Presbyters governed by common Council , and had- a d^ci- |ivc fufferage in Government , whereas the Prelats now are beyond what their predeceflbrs hai come un- go, even in ferems time: For then except ordination, theBifhop did nothing? beyond what the Presbyter might doe,whereas our prefent Prelats are fole both in ordination and Jurifdiftion, and afiume a negative voice in Church Judicatories , Yea a decifwe fuffrage in Parliament : which he dare not fay that any of thef« Bifhops did ever pretend unto. Well, 3>Bunfwefhallfay thatfwwfpeaksofthe \i firft introduction of Bifhops into the Church , then E (he tells us) lerom muft underftand it of the Apo- Upon the point of Epifcopacie.^ 1 1 ? 93 ftles times . What means he by thtfirjl introdu&ion of Bishops ? Can he give theleail ihaddowfof rcaionfor it, that ferom fpe.kes of any other introduction then that introdu^icn of human cuftom , which he diftin- guiihes from thedtvine appointment o{ Presbyterian pa- riue } But how provcihc [That fawn maks Bifho- pes to have been introduced in the times oftheApo- ftles] (yet I muft rell him by the way, thac intro- duceingth°m in the times oj the Apofiles , is one thing 3 & by the /poJlles,}S2noth?nhwg. Diotrephes fought his primacyin lohns time, but was difo* ned by him ther- in.So that if we can prove ihat what jerom cites for the parity ofBi/hops & Pre tbyters jure divino.,wi]l conclud thepoint, thefe Bifhops are in them elves, & in jeroms judgemcnccondcmned by the Apofties.jhis I. I{eafin is [Thar/erwi makes the thing, which gave occaCon to this Introducing of Bifhops , to be the peoplesjay- ing lamofPaulandl of Apollo, and this was iheSchiim ipoken of I Cor. u] hut this notion of baravia, sno o- thers,he might have found long fince anfwcred.Itfwwtt fcop is evidently , to prove that by Scripture war* rand , Bishop and Presbyter are all one , wich he clears by many Scripture Teihmonyes , even to Iohns time; and therefore he could not be fo brutifli , as to make this Schifm at Corinth , theoccafion of the Change, folong before Johns Teftimony > yea before P^ules farewell Sermon to the Elders of Ephefus, from whichhe drawes another of his proofed Futhefpca- kes of a human Cuflom comeing in Paulatim , pojlea , peecejand peece and by degres,long after thefe times : and but alludes unto that Divifion i Cor. I. Exprefling ninth* jipojiles words, noteftheir times; fortheApo- files never appointed this prelatikexcrefcent power of Bifhops over Presbyters as a remedy of Schifme, among all their prefcriptions of the Cure ofthisevill. Rom* i$. 7# xCor, 3: j.n* 18. Moreover famous O 4 vht* -anddnf,, ) inl-limhtA+l, ... i 1 2 14 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue ivhmaker will tell him , f&d* tfeii rtmedit is vrerfe then thedifeafe. The miftery of iniquity was then working ; the .^po.Mes therefore would nor lava ftep under An- ti-CHiifts foot 3 to get in to his Chair. Befides* rhefi fadtions in religion were not ac Corinth onlie. Junius (de clcr. Cap. if not IS.) will Informs him VAzi[jcrcm sfferts nor , that it was faid at Corinth, I am of Haul , &c- But among the feepUy &c. nulum non Corinthifelum* &C. It was a Futdick evili « Paul himfclr prefer j bed no fuch remedy /"faith he) unrorhv Corinthians. * and a forward [Not. 17. J 9) Jer 3, not ihe Afcjlks decree , ■ ■ ■■ Then he adds {prom, 3, vi% y ) Let th't Visbopr l^now , that it is rather ,j by Cuftome , then the divine appointment , that \\ihej are Jet over Presbyters. Had the Apoftles 9, changed the firft order » and fee Bifiiops over 31 Presbyters, and forbidden the Churches to be 3, governed by the -Cammon Council of Presby- »3tcrs,' truly that had been the Lords apfointcment , ,,becaufe proceeding from the Apoftks of Cmift, ^unleiVwe will afcrib to Cuftom , not to divine £ appointment 3 what th.y decreed* But the Apo- pities being alive, there was nrth'mg changed in J5 that order . for this Epiitle was written when Paul 3, was in Mac dcri.a \ Re.'] Let our Informer read this learned ^uror , who at large will Cure his error ia this poynr3 if it be not incurable. Wherashsadds ^[Ffut ftrwrit comment upon Tit. 1. Imporrsonfy ,', his- opinion , anentthe Community of names of % Bllhop and Presbyter not »f their $ce at that time] lbc- Upon the point of Epif copacie. % i f I befeech him wtet will this fay to frames fcope, which is to prove'Presby ters fuperiority to Deacons ? for the deacons name was in agc.nerail fcnfe , attri- buc both to Apofties, and|:o the Evangelift Timo- thev> as himfclf pieads. Befides, v\fait fignifies f^roiw* in ferenc from all his Citations, vi%,[Tbat tits fops had not their Inferiority over ?rcsbit*rs , by divi- re appointment] If only a commaniue oi: nair.es , was his proofj from thefc texts. Thzinformersz Realon, to prove that \eio-n makes Elh^ps* to he introduced in the dines ot the Apo- fries 3 is [>, That had the decree wich \zrome fpcaks ,,of, been after the Apoltles, it wouid have been if extant in antiquity , where , and in what Council , 33it took place, but this is rot found. Anf Jerome by » toto orbe dscreturn, ox.profpiciente co>cilio3 cannot mean any formal Council, either in the Apofties times, or afterward. Hut the meaning is, that when through the world , it was faid among the peo • pie , I 2in of Piul , &C. I: was decreed among the people, or inland among particular Churches, through the whole word a thai is , diftr butivsly , though all pla-* ces of the world, not reprefentatwely, in any gcum*- , nick Council qi the whole world* Drcreed through the whale word , is all one with , Decreed by the it bole world* which is aiftnbutily robe taken, \eroms words con- vince this, for the Councils decice , reprefirntingthc world, would be *B at ones', brr \erom fayes this i Ch?,n;e came not, in Simul & Semel , but paulatim ly degrees; And that the Frofiafu came its by Cu(tomef which points at agraduall comemgm. Betides , the Apofties changing the firft mould of government , to prevent Scifm, will fsy they made th^mfeives wiicr then the Lord. Hi* 3 Reafon is [ That this veil fupp$fe the Worlds universal defection, from the hpoftolic/^ Government , ag- amft which there is tno fiotfrcp of a Teftimony. ] ab initio, yea firft or laft not ha- veing a power of ordination > and jurifdiftion; and Me m&$ jetmt to refleft upon the Apoftles, as if they tad Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 217 had bettered Chriftsappointmeat, as to Government.* I pray him , how grew up the Corinth Scifm while Paul a&ed the Bifnop over that Church? asheandthc reft of hisparty doe plead. The men ofhiswayfajr that the Apoitles keept the reyns of Government in their own hand, until they were about to die > before wich time there werefchimesin their Churches. Did not the Apoftles forefee this? and if the Apoftolick Lpifcapacy was by lyable to fchifmes , much more that of their fubftituts. 2»It is too grofs ane Infcrenc to fay that [ ,, Becaufe hroms holdcs that for preventing „ (chifmes which were at that time, the Government 3, was changed , therefore lerome charges it upon the ,, Apoftles Government ,] he may as well fay , that 2 mans afferting Corruptions to be in theChurch. will infer his imputing them to the ordinances- Was there nordifcord amongthe difciplcs, underChrifts own immediac Government? but did that reflect upon his Holy Government that this recorded? Did not Paul ana Barnabas divid & part afunder ? bur did Luke in relating this, Charge it upon the holy Apoftoli k Go- vernment. 3 .'The abfurd [reflexion upon the Ap$Jlles G«- vernment ] which he fpeaks of,lyes upon hisparty^and thefe who firft brought in} and now (after its evil ef- feftsarc difcovereci) uphold this hierarchy, which if; fo erode to the Apoftolick parity. Icrom &yes [they brought in this imparity for remedy of fchifme ] but leaves the charge of [reflecting upon the Apoftolick government] upon the Auchores of this innovation , and upon its promoters ftill it muft ly. „ His $i. Rjeafinis ,,That Jerorn in his writtings deri- 3, ves Epifcopacy as high as from the ApoftIes,making ,> lames Biftiop of lerufalem, Titus of Crete , Mark of ,, Alexandria : and Biihops > Presbyters and Deacons ,, to be that which Aaron and the levites were in the old jjTcftament. Then he adds , that if we make him con- 2 1 8 A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue. *>contradi& hijnfelf, it mull be with advantage to MSifhops. Anf. Wee h*vc heard alreadv, that iris paft doubt with rr.anygodiy learned, that the Fathers fcfed the terme hxsbop , in a various and general fenfe, and {poke ofene Apofties , and of extraordi- nary officers, afc:r the mode and cuftome of rh ir ovn times, wherein rhefe offices and deGgnations were prevalent. Its this Informer , who puts a contradi- ction upon Urcme , while he rinks him affert Epifco- pacy tobefet up by the Apo(^cs,upon occafion cf the Corinth Schifm , in contradiction to h s S up- turproofes of the parity of Bishop and Fresbyter from the Apofties dodlrine, and brings him inhere aszp ferting the Apofties > to have been formalv B fhops from the begming. Wheras our anfwer hath none of thefe inconveniences ; aadtho it w -re granted* chat it is the true lerome who aflerts this of the Apoftks (which we put thislw/o/raartopiove) yecweaccom- rnodat this with his orher dodtrine, by wh v is fai i of the sequivocall fenfe of the word. Aarm and the Levits authority might, inlcroms judgement, be as to Church government in-general j derived in -hen \v Tcftament, ar;dalfoas toadiftindtion of Churrh offi- cers therein. Butifhcftiould alledge, ihdr lerorn rfi- milatshsre, the one government andtheorher , he Will mak him plead for a gofp'ell A aron and pope. Jn a word, leroms judf ement , as to the iiv ne right of Presbyterian parity, being To clear , and by rv.rp foun- ded upon the Apcftles writings ; ou h'r to prepon- derat any other general, or ambiguous ex priors* anentJBiftiops; andasaru:e, to expound thv fame, in the fenfe moil fuitablc unto this his judgement : efpe- cialy fince the Fathers ufage of fpeech , as to Bif- hops , is thus general and ambiguous as is (aid- „ But the Donfeer obje&s to purpofe „[Thatf#- nrn leers the Bifhopsknow that they have their power, morel Upon the point ef Epifcopacie. 2 1 f nore by Cuftom , then bv divine right] To this the \nformer rcpones his recodted crambe againc viz, [le- „row*fpeaks of the power which Bilhops in his time ,, were inverted with > beyond the firft Biihops — — 35 And that leromn that fame Epiftle expones[Con- ,, fuetudo, o Cuftom] by [Apoftolica] tradition] ■■ „That if we underftand him of Ccnfuetudo , or cu- „ftom afer the Apoftles , this will faften upon him 5, a contradiction. That h?fayes of the firft Btftiops, 3> who governed by cornmoune Council witn the ,»Pre byters; that they differed onely from them in ,, ordination - butofthefeinhisownetime* adtmum y.omniscura dclata, the wole charge was put upon one.] %Anf. Ab for this conceit,of ieromtt diftinguifhing here onely [Bishops of his own time,] from [thefe of the Ap iftles time,]we have confuted it already,and ftiowa its absurdity i and that it is moft croile to leroms fcopeand words , who proves a com pleat parity among Minifters, andane identity of Biflhop, and Presby- ter, in Name ana thing, ail ahngft the Apoftles times , and writings , eves to lohn , the furviver of all the Apoftles 5 So that it is moft abfurd to fancy him to fpeak of Bishops in the Apoftles timet. The Informer offers but a^rolTdiltortion of his words, for he (ayes of the Bifhop who differed onlv in ordination t from Presbyters : quid facit , what doth the $isfxp except ordination &c in the prefent time , but of thefe who have all the Care , he h\ es Paidatim adunumcura delata> tha whol! cire was put upon one , in the preterit fme, pointing out thefe who came in upon that fchifrn , which , with the Informer , was in the Apoftles time; The objection tells him, that lerom applyes theBif- hops mould whom this man calls [firft Bifhops] to [his owne time ] vhen he fayes what doth the Bifhop , ex- cept ordination &c: And haveing prGved Sifhopes a*d Presbyters to be all one, he iayes Sciant, that is %io A Con fa tar Jon of the firft Dialogue is , let the prefent Bishops know 9 that they have thef power more by Cuftom , chrp divine appointment 2 As for leroms expounding Conjuetudo orCuftome, b] Jpofiohc\ tradition, it receaves the fame anfwer witl what is (aid , as to his calling hfoftles , Hi hops. Fo; withIeromc,Apoftcltcktradition,2in<\ EeelefiafttcJ^ Cufton arc all one 5 as that inftance clears anent the obferva« tionofW , which he calls Apoftolica traditio , ox 4po fiolicktr edition , writing toMarctllus* and yec writing againft the LuciferUas , he calls it hccle/ia conjuetudo , or a Cuftom of the Church: therefore by Apoftohck tra- dition , he meaned not Apojiolick appointment , foi this were ane implicantia in terminus , arlat contradi^ tfion , fince he denyes this to thefe Bifhops , but only Ecclefiafticl^ Cuftom } upon which he f.iyes their orlic was founded. The Informers 2d. Anfwer o this ,, exception is ( with Davenant ) ,, That by [tru h of ^divine appointinentj \erom meaned Chrifts exprefs 3, command, by [Cuftom] the Apoftles pradtife > begun „ by them > and after continued. For prove ,, in» this he adduces rhe Inftance now given , anent 33 leroms making [Apoftolickjraiition ] , and [ Ecclejiajiicl ^Cufiome] , all one. Hence he thus fenfes the words . 33 That Sifhops were brought into the Chu:ch, not 31 by Chnfts exprefs command , but by a Cuftom >, introduced by the Apoftles into the Church , and ,, continued in their SuccefTb*s. Anf 1. This fine cone it maks lerom reflect oddly upon the Apoftles asifthey taught oncthing, and pradifedano'heij foi lerome proves from their writings, that all along they make Bifnops and Presbyters one , Now if they 11 practice fet up B fhops Giftincl: from Presbyters ,what Harmony makes this? 2. He thus [raaks him reflect upon Chrifts expre s command , in relation to go« vernment , as if it were altered 3 and opon his go vernment Apoftolick,ln faying that it was tbe ground •I Upon the point of Epifcopacie.' tn offchifmes. How will this man guard againftthis, which he :mputed to us before? 3. What v\iliDa* venant or he make of thefe Three periods of time in imms difcourfe , obferved by learned lunius and others, to clear his words* 1. Prcsb\tei$ antiBifliops ali one and governing by Common Council all the Apoftlestime. 2. Scifmesarifing. J, PauUtim and fqftea , in procefs of time , and by degrees, a new mould of government pro/eSei, and immutataratio , the order changed , as hmbrofe faith to the lame puipofe. Now this gloffe of his words, will make tkeApofto* t lick government and praftife, not only the rife of icifmes, but /a be Changed, for a change its fure Jer- orn [ peaks of from the tuft order of government ap- pointed by the Apoftles ; and making yet the Apo- (ties pra&ife in government to continue , the anfwer contradicts it fdf, as well as lerome. Asfortheipfian- ce adduced >ic cannot quadrat here in thisplace, when lerom oppofesthi confuetudo or Cuftom, unto difpojition of divine truth : fjr the Apoftles praAife, fecondedby thenDod:rin,(as thclnformer holdeth that be th will pa« rroniz prelacy) is moftformalva divine appointment, and their giveing unto the Churches what they receavtd of Lord in their commiffion; and therefore cannot with any ihe w of Rcafon , be appofed unto a divine appoint* merit, as lerome oppofes this Confuetujlo , or Cuftom. Inline. How wilDavtnantor he^eparatanddiftinguifh I that which ]erome cites [AdL 10. )for the parity of Bishop *j or Presbytery and to prove Presbyters their common ?! joynt government 1 viz, [Thar Paul gave the whel I kpifcopal Charge to rhefe eiders in his laft farewell 1 as the HolyGhoftsBifhops, nornoticing Timothy in i ihethin£.]H°w will hee(I fay )difiinguiih this from arte )'! hpoflolicl^ praBice and * praBice to be continued} So that o-i here was ( in leromsknk) a Presbyterian praBice of this i great Apoftle, apra&ice founding tfest Government ii and co be continued to. But a^^ A Confutation of the firit Dialogue But the Informer difmifles this difecurfe of \crcrn with fome rcmarkes. The i is „Thathefpeaks at leaft of 3>ane Apoftolick right, as in many other hit writing?* r>5 in relation to prelacy. Aw/*, wee have proved that leroms words in thefeluo places menrioned { the clear reit account ofhi$]udgcmen' in this mater, fince heis difpBtiog this points frofejfo )doe evince the contrary. his *• P^emarl^ is » 1 bat fuppofe he makes Bishops lai- ,, terthenthe Ap'>ftles> yet he inaksthem needful to preventSchifm. hnf. Ieroroonely Narrats remGeftam, cr th- mater of fa&, viz- Ihegroundthat moved to bring t-ern in, but gives not his approbation oj it. Kcfide* , ibelnfcrmer would take h'nr.e his own argumei t here* snd bewar of making l-erom rere6i upon the Apoftohck Government, and contradict himfelf , in approving of a government as a remedy of fchifin , whkh he difputsa^ainft from Scripture. His id. Ntfr is f,/T hat lerawfubmirrrdtoEpifcopacy ; and that lY.r. Durham fayes that A trim was cenderrned for brangling this or- der to the hazard of union.] Anf \ercm: keeping fel- lowship wi-h the ^i(ible Church in his time (tainted with this Corruption, and wl . jch was but then are embrii C~xhatgrcir7i Modifier row among us, ) isa poorargtt- ment to plead for the belt and pureft (and info far the moft confiderable ) part f Minfters and profefio s in this Church , heir complying with a Scifmatick hackflyding p^r'y , introducing this Corruption after ic l.athbee^univerfaly caft out and vowed againli , and the fame may befaid of Aerius Neither con:radi<5l wee \trem in this, for he maks not prelacy neceiTary for keep- ing out inifme , as we have already told him, a^ii we heard that learned \X'hitta];er calls it a remedy worfe then the Difcafe J:efore he can mke either ^tromi pradifeheranent , or Mr. Durkams ztttrtion asto Ae< rtuf , bear any concluflon againft us, he muft prove that the prelaiick party are the onely vifiblc organic* Churc! Upon the point Epifcopacic. n* Church of Scotland , elfe J trams praftife will fortify more the Presbyterians plea againft him > for break- ing down the wall of Gods houfe, and feperating from the Presbyterian Government of this national! Church. But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue. Chap. XIIL The difference betwixt eur frefent VrtUcj and the Ancient Epifc$p4cy fitted and evinced in jx. Inftances. Hence dll the Informers ple- ^dings from Antiquity for our PreUtr, is found * beating of the Aire and imperti* ntnt. ALthough this Informer would make the world be# lieve, that our Prelacy is nothing difcrepant from v that of the ancient Biihops> yet there are many remar- kable differences betwixcthe one and the other , which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde. i. In general its clear from a great confentof the | learned, that the Biftiop who firft came in after the Atx)ftolick age was nothing but Epifcopus prefes or Moderator , and bad no power of ordination and furifi ! di&ion above Presbyters. This Moderator fixedly fet up durante vita > during life > And Indued with z ■higher honour upon thisground , is Beta's Epifcopus humanus , or human Bishop , whom he diftineuiflies from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment- A mhofe in his time, acknowledges [on i Tim. j] T That Bi- jihops and Presbyters had the fame effentidl office an&oriU F nation 214 A Confutatioc of the firfl: Dialogue nttion.] Dr Remolds* in his conference withfQwZ proves , th^tar firft the Moderator or president among Ministers inrheir meetings , is he v* horn the Anci- ents in after rimes, called Bishop, So he holds that the Bifnop at his firft rife was only the ^ir®- or Mode- rator of the Presbytery. Blondel at large mantain's rhe fame, only heholds tharthe nexiin degree lie* ce^vied him when d^ad- Hence Mafcu /us after he harh from the tex*s alledged by ]erome , proved that „ Bishtp and Vreshyur are all one- adds „ That *,thc -rafter Ambition begetting flrifes about pre- - y. cedencie , one was fet up to be Moderator in a fix* »5ed orb. And leaftour Informer or any elfe al- leadge, that prelacy therefore is neceffary to pre- l vent Schime. This eminent light of the reformed ») Church adds. ,1 but whither that device of man ., profited the Church or no, the times after could 5; better judge, and that the effects iflueing upon it 3 33dicovered, that it was not the Spirit of God his ,y remedy to take away Schifme , but Satans project to ^deftroyafaithfuilMiniftcrv. The fame faith Sadael yjViz , that this difference betwixt Bifhops and Mi- ,, nifters which was introduced to remedie Schifme , ^opened a gap to ambition. So Dr Wbittdkf* haveing out of ]erome fhewed [ That fadb'on occasioned the change of the Ancient Apoftolick parity among Mt- „ nifters,] .■■ adds — „ That many wife and ,7g6t% men have judged the change and remedy >, more pernicious then the difeafe it felf, which though ^aiftrft it did notappear, vet experience after pro- ved that it brought the Andchriftian yoakeupon the neck of the Church. Seethe appendix to jus*, divin. Minifl* EvJtngsl. In which Tefdmonies of thefe ercu men we may ohferve two things* I. That they adtaBtrchSffitft Biihops to hive been nothing elfe but fixed Moderators. 2: fine even this much they doe con- Upon the point of Epifcopacie. i 1 y condejrme as a deviation from the firft appointment:, and as that which gave a rife to the Antichriftian Ty- ranny, Now the difference and difpropornon be* xtv'wiz th\s fixedMed$rator, and our pr ekntdioceftan era- fiian prelat , is io plaincand obvious, that nothing further needs be faid to clear it. Therefore his Ar^u« ment from the Catalogues and thofe early firft Bifhops who tooke place in the Church, is pitifully ciaucicant as toaconclufion ofthe ancient Churches approha-* tionofourPrelats. To clear it further? its evident (\£ we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Biihopes them- selves in poiin of Church Government ) that 1, They; held not their confecration or ordination to be diftindl from that of Presbyters, Epifiopi £? Presbyteri una & ea+ dsm ^orA'w4/i^[tthattheBi(hopand Ptesbv-er have one and the fame ordination,Jwe heard is Ambr'fez&zi- tion. 2. No delegation ofexternall jurifdi&iontoPref- byters was acknowledged by the ancients. Asitis by our n^w hierachical pleaders* The Prelatifts hold that the Bifhop is properly the [P aft our of the trhole diocefty] and that a"! the Minifters thereof have but a denved precarius Miniftry under him. (oDetvn. (de?. fenf. lib, 2. c. 4. p.67.)Field.(ol the Church 5 tf.c.27) 5,4r^.C^^trip.epif«p>§74 )Spala?A 2. c.9 Num. *$\and ■ yet Ambrofe[on s Tim. 5 >AndChrifoftom[How.i7 on Marthew ] calleth Presbyters exprefly Chriftivica- rm Shrifts vicar*. Cyprian, f lib. 4. Epift.8-]fayc5,D4»tf-. ^num facer d tcsin Juaecclfia ■■■»., ,.,..« &c: ^ That the ,, Lordcondefcended to deft & conftitut tohimfelf ,, Prieftsin his Churchy 3. The Ancients held that 3, the power of external! jurisdiction was common 3, with Bifhops and Presbyters. Ignatius (In his Epiftle to the Traflians, ) CaHs the Presbytcrs^/wtf/ra DehGods Court 2 or Semt. Et nm confiliarios folutn ? fed & affeftores P Z fc*& 2i6 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue Epifcopi. not Councellours onh fas are ourCurars^ and fcai ie that ) but the Bishops *JfefJors* lren*us. (Hb.4. Cap : 44.) Calls them Principes; Princes or Chieff. Auguflin. (Serm: $6. j Calls the Brethren ineremo* P/ttronos recto- res terra j Patrones and RgRors of the Earth. Chrifofinm ex- prefflvfhews (on 1. Tim. I, Horn: •ii.)Eccleftjspr ea etiam Presbyter'ts congruunt : that is , „ after he hath fpoken of Bifhopes and formed them, . »,injoyningwhat thingesit becomes them to have, ,vand from what it is neceffary they fhould abftain , jy omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters , he ^paffes over to deacones. Why fo, I pray ? even ,,becaufethat betuixta Bifhopc and Presbyter there ,,isaImoftno difference. Becsufeunto Presbyters ,,alfo the care of the Church isallowed: andwhathe „ faid before concerning Bifhopes, the fame rhinges , , alfo do agree to Presbyters. I know he addes — fola quippeordinationefuperioresiHijunt, atque hoc tantum, plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur- ,» That the Bifhopes ,, only in ordination arc fuperiour to Presbyters, accor- ding to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam3 and Bilfon> and by EeUarmin before them. But the more learned interpreters have obferved that the greeke will bear a farr other fence, r J* y*£%ttp*(fcu**pmi irS» *i*/3- fiVKctot » icotl TXT* [/sit* Itxxcn 7rMo>iKTilp TVs nrpufivTipVf ±ola enimfuffragatione horum afcenderunt atque hecfoio vi- dentur Presbneris injuriam facer?, that is, ,, that oneljr >, by the Presbyters fufFrage they haYC afcended, (viz by Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 127 J* to this power ) „ and in this onely they feemtodo » injury to Presbyters. The learned lunius ( de cine, up. 7. not. 6 it.) telsusthat xM^-wi* (hie) Presbyte- rorum non Epifcoporum 5 quod ft %\%^%y%ot eji irdinano , ergo Presbytcrorum eft ordmatio. >, The hand fuffipge, a, is here the Presbyters, but if it be meaned ofordi- *, nation, then ordination belonges to them. And having proved this conftrudion & fence of the greeke from Suidts, he fhewes that Cbrifojt. places not thg difference in ordination betuixt the Bifhop and Pref- byter , but in this that the Bifhopes afcendunt fupra Presbyteros ingradum e'thskcttm,) Doe afcend into there 3, degree of Epifcopacy above the Presbyters — al- 33 though, becaufe they itepp up by their fufFrage, they >, feem to wrong them when they aflume any power to », themfelves> who upon the ground of order, not of ,, power, (faith he)zre fetovcr them by there owne fuf- frag.He alio ztlsBellarm.(dc clerk. ca. 15. not. 29*) That granting his fence otCbryfft. Wordes?yetthe JBifhop ordained onely fgno &Jcrmone „ declaring the facred ,»inftitution or inauguration of the perfon ordained * >v but not ordinatione xeritatv , or by the true ordina- ?, tion which that (igne reprefented. Some add, that ifCbrifoft. be thus underftcod in the fence of Bcllarm* and his Epifcopal feftators , he did not rightly ex- pound his text , while diftinguifhing that which he ac- knowledges tbe A poftle makes one& the 'fame, \ercmt tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bifhops; from whom Gratian (inde • cretis cauf. 16- Queft.icap.) fh ewes that Hcclejla ha- betfenatum Presbyter orum &c: That tbe Church hath afenat cf Presbyters without wbofe counfelthe Bishop can doe nothing. 2. We heard that thefe Ancient Bifhops werefcit up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Epifcopall power from their free choice and ele- ction. And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters , they afcribc it to Cuflem > and to the Freu P 3 byters ^ i§ A Confutation of the firft Dialo|ue byters own choic , confuetudini , non fominic* dif- fiftttenis veritati f to Cuttom not the truth of divine Appointment , as lerome fpeakes. henzus , (who lived ann. i3c,hb. 4. cap. 4$ ) tells us that we muft adher to thofe Presbyters ^quifuccefficnem habentab dpoftolis, qui cum Epifcopatus jucceffione charifma veritatis accepe- runt. __ Who have fucceilion from the Apoftlcs 3 and together wi-h the fucceffion of Epifcopacy have the gift of vciky. Ambrcfe (in cap 4- Ephef) afhrrnes that ~non per omnia convcnitwt&c — [the government in his time agreed retinal points with fenpture ] he means it of any excrefcent power which the Biihop then had above Presbyters, AndAwgw/mieafcribes al his dirfe- rencefrom lerom (who was a Presbyter) unto Ecclefi* ufus y the Churches Cuftome, and grantes that in this one* ly Epifcopatus Fresbperio major eft, the Epifcopacy isgrea- > tertben the Presbyter at. ( Tem* 2. eperum. Epi\t. 19 -dd fiienn ) And lerome holds (in his Epiftle to Evagiius) Trfma^um hum Epifcoptrum Alexandria Primum c&piffe 9>&9* ^ That this primacy of Bifnops began firiUc 3, Alexandria , and, pofl mortem Marce Evangeli^ •i — after the death of mark the Evangeiiit. And thus gives ihe lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Maries perfonal pra- #ife and appointment while a live, hetels usalfothit, it was [paulatimjSc byjient degrees, that ownis follkitudo ad, tinum del titty Theepifropali care was put upon on. So^cm. {lib. 1. cap. 15.) calls \icivimis conj uetudinem acuitome wh.ch prevailed with other cites- 'tis re- markable, tt*tb\> Ephiphaniiiszor& ffxon (Haereft^ ) non habuu Alexandria duos epifcopos utalix urbes. # Alex- andria had net twoBilhopei as other cities. But the Itf- former wil no: dare to iay^that oui Prelats now have their power by Presbyters eieilion as thefe ancient Biihopes 3« Ic is alfo clear, that in ihefefiift times u hen the fytjeepus prafis was fet dp, and forfome 3j es after V^4j not only the Presbyters but the pecf/e dj hada Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 22§ great intereft in their choice. Cyprian ( epift.6&* — ) (peaking of the choice of Bifhops fayes „ That plebt ^maximc babet poteftatem, the people have mamelya „ power ■■ and that [ plebe prefctite ,"] that is ia „ the;peoples prelencc? rhey were fet up : Which he fayeswas a power they had defcending upon them de ivvina auBoritate > that is, from the divine Authority. And this had the approbation of anc African Synod confulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election. Kthttnajx (epift. ad Orthodox. ) condemned the come- ing in of a Bifhop without the peoples confenc as a breach not only of ane[Eccledartickconftitution5] but ane[Apoitolick precept.] See Smetl : (page 26 J proveing this at large that Bifhops were elected by the people. Cyprian. \ltb. I, Epjt+ 4. nomine Symdi Afri- can £ ) videmus , dedivina aat horit at e defcendereut facer* dos plebe prefente fub omnium tculis deligatur (3 c [ A hat 5, the Pneft was chofcn under the eyes of all the people 3, being; prefent, and approved a* fitt and worthy by a >3 publickTeftimony. ] This (he fayes) we fee des- cends from divine Authorise, (3 (ibid) dihgenterde rradimneiivina (3 Apoftolica traditione tenendum eftqutd apud nos fere & per provincial univerfas tenetur ut epifcopus delt?atar pUbi cut ordutatur }re\mte (3c. [ I hat it wax to ,5 to be held from the divine and apoilolick tradition , 33zs almoft through all provinces it was obferved, thac „ that the Bifhop waschofen in the peoples prefencc 3>overwbomhe] was ordained &c] Heteftifies thac thubCorneliut was chofenBi/hop ofRome (lib. 4 epift-z.) Grat. (dtft. 62. Can,) nulla ratio fuitut inter epifcoposba- . beantur quince a clero funt eletli, nee aplebibusfunt expetui. 0 Noreafonperrnicts that they ftiould be holden 8t£- ,, hops, who are neither ch©fen by the clergy nor defi- ned by the people.] So hmbrofe was chofenby the citticens of Mil/an, Flavunus by thofe of Anticch , Chriffjlom , by the Conftantmspolitans. This Cmlome Was fo rooted , thac. when Emperors afterward obtru- ? 4 ded X£» A Confutation of the firft Dialogue dedBiihop* without the previus election of the cler* gie and people, the molt famous Biihcps much fto- macbedit. Uii Me Canon , (faith Athanajius Epift. dd joluariam vitam agmtes ) ut a pallatio mittatur is qui fututus ejt Epifcoyus. Where is that canon , That be who is to be Bishop , should be fent from the court f Lee our court prelats mark this: And our curats an(were this quere. Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the leaf! Inte* reft in the choifeof our Prelats , fo that they are but novell & none of the ancient Biftiops in this point. 4* Non of the firit Biihop* could ordaine alone. This is beyond debate as to the firlt [Epifcopus prefes.] But even in after times alfo when Biihops power was far- ther advanced they could not thus ordaine. That their power of ordination was not fingular ap- peares from the » 4th Councel of Carthage [Can 22) ,, which decrees that the Biihopes ordain not without J3 the Clergy 5 and [ Can. 3 . ] they are not to impofe ,, handes without them. The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power ha\- tifandi* of baptizing , manum imponendi , or of laying on hands, (3 ordinandi, thatis, of ordaining. ( epijt* 78. ) and in Egypt, in abfencc of the Bifhop they ordained alone* fee SmeB. ( p. 27.) upon*this ground Ambrose faid , that betwixt the Bifhop and presbyter there is almoftno difference. Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone? and have they not dejaBo frequently done fo? fothat upon this ac- count alfo they are new minted Gentlemen. ^ . The power andGovernment of the ancient 8ifli- ops in Church judicatories was [ not file and fingular ,] as that of our prelats , [ nor did they invad or tnbanfe their decifive conclufive fiffrage] as they doe, who are Princes in all the preient Cnurch meetinges which reuft only give them advice, and not that, unlefs <■#'■ this Upon the of point Epifcopacie. 231 „this high prieft judge them of known loyaltie and „ prudence , and may doe with their advice what hepleafes. Wheras Cyprian (fcpift. 6. and 28 ) pro- fefles that he neither „cwld nor would doe any thing ^without the Clergie. And the 4c. councill of car* j, tha^e condemnes the Bilhops decifion unlefs ,, fortified by the fentence of the Clergie (Can, 23. ) where was the negative yoice here?fee^//J?w. hift. lib. 1 o. Cap.9*Smeftim.pioves fromCanons of anciencCouncills £c the Fathers, That neither i. In cenfunpg prciby ters. Nor 2* In judgeingof the conversion or crimes of Church members, lsor3. In excommunication, 3, nor rtceaving of penitents, „ Bishops could doe any thing without presbyters: And that there was node- legation of their power* Downam himfclf confeiies in reference to Ambrofe time > and long after it. So that for 400 Years our prelacs prefent Prince like power was not known in the Church* The ancient Bifhopsmade themfelves fole in no pointeof ecclefi* aftick diiciplinas our prelats , who haveexcommu* meat alone. Tertull* ( Apoleget. ) fhews that the exhortations > caftigations, and cenfuradivina> thedi- vine cenfurc among which he takes in excommunica* lion, were performed by the probati quique feniores > all the approved elders. Befor him \ranus [h „ have fuccefiion from „ the Apoftles — And that adcorreElionem altorum , for „cenfure of others as well as for iound dodtnne* Bafiltusmagnus krehitpifc, Ca(arienf. affirms , thatjw;/*- gendi & filvendi \p%*o% ex jtquo 1 omnibus paftoribus J doElbribus&c. ,, That the power of binding and low- ering is equally and together given by Chiift to all ,»Patroursand Oodtors. Which even Lombard denieth not [fentent.lih 4.^*19.] It is alio demonftrated P S that 25 2 A Coufutation of th r firfl; Dialogue that elaborat piece that the oath ex officio is a Monfter ' to Antiquity ./**'* 6. Our Prelats Civil & State offices are alio aMoniter to pure antiquity ,as they are CroUe to our Churches Au- thority 5 whom her general aflemblie hath condemned this. {AjJcmbiit.fcffi2S-) The forfaid author proves this alfoat large, to whom we refer the Reader, So that our I nformer mull acknowledge that our Prelats in this point alfo are different? from the Ancients. Whofoever fhal perufethe Canoncr called Ap»jlo- „lick> and of ancient councels , will find Bifhopes "medlingm ft ate- affairs, and efpeciaiy their holding » „ of ftate offices , fo harmoniufly condemned , that its a wonder that any who preteflds to the knowledgof antiquity i and to plead for prelacy upon this ground, fliouldhave the confidenc tojuftify it. The 6. canon of thofc called Apoftolick „paiTesthe ,fentence of depofition upon Biftiops who aflumc 1 fecular imployments. [Epifcopus vel Presbyter, vel *,diaconus feculares curas ne fufcipiat, ahoquide- "ponatur.] Batjamonupon this canon , referrsus to lY cap. 8. Tit. Wnere there is exhibit a fall collec- tion of canons to this purpofe. The 8 1 canon, diximus nonoportere Epifcopum vel ?resbyterum feipfum adpublicar aiminiftramnes demittere yfedinEcclefiaJttcis negotitsver- fari. Vd ergQ its facere perfuadeatur , vel depomtur. That is, „ we have appointed thataBilhop orPref- " byter muft not ftoop to, or debafehimfelf with pub- ^lick ( that is , civilj adminiftrationes or offices, let \bim theifor be either perfwaded foto do, or let 31 him be depofed. Ealfamon upon this canon , obfer- ving, that it leniftes trie rirft,referrs toXn Canon Carth. Again Canon$$. rmrsthus, Epifcopus vel?reshjter % veldticonus > exercitui vacans > ?$ utraque obtmere volens , rcmanumfciUsetmwfiratumt (3 Sacerdotdlcmadmtnijtra- - timem Upon the point of Epifcopacie i j $ timtm>&cponatuYiqu£\unt tnim exfaris , Gtjari, & quafunt „ Dciy Deo. That is ,, a Bifhop or Presbyter or deacon „ who bears office in an army, and will needs hold ,, both offices^ to wit the Roman ma2,illracy - 2nd the 5, facerdotal adminiftraiion or Tniniftry , let him be 3) depofed 5 for t uch things as belong to Cafar muft be 5» rendred to Cafar , and the things that arc Gods unto God. Baljhmon upon this canon referrs us to VfJ. Can. chalced. fyn. — — tales (faith he) anathematefirientem finon penitent iam agant ■ » - „ Which ftrickes them „ with [anathema] ( thclaft extremeft curfeorexcom- „ municacion.) ,, who aflame miliary imployments „ and repent not. And having moved ane objection, whether the formentioned chute [cejfet vel deponatut j let him leave off this office, or let him bedepofed.] is herealforobe underftood,he telsusin the clofe of his anfwer, that omnia public a eandem rattonem babent , „ that al publick civil offices fals under che lame con- 5j fideration as thus difcharted. And begins his glofs upon this canon vm^diverji camnes ApoftoHci probibue- runtfacris initiates public* negotia admimftrarc. That is , ijdiverie Apoitoiick canoneshare forbidden fuchas „ are entred into facred functiones to handle or adrni- ,, nifkzr publick (or civil )dffairesAn the beginning of his glefsupon the 5 canon, he reprefenrs thus the crime of church officers holding of civil places which is cen- fu red t heri n De hominibus confer at is qui [ecu lares fervi- tutesexer centre : „ concerning men confecracto god y, whoexercife \voxd\y Slaveries. ■ fuch a Chara- cter do the Canons pu: upon our r relates itate offi- ces. That VII. Camndf the Councel of Cbalcedcn puts the formetitionedcenfur upon fuchas - ■■ - [fe- cularia negkia exercent divinum miniflerium r*egli~ gentss] —who rnanadge wordly places and of* rices neglecting the divin roiniftry. The 2J4 AConfutation of the firft Dialogue The XVL Canon of the fecond Council of Nice „ forbidding Bifliops or presbyters to be \%\i*T9pi$y ^actorcs or procurators * doth it upon this ground. - ■■ ■* iebent enim ad id quodfcriptum ejt refpiare nemo yyDcd militant feipfum implicat Jeculanbus negdtiu. For ,. they ought to take heed to that which is written no >5 man waning for god , or who is his fouldier fhould >% involve himfelfin fecular affaires, fee Balfamon,com- ment. in Canon Apoji. concil. &patrum,C3in Photitnomo can pa£* (mihi/)39: 10S, 127, 178,167* $I9» Whenc we may collect. 1. how conftant and fever the ancients were in their cenfour of this guilt 2. Thai they held this to be a debafing of the holy mimilry , to which the paitor or Biftiop molt give himfelf 3. That upon the t> groundjof that gofpel precept (z*tim. zlA*) •* No mtan that tvarreth intangleth himfelf With the affaires of th's life y and that other ground of giving Cafar vc hat is Cafar s t and to God what is Gods , tney do con- define, not military imploymentsonly,inaPaftor or Bifliop of taking farms (as our Informer would make us believe) but alfo aljo all fecular and civil offices without ex* zydpion 4. That they held the facred fun- ction of the miniltry to be utterly insonfiftant with pibltck civil impkyments. And the civil office of a ftttc- ruler incompatible with the miniftnial office, in one and the fame per-one > fince they are oppo- fed & contradiftinguifhed as thus inconfiftant, in the forementioned Canones and the grounds thereof. So that there is not a lhaddow of defence tor prelates ftate offices. Whil thefeCanones do fit in judgement , ef- pecialy the fcripture grounds hinted therein,and many others vhich have been adduced. 7* What ever generall expreffions of the ancients he nwy plead , yet is it not certain . that in the firft pure ages even after the [Epifcopus humanusjjand the fixed piefidents were fee up , the archbishops 9 pr'tmats , me* iropolttants Upon the point of Epifcopacie. * 3 y rr*p*!/rw, W' Monflers andunknowne, yea cvea thedioctfian mouliand caft of Churches , let any perufe Air B and in all its adminifiifAtion > a8mg by way of deputation and commiffion from the Magi*, ftrat as accountable to him m every piece thereof immediatly and folely as other inferiour civil Gover- ,>fio«r/. Dar he fay that tbefe Bifhops in the firft „ ages exercifed not ane inherent Eccleftaflic^ fpi* ritual potVif > diJiinB from and independant upon tfo Magi (hat ? Was all their meetings and all matters icogriofcible in them, given up to be, prolibitu , dif' pofedofby any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Chriftian > Did not all Minifters and Bifhops of thefie times exercife ane Ecclefiaftick independant authority* as being totally diftindt from , and not a part of the civill Government? Was ever there ErafiimG** Wrnment heard of in the Chriftian WTorld till Thomas \Erajlus of HeidUberge brotched it ? And hath it not ifince that time been Impugned by the moft famous iligbts of the reformed Churches as contrary to the iRules of the Gofpell Church Government? So that our Infowtr muft acknowledge the pref; m Ecclefiaflico* -hit , or Unfy -wolfy- Prelacy to be a fpeckled bird of new faQnoned coloures, never before feen , to which he will not find a paralleel among alkhe Fathers or BiC hops of former ages. 9. Let me add, how will our Informer make ir appear That in the fii ft purer ages , any of the ancient Bif* lops^ deny & wholly excludlruling elders) jrom Church hidisatorits, Wchave proved this officer to be juris 236 A Confutation ofthcfirft .Dialogue divhti from Scripture. And the full confent ofAnt;qui* ty,&aIfo of reformed divinesis abundantlie clear, &: exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer. Ambrofe isbrought in compleaning of the difufe of thefe officers (on I Tin?. 5.) Pis a devation from the Scripture - patern, & proceeding from the pride & negligence of Doctors. Origin, his Teitimonie (lib: $* contriC-lfum) is remarkable, who ihewesthit among the more polite hearers who were above the Catecbu- mcrrifls tin -m*$ ivxuwxm x &C. Non nulli prapom fit't funt q t in vtcam & meres eorcm qui admktuntur% incjui- rmt , ut qui turpta committunt , eos communi cxtu inter- dicart 3 rtW veto ab ijlis abhorrent . ex animo complext meliores quotidU reddant. s^3, There arc fome fee over f, the reft who inquires into the life and manners of •,,thofewho are admitted , thatfuch as cornmitt thefe yy things that are vile, they may clifcharge them from 3, the pubiick aiVembly , and embracing from their „ heart fuch as arefarr from thefe things , they may render them every day better. Here are cenfurer? of manners found in the ancient Church, though not Minifters, and defignedand conftitmto their work withauthortyin their hand tointerdidl the fcanda- lous, a^d whit are thefe but ruling eldes ? So Au* guflm (Epift. ij?.) writeingto his Charge dire&s it thus dUcStisfratnbus , chroy Seworibus y- & unhcrf* p'eti Eccleti* bipfO er.fis, „ To the beloved brethren , the oClergie, the eiders > and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. SolCoMr.Crefc. Gramattic.) omyus vos Epifcopi ^ Presbyteri , diaconi , tir Swores Scith. Jill yew Bifhops Presbyters y deacons and eldtrs, doekn^tv, HereareTuo forts of elders mentioned in one com- ma , who can be nothing elfe but ruling elders- For the fame purpofe> the learned in handling this theam 5 doe cite B4rronius (jinn: 103. ) Where be cnumerats Eptfcopi , Prcshyteri 3 diaconi > Seniores. Brf« hop, Upon the point of Epifcopacie; 137 hys , Vreshters , Deacons , Elders. SozKoTcrtuVian (Aptlleget. adverjus gentes c. 39-) Cyprian (Epift.^9.) (OpMrai (/#. i.j.41.) and many others. See rf^r* f/ow 0/ */;* government of the Church of Scotland. Chr!» Jloph. jujUH. ohfirv. & not. in Cod. Can. Ecc!ef. affrc. p. IIo ^ XI !• jw divinum ^egim. Ecckf. Smctiim. &c: 10. The *Ancrent Biflwps were not fet oier whole pro~ vinces y but city by city for moft part» yea feverall Cities had more a which fayes they were not at all Bifiiops properly.'. Clemens ( in Con flit'. L 7. c. 46. ) {he ws that hvodiys and Ignatius had at once the Epifcopa- cy over the Church of \Antioch , and what was this but a meer Collegiat minifterj'. Council. African ( Cap. 21. ) appoints that to examine the caufecfa Presby- ter , fix Epifcopi expicinisihcU adjungercntur, 6 Bi[- hops from neighbouring places bead joyned. Poor dorps had their Bifhopsasisclear inffifiojy'; Nayan^on, a little towne ncer Cafarea 5yet was altheEpifcopall See of Gregory Ha\tan%en. In Cirnfojicrr.s time , the diocefs contained but one citie. Howl. 3. (in a8a) nonne t err arum orbis imperium ter,et imperator (?c. [doth not the Emperout (faith he ) Govern the World>but this man is a Bifhop only of one city.] Sc^om. (Hiji. BccUfiaft. Ub. 7. cap. »0 Tells us that he found with the Arabians and thofe of Cyprus > Bifhops in little Dorps. II. The AncientBHhops placed[preaching]amongthe chief partes of their office^nd were not idle drones as ours are? TheophiUS. on 1 Tim. 3 . tells us that docendi offdurn cmriuTvprcctpue ut infit tpifcoff'S eft necefie, that the off ceo f preaching > which is the chieffofall others , its necejjarie that the Bifoop be iniewed with tt. As ours Court- pr el at s > fo our non-prtachtng prelats > are Grangers unto , and condemned by the ancient Canons* Photii tiomQcan. tit. 8. cap xz. [it *$$ A Confutation of the firft Dialogue 12. [de Epifcopis, qui non convertuvt bk* convert not hxretiks , and teach not the people, fome ofthefeCanonesareasfollowes. The 58. ca«on of thofe called[ Apoftolick] , runes thjs> Bpifcopus vel Presbyter , qui elm vel populi cur am non gent , & eospietatemwn docetfegregetur: (yfiinfo- ^ cordta perfevtret , deponatur. „ T he JBilhop or Pref# 3, byter who takes no care of the people or clergy and „ teaches them not piety , Jet him be fee afide ; and if ., he continue in his folly let him bedepofed. Balfimon upon this Canon, tells us that, Epfjcopatis dignitas iniocendoconfiflit , Qtomnis Epifcoput debet docere popu- lum pia dogmata &c: 3, The Epi (copal dignity confifts „ in teaching, and every Bifhop ought to teach th^ 9 , people holy ftatutcs for theBifhop is for this end .,eftablifhed to attend the people &c: therafter he fhewes that the presbyters ought to befoimployed , quiaetiampnpe Epffcopof fedent in fup trior thus cathedris ' [becaufc they fit befide the Bifhops in the higher feats] they were not :hen the pre!ats unc/erlinges asoureu- rats'are now; hence he concludes that the Bifhopor prieft who negle&ed this duety , were to be fct afide, and if continuing , to be depofed. The 36. of thefe Canons purs this cenfour upon the Bifliop who neglefts this duty , Si quit ordinatus Epifcoput non fu rcipiat minrfterium & cur am fibi eomm ff\m [it fegrem gatus afwel as that of the Prcf- by ter , and accordingly expoundes the Canon. The XXXIX. canon intrufts the Bifhop with the Charg of the peoples foules y in correfpondence with the preceeding. In the forccitcd c*p : Y II. Photii 9 we are referred to the Syn.Carthag. c4«,CXXIII. Syn* TK *cw.X1X. LXIIII. See alfo Syn. Sexta in trullo ca». XIX. ejuod opportet eos qui prafunt Eccleftisjn omni* bus quidem diebus y fed pratipue dominicis — — docert fittatis (preBcerationis tUqwa, exdivina fcriptura coU i ^ Ugentes intelligenvas &c > ,That all fuch as are fee over „ Churches %on all dayes , but efpecialy on the Lords I ,>dayes moft teach the oracles of piety and pure re« ,, Hgion , drawing inftrudions from the divine fcrip- ,,tures&:c: Balfamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus, Epifcopi Eccleftarum doBores conftituun- tur y & propterea dtcit car,$n eis omnino necejfe effe y eum cui prafunt populum femper docere , C multo magis in diem bus dominicis &c Thatis, „ the Bilhops are con- ftitut teachers of the Churches , and therefor the 3) canon fayes unto them 5 that its abfplutely necefia- ,, ry alwayes to tea< h that people over whom they are „ fet,md much more on the lordes dayes wherin all are 5>a!moft prefent in Churches and artificers ceafes I j, from ther work &c. So that our non-preaching 3 \ or ieldom preaching prelates, who by a new confe- : \ cranon (forfooth , ) Superadded unto their Presbyte- f rial ordination to preach the gofpel 3 get a bill of eafe 3 from this great duety , to act ftate games , except f when their LordiTiips pleafe to ftep into the pulpit , to j fupererogat , ft^nds arraighned , ftigmatized , andde- | pofed by the ancient Canones , as unworthy ofanv <^ effici ' *4<> A confutation of thefirft Dialogue office in thchoufe of god. Vide can,. Apoft% Conc- gene* ral.ty partic.Sanch Patr. Photii nomocan. cumRalfam. comment. p*g- (m hi) $9: 116, 117, 121,207. Unto this account and cenfurc of antiquity , and of the ancient canons, pad upon our non-preaching pre- lates, I wil here fubjoyn a remarkable paila^eofalcar- led divine whofepraife is in all the Churches. TVbir taker ( de Ecclef. contr. i. cap. ;. ) beingabout to prove that the Church of rome is no true Church ofCbnft. Prefcnts this for his firft argument. Pon- ti/ex Upmanus non eft verus Epi/copus : Ergo Ecrftfia Rotnana non eft vera Ecclefia. Nan EccLfia non po- tt ft effe fine epifcopo. The Pope of Rpmeis no true Bi!/^ op : therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church ;be- caufttht Church cannot be without a Bishop. But leaft this laft afleriion cheer up our Informer and his fel- lpvves > he addes, difputo ex eorum placltis. That he difputs upon his popifh adverfaries principles; and thus claffeth them among the popiih party in this point. But how proves he the pope to be no true Biftiop propter pr nt populumpbi commifjum docerent. atque infthuerent j adeo ut monflrifimile eftet , per Annos pofl Chriftum plusquam fexcentos , tfifcopum ah quern in ec" cleft a effe , qui aut nolle t , aut non pofjet po-pulum doc ere v ,* that is, 3, of old theBifhops of Rome diligently ,, taught the Church, and none weie. made Bifhopes 5, who were not faithful] in this office; of old they jjookt upon this as the .Chief duety incumbentupon „ them to teach and inftruct rhc people committed to 3, them y fo that fore more then fix hundred Yeares „ after Upon the point of Epifcopacier jtyjf „ after Chrift , it would have been lookt upon as a „monfter, if any fuch Bifliop were in the Church „ who either was not willing or able to teach the „ people. He addes , That all the Apofiolic^ Bishopes \ were fucb. And that the Apoftle requires it in a Bif- hop that he be 'AAxttnxf'*, apt to teach i Tim. g: 2. hoc eft (faith he) non ejufmodi , qui cum tantum , & det ope? am , utalii d octant , & banc authoritatem iocendi aliistribuat ifed quiipfefuffciat. alios decere. ,„ Not fuch 3,a one who is diligent onely to provid , others to ,? teach, and gives this authority toothers, But who 3, is himfelffufficicnt to teach others* This he proves becaufe the Apoftle is in that place fhewing > how the Bijpop mojl be indued and gifted be for be be chofen, and that fherforeby [being apt to teach ] we moft under ft and a per- fonal care and ability and not a deputed care > qu'isenim hoc pru Aii£«t , themfelves able to teach others. Re* prehending Turrian ( and with him our Epifcopal men) in interpreting thatfirft pafladge of a deputed care as to teaching. Andfhe^es that the old inter* ureter tranflates hhtimxb adoBor, or teacher. And doSor ( faith he) is fuch a one as can teach bimfelf.There* tfcer he cites Oecumenius , and Qhnfoftom thus ex- >ounding the premifcd fcripture , and evenfoomof he popifh (coalmen, as Aquinas upon this text* who :als this the proper worl^ and duety ofaprriat.And /hewes is that Aquinas pertinently apply es to this purpofc hit paflajre , }er. 3. 15. I wil give Paftors ac- rordin£ to my ovun heart who ihal feed yow with nouled^e and understanding. And that Cajetan , nd Cathar'mus do thus expoundthis text. In all which e fee with how full a confent of ancient and modern Qji Churches i^z A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Churches and divines our non -preaching or feldom preaching Prelates are condemned , and how fully our (cripture-argumencagainft them upon this head,is for- tified and confirmed. ix. Asin other points of difference, fo the an- cient Bifhopes mere as firr from our Prelats fafiuus pompe , and fumptuus grandeur which they afume.lAm* mianus Marcellinus ( lib. 27. it habitu vita beatorum epifcoporum ,) tells us of their tenuitas edendt ", ptandiqut farciffime, indumentorum vilitas Scc.Their [pare eating an A drinkjngjhtir meanenes of apparrtljiheir lovely countenance, as that which commendes them to God and his true tvorfhip* pers* Paulus Samofatenus, his faftuus pompe and at- tendants, although a great Bifliop , is highly condem* tied, as expofeing our faith to envy and hatred.. Eufeb. {lib.';, cap. 29. ) The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage (infertby Gratian in the body of the de- cree diftinft. 41.) provides that, Epifcopus non longe ai ecclefta bofpitiolum^vilemfupelleSilem^Scc.Thzz the Bif* hop have his little manfe net far from the Church that he have meane houftiold ftuffc &c.E* dignitatis fua Au- tboritatcn fide tST merttis quarat , and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good work* So^cm. {Kb, 6. Cap: 16. ) Relatsof Baftlius Magnus % Bifliop ofCaefaria, that he anfwered the Imperours pr*fe£l who threatned the Confifcatiun of his goods, thus^ Horum nihil me Crucian poteft , etjuidem opes non habeo prettrquam lactram veftem , (3 Paucos libros. Ncne 0 thefe things can torment me , trucly 1 have no goods but < tome garment and fome books, Seethe hijiona motuu [pa£ei43.toi74-] Now from all that is faid, I think common ir genuity will acknowledge $ (and this Informer hir felf> if hebenotanc utterftranger toit ,) that 01 prefent Epifcopacy is as far difcrcpant from that of th Ancient Chriftian Church , as eaft from weft > and bl confel Upon the point ot Epucopacie. 24 j confequence that this pleading from the ancient pro* ftafte., or even the after Bifhops to iegiitirnatandpa- -ronizeourprefent prelacy, isamoft grofs nonfequi* Chap. XIV. The Informers pretended Tejtimonies out t/Cal- vinc, Beza, Elondel, &c For Epifcopacy, Examined* Their anti-Epifcopall judgment > clea-rtd from their writings* The Informer croffes Bishop Spotfwood, and Tilen. Hit two at fur dt ties which by way of Dilemma he offers to us, from $ur ajjtrtion of the unalterable?* es of Presbyterian Government, & cur [concejfi- on of a Proejfos early brought in, Scanned^ re- torted upon him/elf. The Authores of jus divi- num MiniftcriiEvangelici, vindicated at feme length. WHereas the In/or Be^a, Blomdtl, 'onneris bold to affirme that Calvine and other eminent divines who wve written againft Epifcopacy , are reconcilable fro it , yea to a hierarchy of the higheft (lamp. Wee f.tf/Wi. The full and harmanious confent of An- cient and modern divines and reformed Churches, or that which we plead for inpoint of Church - Go- vernment, fhall be exhibit in the laft Chapter. 2. ^Vsfor Calvin's judgment in relation to Presbyterian Wjovernment , It is fo fully known to the world in his Writing? 5 that we think there needs no more to put a ^rand of impudence upon any, then to deny it. And CL3 wc x44 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue wei doe appeal to his judicious commences upon all the controverted places of the new Teftament betwixt them and us s wherein all that we plead for, either as to the id entity of tfifhop and Presbyter, in name and thing , the Fresby teryes power in ordination and jurif- didiion > the extraordinary Evangeliftick Power of Timothy and Titus , the divine right of the ru- ling elder , the peoples right in the call of Mini- fters, theunlawfulnefsof Prelats fole power and do- minion over their brethren, the unwarrantablenesof Minifters ftate offices, &c, is clearly affened. Let any confulthim uponMatth. iS. 17* Matth 21: 22* Luk. 22:25* A<2. 6: z, 3,4. Ait. 14:2$. Act, 20: 17, 28, 29, 30. 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 2$. with Rom. 12: 6:7. 2 Cor. 2: 6> 7. Eph 4: -11,12. 1 Thefl.5: 12,13. ^ThefT. 3: 14-Heb. 13: 7,17. 1 Tim- 1: 3. &c and 4:0:4. 2 Tim 2 4: 2 Tim. 1:6. TiM: 6, 7. &c. and fach like places, where he will be. found to give fen- tence for us againftthe Prelatik party , and expound- ing them juft as we doe. 3. Theie adverfariesdoe grant that the Government in this Church , which fa- mous Mr. Kjiox owned , and ail his daye's contended for, was Presbyterial Government. And it is as well knowne and acknowledged by themfclves, that he had the fenfe^nd judgment both of Calvin and Be*a in that fcrcat bufiineis. Spotfvood in his hiftory tells us that [John Knox framed our rules of difciplin in imitation of vv hat he h^d Seen at Geneva* ] Tden in his petulant piece intituled Par but that either Calvin or Be%a siid ever incroach upon the decifive po- wer of their fellow-Presbyters , or acted any thing pro imperio or folely \ is a ralumny which any who ever read their lives can fufficiently difprove. Their fa- boures and practifc as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Govern* mentagainit enemies of ail fortes. Jn the life of Gal' leaceus Carac€tolus , It is reported , Thar Calvin being confulted by him in a cafe of confeience requireing fecrecy ( in a great meafurej would give him no de- terminatanfwer (thoaruleing elder in that Church ) without confulting his Brethren. As for that which the Informer cites out of Calvines lnftt* [ 1. 4* c.4-Sect. 2.] where [ He acknowledges that )erom teaches that the proeftos is ane ancient inftitution > and that he repeats whit Jerome (ayes, a Marco cVc. ] Its a pitiful proofe to conclud therupon that Calvin acknowledges diocefian Prelatsas Ancient as MarJ^.ForCalvinc knew well that J*row*fpeak* but of the proeftos firft fet up , and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or ]erom gave their approbation to the fetting of him up. Q^4 And %tf A Confutation of thc£r(l Dialogue And for what he ad u:u> ho. mmurn arbitrio induElus > pravaluit. That is, This place abundantly jhewes that there is no difference betuixt a Bifa hop and Presbyter because now again he p'omjfcuujly calls1 ihem by thefeecond mane , whom befor he called Presby - tersy nay pro fecutjng the fame argument hemaksu/c of both fhe names indifferently in the fame ftnfe, asalfo Ierom both in this place arid in hisEpijUt toEvagriusJjatb objerved, ^And kenc* we may perceive how much hath been afcribed to mens pie a fur e > & invent tones n, ore then did become , becaujeane_ ufe brought in at mens -pleafure hath prevaled while the lan- guage of the holy ghofl is laid afide ,., and after he hath fpokeaofthefirft Moderators earlie brought in, he adds— vernm nomen officif{N, p. jquodDtus in communi omnibus Upon the point of Epifcopa^ie. 247 titbits dederaty in unumfolum $ransj\rri > rtliquis ffoilidtis <2 injurium ejl & abfurdum , dttnde JK prevertere Spirhu* Janet t iinguamJ ut no n$ atdem voces > aliud efuam Valuer it fignipcent , ntmts prof an* audactw eft, That is , hut that the nave of the office which God gave in common to all fnotdd be transferred to one only robbing the re Ft thereof , n injurious aid abfurd* More over to pervert tbustbdanm g-tagc of the holy gbp;} y that the fame words fcould fig* nine another thing then he plea fed 1$ to* profane boUtus. . Thus Calvin puts this ccnftne upon am Informer ^ in making the namc[8f/no^]{ignine any more then[* P/-^ bsur.\ And upon Act. 20. && DcvoceEpifcopi htcno* tan-In ,i^ omrus Ephejinos Ptub nPresbyters. Now let any judge ifCalvinc make not die Ifume and thing of the fcripture Bifliop proper toevery Mtojjbt of a parifli , and if he jud* ged a Diocefian <8iihop , thus differenced from the pariih Mmifter, to be a warrantable office which he hdds to be (b erode toScnpture.So that in the pafiage which this man hath above cited • h: would hare all Biihops contending for and reteaning the true fcrip* ture fun&ion, for none elfehecancall eximium mu* tins, or ane excellent gift. So that thofe of thefe places will help our Informer. The Context and tenour of thac 4 chapter oblicdgcth as to think»rhat this is really the meaning, that whatever tides thefe Ancients ufed, yet they defigned no: thereby to wrong that Presbyteriall Government grounded upon Scripture , which > Cal- vin y is there defending. And moreo ver , even ftraniing that place [Chap. ^, par. n.]tQ^heouc moft advantage , it will Infcrr no- thing.buc this, that BUhops, and Parifhpriefts inthofc Q. 5 148 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue dayes, bad the effence of the Paftorall office; which is not deny ed, or that their Paftorall adb, when rightly performed were valid. The Paftorall o.'licc Calvin cals fiwn er eximium mmus &$ the enfuing words doc con- vince. As for h:s citation from Sc&: 13. it were very ab' furdco think that Calvine by [the heirarchy which the Farher$ commend* as handed down from the A- poftlcs } fhoud underftand the preianck hierarchy which this man pleads for. Since 1. Many Fathers, 2Shramc never faw fuch a hierarchy fee up, but by [Bifhops] underftand either the mnma Epifcopus & Paftor. Pojlea invajmt ufis ut quern ftiocolUgiopraficiebant tn Singula Eccleftjs y Presbyteriy Epifcopus vocaretur Solus* Id t amen ex hominum onfue- titdint natum ej}> )criptur call the Minifter whom the Presbvtersfet over their % me^ting,in cvry church the Biihops only,but thishad ' M its rife from mens Cuftome.bu t is not at all grounded >>Onthe Authority of Scripture- ■ And after he harh fpoken of the advantage of one to prefide for ci- ders I Upon the point of Epifopacie, 249 ders fake , he adds this limitation — »-~— de Singulis corportbus loqtor , non de totis provinces &c: ljp**k.of fingle incorperations , not of whole -provinces 3 adding? prcfiaret fpiritum SanBumlinguarwn autorem in loquendo ft/jut , quam formas \oquendi ab ipfo pofitas tn detnius mir tart 3 nam ex corrupt a verbi Signtficatjone hoc mati\tcutum efl> quod per inde ac jinon ejjent ornnes Presbytdi ct'legic {N.B^adeandtmvocaiifunBionem^unuSijihipretiXtunova appellationisi dominium ,n alios arnpuit. That is, it were ^better in our fpeeeb to follow the holy ghoft the ,, author of languages , then to change into the woife >, the forms of fpeakingfetdowne by him. Forfrom ,, this abufed fignification of the word , this evill „ hath followed, that as if [all Presbyters] were not ,3 Colleagues called to [the fame function. »j one hath u- ,,furped to himfelf a dominion over the reft under pre ,, text of this new appellation . Asforwhat heobje&s [p*78.] from Calvin upon Tit. I- 5. [ That unus tuthoritate praeji See : ] / Anfr. After he hath faid that every ciry had feveraii Presby ters ■ ■ and after ted that there are Two forts of elders , and that thefe elders were the Bifhops appoin* ted to teach i He moves ane objeftion 1 ' Had Titus this Princely power and alone, and anP wers 1 Non permitti arbhrio thi ut unus pop fit omnia , & quos loluerit Epijcopos Ecclefits impo* nat , fed tantum jubet ut eleHionibus profit tanjuam :9 Moderator 9 That is, It is not permitted to litus „ pleafure to doe all things alone, and impofeupon ,5 the Churches what Bifhops he pleafed: but he only „bides him overfee the Elections as Moderator. Paral- leling this with Act. 14. 23, where hefaich that Paul and Barnabas ailed noi/o//,- & pro imptrio , that isr fo'elyafcdimperioufly to putPaltores upon the people who were not expetiti or tle&i , detired andcholen, brut only probatos <2 cognitot , men approved and knownc 2>o A Confutation of the firft Dialogue known. Now let tjris man fay himfelf, doth not Cal- vin here clearely aflert our principles , and kill the dio' ceuan Prelat with the fole power of ordination and jurifdi&ion ? So that nothing can be hence Inferred , but that Church confiftones were not then without order, and that one did prxfide among them s for Cdvim fayech on ihi?. verfe, poryo locus hicabunde docet nullum eflc Vrvbyteyi £? Epifcopi di [crimen* And he who prsfr dedhere was T/Vw/jwhofeEpifcopacy we have aboun* dantly difproved. As for that which he tells us C*hin adds > [that one was in authority over the reft at that time,]rrgo, what? Had not Paul3Barnaba-s&Titus ane extraordinary au- thority & commifiion ? for he kyc$ytunc, or at that umt wherein thefe offices did exift ; but will any think that Calvin could mean, a Diocefian Prelats ordinary po-- werwhictyimmediatiy beforhe wasdifputingagainft from the text? He adds prefertly nihil tan.enbocad prophanwr; longeenim diverfa fuit v4po- fiolorum ratio > for.the Apoftles cafe and ground was far different from this. As for that which he addei[of Cal- vins letters to a Bilhop in the Church of Rome , amm Epifcopacy it fe'f> a: being of Cod ] I can appeall this mans conference, if Calvin thought theEpifco- pall hierarchie with folc power of ordination and ju- rifdiftion, far lefs the popifh hierarchy, to be of God, and whither he doth nor in his Commentaries Particulate in the places cited, fpeal^againfitbediQ* ctft&n Prdat asfuch. Bcfides,we fhall here tell the In* former that this palTage which he cites as in the vo- lomcofhis [opufiula page 72] upon a fearch.oftwo fevcral editions , hath not been found. As for his letter to the KJngojPolc^ apptoveing all the degrees ©f Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 2 J i of the hierarchie] it is fo grofly contrary to Calvin: pi incples and writings , that the In firmer tcuft excufe us , not to take it upon truft from him, Efpecially fincc he exhibits no part of that letter. For his letter to tke Duke of Somerfct ( citted by Durel, and the more to be fufpe&ed as coming from the hands of fuch anc enemy to his principles) [amentfome fantaftic\pnes ftudiingto bring in confufion under the name of the go fall] we think it a fantaftick inferenc of our Informer , to conclude therupon , that he calls the afleners of Presbyterian governement fach. Although in that Epiftle there is no exprefs advice te remove Epifcopacy ,■ what then ? there is ilo exprefs advice for removing feverall other Corruptions. But theConfequence that thereforeC*Vw* did aot difowne thete Corruptions , the Informer himfelf will grant to be a grofs non fequitur. And foroe Confiderationes of prudence might move to wave the exprefs tou- ching upon this head atthatfeafon, when light was but dawning as to a Dodirinall reformation , and the fcalcs of the grofs Cimmerian darknefs of popery, were but begining to/all off from the eyes of that peo* pie* Yet when the Iw/orraer ihall perufe that Epiftle again , he wiH find that Calvine Leaves it not altoge- ther untouched,when heufeth thefe won* es,baheai fate hoc locum In rebus ijiius vit will any man fay, that Calvin did owncall theLocufts of the profane popifh orders which are parts of this Hierachy ? fo that Calvin .by hierarchy , and fpirituale regimen, doth indigitat the moft fimple and primitive Epifcopacy which the fathers fpeake of j and wirhall fince the embracing of the gofpell fimplicity and truth which Calvin there defires (as hefayes,) would quick- ly fned off all Luxuriant branches of humane inventien in point of Government, and likewayes fince Calvin ownes the Church Government fet down in Scripture a? our pattern f which doth as much reprobat the po- pifh hierarchy, as the tfoftrine therein fet down, doth their errors ; ) all this will preponderat towards Calv'ms meaning only a gofpell Mmiftery , which is equally diftinct from Bifliopsin the popifh and prela- ticall mould. As for the difference [betwixt the pr'tmu the and popifh Epifcopacy)! think there is indeed a great difference, &: we have proved our prefent hierarchy to be as much different from it,and foom what more if its eraftian mould be taken in as xhelnformer muft. The treatifc to Charles the fifth, entituled de ne- cejfttatc rcformanda Ecclefia is fo Generally cited by the Upon the point of Epifcopacic. ay; the in firmer , without quoting , cither page or fedion that himfelf feemes half convinced of the Impfrtineo- " cv therof. ' For Saravia his afferting, that he defended Cdlvmr opinion againft Be%a9 he (aid in this as in the reft,fnorc then he cowld prove. Forwhathe adds of Hooker and Durel who zttevx[ThAt Presbytery was fettled at Geneva % becaufe another Bt^op could nut begetten after the pofijh was away 5 and that it was fettled not out of a di fitly tctke hier archie » but because they were in ane equality and flood fo , being bent on refirming the do8rine] I Anfwer. His Authoresin this aflertion ftand upon a very Hippciy and fandie fundation. What ? Were there no able men to be Bifhop after the popirti Bifhop was gone? and had they not leafurefufficient to doe this after the do&rinc was reformed ? Why lived they fo long with- out a beloved hierarchy? and (which is yet more ftrange) why Imployed they their pens and their pai- nesfo much for Presbyterian government, and n©t rather for the hierarchy ? why were both CdvinznA Be%* fo active in that which John Kjiox did here in op- pofition to prelacy ?But ftay,hath not the Informer told us, that M<*JSweand Bifhop Andrews doeafTert [That Calvin and Bc^a afumed ane Epifcopall power at Geneva] How comes Durel zndHookjr thenfTo fuppofe a comple- at parsty among thcMiniflers tohavt begun and continued^* Genevaforwantofa Bifhop forefooth ] He muft grant that fome of thefe accufers are ingrained liars and accufers of the brethren in this point, So he muft de- liberat whither he willbeftow this upon Kiaion And "Bifhop Andrews 3 or Hooker and Durepl. For what he adds of thefe , that have written for Presbyterian go- vernment , that the* dtfigned only to proie it lawfully it is a grofs Calumny , their defigne is to prove kadrJnt frame cf government appointed in the new Teftament 5 which I hope he will fay is neceffary as well as lawfull , fiucc i?4 A Confutation of the firft DialbguU fince Chrift promifesto the end his prefence with rhofe officers cloathed with his commifTion.And him felf holds that the end of that Government practi- fed in the new Teftament, and its grounds are Mo- ral and perpetual. For B/o«^/his calling; Eptjmpat p>ee- minence *n apoftdical conflitution 5 which the Infor- mix cites page 84. no fuch wordes being in the printed copy, fas he acknowledges) who will be fo foo- liihly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or Du- rells bare word that it was in the written on, Unlefs. wewill admitt the iH/orao* (asthe Papifts doe by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions) to add his un- printed parchments to any author , and thus to dif- pute pro libitu i and make his weapons from teftimo- nies of authors , (as once a certain ChifVain's fwordis faid to have done) to wound and kill a great way be- fore the point. He diltinguifliesthe Government he pleads forf as divtnitus tnfttiutu? ,or of divine appointment , from any other frame as h .mane only , which will fay that this divine inftitution mull (land 5 and all o* ther frames of Government give place to it. The fame may be accomodat to thar which he cites out of Beza (pagSf.) who looked upon the very Epifcopus bumanus as he calls him> or the firft proeftos, as the firft rife of all the popim Hierarchie and mifcheirTs. That fentence of Be^de min. grad. Cap. n.pag. 343 ftands Intirely thus, imo C< nHos fie [id eft Archie- pifcopos & Epircopos] hodic appellafis ^ modofar.Bif- Jimorum dlorum 'Epijcoporum [ meaning Timothy and Tims * &x, whom Saravra termed. Bifhops 5 Beza allowingthe designation inafound & fcripture fence] exempium imitentur €jr tdm mi fere deformatam domum Dei adamujjim ex xtrhi divmi regula pro viribus inflaurent ut Ecclefia Cbriftian* fides pa ftotes , cur non agnofcamus, obfeyvemus & c.mni reverentia proft'tjuamur? Nedum ut quod falfijjime CT impudent ifjirne nonniillt mbis objiciuw tut9 Upon the point of Epifcopacie. a J 5 cui would fofnedoffthe Fpifcopal heteroclyt excrefcencies of our diocefian Eraltian Prelats, and fmooth them to the Scripture Epifcopacy 5 as quite todeftroy their power and of- fice, pleaded for by this pamphleten Ashisafling, fo his writing for Presbyterian Go* vernment accordingly , was not to prefcribe hit owne, (which Sc%* &\fc\i\mzs,)but God* example. How will the Informer prove, that Beta's denying his prefcribiug of their example cfCJiurch Government at Geneua:meerly as fucb, will infer his not commending a divine frame of ChurchGovsrnmenrfThis was not to prefcribe his example fintjpiicifen And how will he prove that Be?a looked . upon a Government which he held to be [theeggfiom vckich AntiCbriJifprung] as Dei beneficentia, or Gods beneficence. He makes him a very grofs ignoramus, for what man of the meaneft capacity would fay fo i And if Beta held thefirft Epifcopacie or proeftos to be a recefs from the divine inftitution,he certainlycondem» nedit [info far.] And the diocefianPrelat he holds to be ^dtanicalh Therefore when he feems to condemne the itfowning of all order ofPishops, he muft underfland ic of a condeimwvfcripture order, & the beautiful fubor- dination among Church officers,or that divine order ttiatis smonethem.ButhereagainTmuftReeditake nc- tice^thar in rhispa(Taeeof^4in his difputc with St- ravia, the Informer hath fned oft that which wounds his caufeto death 5 for the words following doe difcover another ground of this diftinftion of ^iftopsf from Prefbvtcrs (vz Bezaandjeroms humane Cuff ome) thea what the hijlrwervould perfuade. For it foliowes immediatlv , neque hoc fcelere tenentur , auide epifcopa* lis munemfne pr°Jiafus fimbw regendu^ de difcriminein* R til 2^6 A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue terordinem &gradum pofiulant > ut ex verba Deidecidatur. Whence it is evident that he does not underftand Bi- fhops fet over Presbyters to be \uredivim or fpeaks of them in this place. Asfor the paflages of Be%i s letters to Bifaop White- gift, and Grinlalt which th^ I nformer after cites, (pag. $6 )l fay i. That certainly Beta's principles fo largely exprefled from Scripture anent Church Government 3 and the contrariety of the epifcopus bumanus or hu- mane Bifliop , (far more the Dioctfian Satanical Bif- hop) to the divine rule in his principles, wi'l necef- farly infer, that in this great mans Judgement none of thefe Prelats had 701 tahsoras fuch , a lawfullfpi- rituall authority from God, 2. Itisascertaine that all Beta's pleading and arguments ftrikesagainft the diocesan Prelator Archprelatasin that capacity, and againft this cfice and policy initfelf, abftra&ing from its union untorhepope 3 fothac hecould own no au- thority that way committed to them of God. $• It followes, thatftnee he judged rhe epifcopall hierar- chy unlawfull f he held the firfl parity unalterable, fince hepleades for it upon morall perpetuall Scrip- ture grounds and inftitutions. And by thefe hislo- lid Scripture grounds, when ex profeflo handling this point and theologically, we are more to deter- mine of his Judgement then by Miffives. Wherein the circumftances of time, and feverall exigences, might engadge to fome infinuations in point of a civill deference , and refpedh But however that be t we are to look unto intentio andnatura operis in his writings , or the native defigne thereof \ rather then critically to fcanne or ftraine every prailical conformity or difionformity thevunto. And the Infonners znfwer to what we offer anent the affertions of Bishop Mottoune . Bilfon, feivelitvho Writ? for the parity of Bishop and?rcsbpersbydir vsne Upon the point of Epifcopacier . 2fj vine right viz , [ That they held the Epifcopal! office themfch vet] charging thcna thus wilh a praBieal breach of their principle*, moft make him retraft this argument, as fignifiing any thing againft us, Since the retortion thereof is To manifeft j and therefore nothing he hath fai(/ will impeach Calvine and Bc^as impugning of Epifcopacy , whofe impugnations of it will ftand to all generations. Moreover in this citation of that epifi. to Bishop Grin* dal,thelnformer hath fned off the half of the fentence viz, quidtutgitur coram iftamquoruni am avQkht** tamdiu per- tulifti reverende virgin to fane infigne patient ta ac lenitatisChri* ftianafpeamen dedifti^uomajori £Sc.— and neer the clofe of the fame letter de^a faithfully advifeth, as the fitteft remedy for removing offences, W inlegitim* — c<*tu>ex uno Dei verba , ahoUtisfemel papifiica tyranniiis vtftigiis, ed conftituatur adminiftrania Ecclefia ratio, non qua huicveliSi adlubejcat , non qua veteri ant recenti confuetudine ( — — ) fed qua — * — — firmo verbi Dei fundamento fuperftruSd pivrum Cenfcientiis fatiffaciat > 6? in ettrnum perfevereti that \s,tbat in a lawfullAflembly from the WordofGtd one Ijy all the foot fteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished, that h4etk$dofChurch Government be eftabluhed, ,not which shall pie aft this or that per fon^ not which is founded upon new or •Id Cuff cm or the wisdom of the flesh , but which being built upon the fure foundation of the w%rd ofGid.mayfatiffie the con* fciences of the godly , and endure for ever. Which rule and mould of Bifliops would no doubt cafhier and raze to the foundation thediocefianEraftian prelate whom he 1 1 pleaoesfor, yea all the Prelates in Brittain. For what he adds (p. 87 ) It may be eafily, and r without prejudice to our caufe granted , that God by it his providence had\made him a fudge. The Informer will noc v, ownefuchane Atheifticall principle , as to deny that '.!•! theBifhops civil government inEn^land,or pretended 4 \ Ecclefialtick , is not the objedi of divine providence .> R * or ay 8 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue or be Co brutifliasto conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes,from his permiffive providence in reference to their tyranny or ufurpation , elfehewill for ever deftroy his. loyalty and fealty, either to the Kjng or his LorAbishop. That paflage ofCahins letter toCarainalSddolet^fter citedbyhim(p.S£,)thoughadmitred,isa poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable.Cermnly Cal vin held the fcripture- parity to be the moft ancient Go- vernment Vetufliffuna Ecclejialylov of the moft anciert Church,for fuch no doubt he held the Apftolkk Church to be. Befide , wee muft teJl him that this paflage upon fearch is not found, and as it is here expreiTed is very 'infignificant ; fince by Vetus Ecclefia, he may under- (tend the Church after the Apoftles timei which early began to Corrupt the Government. As for Salrnafiuf his retracing his opinion as to Church Government , it will no more Impeach the truth it felf which he afferts, then any other man* defection will weaken the found Doftrine which he once held. Would the Informer take this argument from thePapifts if they fhonid plead from the retra&ioncs of prote- ftants, and from their writing for popery, that the froteftant Do8rine Were not found? would he not fry that their firft pra&ife,or writings for truth, will ft%nd good and witneiTe againft them in their defe- ction i Though it may be a qucftion whither that re- tradtion be reall or not which Durel mentions , and the Informer out of him. (p. 89. ) Efpecially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps (is he doth the ttateofthe queftions in thefe Dialogues) under the Clouds , pointing us to no page in that Anfwer of Salmafms to Milton. We will j not here ftand to fhew how that Salmafws eyes were j blinded with Com*gifts andpenfions, having receaf* veil Upon th c poin t Epi/copaeie. 1 5*9 ved no fmall fumme from King Charles the fecond for his encouragement to that worke , and feveral learned divines who beft knew him > think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was folid. As for that place of Salmafius in his V/4/0. Mefi. (o 4, p. 253.) cited page 90. the fntire fentencc is Epiftola t'lce viz i ( qua? Ignarii dicuntur ) vara (3 fapfofit* videntur circa initium ant me* dium ficundi fieculi, quo tempore primus fingulms Ep/- Jcopatus fupra Presbyteratum Introdutlus fuit. Whatever timethis was* itsppearsby what foliowes that place in Salmafius, that about this time Chnrch power began exceedingly to be Corrupted, and Bifliops exalted a!mo!t to ane equality with Chriftjand men begaa to plead a/WAww/ra for them ;for Ignatius >0n Eptjiolaad Tral!enfes)affertsyEpifcopum venerandumejjeficut Chriftum quemadm^dum Apojiolipraceperunt , that the Bishops muft he had in veneration atChriJi, as the Aposiles have comman- ded, and he cites the Apoftles \vords,but fuch as do no where occurr in our Bibles. Andcertanly if there be no more truth in that re- lation anent his retra&ion/ mentioned by that au- thor, then their is foliditiein thai ground of it which he alledges , it is not worth the noticing* For the confufions in England cannot with any ihewof Reafon be charged upon Presbyteriall Government, which was never yet 'fettled there. And this Informer dare not deny ihebleft effects of truth and unitv & godli- nes, which it hath had in this land, as is acknowledged by Churches abroad , and particularly in that paffage of theSjntagmaconfeJfiinum which he cites in thelaft di^ alogue, IfBlondel in callng Epifcopacy moft ancient, doth except thtmort ancient Apoftolicl^timesy which he pleads as exemplifying Presby te-rian parity , he gives it but the fpurious after-birth of humane antiquity. The fame we fay as to his paiTage cited out of Moulin R 3 (P»9© i6q A Confutation ofthefirfl: Dialogue (p'9°*Jandiffomerhingofthe[humaneproeftos]werc granted to have creeped in erelohn went oft the ftage, will that commend it any more then tbatmiftery of 1 wi- guity , and love of preeminence which the Scripture af- fitres us was in Paulcs time and his ? Surely by no meanes. Be^des » we muft here again tell our I nformer that thuCttation out ofMoulen is among the reft othisMutes, lince he hath neither noted booke nor pa^e« But now from our opinion of the unalcerablenes of Presbyterian government , and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proeftos fo early , tht\nf%rmef trill involve us ( hefayes ] in one of Two great abfurdities. PartunHntmomerlWhax are thefe ? the i.\$[That that ge- neration who lived shortly after lobn y W4s altogether igno- rant cfChrift and his Apojlles mmde anent Presbyterian pa* rity, elje they would mt have adventured to change the go- vernment] But this abfurdity is eafily difcuffed, for it liglrs equally upon the Inftance already given of Ifra- elisdefeSion in worshipping the golden Calf fourtic *f&?t$ (focner then 40. years or more) after the holy gacterneof do&rine ihewed them upon the mount. How often doe we findjfuddener changes in fcripture of the divine Inftitutions ? How quickly after Iofhua and the elders did all Ifraell depart from Gods way and ordinances .? Hpw quickly did they relapfe after deliverances, both in the times ofthcKings and of the judges, yea and after folemne vowes of Reforma- tion t How quickly after Hezekias deach did they turne afide ? How quickly after Joflahs dearh i How quickly after Solomons death did Rehobo^tn forfake the law of God and all Ifraell with him ? I think thefe fcripturc inftances ofasunivcrfal,-& far greater defe- ctions then this was anent the proeftos, might have made this man afhamed to bring this as ane abfur- ditie.Now what will he fay to his ownQueftion here?L< it poflible Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 26 1 itpoflible, is it probable that Gods Ifraell could be ignorant ofhismindc, and adventure fo quickly to change his ordinances ? Heard not all the Churche of Ifrael Gods voice from mount Sinai} Had not thefe departers afterward known or feen his eminent feers , heard his word and feen his works ? Could they be al- together ignorant of his minde who thus fuddenly de- parted from him ? How could they then adventure to make fuch a change > Alace ! What a poor querifl is this* I think indeed He and his party have given the Inftance in our generation , that fuch a fudden defec- tioneis bothposiible and probable. Was ever a na- tion more folemnlie and untveifallieingaged unto God, and had feen more of his grcatnes, power 9 andglorie, then wee did in the late worke of refor- mation? How long is it fince Scotland not onely knew and imbraced Presbyterian Government, but alfo folemnlie vowed to mantaineit? Butheknowes how univerfally this work andcaufe of God is now rejected , his Covenant abjured and difowned. And the Infgrmer himfelf ( who for what I know , might have feen ourfirft bcautifull houfe) is pleading for this perjur tut change of Gods ordinances andlawes , and breaking his everlafting Covenant. Read he ne- verthe 106 Pfal. 7. vers. Theyprovockedhtm atthefea even l he redfea y and vers 1 1 . The waters covered their ene* mies and there was n$t one of them left — — Then believed they his words , they fang his fraife , they foon frogat his works , they waited not fr kis council. The Informer bluntly fuppofes ane impoffibility of a peoples crof- fing light in apoftazing changes, and that all that ge- neration moft needs give a formall confent to this change of government in order to its introduftion • both which are groundlefs fuppofitions , and thejr lender this home of his Dilemma very pointleffe. Be* fides, this change ( as we faid before ) was bur (mall R 4 as 26% A Confutation of the firft Dialogue at the firft , onelie a fixed Moderator , and far from his Prelacy , which even in \eroms time was but come the length of taking from Presbyters ordination \ or ra- ther the ruuall part of ic. And the change hadplau- iioie pretexts of order, and union, as every innova- tion iiatn its own pretences , befides that this change was nocall ac once bat by degrees. Wee mult alio • heretellhim, that the fame very fuggeftion is his 3d. Reafon to prove \eroms bringing* in Bilhops in the Apoftlestime, anafoanaufeacingrepiticion. But if we decline this abfurdity, the next he think? is worie viz , That that generation Went over the belly of tight in changing the Government , and confpired againft Chrtft and his ApoftUs Government , and none are found testifying againft %t, •Anfwer I » This abiurdity doth like wayes tali upon the former Scripture inftances of greater, and more fudden;and as univerfal defections of the Church of Ifrael. What will he fay to thefe quef- tions in relation thereunto? Were all ignorant? Did all iin againft light, and adventure prefumptuoufly to change the divine ordinances ? And as for a Tefti- mony againft thefe evills , the Informer himfelf and his party ( for all their clamoures againft us ) falls under ane obligation to anfwer this, in relation vo many cor- ruptions and erroures , which as early crcept into the Church as Prelacy > Wherof we gave inftances al- ready ,and no Teftimonies are recorded againft ibem. He fceixis to have forgot* or to be ignorant or our divi- nes anfwer to this argument of Papifts , calling for our producing of Teftimonies againft fuciVand Hich evills , or dating their firft rife,vizk T hat there might be , fbotve have not known them, and that it is bad arguing from thedefetlofthe Hiftory, crtht darknes of the firft original *f r fuch a corruption , to deny the plainemater offatl,andtke cor- ruption it fell to be fuch. How msny Thousand eminent perfons and afo of thefe times (which we told him , the Upon the point of Epifcopacie 26V the learned doe acknowledge , to be very dark as to matter of fa<5t ) have never come to our knowledges And fince we have often told him from feron? that this change was lent, and by confid.erable degrees, and intervalles of time, and Method of its procedor , fome might be overtaken withweaknes » others puf- fed up with ambition, and upon this ground the one might endeavour, & the other give way to this change, efpeciallv its firft degrees being imali in refpeft ofwhat followed. Knowes not this man , that the evill one foives bis tares while menfieepf And this hierarchie being as in its nature, fo in its rife><* Mjjferjs Mvftery of Ini- quity ! Myftery Babylon J Yea and a Myftery which wa tvorkinglongbefore thischange , even in Pauls time^ upon ail thei/e grounds his abfurdity evaniihes , and reflects a greater abfurdity upon himfelf , who would have us {hut our eyesagainit Scripture light upon fuch pre- tences as tbefe,(8crather embrace a corruption contra- ry unto it,then acknowledge that theChurcb did erre. We know very well what a wicket this notion hath opened for obtruding and retaining popifh innovati- ons, and thefe men are fait warping in to thatMethod, As for that which he adds ofBlondelip.?^) who ajfens that the Presbyters madehim proeflos , or fixed M9derator%who was firft ordained.Wct told him already that this fixed prefi- d^nt, tho a deviation from the Scripture rule , yet is farre f om the d'.ocefian Prelats file pcWer in ordination and ]urifdt8iony So that his confidence ( ionic will beapt to fay impudence) is ilrange in calling this apoWer epis- copal! now existent, fince notwithstanding all its after growth , it was not in \ertmes time come the length of ourprefent Hieracnic.l power of Prelats , by many dayes journey. Neither is it probable that Blondel could fuppofe this to be allowed of John , which he holds to be erode to the divine pattern, R 5 Acftor 264 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue As for Blond ( Apo! : pag . 25. ) the Informer hath been miftaken in this citation, nofuch words being found in |hat place. Butinnae 52 after that he hath abundantly proven this {thefts) initio Presbyter & Epif- £ >pus fymnyma fuerunt , [tnac in the beginning JrJiihop and Presbyter were one and the lame. ] he begins the next fedfr. thus. Ubicumque Vrimum nafcente Cbiftia- m[mo Presbyterorum aggregari Collegium c'nY.Utf,eret> Which onely a mounts to uiusmuch , rutrirlt a moderator, among minifters being eliablifhed, grew b.v peecmeal to a fixed profta- fi and after he hath Confirmed this t headdes in the n x "ledt: Cum itaque Collegium id eft ordinatus ration* mentium catusfine ordinenecinftitui , necConfervari , nee Agere nee agi \ (amplius dicam) nee cogitari pot eft 5 aquabt* Us inter ejufdem muneris Con fortes , dc^e/i? honore mutuo pr&vementes Jantlos pant as , divinapropemodum opo^v%i* & commune Conftlium , in cwy^sif aw* kin^ccv nequa- quam degenerabant : ftabant enim &) . In Jin^ulis communis regtmims aclibusjurg volentes cedebant>ac- prtmar unique partes deferebant 5 ut ft quando novus Coop >tan- Jus efjet Co'lcga, Cteri totius jam conftftentis plebifque Confen* ttentibus fujfragtis & uidicio C&mprobatis,{N. B. ; totius Pres- hyterii %itp<>9iTioi (pneunte tamen ac reh 'quorum nomine Jo- hmnia benediHionum verba pronunciante prometiene ami- qttiljimo ) in pojjejjionem muneris mitteretur , prior um per Confecrationem quoddamodo filius\fatlus y qui xnrgpyUf . #pj ifgarwiK ratione aquo cum aliis omnibus jure ( licet »fiy*?*hi$) i (rater er at , ubi vera quaftkrm in E§elefi£ re- Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 26 j regimim quicquam emergeret , conful tamtam in commune fratrum dijeeptationibus iquaji natura jure favor e omnium fir- matoj praefjet Seniors non gradual™ major (N.B.)wcwtw- twagradus communis pate/late potior >> Jed advent ink tbttfUis merttum driegata , fuperior. Which is this in fumm [that though the colledg of the ,, ordained were all alike as to their official power , yet ii leaft their joynt councel fhould fall under anarchical » confufion, the fir ft ordained minifter ( aknogh of the *> fame degree j& juridical power with his colleagues; 53 had a fort of veneration and precendency as to Tome „ ads , but ftille in their name,& by their confent who ,>were his brethren. Which will reach a patrociny to ihe diocefian Eraftian Prelat, with hisfole power of or- dination and jurifdidtion , his negative voice in Church j idicatories , and his delegation of Ecclefiaftick power to the whole fynod3 his civil ftate;office He. When eaft and weft thai meet together. Then he addes. HancoriginalemEcclefiajlic* ptlitia formam fub hpfto- lorumccuhs natamy nonimmerito putavit Hilar ius , quid tnimpietati , nature rattombufque diclamini confonumma* gis , qunmut prior urn canitiem r ever enter habeant xtatepo- fierier es> factamm Apojlilis non modo mnimprobantibus > fedpalam lauiantibns ort*m \ ego Jane libere ah initio ebfer- vatam Cbnjiiamfquejiveab Apoftolis five ab eorum difctpu* Ustraditam,fedutmutabilem& pro ufu £? arbitrio Eccle- fi& mutandam {pram in caufa confimili pxe memoria €rakfin~ tborpus fenfit) credidenm. In which paiTage he pleades onely for this fixed moderatour, and doth not poll- tivly alTert the Apoflolik inftkunon for it > but comes neer Ee^aes expreffiones in reference to the [Epif- copushumanus ] As for Blondtls confeffing this primus Presbyter t& have had authority with his precedency > astheJw/ar- n>er is bold to affert^he had done well to point us to the place where thefe wordes are found [quisenimprafi- 266 A Coufatation of thefirft Dialogue dentiamfine autboritatef§mniet}] for upon tearchthey are nor found > but it leems the Informer purs this fenfe upon his words which follow thefe ci red above- ac forte confifiorialium omnium qui Pajtor-um Ecclejias quaf- que in c mmune regentium tTriTxeirif urgent, cakulos ever- tit , quodabipfaApoftolorun *Ac> vel TnXvtuQxw hactenusfomniavit > an non eodem inter nesjure modoque , vel per vices, pares inter compares, veldelegataa paribus ad tempus potefiate psfunt, quo inter chriftiamjmi prtmordia 4-oq honoris intet confeniores frimasfuit ? vv here he de- rives thar this lingular head of the coiiSftorv , or mode- rator his power did juftle with, or evert the common votes or Epifcopacy of the Paftoures , and confequen- tly their joynt Presbyterial government, becaufethe connftory or meeting could neither be without a head, (er mouth) nor have many heads, which heailimi- latesco the then power of their moderators, chofen from among his equals and co-presbyters , either by turns, or a delegated power of prefidency for (ome time. Thclnformers citation of Chamier (p. 3$.) [acknow- ledging from the begininga\ primus ?resbyter]auth a[novaf§- Hftdsand junfditiio]ne ejjfet Epifcopatus mere titulus :\ Or a firfi Presbyter, with a new power andjurtfdiclion &c] Burns his fingers, and rebounds a deadly blow upon him- felfi for in calling this jurifdiftion and power, 'Nova or new,hc makes it later then the firftferipture patent anenc that Presbyters Authority , which was the fame with th2t of his Brethren before this humane fupperadded power. And confequently he mud look upon him onely zsBe^ds humane Bifcop, fuppofmg anc anterior di* vine Bishop which is the Paftour or Minifter. And here again the Informer puts us to tell him that this his citation of Chamier attributinge a new jurifdi- ttioa Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 2 67 dHon from the beginning to the primus Presbyter > or firft Minifter , is fo general, without pointing arei* ther book or page, that it leemeshe refolved that in this ( as in other pafiages) none fhould trace him, to know whither he cited true or falfe. However the pla- ce he means is , lib. 1 o. de oecum> pom. €. 5. Where Cha- m;er grants- primumVresbyterum accepijje novampctejratem, that the firfl Presbyter received a new power But that it was fofrcm the beginnings is our informers incrufted eekfi* merit , which (as in another pafTage of Bhndtll) we muft fuppofe his lyncian eyes difcovered in fame written copy ofGhamier, which the printer was fo uncivil as not to put in, becaufe this our great doubt- refolver was not oyerfeerat|the prefle. Anywholoo*< keth upon that chapter may difcover [that Qhamiers fcope is to prove that ab initio regimen Ecclefia fuit Ariftc* craticum^thatfiom the beginning the Church government was Ariftocracy , and that the difparity which after came in uje, tv as ane innovation. As for what he adds of Mou/m/ pae«7*. ) If he hold [TheEpijcopall power in ordination to be among thefe things , tvhich , though in the Apoftles time, yet were alterable] He may be probably fuppofed to include it among the Apoftles extraordinary expired prerogatives 3 which this man muft acknowledge will lay no foundation for pre- lacy. As for StiBmgfieet , we are not concerned in his principleSjOrany cebatbetuixt him &them. For that which he calls ane evafion [ Anent the alteiationGf fans things in the Apoftohc \Church] As w ee difo wne Stilling* fleet , in making fie frame of 'government which the Apftiv cftablsshed in the Church , versatile, various or alterable. So we difo wne this Informer in refolving it fokly upon the Churches ^c//io«)[what.Apoflolickprac!t:i[esare imira- blc or moral^and what not.] A dangerous popifh prin- ciple, ahd wherein he will be found inconfutent wih hin.feif. Bu, for the apoftolisk governmsut bvthe Com* 236 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue. Common Conceit of Presbyters , wee hold it mo- rail and perpcnnl, upon the fame grounds oftheChur- chesunun and edt feat t$n which himfelf doth plead. As for t he shifts and bad tffues which he alleadges Presbyterian witters are driven unto, Neither he nor any of his party canmakeit appear, but his own pitifull fhifts* and ofothersofhis way, in pleading for this Hierarchy 3 wee hope by this time are fufficiently apparent. As for DureHs offer [To get Eptfcopacy dnt approbation from all forraigne divines] we lettit pafsas a peice ofprelatick pageantry fitt to fill pamphlets. Ad pompam non ad fugnam ■ ■ quid tant& tulit hie promifforhiatu* Dure! and the Informer cannot ftand befor their evidences , who have made the Contrary appear. For what he adds anent our Superintendents , as haveing upon the mat* terane Epifcopal power , I referr him to the defence of the Epiftie ofP&We/^xagainftSpotfwoods Calum- nies, printed at the end of Didoclavius page, 30, 31. Where he will find the difference becuixt them and Prelats cleared and flared in i*. Particulars to his Conviction , unlefs he hath refolved . ■ 1 Nefiper- fiuiferis , perfuaderis. So that woifhy Mr. Knox gave no patrocinie to prelacy in Countenancing the ad- miffion of Superintendents. How he hath deryvei his Prelacie from Scripture , and through antiauitie to refer- med times, (£ Chvrckes, m their confejpons *Lct the impartial jud^eby what 1 have anfwered From the beginning. As for the Authors of jus divinum Minift : Anglic: {Their proof of the identitie of Bishop and Presbyter, at length cleared from Fathers > Schoolemen, & reformed divines ? even from Eptfiopall divines in England) the Informer had done better not to mention that peice,then to have made fuch a fimple & infipid returne, [Anent the Sccolmensnottone , whither Epifcopacy be a different order from Presbytery » or a different degree of the fame order] for though this weie granted that thefcoole- men toft fuch a queflim , dare he Upon the point of Epifcopacie* 237 he fay that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latine., andlaie reformed divines cited in that learned pcice, in tWn dear and pofithe affertions of the parity of Bishop & Presbyter jure divino , ituertained any fuch notion as this ? Againe , had he beenfo ingenuus and true to the learned authoresof that peice5 and unto himfelf, as he ought to have been , he might have found cited thereto a paffageof Caffander in his book of Conjkh* (Artie. 14 j Which breaks this h;sanf\vcr all in peices, andbecaufehis fqueemifh eyeslooktafquint upon it, Jlhallhere fett it downe, that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings againft thefe divines. A» Eptfcopatus intir ord'mes ecclefiafticos pi wen* dus fit , inter tfaeologos &. cinonijus non conztnit j cenv^ nit autem inter omnts in Apofiolorum atate inter episcopos (ST pris'wttros nullum di [crimen fuifje, fed p oft modum feb'tj- mms evitandictufa epifcopum Presbyters fur JJe praf of: turn as this Informer is not af- haroed to affirme* Let thegreateft adverfane judge by this account of fuch ane impartia'l witnes. How could he fay, that thefe Fathers might be of this mind , andlikwayes thefe later divines, that ai- wayes from the Apoftles there were Biftops fee over Presbyters. What a felfcontradicting teret is this for any rationall man to intertaine? viz, Btshops ani Presbvters , re & nomine, in name and thing , the fame ii the Apoftles times , and in their doBrhie ; and yet \lk*t BiPnops ivere fet over Presbyters by the Apples , anddiftixS \rom them in their times.] What will he make of ail \i m Sciipctfre 2 j 8 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue Scripture proofes through the Apoftles times? and writings, anentthis compleat parity of Bifhops and Presbyters ? of the faying of KmbWt [That , Nonper omnia conven/unt fcripta 'hpofiolorum ord'matkni qua nunc „eft in Eccle/ta. The writtinps of the Apoftles agrees „ not in everything with the ordinance or appoint- ,> ment(he means of government) which is now in the ,, Church.] What will he make of Pvhop Jewel telling Harding, in his defence againft him*? [That in calling it a hare fie to affirme Bifhops and Presbyters to be one , He refleBs upon Urome and other Fathers whom he cites againft him j yea upon the Apoflle Paul, and makes him alfo a Hart- tick] What will he make of that affertion ofB^^, Epifcopuspapam peperit. The Eifhop brought forth the Pope. OfWhittaket [ That the fitting up the Pre! at , yea the fir ft proejlos or prefident to prevent Sch'jwe j was <* remedy worfe then thedifeafe. ] Now if he will reconcile thefe fay* ings and afTertions with their holding Bifhops diftindi from Presbyters , to have been in, and from the times of the Apoftles , he will prove a wonderfull Oedipus. But our Informer hath not yet done with thefe Au- thors, and hath another reflection upon them anent xwhat they fay page 64. [That Eufebius and lrxmus weredeceaved themfelves,5cdeceaved others] he tells US I. [They are hard put te it when fiekjng to relreve them* [elves by difcrediting thefe author es] Bui this man is hard put to it; ifhe deny that which is foNotoinly true,& made good by fb many of the learned. Were \unius and ScalligtY {who are approved herein by DrI{eynoUs)hzx& put to it, whodemonfrrats Eufebius grofs errors & mi- ftakes. 2. He hytsThough in [owe things Eufebius was mi- flaken^moft he lefo in every point wherin he ma\s Bifhops fu- pcr'torto Presbyters3& drawes their fucceljion fromtbc Apv- files.Anf. For the Catalogues of Bifhops from the A- pottles , we fpoke to it already , and for Eufebius fpcaking alwaye* in that ftrainc > the reverend au- thors 1 Upon the point of Epifopacie.' 161 thorsofthacpeece, (with others) doe cell the Infirmer that all thatEufebius fayes, is that it is reported — that his learned cenfurcr Scalliger , maks it appear that he read ancient hiftor:esp^r«^^^w^(nocattentivly5) & that he takes his meafures in this point, & his relations upon tT{]i\fiomClemensfafalus,8cHtge/tppus not extant. 3 . The Informer thinkj it grange [that they canjuppofe Irenaus (lobns contemporarie anddtfciple) tobedeceavei as to Church government.') Anfwtr. Had he but looked upon the4. proportion of their appendix ,he might have feen this objection fully removed. For therein they make good from many places of Irenaus (which were tedious here to tranferibe) that by Biibops he under- ftoodmeer Presbyters, andnotBiftiops diftinftfrom Presbyters. From which places of Irenaus rhey collet i , That he culls Presbyters SuccefToi s of the Apoftles. 2-Thathe callsthem Bifliops. 3. That he holds the Apoftolick do&rine to be derived by their fucccflion. 4. That \rhat in one place he fayes of Bifliops, the fame he fayes elfwhere of Presbyters 5 which fenfe and ac- count of him they back with pregnant Teftimonies of Dr. Reynolds, & tVkittak*r9 & other learned proteftant divines5and lights in that Church. And \npropofition\jl anent the pretended Succeffion of Prelats from the Apoftolick times, they cleare it that thefe Succeflicns aredrawen from meer Presbyters 3 viz, the ^aTa- vrjus or the Minifter firft ordained , as among the Athe- \ nians their were 9. Archovtes or Chief Rulers, equall in i Authorityrvet the Succeffion of Governours in Athens^ was derivedfrom one of them who was the fir ft A rchory ut compendiofior ac minus impedha ejfet temporum erttmera- jr/a,thac theCalculation of times mightnot be hindered , but be the more compendious. 4. He fayes n is more lik}y that Jerom was deceaved , // we under ftand him to fpeal^ofBijheps who wtre introduced of* S ' Ut i6z A Confutation of the firfi Dialogue ter the Apoflles times 5 thenEufebius or lrenaus who lived be- forc)4nf. That Eujekiuswas deceaved,is not only alle- adged, but proven by the learned, and Urom proving fo clearlie from Scripture the identity ofBifhopand Presbyccr both in name and thing, doth convincinglic inferjrthacthe Biihopsfet over Presbyters, aredifcre- pant from the fcripture patter n+ThatimMj/y by Biihops uaderftood thefc nrft Moderators, is made good from his writings. Next, wheras thefe reverend authores ( pag. 114, I I$.)fay that \ren£us ly hifcops meaned [Presbyters ,] &ii (page* 6 5. ) Tbaf the Fathers Jpolee of Church officers oj for* mer times after the fltle of their owne , and that the Bi 7 ops in the Catalogues aye onhe the firji ordained Presbyters for the morcexpedit recent ng)zhis man thinks thefeAniwers inconfiftent/Becaufe I. they fay thatEufebius & henaus were deceased when thy [poke ofBifoops 5 AndNtxtthat by Bifl'opsjrcrtfus meaned only Presbyters* Anj. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at, he would have keepd off this fantaftick reflection. For they ihewthat thefe firft Prcefiotes or Moderators, who wen in themfelvts, and upon the Mater > metre Presbyters, were by former times and writers preferred under ane ILpijcop&l notion y and the power of Bifliops then pre- valent , unto Eufebius and lren were upon the mater, Presbyters,' in anfwer to that objection from Irenaus (lib: 3 . Cap : 3 •) where Btfhofs are named as fet up by the tApofiUs , They anfwer that the word Btjkop hath a various acceptation : and that Irenaus name* Amcetus y Higinus , F/w , Pwbytert of the Church of 2^*»»*, the words being then promifcuoufiie ufed. So that whatever irnpreffion henaxs m\f)to have of them according to the language and Cuftome ofthe time, yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only : and therefore they put the Epifcopall partie to prove that ihsfe whom they named Bljheps, were vtri nomlnis Eplfcopr, cr Bier arc bleat Bifl^ops. They doe not fpeak fo much of the Irnpreffion which Irenaus or Eufebius had of th-m,asof the trmt nature and State of thefe Chtirch*of- ficers, whom according to the Cuftome of their times theycail Bifhqps. By Irenaus his calling them fometimes Presbyters /according to the promiscuous ufe ofthe names.even handed down to him, they prove thathis expreffingthem under ane Epifcopall notion then re- ceived y or any fuch imprelfion of them which he might entertaine,was wrong: fince according to the fenpture language theBi&opandPresbyter imports no other office then a Paftour* Whatinconfiftency will our Informer fhew in this , that Irenaus and others were deceaved in reprefenting the lirft Proeftotct under ane Epifcopall notion, upon a Credulous report from their forefathers: and yet that the perfons whom they thus reprefented were upon the mater Presbyters. As for what he adds ( p. 102, ) [from Bvcer (de ani~ naum cur a ) anent a ?roejios f or the Election and ocination of one who went before the reft, and had the Epifcopal MtmfitrSt in the Chief degree , even in the times ofthe Apoftles, by the Testimony o£TertuU Han, Cjffrian, Irenaus , Eufebius 9 ancienter then I* S 2 torn 1^4 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue rom.] Wee fay that any who knowes Bucers judgment in Church government, and are acquaint with his wri- tings theranent, will acknowledge that the Proeftosis the wtmoft length he goes as to Epifcopacy; and a Proeftos during life? bath no doubt fomething ofane Epifcojpal Xlinifterie.and is above bis Brethren : and we are to expone his fummus gradus , or Chief degree* by the word pracipue or Chiefly , that goes before. Who will doubt buttheconftant fixed Proeftos is infofarr fet over the reft ? But here we muft minde the Informer of Twothings. I. Tharthis Proeftos choien by the Presbytery, is (as we faid)farr fhort of the Diocefian Prelat who owns no Presbyters in his election, & hath ane arbitrary power over them . 1. That it being thus defaSo, isfarrfrom amounting to a proof of *6e jus , and who will fay that Bucer could rake the Apo- ftle James to be formalie Bifhopvflerufalem, orchofen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters^ whofe Apoftolick office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have retched the whole world , in relation tothewa- tering&plantingofChurches. Next5ifthefe words will plead for a HierPrchie , even in the Apoftles times, and that Bucer took upon the Teftimonie of Tertulltany \renaus &c, the Apoftle James and others for Hierar chicall Bifliops>furely he was oblidgcd tohave taken notice of leroms proofs for the parity ofBiftiops&Pref. byters in the Apoftles times, which fince he doth not, its mod probable that he means to aiTert the faBum on* ly,of exalting Presbyters to fuch a degree at that timc> butnotthejwx asisfaid/ elfe I fee no confiftenciein the words if he reckon the Apoftle/James in thisac* count. For he fayes Apoftolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyttris elt&us. That in the Apoftles times one was cho- fen from among the Presbyters* Nowfurely the Apoftle James was not of the Presbyters meeriy , or chojen from among them j But to undeceave our Informer as to Bu- cers Upon the point of Epi fcopacic J 26 j cers judgment in this point* and to fortify the anfwer adduced, Ifhall prefenc unto him that which Bucer aiTe- ts ( De Gub : Ecclef: p; 432.) viz , That the Fathers call $heje firft Proeftotes or Modera ors 5 yea even the Apo* files tbemftheS) Bifl+ops ( N. B.) [in a Urge <$ general! appel* fatten] becaus they ftrfi p-eached the go/fell to tbofe Chur* chayandthat to prove afuccejionofthe true doElrme , they named the mofi eminent Minifters the Bifliops > to frev that there was in thefe Churches aConftant tra&frcm the Apo* files both of found do5rine,& taithfull teachers thereof, Emi* nenttlfay,for gifts ,and %eaUt or fujftring for thege pell (N. B.) not in any Epifcopall authorise except what was in that projiafie often mentioned* Now whither Bucer was for ane Er>ifcopacy inthebighefi degree even in the Apoftles time 5 and trie Epifcopacy of lames, Let any judge. And whither or not this Informer hath acqukt prelacie of being both agroundleffe, andgodlejje usurpation in Gods Church (as his now profyleted Doubter fayes he was taught to call it) the appeal is iikvvayes made to the judicious and impartially tojudge from what isoffe* r*d from the begming hereanent. Chap. XK Ulfr Durhams citations of the Fathers fer evin- cing the identity of Angel, Bifhop, andPrcC- byter, vindicat from the exceptions ef this Informer. Mr Durbame in hh excellent commentary upon the revelation (pag. 223) having gone throw the Epi files , and embraced the fylJeptick fen fe and accepta-innoftheword, Angel, prefentsin adigref- fionfeveral weighty and unanfwerable arguments, both from thefe Epiftles , and parallel texts , to prove the identity of angel , Bifhop , and Presfrter. Which this Informer paffes over ftcco pede , finding S 3 them 2.66 A Confutation oi the firft Dialogue. them no doubt pills of too hard a digeftion for his fteimck. Bat Mr. Durham adding to his fcripture* proofes of this important truth, -Several clear teitimo* nys ofmoft eminent Ancient fathers, affeitmg the very fame thing , then Sena res agitur wich our Informer, and hebeltirrs himfelf amain to take thefe weapons out of Mr Durbamshznd, offering feveral exceptions againft his tertimonys 5 which (in vindication of the memory of io great a. Seer from this pampleters imputations , and for tbemore full confirmation of this truth) we fhal now examine and repcll, Mr Durham fayes That not only Jerome , but likttvifc others of the Ancients ,fuch as Auguflin9A>nbrofe,Chnfiflom; tpeys of Acrlus minde hereanent. To this he anfwers \Tk*t Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's ajJertion,as hci; cited by Hellarmin. But knoweshenot that Medina is cited for this by many others yasDr Reynolds particularly And like wife why would he not examine thefe Ancients ci- ted by Medina, andexamine what truth is in his citati- ons^ he intended to repell this Teftimony. Well, but what fayes ourlrformer to thefe Teftimonies offered by Mr Durb*me,.Hc anfwers. I. That though thefe fathers be of leroms minde, its no great prejudice that wi'i heme enfuttoBisfops , as he bath already cleared. Anf. We have ma^e it appear that Jerome makes the firit Bifhops, mure fixed Modera- tors , and like wife ane humane invention orc^/?o/w>dif- crepant from ihc firft divine Bishops, who are proved by him to be in Scripture the fame with Vrtsbyters. Ani if this be no prejudice to his Diocefian Prrfat with file po- wer of ordination and \ur ifdiBi on, lee any judge. Z.Thclnformer wonders how Mr Dvbame could cite Auguftin as ofAwus minde* fincc Anguftine holds him to be erroneous upon this ground. (H«eref« 5 J.) A'if. Why doth he not ani wer tothat paflagc of Augujiin cited by MrtDurhame,as hepretends.to anfwer to feme ®f the reft of thefe fathers. What fayes he to Augnfins word Upon the point of Epifcopzcie; ^7 words ? are they not his ? Or doe they not clearly 'affert the identity ofBi&op & Presbyter? To (ay that &ugufttv accounted fierius a heretick for this, while he offers not to remove A*vg^w/ cle«re aiTertion oi the fame thipg,is but to lett him by the ears with himfelf, not to anfwer his Teftimony. Next, as for Augufiirfs accounting Ae- rus a heretick fir this, he mould know that the learned doe Confent that Huguftin in this followes EpiphamitSy who firft imputed herefie to Am**/, and made but very fimple infipidanfwers to Hews arguments for his opi- nion. And moreover thizAuguftm relates his opinion anent the parity of Bi(hop and Presbyterjor rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclefiaftisk confu- tation anenc their difference,^ that whi:h Epphantus put amen? the roll of herefie s , himfelf not pofuively determi* ring y th*t this was a herefie* For (as is confented unto by the learned 3 and particularly by Dr. fytnolds in his letter to Sir Francis Kjiolls , touching Dr. Bancrofts Sermon about the difference betwixt Biihop and Pres- byter) Atfg«/r/»akno'v]edgeshimfelf ignorant hoivfarr the definition of herefie dcth extend. He tnumerats the herefie s which he found noted by other writers , but ap- plyes not the definition of herefie to every one of them Far lelTe could he doe fo in this point, which was his own judgement , as the paflage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince. That Urom and Augufiin were of herius min- deastoBiflieps, is the judgment of\ery many: jane cum Aeriofenfit Hieronimns (faith Whittak* Contr.4. Q^ I. C*p. 3. SeB. 30. ) leromtruely was of Aenu* minde , on which ground we need care the lefs that ^Aerius is fo oft ohm jeHedto us by blockjfh men. See how vui\cWhitta!{ir is again to our Informer. S^ravia himfflf(de Grad.cap+ii ) acknowledges that jerom iiffentedfrwnEpipbariius in this* Vr.Rjynolds in thatEpiftle to Knolls abautBancroftsSer* men , averting whhtUelnformer[That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of herefie by the whole Church] S 4 proved %6 8 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue pro ves from f^ow and other writters who were con- tdmporarie with Epiphanius or flourished afcer him. That lAugujlin Prefents that affertion anent the identite of Bishop and PresbytiYy ashereticall , only as he found it rela- ted by Epiphavus , wheras himfelf knew not how fan the name of here fie was to be extended, as he teflefys in Lis pre- face concerning berefies. But that Augujlin hivn&tf was of ihe judgement that by divine right 3 there isno diffaence tetwixt Bishop and Presbyter , he proves fi om his words Epift- 19. hecircsalfo ■ n \ew 'ell againfl: Hare jig ihe jefuuCailerdnglikwife with the Informer that Aerius wa$ condemned for his opinion as a heretick ) who proves that ]eromey AugufUn, Ambroje9v/ci't of the fame minde. Thus wee keAuguftin made in this pointconfiftent with lercmh & alio with himfe/f, whom this man makes to fpeakecontradidions,(oas hemaycome faireofF. g. He anfwers That Ambrofe and Chrsfofloms Tefinony tviU not come Mr. Durhams length , Bcaus , Though Ambrofe [or one Hilary] fa yes that Epifeopi £# Preshyteri una eft ordinal to , that they are both pr'ttjts, set the Bishop is the firft , So that every Pri eft is not a B/thsp, for the Bishop is the firft prie ft. Ans. The Informer hath left oat wittily (whither honeftly or not , let orhers judge) in his tranilacion of this fentence, the inference which AnbrofeDrsLwes from this identity of the office, viz, that they have bith one ordination. He maksthe office one, and the ordination one confequently 3 and gives this reafon why they have one ordination, viz, becaufe, everyone of them is a priefi or MiniRcr, uterque enim Sacerdos , fath he: Their ordination , is terminat upon , and relative unto , one and the fame office, >Jow what greater length would he have A ?,brofe ail er ' tion come then thitf That there ft no difftrent ordination cfthe Bishop and Prcsbyier,*niconfequently no officiall d if feren-es doth he not plead forane officiall [pecificl^d if. 'femce? betwixt Bilhop and Presbyter i Makes he not the Upon the point of Epifcopacic* 269 the Bifhops facceed the ApoftUs an&Evangelifts in their oiiiciall power , and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy DiJcipUs or mcer ordinatyPaftoures? Are their not m am efimtial differences ,which this mans principles, &> the prefent pra6tife, fixes betwixt the Bifhop &Pres- byter.wherof wehavefpoken above?Howcan cXmbroJe then after c , that they have the fame office and ordinitiont Where is the Confecration? Where is the Bifhops folc po ver in ordination and jurifdic-tion i Where is his ne- gative voice among thePresbycers, making chem in all tneir official! power certain deputs under him, if their otiice be one , and their ordination trie fame with his? 2- As for the difference here aiiigned, viz, That the Bi(h>pis the firft frieft , andihat every Presbyter is not a&ifhopin hmbrofe fenfi , this wiJl nothing help our In ormer, Becaus I. This is fitly applicable to the Proejhs then in uie, yea to the Moderator of a Synod, who (as fuch) bach a fort otProftafte while the Synod fits , and every Minifter is not Moderator, though the Me- deraror be go more then a Minifter in his ofliciall po- wer; nay, this is applicable to the leaft accident all dif- ference imaginable. Every man is not white er black, yet every fuch is a man. Every Parliament man is not fpcakenthough the fpeaker is aParliament man only as to his authority. Blondel his firft ordained Minifter, who, with him, is the firft Biflaop 01 Proeftos , hath this propcrlic applicable unto him. 2. He mult be minded, that Ambrofefkyes, when fpeakingof the Scriptur- parity of Bifhops and Presbyters , non per omnia zonvenium fsript* tApoftolorum ordinatignt qua nunc eft in Ecclejia* That the writings of the Apojiles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church. No*v this peter - fart pur all or ocw order of government, what is it but that anent the primus or firft among the Presbyters ? fo that this very primus or proftafte (mo farrfrom the prefent Hierarchie of our S $ Pre- x7o A Confutation of the fir ft Dialogue Prelatsasis faid)yet comes after the fcripture appointment , , ,- with Ambrofe, and is unlikf to that p&yttie be- twixt Bilhop ScPresbycei, which is therein held forth. Th&lnformtr Next offers fomething inanfwerto Chnfo'ioms Teftimony , who ailerts Tim almoji there n m difference b'tvi-x a 3tlr.*p an I Presbyter. And hi*great Anfwer is That nottvhhfimdng ebefe fathers acknom' hfye * difference yand them fdw were Bfoops] e\nf. If the difference betwixc BWhop andPresbyter come to * fit* me nihil % or dmofl none, Surely it decays and is ready to vanifhaway. And what this difference is, and where- in placed, we have already heard; and furely that projtaftt inChryfoftoTW time,behoved to be very in con- iiderable,fince it came to make up no greater difference betwixc Bifhep and Presbyter then a/Vrwe nihil % upon the borders of a non ens. As for what he (ayes of their being Bifhops thewfeives. . lanfwer, they are the more impartiall witneiTes in this maters They tell us oft that Urome was a Presbyter, and therefore no fneU to Bijlnpsi Now here is a Teftimonie of eminent Btjheps for this very truth which lerom averts , and which this man would make us believe, was condemned as a He- reSe.Andfureiie we are more tender of their reputa- tion , who interpret any ProjUfu or Epifeopacte which they held, to be according to this their judgement a- nent Epifcopacie, and aflert that whatoverplus of poorer they hador might pofiibly exercife,beyondthat of a Presbyter, was by them lookt upon as founded en Eccle/iajlici Cuftome or Ecdefia whs, As Attgufim fpeaks , but not to flow from a divine right , Then this Informer and his feliowes , who make them mam- taine one thing and pra&ife another; yeaand contra- di& themfelves fo profs ly in maintaining as high a juUivlnnm 3 us bpojioUck. doBrine , audpraBife , in re- lation to the Hierarchical Bifhop, and yet aficrt a firm* nih'4 as to the difference betwixc Bifhop and Presbyter. But Upon the p3int of Epifcopacie. ij x But the Informer adds > That they might think Wjpop and Presbyter to differ1 Gradu , not or dine , in degret nut in order , which is fit It a debate in she Schools. Ahf. ThisaiTerticn is fo improbable , thachedare but lifp it out, and faintly averts it with a might be ; But fore he rnuft needsacknowledgec his diitiniuonof theSchcoles to be much later then thefe Fathers , and any gra- duail difference which they place betwixt Bifhcpand Presbyter, it is clear, that they foT»:ndi: upon H&te- fiaftick^Cuftome , as we heard both Jnome, Auguftin and Ambrofez&txi. But how long will this rmn involve bimfclf in con- tradictions} and thefe Fathers aifo? Told he us not ( page if. ) That Auguftin upon Pfal^: 16. affirms y Thnthe Bifkofsar* properly the Svccejjors of the Apoftles unto their office. And faith he not immediatly there- after, That Amhofeupon i Cor. I2MS+ affirms e; the tApofiles fir fl named int bat Claffe of Church officers, that ipfifunt Epifcopi firm Ante illud Petro :ep f:*patum.ejus acci- piat alter. . That the Ap ftles are the Strops by Pettrs af. fertion, let another tai'j his Bishopric^ Tells he us not like wife here that Auguftin ma^s \ames the fir ft Bfhop ofjerufalem, and Peter , the fir ft Bt(b*f> of Rome ? Tells he us not,#£«l \b$y tranfmtttei aneEpfcopall power in that traineof^icceffors , proved by Catalogues of Bijhops ? Did v/enoc tyar him plezdj hat tbt [event y Dftip>'ts,p!a:ed:n am inferior orb to the Twelve Apofihs, are proper lie file* cteded by Presbyters \ that Matthias behoved to be ordain- ed am Apoftie, tho on* of the Seventy difciples\ is his great argument to prove this. Now I befeschhimpr omnes tnufatyVflW he fay that A poftles and Presbyters dif- feronly or dins and not gradu , in order , not in degree? or that thefe fathers doe hold this opinion1? howcome their fucceiTors then to coalefce into one , after fuch a manner as to difrer only in a ferment bit , oralmoft noth- ing* Saith not Ambrofe , Epifcopi &fr$&jtirima eft or* dinatio lyi A Confutation of thefirfl: Dialogue itnat'io , the Bifbof and Presbyter have the fame ordina- tion. But thelnformer will not adventure to fay that the A Po file and presbyter have one ordination. For Matthias one of the Seventy muft be folemnlie by God or- dained ane Apoftle:And the Prelats mutt be folemnlie contecrat by their fellowes —■■-»»« pnu tjz>aa*s $*vTcttTiot^ to their new epifcopall Order. In a word 3 we heard from Carfander , that the Canonifts and Thtologues who difpute this Queftion , doe both ac- cord,that as to a/vx dhinum or divine right, there is no difference betwixt Bifhop and Presbyter either in or- der or degree. And fo though it were granted (which yet the Jnfmner himfelf dare not positively affertj that the Fathers toiled this queftion, it will nothing help him, not prejudge Mr Dw/>dmjquotation,which Speaks of a jus divinum* As for what he adds, That the Fathers cited by Medina might bold the fame not ion 3Let him hear how Bel- larmm (no friend to Presby ttrian Government) repre- sents his affertion (d* Cler. Cap iy.) Michael Medina lib, I. Defacrorurn hominum origincty emtne ti atque ita, inqwt Medina, ifli virt alioqui SAntUffimi y iSC S*crarum Scripturarum confultOJimt y quorum tamen jmtentidmpriAS in Aeri& , deinde in Waldenfibus > poftre' mo in y>anne Wtckfeffo 3 damnavit ecclefia. That is, , MichadMedina in the firft book concerringfthe origi* ,,nalland eminencieof facredmen 5. Chap; Affirms thatSt Jerome was every way of the fame judgment with the 53 Aerians, And that not only Jerome was in that Here* , fie. But alfo Ambrofe,Sedulius>PrimaftuSi Chryjofam, 9 Theodoret , Oecomenius, and TheophylaB > And thus „ (faith Medina)thek men otherwayes moft godly >and moft Upon the point of Epifcopacie. 273 „ moft expert in the holie Scrptures , whofe judgment ,, notwithftandingthe Church condemned , fi.it is „ kit us, Next iii the WaJJenefes 5 And laftly in ,, John iVtckJeff. ] Let our Informer note here* I. That it is beyond debate with Bellarrnin that with Medina at leall, all thefe Fathers vvere Aerians. 2. That his holy Carholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Herefie. 3. That this is one of the Herefies of the old TValdenfes , thefe famous witnefles againft Anti' chrift : And of John Wickleff , and fuchihke eminent reformers* Afterward he adds [Th*tw }erome and thefe Greel{ Fathers , that opinion was of old dijfemhled out of reverence to them 9 Hut contrarily in the Heretic^s al* waves condemned.] So we feeffe Presbyterian Principles, are with him, one of the Herefies of Proteftants. Peter Swav4 (in the fliftoryofthe Council of Trent, pa*. ^64. edit. Francjon. ) relates [ That when the Aa* thoritieof Jeromm& Auguftin was brought to prove epiicopacie robe but ane Ec cleft aft icJ^ constitution, Mi- chael Medina anfwered ■ „ That it was no won* ,» der that ]erom , Auguftin, and others of the Fathers, „fe/l into that herefie, not having throughly fearched „the matter, & that he maintained pro virllithis to be their opinion. Finallie, to make thefe Fathers one with themfel- ves ( whom this man enforceth in his next pafla- ges, cited p3g;e 71,72. A nent the derivation of Epifco- pacie from the Apoftlesand higher, to fpeak palpa- ble contradictions) we mull fay, with Wbi%ta\eet, that they call the Apoitles fo , becaufe they did that upon the matter which Bifhopsthen did. And becaufe their power quadam fimilitudine, or by a certain fimilitude or Ukenefje (as ]unius cxpreffetb /VJwaslike to that of thefe extraordinarie Church officers) whom notwithftand- ing they could notfucceedin the fame office j nor could thefe Fathers think fo upon the grounds former- ly 274 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue inioned. TiUti 9 in his Sfccuh lAntkhr. mum bpbprif. SS. } Tells us that ttpifc&pot & prcsbyteros re & nomine eefdem fuijle , non Hferonlmus fo- ium in I. Tin. l-Sei ttiam jcriptura ptrfpicucdocetTit. I. PiR. to* Phil* I. Protnde bumdhi injtituti 3 five pojittvi t utvocunt juris , ejl ilia Jitb diver [is n^minibus tnunerum dx» 5, flin&io. „Tc2t Bifliops and Presbyters were the fame 3jiniiMtand thing or o#<;e , Not only ]emnt on i. >, Tim. ? . But the Scripture alfo doth cvidentlv teach , ,/Tit.i. A&'2a Phil. I. And therefore that diftindtioa ,, ofthe offices under divcrfe names is o£human$nfii- „ tution, as they call it , or of pofitive right] Afitt Ico- king-glaffe > this had no doubt been to the fame Ttltn when he wrote*his/Mr and modern Amines j that it would take upalmoft asmuchroome asthis Informers pamphlet, to rec- kon up their names. Thar we may prefent them in a compendious view take it thus- i. That Upon the point of Epifcopie. 27? I. That jure dhfao , there is ro difference betwixt a B/- fiopand Presbyter , hath avervhrgc confent of anti- quitiecollefied by many of the learned 3 whofc tefti- ironies we may fee in Bifhop ]twel againft Hardin , edit: Ann. 1570. p. 243. Afid Reynolds in the fore - mentioned Epiftle at large cited {Paries Hi ft. part. $. p: 469,470,471.) Where thereis exhibit a full con- fent bork of the Greek, and Latin Fathers, for this point of truth. The Doftor in his conference with Hart-.holds'Tfc^ the pre (id mt choj'en cut atfirjho moderate is bjfrbom afterwards the Fathers called Bifhop yand that tkc name Bifhop ccttsKgx to all Minifitrs > was by them thus ap- propriat to ibis prep dent. Next for modern writers? the fame Dr Reynolds tells us in the for mentioned EpifUe, that thofe who have laboured about the reforming of the Church thefc 500 Years, have taught that all Pa- ftours be they intituled Bifhops orPriefts, haveequall authoritie and power by Gods word. Citing the Walden- fesin&n.Stfo.hift.ofBobem.Cbap.tf. Pkh. Hierarch. Ecdepaft. lib*i. Cap: lo+ Mar jil 4 Patavin.Dtfenf. pads part. 2. G*/>. 15. Wtckjeff. in Thorn. Waldenf. D08. Fil. Tom. !. lib: 2. Cap : 60. and Tom : 2. cap: 7. fold his Scbollers Huffe and the Huffits y ftxeas Sihius Loc. cit. Luther. Aefoerf. falfo : nomin : Scot ♦ Epifc & kdverfiti Pupate P\rm. Calv. in Epift. ad Phil. lit. I, Byentius ^Apolog. Confeff Wittenberg. —— Cap. 21: Btf- linger. Decad. 5. $trm\ 3 , Mufculw Loc* Com:Tit: it Mi~ trjhrio Vtrbi. Then he adds ]ewe/ , Pilkjngton , Dr. Humphrey in Qampian. Cr Duraum ]efuit* Part. 2. R^u: 3. Whittak. ad rationcs Campion. 6. & Confut Dura?. ltb% 6. MrBradjlord, Lambert* Pox (^84 Mon.) Pull^. ( Anfr. to the Rjiemt flits.) Totfcefemay be added Cart- wright ag2inft t he Hbemifit. Bifhop BUfon bimfelj again]} S err maries lib, \.p:\\%.. Bishop Morton in his Cathohcl^ Apologie Part* I. Cab. 3}. Erafmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which addjhatin tl:$ Qecumcnick^Couwiks ofConjlance(§ BifiU 27<> A Confutation of the firfl Dialogue Jiafile , it was concluded that Presbyters fr.auld have decifive fuffrage in Councils , as well at Bifhops , heewfi that by the ■ Law ofGodBifoops were not greater then they , and it n ex* prejlie given them , ^#.15.13. To which we may add the Cone:!. Aquifgravenfe fub Ludovico Polmperatore. 1. Anno 8 1 6. Which approved it for found divinity out ofScriprure, that Bijlwps and Presbyters are equal, brin- ging the fame texts that Aerius doth* To thefe men- tioned the learned Rjyxolds doth add, the common judgement of Reformed Churches, vi%* Helvetia, Savoy, France \> Scotland , Germanic , Bungary , Polana)^ the how Countries , citing the harmenre cf Confeffions. Yea their own Church of England (Chap: 11. of the harmo- nic.) Thei after he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he fayes anent \eroms (fo often repeated) a Marco Kvangelijia _ fhewing both by the decree of the 4t. Council of Carthage Cap : 3 . Anent Presbyters intereji in ordination (which , faith he , proves that the Bifhops or- dained not then alone in all places , although lerom /ayes, quid jacit except a ordiratione&c : ) and by \croms proving YMfbopJ and Presbvters 1 0 he all one in fcripture, and even in the right of or dma von I.Tim* 4. 14. That lerem could r.ot mean Bifliops in Alexandria to have had that Epijcoyall power fmctMar]^ , about whic h the quefiion is. Where alfb hevindicats Calvin []nfth: I: 4- c:4*Se&: 2.) cited by Bancroft (as likwaves by our Dialogift here ) as con- fenting to the eft aHi 'f:. mint of am Eptfcopacie fmce Marl^ 3,at Alexandria. ,, He faith [That Calvin having :, fliowen that minifterschoofe out one to prefide , to „ whomefpecially they eave the name of [ Bifhop, 1 3i ^hews that not^ithftanding this Bifliop was not *bove them in honour and dfgnitie , thai he \hould rule over them 3 hut was appointed only to asl^ the votes , to direhT andadmewfl') - and fee that performed which was, 3, agreed upon by their common confent > , ■ „ And ha- lving declared, that lerom fhews this to have been brought Upon the point of Epifcopacie 277 in by the confencof men upon Tit. I. He adds f ,, that the fame lerom other where ihews, how an- ,3cient ane order in the Church it was, even from „ Marks time ro Heraclius &Tc : \n which words ofCaU vin (faith the Dodtor) feeing than be order of the Church which he mentions 3 hath evident relation to that before defm cribed , and that in the defcribing of it he had laid , The Bif* hop was not fo above the reft in honour that he had rule over them: It followes that Mr* Calvin doth *ot fo much as fegmt(icf>nrefs uponleroms report [ihztever firce 'Marks time Bifliops ha& had a rutin? fuperiorive over the Clergie\ A contradidtorie Conclusion to that of our Informer. The Do&ck proceeds ihus.Wherfire *<> uftno more proofs in a thtng msnifift, which eUt might he eafily prove* moy* at large nut of lerom and JWy. Calvin both , it is certain that neither o- them doth vfflrme , that Biftops fo longtime have hid fitch a (uperiortie - as Dr. Bancroft feems t* father ubon them. Tfc all this adde , that Dr. Holland the Kings profeflor in Oxford, at ane Aft (Iw/Zvp, 1*08.) Concluded a^ninil: vir Lanes queftion [anEpifcohatus fit ordo diftin&u? a P^eshteratu , toque fui>ericr ju*e divim no. That is , < viz* that thefeare not in the hand prelat , but that Presbyters have ane efentiall pynt ir:tereft therm. And this alfo hath a large Con- ferred Teftimonie of the learned b^th ancient and "•-Modern. For this rhe4f. Council ef Carthage is ad* du^edCan. cj, and the Councils of Conjtar:ce avel Ba/t' I.2.C. 2j, and many fuch. Smeciim. pag. 28, 29, 3°> gl. tffaf W4«y Testimonies for this. S:e Blondel* •Apol. SeB. 3. pag.' ito. to 130. Prins-un-ftifh ; 0/"T/- tnotbieanl Titus from pag. 52. /o S3. Where the full Confenc of reformed divines is adduced, fuch as Io That the hdy function *f the Mini fiery isgninb" 3 , the Using on of the hands of presbyters > no word of Pre- „lats hands. Sothei8-CA^: {pag>z$6.) theyar 3, to be ordained bypublick prayer and laying on of 1 3. hands 5 which power they fay is the fame and ali]^in , , all, citing that paiTage Luke. 10. he that will be greac 3, among yow , lei him be your fervant- So Act* ,, if.andltromon Tit. i.m * therfor (fay they) let „ no man forbid that we return to the old appoint" ' „ment of God ( fo they call the Presbyterian way of 5, ordination) and rather receive it then the Cuftome devi- fed by men, ( So thev call the Epifcopall Method). Thus the ConfeffionofB (Mem. Chap. 9. (Harm. Sect: II fag. 246. 247.) after fetting down the qualifications of \ Minifters *— — «~ As to ordination they fay > that after prayer and fading they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by ththying on of their hands. So the Cott- ftfs.Sax: Chap: 12 (Harm: Cenf: far*l.) affirme that it belongs to Miniftersof the word to ordainefAi- piftersf larrfullie elected and called. Where we have Ifferted both the Presbyters power in ordination , and the peoples men ft in the Call o^Vaftors, in oppofition to ^prelacy. SotheConfeflionofthe French Qhurch*Cre» Ldimusveram EccleJ/amO'c : 5t We believe that the K t;ue Church ought robe governed by that policy „ which Chrift hath ordained > viz , that'there be Pa- ,, ftours 3 Presbyters or Elders and Deacons. And [j;^ again we believe that all true paftours wherever k, they be, are endued with equal and the fame power under \%yone head and hifhop Chrlrtlefur> which ftrikes our ,, Diocefianand Eraftian frame of government ftarke ' dead. Which is feconded thus by the Belgick. Conftff. ;! (Art : 30.) All (Thrifts Minifters ofthe wordofGod have the fame and equal power and authority as being all Wntfters of that only univerfsll head anl Bifhop Chrift. To thefc we might adde many otherTeftimonies of re? T z med & 1 So A Confutation of the firft Dialogue farmed divines, as Calvin, Pifcatrr, Mar far at on ] Ttm : 4* 14. 17/. 1. 3. Z^ncb.' ce $tatu. Peccat. an Legal, in A^m.pracep. Chen muni Lcc. Corn. Part*] it Fcdef Cap. 4. Exam. Condi. TrrJ. part. 2. c< Sac/am* ordmis %*g. 224, 225 . prozirg alfo that Electio and vofXtton offylix'tfters tie whole Church. An tonius Sadael,Rtfp.ad repetitaTvrriani Soplifmata* pay 2. loc. i2* Bc%t (de diver f: mwfircrum gradibw*] Junius [CcJitrov. 5. /. c 2. JST; 3.] Chamkrus [Panftra- VA Qathel : Tern : 2. dt Oecum: Pontif: that the right choofing of Minifters is hyconjeraof tbeC'«urch. So the Belgick confeiiion tells us [ that Minifters , Elders^and Dea- cons, are to be advanced to their office by the lawfull eltShnofthi Church.] Greg.Na*i*n+ forat.31. ) com- mends Athanafius his calling as being after the Apo- ftolical example 4>*p* T* *«* 7rwTo$>by the fuffrage of all the people. Bhndel clears this from a large con- fent of antiquitie fpage, 179* to 473-) And this is cleared alfobyalarge confent of proteftant divines. Luther (depoteft. Papa. ) Calvin ( on Act. 6: 3. ) Bt^a { confeiT. Cap* 5' ArC- 3 5-) f&fcujw (in Loe.com.) Zjnch- (on 4t. com.) Junius (Animadverf. on Bel- larm. Controv. 5. 1. c. 7-) Cawvvght (on Aft. 14. v.23.) Wa\l*us 1 Bxllinger, iVittafar, See Mr Gilefp. Mijc, quefl. p*g l%, 19 • Our firft bookof Discipline appoints to the people their votes and fuffrage in election ofWnifters. ( in the 4*. head. ) And the id. book { Cap 3.) difdiarges any to intrude [contrary to the will of the congregation ., ■ — or without the voice of the elder- Jkip. A 4t.E(Tential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition toPrelacie,is in relaticn to the office of the rule- ingclder,as appointed bjChrijl. This we cleared fromScrip- ture?and rhere is as cleare a confent of antiquitie for it, and of modern reformed Churches and divines , ex- T 3 hibitci 2 82 A Confutation of the firft Dialogue hibired by our writers. For this Ignatius (Epift: at TraIJknos,adinitiumpag>66.edit. oxon.An. 1^44. )is cited, Likewife Baronius (in his Annals Anno 103. in the Geftapwgatiwis CxciUani & Felicis.) TertuL { Apolog. *Adver[:gentes. Cap- 39.) Origen. (ontra Celfum lib. 3.) Cyprian ( Eptfl. %6.) Optatus {lib. l.pag, 41. edit: parif, ^•1631.) AmUrofe (comment. on \Tim.y. 1.) And for modern writers Jtfhittaker (contra Dur Hel- michius , TrigUndus , Vr Revius > Dr Voetius , Appollo- niusi and many others, Eipecially the famous a d learned Mr Gillefpy in that elaborat peice , entituled, jiaronsrod blojjbrmng 5 wherein the conient of the an- cient, and modern Church, as to this great point of truth, is exhibit. See 2. boe/^ 1 Ctp.pag. 167. Now, fromall thatisfaid, Whither Presbyteiian Government hath not the patronage of the pureft j Scripture antiquity, and a full confemofthe after pu* Upon the point of Epifcopacief1 2? J rer rimes, ani of reformed Churches and divine** in all the forementioned points of its oppoficion to thc Prclacie.noweftabhfhed: Both irl holding, U Th^ identity of Bifhop and Pre^b veer, as to name and things 2. Presbyters ri^ht of ordination , and Jurifdi&ion. 3. The peoples intereftin the Eleftion, and call o. Mimfters. 4« The ruleing Elders office. 5, The Churchesintrinfick power orGovernment, Ueaveto the [mparriall to juds;e. And confequently of the vanity of this new Dialogui) 3 His pleading upon this point. Pag. i kkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkk A Confutation Of tht Second DIALOGUE, Ancnt the Covenants dgainft EP'ISCOPACIE. Wherein j the Informers reafonings a- gainftthe abjuration oftheprejent E- pifcopacie in the National and So- lemne League and Covenant ; and the obligation of thefe oaths in eppojition thereunto j are examined. T 5 Chap* 2 A Confutation of Chap. I. j4 twofold ft ate of the Que ft ion propped ft he one tou- ching the abjuration of this TreUcie in either or both thefeCovenants , the other concerning the o- bligation of theje oathts againft it. That T re* lacie is abjured in the National and Solexnnt League and Covenant , proved at large. And arguments offered to evince their oblidging force upon theprejent andfucceedmg generations. I HE (late of theQueftion in the SecondDia- j legue is twofold , i . Whither the Prelacie now iftablished by L*it* in this Church, be abjured in | the national, and folemne league and 'Covenant ? I z.Vpcn fuppefittontbatit is abjured in both the one and the other , whither the obligation ofthefe Oaths ft ands agamfttt, yeaornot? Wcefliili alirle ccuch. For the I, Our National Covenant, fwoi ne by King \xmes in the t he year 15 So, and by the Efbtesof this land, and many times thereafter, folemniieand univer- fal!yrenewed5both by omChurchandState,doth clear- ly exclude Prelacie* The paflages thereof pleaded againft Prelacie, zx\& wherein our obligation lyes, arethefe« 1. In General, wee prcfeffe to believe 3» the word of God to be the onlie rul e,\the Gofpel conrained ^therein to beGods undoubted truth, as then received ,> in thisLand &mainrained by fur.drie rcformedKirks ,,&S'tates,cheiflvby our own. Whereupon we renounce ?, all contrary do£lrine,and efpecially allkindofPapiftrie „ in generally particular heads yas confuted by the Wtrd of God ,) and rejected by the Ffykof Scot and. 2. After i large enu- ,,merationofmany points of poprie, diiowned upon this ground and vowed againft. , as contrary unto the^vordofGud, and the gofpel of Salvation con- tained the fecond Dialogue. j tained therein. 3, Wee renounce the Popes Worldly „ m$narcbie, and wicked tiier archie , and: whatever hath yybeen brought int9 this Ch.ircb without > or agaixft the 3%word.ofGod> 3. Wee vow tojoyneourfelvesio this „ reformed Ktrkeifl Doctrine, faith,religion&:Difci- j, pline s Swearing by the great name of God to con- ,,tinuein obedience to the doFtrine t and Difeipline of this yyKirke, and upon our Eternall penil to maintaine „ and defend the fame according to our vocation , and „ power, all the dayes of our life. Now the obligation of this engadgement againft pre- lacie is evident thefe wayes, I. A# 'dofitrines contrary mtoior hfidetbewordofGod , are here rejected and difowned: All do&nnes contrary to the umpliciry of the Gofpel, recived and believed by the Church of Scotland , and whatever hath been brought into this Church without oragainlt Gods Word. But fo it is that the prefent hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God , both in its Dioceiian and traftian mould , as hath been pro- ved at large. And we heard that this Church of Scotland, fince it received Chriftianity 5 -did (land for a lone: time under Presbyterian Government , and uniill Palladia* was Cent unto us from PopcCeleftine, never knew a Frelat , Ergo, Prelacie in its Dioce- fun Eraitian mould is here abjured. 2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that claufe of the Popes wicked hierarchie , whereby the Prelatick Go- vernment is molt clearly pointed at, which is evident thus. i« That the Government ofthepopilh Church is prclatictll : this man will not deny, it is by Arch- Biihops, Bifhops, Primats Deans 5cc: and it being Jiiindt from his Monarchic, for*lfe th" naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough.- and moreover , it being ranked among thefe things which are brought iiito the Cnurch againfl the Word of God , and into tnis Church agtinft her pure D)8rine which was clearly the fenie 4 A confutation of fenfeofit, thataflemblies, and the body ofthts Pro- tectant Church entertained; aiTemblies declaring that the Word [ Bishop] tvasnottobetakenasintimeofPapifttie. And fobn Knox ( whofe fenfe and Judgement herein was certanhe retained > and upon all occafions mani- feftcd by our Reformers) accounting Prclacie to ha?e quid commune cum Antichrifto. Ergo, Prclacie is here vowed againft fimphcitcr and in its felf considered. 2. If he grant a hierarchic to be here abjured , fure it mud be abjured with the reft of the corruptions enumerac in that large lift of them exhibited in this Oath. Now thcfeare abjured in tbemf elves Jimp liciter , as contrary unto the Word of God an J the dotlrine of this Ki*k? > cr&$ > ^° iriuQ: a prelacie or hierarcbie be in itsfelf abjured under the fame jormalis ratio* as thus brought in , whither by the Pope or Any other. 3. This hierarchies fup- pofedinthis Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church 1 as well as the popilh Doctrine is therein fttppoied contraries her pure Doftrine. Now (as we ihallfhewj the Difcipline which this Church then owned, was Presbyterian. So that thatDifciplineor Hierarcbie, which ftands in oppofition to Presbyte- rian Government , is here abjured : burfo it is that prelacie exfe> ($ fuanatura ftands thus oppofit unto it, ergo, by the hierarchie , all prelacy is abju- red. 5* Prelacy is abjured in that daiife where wepro- „fefle „ to joyne our felves to this reformed Kirk 3, in her Difcipline^ as well as her Dotinne , and vow and .„fweare adherence unto both* Now that the Disci- pline then owned by this Church % was Presbyterian Government or difcipline, Is evident thefe wayes, ■I. Discipline bygenerall ademblies and Synods ha- ving compleat parity- of all Minifters, with a joync 4decifive Suffrage , is Presbyterian Discipline ; but this was that Discipline owned by our Church:For her firft the fecond Dialogue. ^ firftNationall AITerrblv (compleatlv Presbyterial in its mould ) was in the Year 1560. After which time untill 15S0 W hen this Covenant was fworne , the^e vere many affcmblie* exercifng their power, a, That is presbyterian Discipline , which did judicially ccndemneprelacie as having rowarrard in the Woid, and cwnes no Church officers as la* full but paftcuis t Pofiors, Elders and Deacons.But fo it is that this was the judicial] decifion of cur generall affemblies 1 long before this Covenant; for the firft book of difcipiine, containing the Fads of presbyterian Covernment^was approved and (ubferibed by this Church in the year 1560. A ndtheSecond book of difcipiine in£nnoi 57?, \Vhich two books compleatly overthrow Prelacie, &: Jayes down a mould of Presbyterian government. Ard therafrer in the afTcrrbly at Dundie ( Anno. 158c* PefT« 4.) The office of aPrelat was particulaily con- demned by a foJemne aft, and abolifhed as unlaw- ful!, and void of Scripture warrand, ordaining wider paine efexcon^rr.umcationfuch as brooked thefiii iffice to Ln it a fide, as are office to which they an not called cj Cod , andceafe from preaching ard admimf ring Sacramerts.ur dcrl.fi.: of the futae Cenfure, or ufirg the office of a Paficur tilltUy receive admiffttn [de mvo] frem the genera!! ajft m bite* K o w in the nationall covenant* this cxiitent difcipiine being fworne to be maintained > who can fay but that Prelacieisrrioftfcrrnallie abjured therein ; EfpecialJy if it be confidered,that in the fame year 1 5 SoThis nati- onal covenant was fworn , at which timethefe things were fofrefli 5: recent. 3. That difcipiine which the takers and framers of this covernant, at the taking of it, and in prriuance of its ends 5 did carry on and "cftablifli , that difcipiine it muft needs include and engacge untointheir fe'nfe : but that vasPresbue- rian government. For ( to omit [many preceeding Jifcoveries heirof mentioned in the Apology ) in the vca 6 AConfutation,of year 1580. The afemblie after their judicial! de- clarator 3 that Prelacie is contrary to the word of God , fent Cornmiffioners to the King to defire the eftabliiliment of the book of policie by ane Aft of Council , untill a parliament were conveened $ and what this bock of policie contained 5 we did already hint* Then in this fame year , the fnational cove- nant and confeffion isfworn by the King and Coun- cil. In theafiemblie 15S1. itis fubferibed by all the members, and the A& of the Affemblie at Dundit ex- plained. £nd it was again judicially declared that the Church did thereby wholly Condemne the efiate of Bisheps at they were in Scotland. At which very Nick of time the Confefnon of faith f Sworn before in the year 1580. ) is prefentedrotheaffrmblieby the Kin?; and Council, Together with his Letter to Noblemen and Gentle* men for erecling Presbyteries Compleatly through the nation, and diflolving Prelacies, all the three > viz, both the King, theEftates and the affemblie, fully agreeing in this judgement as to Church govern- ment , and this oath for its maintenance. And ac- cording to this jovnt authoritative determination of Church and State, Prefbytcries were erefted, Lik- wife in this afTemblie according to the forfaid joynt Conciufion , rhe Second book of difcipline contai- ning the mould of Presbyterial Government , and likewife this National Covenant and oath for irs perfervation, are (as the two great Charters of our Churches government and liberties) infert into rhe Churches records ad finuram reimemoriam , And that pofteritv might not be ignorant of the difcipline fworn in that covenant. Upon which , and many fuch like grounds , the AfTemblie i6;.8 did again judicially declare this fenfe tfffthis National Oath, which ac- cordingly was received with ane expreiTe application to prelacy , and the other Corruptions attending it% and the (econd Dialogue. 7 and taken by the whole land with a full concurrence of the civil San&ion andlauthcritie, Anno. 1640. The 2d. Great engadgement pleaded againft pre- lacie > is that oftheSGlemne League and covenant : Whe- ■ rin we vow the -preservation of the reformed, religion of the Church of Scotland tn DoBrine , Worship* Discipline and government according to the word of God , and the [example of the beji reformed Churches. In the Second Article , Wee fv/eare the extirpation ofpoprie and prelacie , Archbishops y Bishops B their Chance tlcurs and Cemmiffaries £fc. And all Ecclejiafiicall cfjicers depending on that Uier archie vf whatever is] found contrary tofoundDuclrine anuhe power ifgedlinefs. Which ens:adgemenc fchath been likwife taken by ah [ranch** by Parliaments , Afferoblles, and the body of the people. Now that the Prelacie at this time eftabliCbed is abjured in this engadgement , is thefe wayes Evident. 1. Prelacie beingrazed in Anno. itfjS- according to our national covenant 5 and ane engadgement being framed of adherence to theReligioneftabliflied in Do&rine 3 worfhip, difcipline and Government, in opposition unto all innovations formerly introduced > and upon both grounds , Presbyterian government > in its exadi paritie being fett up > and judicially ena- bled, both by Affemblie and parliament ^ that the Solemne league niuft needs ftrike againft Prelacie, is in this apparent, becaufe this league is cleavlie* refe- rable to the great ends of the national covenant, as itftood then eftabhmed, explained and Sworneby this whole nation ; and therfor is ane accefione en- gadgementj commenfuratunto, and to be explained by thepreceeding: and confequentlynone can doubt that it ftrikes againft prelacie , and eng2dgeth to Presbyterian government, who knowes how former engagements flood. * 2. The 8 A Confutation of 2. The prefervation of the Do&rine , worfrtip, Discipline and goverment thenexiftent in Scotland , referrinetothe theneftabliihment rherof , in oppofi- tion to the former prelacic and all its corruptions ; Its evident that all fort of prelacie & whatever corruption in Government is inconfiitent with Presbyterian fim- plicity and parity , is here abjured and covenanted againft. Asweengadge the prefervation of the Do- ftrine and worfhip as then reformed , from Prelatick innovations , fo hke^ifewe ftveare to preferve our Churchesancient and pure difciplineasit (rood then recovered from prelatick encroachments. That difci- pline & government is here fworne unro , as the difci- pline and government of the Church of Scotland, which the Church and State of Scotland at this time eftablifhed and owned : But fo it is, that that was Presbyterian government, then fully ratified both by Church and Srate, Ergo, the prefervation of Pref- byterian government is fworne 3 and by further con- ference that government which was by Church and ftate extirpate, as abjured inthenationall covenant, and conrrarv unro this Presbyterian frame, was lik- wife abjured and covenanted againft in this league- But fuchwas prelacie, Biihops, Arch-Biibops &c: ergo. Again* % .The great ground upon which our adverfaries deny the national Covenant toftrike againft prelacie, is, that they hold that the then exiftentdifdpJine, towhich in that Oath we vow adherence as the difcipline of this Church, was notPresbyterian government,&that King fames did not own ir. Ergo, (by are argument a antra- riis , and ad hominem ) fince its undenyable with them xhntdefitHto Presbyterian government was now enacted, ratified, eftablifhed and fert up , both by AfTemblies and King and Parliament , trmgoverment M'emuftftand obiidgedunto by the folemn league. 1 as the the fecoad Dialogue. 9 as the reformed difciplinc and government of this Church 5 and contrarily that goverrmem which was ibendefaRo by aflemblies , King and Parliament ra- zed as inconfiftent with Presbyterian government, and as abjured in the nationall Covenant , that go- vernment wee cannot deny , but the folemne league ftricks againft. But fo it is that prelacie was at this time razed by Aflemblies > King and Parliament, as: inconfiftent with the nationall covenant, and Pref- byterian governmeut then eftablifhed, ergo this fo* lemne league ftricks againft Prelacie. 4; The word preferve here ufed wand the ex- predion of common enemies cleares this further : prefer* ving ?relates to that which one is in pojjejjion of, the common enemies of this poffefiion > in the fenfe of all, both Jmpofers and engadgers > are the Prelats and t their Malignant Agents, fo that the holding faftof what was attained in point of reformation &c: Pref- f byterian government in all its eftablifhed privileges againft Prelats 3 Prelacie , and all the incroachements thereof , is here moft evidently engadgedunto. 5. That engadgement and oath which they who have fet up prelacie in our Church, did Caffat and remove, as inconfiftent therewith, th.u muft needs, by their own confeiiion ftrike againft it : but fo it , that our PaiTament and Rulers did wholly Caffat jlj this folemne league, in order to the eftablifhing of ;|L Prelacie. Ergo, by their own confeffion it ftrikes : shift k. They caffat the nationall covenant onlie imerpreted againft Prelacie, fuppofing that it will .0: in *wjf/fftnke againft it, but the league th°y fimpb :\jure > and difclaime its obligation as to a change of this Prelacie: Ergo they doc upon the mater acknow- vdge that it ftricks againft it- Finafy , Our adverfaries doe grant that it ft rites , againft Bifhops, Arch-Bilhops? Deans &c; That V we io A Confutation of we are bound therby to extirpat fuch officers > though rsonlie that fpccifick complex Jbrwe expreffed in the Se- cond Article , which they think is properlie abjured. But I. Is it not a prelacie inconfiftent with Presbyte- rian government ( which we engadge to preferve in the Fint Article) which wee abjure and engage toextir- pat in the Second, and under this formatis ratio* as thus inconfiftent, in thefenfeand judgement dfour Church and State ( rhe Impofers of the Oath ) i And are not B.fliops , Arch Bifhops 3 Deans &c : con- trary to Presbyterian government , then in being? 2. Dare this man or any of that partie deny but that the former prelacie which we had in Scotland was inten- ded to be abjured bv our Church and State, and the Impofers and renewers of this oath, and doe not all engagements bind according to thefenfeof/mpofers, in the judgement of Cafuifts? 3. Is not our Govern- ment now by two Arch- Bifhops 3nd twelve Bifhops? Have notthefe their Deans, Arch.eacons, Chan- ters &c ? 4. Are not our Prelats reflored to all their pretended priviledges , taken from them by the Par- liament who Impofed this oath? Nay redintegratto a more abfolute pofleffion of pretended Spirituall au- thority then ever any befor them pofTefTed fince our reformation ? *. Are we not engadged.to extirpat allEtclefiaftick officers depending upon that hierarchic , as we are engaged agairitl tvhatfoever is contrary to found Dotlrme and the power of godhnejje not in bulk onlie , but everything SigiUatim upon this ground, and formalis ratio f And dare any of them deny that in thefenfe of Jmpofers, a diocefian Bifhop or Arch-Bifhop (ef- pecialJy as their power now ftands enlarged and qua- lified ) is contrary to found dodtrine , and the power ot godlines? Dare he fay that any of the Impofers judged ane Arch-Bifhop, orBifhop, efpecially in fuch ane Eraftian mould as he is now > to be confi- dent the /econd Dialogue it ftehfcwirfi the word of God? Sure he were very Im- pudent who would aflfcrt it. This being clear then 3 that thefe engadgements leavells againftthe prefenc Prelacic, let us point out Next, their obliging force. This will be clear 3 if we confider thefe oaths, r. In their forme ov formalis ratio, or nature and effen- ce. z. In relation to their fubjeEt whom they affed. J. In their mater andobjeEt* 4. Their end and defignc. I. In their Forme y and that either in relation to fe- verall forts of tyes included in them. Or %% The Qualifiations of thefe tyes. For the 1. They are 04/tawherin God is invoked as a witnefle of ourfin- ceritie , and as a fwift witnefs againft us if we breake. .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 keept within the A rk , is, thou shah not take the name of the Lord thy God in vainc* nnd with this fevcre Certificate thathe ft ill not bold them guiltleffe who thus profane his name. He threatens to be a fwift witnefle againft the fafiftvearer. [ Thou fhak performe to the Lord thy oaths , ] is smongfl the grand and morall precepts frequentlie inculcatiti Scripture. See levit : tf. J. 19- J2. Numb- 30. z. Pfai. 15. 4. In this egagement the debt accrews to God 3 and the absolution confeqienrlie muft have his fpeciall warrand. Q&ia religto juramenti pertinctad forum iizinum. Hence the Scripture is full oflnftances of the Lords drcadfull punifhing the fin of perjurie, witnefle that of Saul and Zedekiah whereof afterward. Now in both thefe engadgements , there is exprefTe mention made of Swearing by, and unto God, 2. Thefe engadgements are fromifes or fromifsory oaths , wherc- rein we exprefs cur pui pofe a and xr iojution , as to V Z important i % A Confutation of important duties both to God and man , invockinghim- Jelfs as a tvitnejs of our fmceritic : we have opened our mouths to God 3 and to one another in reference to great and weighty duties > relating to the firft and Second Table. Owhat ftrong bonds are proroifes efpecially of this nature; what confcience did even iieathens make of chem , whereof initances are abun- dantly adduced in the Apologie ( pag: 334, 33^. &c.) ^:Thcfeengadgementsarewir«ttwrtG^, that is pomifes wade to God in the things of God , fu ch as pu- blick and perfonall reformation : God here is not only invoked as a mtnefs , but is the proper Comht andpartie in this engagement , and O but it is a fearful! thing to fall into his hands > to be puniihed for the breach hereof. The Scripture is full as to commands and pre- cedents to pay and performe our vowes, fee Numb: 30:2. i.Sam: y,2i.Pf.7tf, n.Ecc: ?*4.f. 4. They lit Covenants >and thutbotb with God and man, \h : en- gadgements to God for performance •/ duties revealed in his word, fuch as the people made, when upon thela- wes promulgation , they faid, whatfoever the Lord commands we will doe, Exod* 19.8. cap. 24: 3,7. Deur. f, %7. and z6, 17. and therefore are fo ofcen j charged with breach of Covenant in their after difo- | bedience. We have engadged to God (inthefeyo- wes) fpeaking tousinhis word from heaven , tou- ching national! and perfonall reformation. Here is alfo amutuall ftipulation betwixt the nations, and with one another touching important duties of the 2d. table in relation to there mutual] rights. Now , the Scrip- ture is f«I! in pointing out the weight and importan- ce of fuch engadg;ements> fee Ezek: 17. Jof. 9: 18, 19. Neh: 9 : 3?- Ter : 34 : fS, So that in thefe Sacred bonds there is the tye of an eath, from the jw*- rence we owe to God , whofe name we muft not take ia vain. The obligation of a vop 9 from the homage And the fecond Dialogue 1 $ mi fealty weoffle unto him > the ftrength oiapromife , both to God and man, from theinfluencc of truth and rgh> ttoufneffe , all concurring to render the lame Sacred and inviolable. The binding force of thefe engadgements does fur- ther appear in their qualities , as 1. they were folemnly taken on: Its a ?vlaxime that the obligation grows] with th* fo!emnityofaneengadgemer 19. And that Cove» nant Dent : 29 : 14^ 15* Secondly the bindingjforcc of thefeen^adgementsap- pears in the fubjeft they off eft, as firft>our Church in her aeprefentatives,ani in their moft publick capacity 3ths folemne aftemblies in both nations. 2 . State reprefen- tatives&Parliaments5thus all afTurances are given, that eich?r civil or Ecclefiafticklaweslcan arTeord,andthe publick faith of Church Sciftate is plighted with invio- lable eyes: So that they muftftand while *we have a Charch or ftate, in Scorlandsboth as men and as Chri- {tUns;asmmbers ofChurch &Stare3under either a re- V 3 ligious x^ A Confutation of religious orcivill confutation, we (land hereby in- violably engadged:and not only representatives but the incorpo- ation of Cnurch and State are under the fame. Thirdly their binding force appears in the matter an J Ohecl , f The immediatfurmall object is the Word of Gou & the Truths and duties therein contained , and whatever is contrary to found doctrine, and thepo. wcrof Godlineffe,- under that formalis ratio, is here abjured, theeternall Truth of the Goipelias holden out in. the Word > and received in this and reformed Kirks being the grand rule in this engadgement, what- foever is approved by it, is embraced, and what is condemned by it, is rejected under that notion- 2. The mere remote or mater iallObj eft, are the publick, ne- ceJTary, great and important Truths and duties the- rein enumerac, both of the 1 and 2 Table, and the crrours and fins therein abjured : To the obfervation, faith and obedience of the one, and abhorrencie of the other , under the formentioned confideration as cither confonant unto , ordiffonant from Cods eter- nall Word and truth > wcftand perpetually and invio- lably oblidged: So that this Oath hath ane ofyefiiw, as well as fiih\eftive neceflity contained therein , a ne- ceffityof the matter in its own nature, prior to the engadgement, as well as a neceiiky of performance flowing from the engadgement it felf , which may take place in things indifferent. Finaly the conftamly obliging enis and Jcope of thefe engadgments, joyned with tne importance of the matter fabfervient to thefe ends, further dilcover their inviolable obligaions. There is here both neceffitas precept* , necejfitas medij , H finis. Trie mat- ter iworne to be performed, falls under divine pre- cepts, the fins and evills abjured, falls under divine prohibitions , and thefe engadgementsare both in re- fpecT; of the matter it felf, and as to the protefled (cope the (econd Dialogue f ~ fcope of the fwearers and engadgers , levelled at continually obliging ends , fuch as Gods glo- ry, the advancing of Chrifts Kingdom, the pu- blick good of Church and State , theprefervation and propagation ofpublickand perfonall reformation, truth.unity &c. Now both theie Oaths andGovenants arc profefledly entered into as perpetual engadge- ments,and in order to thefe great ends for ever to be promoted, as their tenor clearly holds out. If any (ay what B all to the fpeciall obligation for Presbyterian Government > and in opposition to Pre'acie i th? Oath may be temporal y or caf- fat and made void as to that point , though there be never fo great duties oth^rwayes engadged unto therin, iAnf This panicular engadgement in rela- tion to the maintenance of Presbyterian Government and moppoiitiontoPrelacie, runs along in the fore- mentioned particulars. I. It falls under theoblio-ati. on of the Oath, vow, promile, and Covenant ,°and under the forementioncd qualifications offolemnity univerDliry , and importance. Again 2. the pu-: blick faith of Church and State reaches this moft evil dently, and is engadged for it. And j.asGodsgreat ordinance hoi Jen out in his Word , Presbyterian Go. vernmentfalis within the compafs of the cbjeft of thefe Oaths, and under that confederation is fwornc to be maintained, andPrelacieas contrary therunto isabjured, which contrariety hath been already clea- ed. Again Presbyterian Government is here engad- ged unto as fubiervient to thefe great ends mentioned and Prelacie is abjured as hindering che fame, as both dif'co med G°d and eXpCnenCe hatH C0™nd<^ V 4 CHAP. i6 A Confutation of Chap. II. The Informers Arguments again/! the abjuration ef Prelacy in the nationall Covenant fully exa- mined. Some reafons of his againfi an Oath in generall \ or this Oaths obligation upon the ' fpfterity , weighed. The Apelogeticall nar- ration 9 ani the Ajjembly 1658 , vin- dicated. WE come now to examine what this new abfilver or pretended doubt - refoher 9 hach preferred to usagainftthe oblidging force of thcfe great engadg- ments. The defence which he hath patcht up out of ihefurvcy ofNaphtali, and that pamphlet called the feafinablc cafe , confifts of 2. parts. I. He denys that the bond of eitber§the national, or folemne league and Covenant, dothjftnke againft the prefent Prelacie. 2. Upon fuppoiall that the folemne league and Cove- nant doth ftnke againft it, he denys its obligation. In both points we fhall examine his grounds and tra- ce his Method. 1 the doubter alledges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant fo that non* may warrantable own* theMiniJlry offuch as preach under thm , as being perju- red. To this confequence he repones nothing , but feemstoadmiceit, and therefote we need notipeak unto it.Only hequarrelis with the antecedent & tells us that toe would at! more Chriftian Ul if 0e were [faring in judging another mans Jervants, who [t and nfall to their own M after. But the judging there forbidden > being a rafh ftlfifli judging of others in things in- different, as meats or drinks , and (as Calvin pa- laphrafeth the words ) de faminmmfaHis pnmmciare extra the fccond Dialogue 1 7 extrarerhum Dei defatlisaliorum non licet ftatuerefecundum noftram tpjius ejtimanonem , fed ex verbo Det. That tve are not to judge of 'mens praciifcs by our own opinion, but according to the rule oftlx Word^ and not without its limits . Telling ur furtke, 3that Judicium quod a verbo fumitur, netj'M hum&nim eft neque alicnum . that it ts no human prvat judgement which is dmvnfromthcScripture;, the impertinent application of this paifagecVpremifed, Scripture to our cafejwhich is a practical! difowning of palpable perjuiy , and rui- ning away from fuch, whofejinftru'Stioncauftth ro erre J from the wordsof knowledge , is obviously evident. This is no judging without Gods word , but accor- ding to it, to fay that perjury is perjury, fin is fin. Our Informer by this new knack would takeaway all chri- ftian judgement of discretion , yea by this his wide g!o3e, all judiciall Jdecifions whither civill or eccle~ fiaiiik. Beiides , is not his pamphlet a judging of another mans fervantS;Minifters and people;as fchif- maticks and what not > for difowning Curats upon the iorernentioned grounds. Doth he not and all his party judge, defpile ; and perfecute the people God, for that which he calls indifferent > and a difputahle pein? , at the foot of the page. But to proceed, his Doubter alledging'.i|[ that all ftand bound agaioft ^Bilhops in the Covenants which doe abjure them] hectyes out at? 'all Bound! as a paradox, and tells us that maw Miniflers and people never tcol^ it 3 and askj if I we ttinkjhem bound. Yes we think them bound as we . do juige them bound in Gcds covenant (Den:: 29.) I who were not there . ar well as tbefe who were there, young and \ eld, wives , little ones , from the hewer of wood , fo the drawer of water. It Teems this man either hath net I lead that chape: or understands not the import of I national! compacts even among nations themfelves y J which do cerrainlie oblidge all members in ihe incor- poration, although not perfonally fworne by every indivi* 1 8 A Confutation of individual! * Will he hy that no fubjeft as a born fubjeft oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majeftie, but fuch as have perfonally fworn the oaths of fupre- rmcie or alledgeancfe. If fo, then a man could not be guilty of treafon, which is certainly a breach or this fealty, unlefte he had perfonally fworn, which I know not who will allert. But the doubrer alledging That it obligeth even the poftenty , he tells us that Wit is a ftrange jan:y , Jura' mentum being with cafuifts , vinculum prfonaU 9 binding tbofe that tool\ it only, that accordingly the Covenant [ayes , [we every one for our [elves] and not [for ourfelves and others] ■ '■» ■* That the father who was agamfl bishops > his fwearing should not prelimit his Jons judgement (who s for them)in a difputable point yor obi idge him to aci contrary [to his judgment. ^Ans: I. f hac there are covenant and o.ths real) and hereditary > as well as perfinal , is evident in i fcripuire; and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny ir, which is nor only thus evident » but acknowledged alfo by Cafuifts.. Was not that oarh and Covenant, Deut: 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto (andi by confequenee engadging) their feed for ever, Deut;: 5:2,$. Mofes tells the people emphatically that: God made the Covenant with them who were them alive, even that Convenant at Horeb, though they weic all near dead with whom it wjs made. Nth 9. ?8# all entred into Covenant but only fomc fcaled it. Was not that oath of Jofcphs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan , the oath to rheGibeonites , iuch as did reach and oblidge their pofteritie ? So that oath betwixt David and Jo- nathan. 2 Sam: 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is fuch, cannot be doubted, it being about matters of perpetual] and everlafting importance , which no time can alter, evacuat or limit, and having the publick the fecond Dialogue, ip publick faith of Church and ftat:interpofedtherin,by a vovvand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath : And likewife ' being in its nature promiiTorv , in relation to duties 3 midfes and ends -perpetually necejfary and oblidging, it is palpably evident that it is really and not perjonau only. 2. For that ex- preffion , every one far our f elves , it is very imperti- nently here alleadged to exclude the pofterity : for the end and motive of the oath before this is expreffed to be, the glory of God , the advancement of Chrifts king- dome i the happinefs of the Ktng ami his pofterity 3 the true public\ liberty , fafety of the l^ng&omes &c. wh'erin every ones private itate is includec^which of neceffity includes the pofterity and deiignes the obligation for them. Next , in the clofe of the firft article, the pofterity is expreily taken in , when the end and defigne of the matters therin contained is faidto be, that we and our pofterity after us may live in faith and love &c: And in the Clofe of the f. article we engadge to endeavour that the K^ngdomes may rtmaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all pofterity : and therefor his negative inference viz : for our J Ives , and not for our pofterity , is oppofit unto ttie very fenfe , fcope, and words of this oath: fo that this ciauie is cleary referable unto the various capacities ", conditions , and relations , wherein , in o.utr to the work ot God, the then engadgets flood. 3. his notion about frelimning the fon by the fa- thers engadgement , is a poore fhift. For thLS might be objected againft any nationall mutuall cornp t , in matters of a farr lower nature then this, i his might have been objected againft Jofuahs oath to the Gibeonites. Might not the pofterity look upon it as a diiputable point to keep unto them, and might not Zedekiahs pofterity look on it as a difputabie point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon? I won- 20 A Confutation of I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now conftitme , and oblidge for our felvcs and pofterity , tbit it rtnll Hand in this pofture. Sure he will nor deny the warrantablenefs of this, fince he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apoitolick frame, owaed by the primitive Church. But fhall the fons judgement who is other wayes minded i be prelimited by the father, or els muft he a& contrary to his judgement ? let the Informer fee to this. If he Uy its nor a difputa- ble point to hold the prefent prelacie , and that there- for the foa is oblidged 10 informe his judgement and aft rationally » the obligation to thedtuie carrying ia its bofom a prior obligation to know it : furely he rauft acknowledge that this is our cafe and anfwer as to the Covenant j and that confequently his objection is naught, and the horns of his horned argument arc crooked , fo that it pufhes us with neither of them. We might alfohere tell him that aprclimitamn as topra* Rice , in many tilings not indiipenfably necefiary; will fall under the fathers paternall power over Childien1, witnefle that cafe of the Rechabites: And that this will notin every trung inferre a prelimi , txtvin in judgment as to the object fimpliciter : Nay who knows noc mat the great morali precept [honour Thv Father and thy Mother] imports a very exten- fi ve obligation upon Children as fuch » in order to o- bedience to parents > andgivesunto parents a large , and exteniive authority hereanent. But mall the ion be prelimit in his judgment anent all thefe» or a£t contrary to it? fo this objection ( in the Informers fen- fc3 and according to his fcope ) will blurre out great pare of the 5c. Command* But what needs more , the matters here engadged unto, are impor- tant truths and dutys , not difpu table points , ashe an4 the reft of his adiaphorilt laticudinarnn party would tbcfecond Dialogue 2i would make them : and therefor we are under per- petuall obligations to owae and mantaine the fame. But if this man will abide aquerehere., and a Btle retortion of* his notion further, thinks he it no: hard to prclimit the faithful 1 rniniilery and profef- forsofthis nation? in their judgement about his dis- putable points of the prefent conformity y by fo many laws and ads, orelfe oblidge them to aft contrary to their judgement ? Sure fathers have at leaft as great a if not agreater authority to limit their < dren, then the Prelats and their party to prelimit the Presbyterian .Minifters of this Church. Efpecially (which is our advantage in this comparifon) the chil- dren being fuppofed under no previous contrary obli- gations to that which in this cafe the farhers put upon them in relation toprelacie, as the non-conformids areunder counter obligations to that which isnow demanded of them by their perfecuutors. „MrCrofton. (inhisanalepfis, pag. 145. J 5> tells 33 us that confidering the Covenant as made by the ?, people of England, asaKjngdm and a Political! bod) , ^prcfefjing the reformed religion, it looks like a national! ,. obligation, that the confluence' 0 f 'public.^ after* and „ authority by the people collectively end diitnbuti- confidered , tbeacceffion of Royal lafient , ma- la kes it a Publicly and national! Covenant , binding aS ^ferfons of the nation (thatf\vareJ or fwarenot perfo- L nally ) and our pejierity after us * in their particular j, places . and all that shall fucceed unt-otbi fubhe^f laces » ,: and Politick* capacities of this kingdom , to pi eferve and „ purfuethe things therein prcmifed, fo long as it re* ,, maines a kingdom , under one king , and in the pr9* 9ifi!flonofone reformed religion. He enforces this v'\[h „ the lord chief Barons fpeech , to the condemned ,3traytorsattheoldbaylie [you were bound to bears ialiegance to your king, yea though you am not have iz A Confutation of ,,have taken the oath ofalleadgance yourfelves , yet si y ow were bound by the Recogintion of king James „ and his pofterity made at his firft coming to the crown 5,oi this Realme, by' the whole parliament, being yy the whole collective bodv of the kindom] hence he ,>inferrs, that they and their pofterity , rnttji needs be b$und, „ who themfelves have [umverfaly] by the authority ,, of fuch who were intruded for them engadged the 3) faith of the nation : for I fee not (faith he J how they j, can give away our eftates or take pardons in the „ name , and to the fecunty of the nation if theymay ^ not in our name make oaths, promifes , and Co- 3, venants to bind us and our Succeeding generations and dpofierities , in (enfe whereof I cannot but defire all ,,that wi(h well to England toconfider the Covenant .> ^,the Solemne League and Covenant. So that with Mr Crofton it is an uncontrovertible point , that the obligation of this Sacred oath reaches the pofterity , which he makes good from thefenfeand pleading of the Lord chief Biron in the point of allcdgance and j fealty to his Majefty which is the fentiment of all La- I wers , and of the law it felf So that what our Iw/Sr- | mer calls ane odd fancy ,* appears to be a mod: (olid t! uth, confonant both to Scripture, reafonand the law of nations. As for the next objection of his doubter anent the fathers oblidging for the child in Baptifn it is not ourargument,norisjtt^W^toihsftateof this queftion, which is concerning a Covenant taken for our feed als well as for our fe!ves > and if he acknowledge thac the father binds not , in the name and room of the childe , ttren it toucheth not our point , for our queftion is a bout fathers taking $n engddgementsfoi themfelves and tbeir j pofterity* As for what the inf&rmer adds here, its good I that he acknowledges that ane oblidging force flows from J the binding mater in that baptifmall Covenant , and that the I childs obligation is fir engthened by his vow > which is enough j m the fecond Dialogue 2} in our cafe againft him , fincethe matter of cur Co- venants ? and vows fall under divine precepts x to which the obligation of the oaths 2nd vows isaccef- forv. So that having fworne to keep thefe holyen- gadgemenrs untcGod, we muft perforrre, and here he contradi&s his forleader 5 the author ofthefeafc* nable cafe, who will have us either acknowledge the matter of the Covenant indifferent,or not plead the force of an oath or vow as fuperadded to that which was duty before. The doubter next objects That having fwcrne againfi prelacie wenujl not any more difpute > or quejlion the wliga- tion, citing , Prcv: 20. 2and bow fane it is Imding.Nzy this is comman- ded , iince we muft both fiveare and performe tnfudge- ment , which requires a knowledge and inquiry &s we kicie before; and when an oath or vow is found material] unlawful!, and vinculmnXniqiiitatis 3 it is no tranfgreffion of this precept to quite it* Such an inquiry as is in order to the underftanding and performance of this vow in faith, we will allow whither to young or old. Onlv for what he fayes #/ many who were pit tofweareatfchools and co Hedge s^ami engaJge in this Covenant , who could not do it in uidgement , it is a calumnie which he cannot juftihe , all being ex- horted and inftru&ed therein who were come to Years of difcrecion , fo as to bejn capacity to enter into this Covenant , with judgement : and if leiTer youngones prefent in congregations where it was fworne? did fignifieafpontaneous confent, it wasno more* then whatlfraels litle ones did by their prefence before the Lord 2 Deuc : 19+ Well , but what is forbidden here i a A Confutation ©f chre to make ^nauiry \ faith he) botv thevoiv may be eluded* This is ingenuouflie faide^nd hereby his own lips con- dense him and all hisparry, who have been nowfor many years , racking their wits to finde out evafipns how to elade this Sacred vow, Witneffe the many pamphlets on this Subjeft fince his Majeftie 's returne > and this mans among the reft. But the Doubter alleading that upon inquiry w twill finde our fives bound againfl prelacy both by the nationaU £# foiemme League. He falls upon his impugnation firft of the national! Covenant , telling us as touching it [that theterme of the Popes tricked hiearchv will not include prelacie , as the furvey of Naphtali fully proves] well , let us hear thefe proofs. The firft is becaufe kjy:g James and h*s ccunfel (the impofers of that Covenant, andtbs takers of it, Anno 1580) did in anno I jSl: ratify- the agreement at Lath, made betwixt the Cowniijioncrs of the fate and Church anno I f% l. which was in fabbxrs of epifcopjey* *iAnd wou]d lbt\fng and counfeB the next year have acted f contrary to it , if they had thought; a!l epifcopapy to be abjured trenn An\\ Is this the great demon ft rati on \ which the Survever, and he have drawen cut to prove this point 5 this being nothing but the old mufty ftore of the Seasonable cafe i better propounded therein , then its here. To this I fay* fiift, it is a very weak or rather wilde proof to conclude that fuch a corruption as prelacie could not be imported in that exprefiion > Btcaufe the takers and impofers did fomctime afttrcoint r- aSl and contradict their tngadgemint : muft the (enfe of a promiliory oath and Covenant be meafured by the after practice of engadgers? Sure he will nor dan e to admit this rule, and yet its the very topick of his argument. I would but ask him , if we could clearly democrat from the words of this oath, and from this the fecond Dialogue: ^f this cxpreflion , that epifcopacy is therein abjured, inuft he not grant that this argument taken from their after pra&iee who took it , will fignifie nothing, fince it cannot ftand good againft the fenfe of the words, and the obligation natively refulting there- from. Sure he cannot deny this , elfe he will fwallew monftrous abfurdities. And therefor unleffe he can difprove our arguments , which do prove prelacie to be abjured in that oath, and by the words in their genuine fenfe? he muft grant that this fraBicall argu» mm will fignifie nothing. 2. He might have found that the Apologift outfliootsthe Surveyer and him, as alfo the Seafonable cafe in their own bow, and breaks this argumem with a wedge of "their own fet- ting: for whereas they alledge that about a year or leffe after this Covenant was impofed and taken > King James ratified that aggreement at Leith. He retorts that at the affemblyisli. which had declared prelacie utterly Unlawfully and without wan and m ths wordy the Kings Commiflioner prefented to them (together with the Covenant fubferibed by the King) a plot of presby terys to be erefted by him through the Kingdom > together with his letter to noblemen and gentlemen to be affiftant therein > and for diffolving prelacies 5 to make way for thefe judicatories made up of Minifters and Elders. Hence (Saithhe) how -could King James intend prelacy by this confeffion fince the felf f?me day (afhorter time then half a ; j year) wherein this confefiion (fubferibed by him and his houfhold) was prefented to be fubferibed by the : aflembly , he prefented a plot of presbyteries to be cre&ed through the Kingdom. Now let our Abfol- vers Medium come in here , would King indcourleii have afted fo much for presbytery , and in oppofitien to Prelacie, in that very day wherein this nationall i Covenant was orcieutcd by him , If he had aot judged i6 A Confutation of prelacie to be therein abjured , and presbyterie en- gaged unto- And ( if thisaflemblies carriage will have any weight in this argument) would they have recorded this oath as the Teft and badge of this their nacionall engagement , after they had immediatly before judicially declared againft prelacie 5 if they had not looked upon ir as abjured therin , and under- ftood this oath in a fenfe oppofit thereunto. The Informers next rearon is^that in their Jlr wings with the King to get pelade away , they never ufed this argument* that it was abjured in the nationall Covenant , which they ivould have done > had they thought it to be included, in thatexprejjion, of [the\? opes Hier archie.] This, our In- former hath very juftly copied out of the Seafonable cafe. What ? had the Surveyer in all thefe pages which he cites , no new notions to furnifh him with , that this proflor is ftill feeding on the old ftore. But to the matter , firft , bow f I pray) runs this argument, [ Minifters pleaded not this obliga- tion at that time with King James : Ergo, There was no fuch meaning in the nationall Covenant ] furely thisisa wide confequence. 2. this is yet wi- der [we know not of any fuch pleading at that time : ergo there was none] befides, he might have found that the Apbllogift tells him out of Petries hift ; pag. 448. That Mr. Melvin in anno 1584. writing to divines abroad anent our Church , fliews them that three years fince , the discipline of this Church was ap- proved j jealed , and confirmed with profeffion of faith , fubfcriptionofband, and religion of oath , by the King and every jubjett of every fiate particularly. And that (pap; 570 ; he fhews that when fome Minifters (anno 1 604) were accufed by the Synod of Lothian as to a defigne of overturning the government * the fy nod pre- fented the confeffion of faith to them, astontaininganc abjuration of prejacit, and a vow for presbyterian govern-^ the /econd Dialogued ij government, And that Mr. Forbes one of the im- >annel]ed IV inifters for holding that meeting at Aber- ieen in anno ftfof. in hisdifconrfe to the gentlemen yf the afiize , fnewed thatthey were bound by the national! Covenant to mantaine the discipline of the Church , and laving; read it to them , he toldthem that they would e guilty of perjury , if for feare or flattery they difcernd hat to be treafon which themfdves hadfworneandjubjcribed* Who alfo defired the Fade of Dunbar to fhew the ^ing what followed upon the breach of the oath to the Gibeo- itesy and that they feared the like shodd fall on him and ispflerity. The Seafonable cafe (p3g:ij.) acknow *dges that Minifters at that time lookt upon them- jlvesas obliged againft prelacy, by the national Co- enant, as well as we by the League , in plaine contra- iftion to Ms Informer. As for that which he adds [of ieza's intention in writing againftprelacie] wefpoke ) it already upon the firft dialogue. And feeing this lan objects to us Beza here again , we will offer to his ^nfiderarion , Beza his 79. epiftle written to John ^nox , and dated at Geneva, Aprile 12. if 6i4 Whe- 'in he fayes , », This is the blefling of God that ye > brought into Scotland , together wirfi the fownd dodhine, tvrahai or gooddifcipline ■■ he obrefts him to keep thefetwo, fince iftheonebe loft, the other cannot longcontinue there- after he imputes it to thiscaufe, viz the want of this pure difcipline, that thegofpellis preached to manvin judgement , not in Mercv. Then he adds, I would have thee {my Knox) and the reft cf the brethren remember ( which is now as be for our eyes ) that as theVishops brought in the papacie , fo thtfe fdfe Bishops the re litis ofpapacie* Will bring Epicurifine into thz Church. Let them beware of this whoever wish the fafety of the Church : and feeiug ye have once banished is out of Scot" , land > receive it never again, albeit tt doth flatter with the X Z ibete i8 A Confutation of shew of retaining unity, whereby many of the beft ancients Wer deceived. Sc2 Petries hift. part* 3. pag. 376. The Doubter next enquiring what is meant by thi Topes bier archie. He anfwers , not all Bishops , but thej vhoaftually depended upon the Pope , and that all Bishop can no more be understood > then reformed Presbyters , wh renounce their dependance upon him 5 Presbyters and Deacon being a part of hts hier archie , as the Council of Trent deter* mines* Anf. This is already removed when we did flieu that prelacy is here abjured fimpliciter* and abfoluty,ab« ftra&ing from this dependance,it being here abjured a: other corruptions are abjured, not mainly or only becaufe the Pope brought themin (as the affembl) atGlafgowin the year 1638 clears it in their expla- natory ad , and likewife theApollogift pag. 396. ] but as a corruption. vexfe&[ua natnra of its owr nature > contrary to the word of God , and the pwr received do&rine of this Church.lt is Hts Wtcked kierm chie as the reft of the corruptious therein enumerat are called [£ix]'fuch as invocation of Saints, dc dications of altars &c. Becaufe introduced by hin not to diftinguifli thefe corruptions , from a lawfu dedication of altars , worfliipping of Images &r« Doth this man thick that thefe Reformers woulj have admitted fucb corruptions prefented under ami ther notion then the Popes authority , and obtrude! by this Argument; that their depeniance upon him bev\ broken off* they wer* no more te be accounted his corruptions* or that they would have embraced extreme undiof orfome other of his Sacraments , and the inferiof orders of Le&orsi Acoluthi, Exorcifts &c: up J fomc other eonfideration then his Sacraments or ci- ders ? furely he dare not aflert this, and fo thecal is here. 2. As for his reafon that otherwife all JVi niflers and Deacons should be abjured. 1 1 i s very i m per* nent, Eecaufej 1. Miniiters and Deacons, are fo neirher prelacie nor the Papacy can confift •with Presbyterian government , and Presbyters divine right and power. The Doubter next objefts [that all Bifhops depend •on the Pope, citing Appol: pag.j 9$ ♦ And that there- for all Epifcopary is abjured in this oath. ] He anfwers, the Apohgiejayes they depend upon the Pope y ineffe & operari , but asfa how he proves it , and tHls us that to Jay [it is Jo becaufethe Pope acknowledges they .depend upon him \4l0ne , is a poor becaufe , evident to any ordinary capacity , Wefohing this upon the Popes [ipfe dixit] like a Papift , \*nd gives the Pap fis that advantage over Protejlant Chut' iches , that a Bishop depends upon the Popes fupremacie , \^now and from the beginning, wherein be faith., proteftants tdo oppofe the Pope and prove that his fupremacy was con~ ^radiEled by Councils and Fathers. %Anj\ The iiliy 1 fnper» rtinency of this new agent of the tottering caufe, is mere very evident 3 in thus reflecting upon that Au- thor, whofe . anfwers to thefe poor arguments of the ifieafonabie cafe , he dare not touch. For that Pam- phlecer alleging [ that Prelates are not abjured ia that Covenant, but as they depend on the Pope, as l| t abjures the five baftard Sacraments , as he make* ihem Sacraments, and that therefor the corruptions it)nly of thefe offices which flow from him ,arcabju- X 3 red, go A confutation of •red , and as apart of his blafphemous prlefthood. ] The Apollogift taking this conceflion* inferrsthere- ,, upon* ,,That if thete offices be abjured as a part of 3, his Hierarchie, and as confirmed by, and depending upon him, then Prelates are abjured, who depend ii upon him in ejJe (3 operari. The Prelate as fuch 5, being no officer of divineappointment, as the Pi ef- 33 byteraad deacon , which if they were , then this „ Cafuifts argument would hold good i that we were 3, to remove the corruption, and retain the inftitution 3, and ordinance of God. But fince wedofuppofc 3, the office itifelf to be a corruption , and he hath not 9i proved the contrary, hisparalled as to the baftard 3, Sacraments is naught. And to clear this matter of fadl that thuy are a part of the Popes hierarchie , by the] Popes acknowledgement, that Author cites Peter Suave in his hiftory of the council of Trent j where the Pope would not have it'determined, whi- ther Prelats were furit Divini , left they fhould not depend upon him after this as formerlie. Now the queftion here being , whether the Pope lookf upon Pre- lates as a part of his hierarchie , as in the capacity of Pre* latesl in order to the clearing of this other Que- ftion depending betwixt this reverend author, anc the Author of the Searenable cafe > viz, whither our Re- formers intended to abjure Prelats in that Covenant , as & fart of the Popes hierarchie. To clear this matter q: fa&, what could be mote pertinent then the Pope! own acknowledgement ? and judiciall declarator i that defatlo they depend upon him , and areo wned as parts of his hierarchie j is in this convincingly appa- rent. Thar dejure they have no divine warrand , thii author fuppofed it as his principle, the contrary wheroi, neither that Pamphleter , nor any other hath proved. So that the Popes [ ipfe dixit] in this, isfufficienttc prove this matter of fait. That he made not the Po- pcSi the fecond Dialogue } I pes, [ipfe dixit], the rule to decide whither this officer be juris divini 3 or not , is in this convin- cingly evident ( and by confequence this mans obvious folly in imputing to himfuch ane aiTertion ) that he grants, that if this Cafuift had proved the Prelate to be juris divini > and inftitute by (Thrift or his Apoftles,then the ?.bjuring~of the Popes wicked Hie- rarchic] , would import only the abjuring of ^the cor- ruption of this officer], whofe hwfull office might be flill retained: but this cafuift taking this for granted that he is fo inftitute, and reafoningupon that fuppo- fition 3 the author had eood ground, until his Anta- gonift as the affirmer fhouldpio vehis fuppofition , to hold faftth«s own principle viz , that the prelats E- pifcopal being is papal : which is cleared by many of the Learned from convincing Teftimonies. Let this Refolverread Leo (epift.Ss.) andSwave (Tom, 4. pag. 465. of the Council of Trent , fclT. 23. cap, 4/deSacram. ordmis) where Anathema is pronounced upon any that denyes Prelates power of ordination. &c. over Presbyters. I fuppofe he were alleging a^ainftaPapift that fomeof thePopiih orders are ef- fential pieces of his hierar :hie s and ihould prove it by the Popes acknowledgment and conftitutions, would he think the Papjds rejovnder good > ergo, ye owne the Popes authority , and make bis , [ipfe dixit] judge* Say it were a queition anent ths Acoluthi or Exor* ctjls &c. Whither they are a part of the Popes Hie- rarchie? would he not think the Popes acknowledg- ment and owning them for fuch > to be a diffident ar- gument to prove thisPsince he fuppofethfand rational- ly) that they have no other right either ine£fe>oxoperaru Do not all our divines draw Arguments from the Pope and his councils acknowledgment , to prove iheir owning of many corruptions , and that they are properly thens. But do they juftifie the Popes X 4 I/P«1 jx A Confutation ot [Ipfe dixit] in proving this > or in this method of ar- guing? fince they doiuppofe aliunde , that they have no divine right , as the Apologift in the point of pre- lacie rationally doth- 2» as for what he adds of prote* ft ant Cbarcktt^r Prelates, their oppoftng the Popes pretended right and Supremacy bereanent, we fay that they imp jgnc his fl'premacy beft , who lay an axe to its root [prelacie]. And to grant that prelacy is of it$relf a part of his Hierarchie, will no more juftify his fupre- macy, then Pauls fayingthat the myfterie of iniquity was working in his time would do it. And al tho the firft Proeftores or Bifliops did not formally depend upon him j yet as a humane device they made way for him, and eatenus > are a part of his Hierarchie, which the oppofitionof fome Bifliops whenh,e firft attempted fupremacy doth nothing invalidat. Be- fides that the queftion here betwixt the Apologift and that Pamphleter, was about prelacie as it appeared be- for the Reformers in its then being and would , but not of the firft proeftotes or moderatours. What he adds here anent Calvin [his o wning of a hierarchie,and pronouncing Anathema upon them who would dif- fowneic, if cut off from its dependance upon the Pope] is anfwered already upon the u Dialogue. He^e £ ftiallonly acde, that ifCalvin in that paflage, oppofed untOthe [Popifli Bifliops] Such as take Chriji fe* their head y what curfe will he not judge them worthy of, whoowne and plead for fuch Bifliops as pretending to renounce the Popes headfhip $ take for their immediat head a civil Pope , and make him as to all fpirituall maters, a more abfolute head then the Popehimfelf. As for his argument frork thefe Minifters who rea- foned with the Do&orsoP-Aberd.en [their declaring that the Dodors might; tktcfc the Nationall Covenant » andyet debate and vote"fe relation to epifcopacie in -C the the" fecond Dialogue 3 j the enfuing aff^mbly ] I wonder what blurred this mans eyes , that citing pag. 39 th:.y could not give the fenfe of dead men* To this the Apologift anfwers , ,, that there is alfo a vinculum „ rea7e> as this nationall oath was. andthatit oblid- m gitfg all the Land, and the pofterity, we were accor- „ dingly in order to performance , bound to Search 3, into its meaning, and that this was the proper work sy & duty of a general aiTembly.That that cafuift him- 5y felf acknowledged (which this borrower fhould have „ noticed) that this was the judgement of Minifters j, concerning its fenfe when prelates were firft obtrud* ^edupon this Church* fothat its true meaning from „ hand to hand was come to them, and that they were „ the more fWMfo to judge ofit. And whereas the ar- gument of the Seasonable cafe had a Limitation in it which this man forgott, viz: [unlefs that aiTembly could produce authentick evidences that this was the meaning of Impofers] the Apologift told h m that they did produce authentick exprefle evidences, that fuchwasthe meaning of the firft takers. I would know how this man comes to defcant upon the fenfe of ancient writers in this pamphlet, and to determine anent fcntences of private writers , dead feverall centuries of years agoe ? He is very confident in fafl> the fccond Dialogue. $5* faftning his Gloffes upon Jerom's words, I trowc that Author is dead morethen5$. yearsagoe. And for as clear as his words are againft the divine right of prelacie , yet this man thinks he is Cock (lire that this was not the meaning of Jerom's words > which presbyrerians alledge. Quis talia ftndo , temper et a riftt. But the Seasonable cafe goes on to objeft next (and this refolver followesupathis heels. ) ThataJ which that Afiembly produceth ( Seji. 16 ) to prove this to be the meaning of that Oath > amounts only to this y that the Qhurch about that time of taking the Covenant, and alfo afterward , was labouring againji Bishops , but proves not that epifcopacie was abjured in the words of the oath. Now why would he not do his Doubter fuch a fma!l piece of juftice, as to put into his mouth the large anfwer of the A pollogift to this argument, from (pag.406. ro 409 ) Bur this would have made him too ftiffe a Doub- ter for this Refolver or Informer: but had he nothing in the Jan^r to refolve this? Well3thc A pollogift here tells him and his Leaders in this argument , ,, that the » Covenant fuppofeth a Government then id being , 3> to the defence of which it obiidgeth: that that Go- j, vernment wasnotprelacie^btit presbytery,he clears 5, by a large induction of our afiemblies ads and pro- *3 Cfdour, as the AfTembly 163$. did before ; fo that, X3 that matter of faft being clear, there is No doubt ;, but that the nationall Covenant binds to defend and 33 preferve presbyterian Government then owned and » exiftings even as its engadgement to defend the 3> King muft needs be understood of King James who t9 was then reigning. That this was the government then Exiftent and owned by this Church , we cleared infhort already , and need not here repeat it. But 3. this Informer (paffing over a more plaufible ob- jeftion of his Matter the Seafonable cafe ) enquires by what 36 A Confutation of what wan and that faffembly could put [upon 'others their fenfe of the Covenant 5 they wight decUre their own fenfe (faith he) which poffibly was not right , but how could they Midge others to their fenfe , who had taken it before) , the fir ft impofcrs having given them mfuch power* The Apollogift here toid him, thacthis aiTembiy put no fenfe of their ov/nuponany who took it either before or after, but as the representatives of this Church gave a judiciall interpretation of it , and by authentick evidences made it appear, that this was the fenfe of the impofers, and of the Church of Scotland when it was taken » and that fuchasfware it before with an explicatory addi- tion [to forbear the approbation of prelacie, untill the adrmbly fliould try whither it wasabjured in that oath] did confequently commit this unto, and were accordingly depending upon the afTembly to de- clare the meaning therof; befides that the judicial interpretation ofthisnationall Church her oath, did of right belong unto this herfupreme judicatory as is faid. Here the Doubrer objefts [ that thofe who took thr Covenant after it wasthusfenfed bytheaf- fembly, have abjured Epifcopacy]. To this be an- swers that the ajlemblydtd intend to put no other fenfe upon ft) ft en the fenfe of the words, andofthefirft impofert. Very true , but what then ? the firjt impofers havingno Juchn:eamw(f&ythhe) as to abjure Epifcopacie, theafiem- bhes ground failes , and their pofterior meaning could not btndagainft the fir ft meaning. 1 his Jaft is e3fily granted* but the great pinch lyes in this , bov proves he that the fir ft Impofers never m caned it againft Epifiopacie. Th i s he fayes is already fhewed, but where ? we mull waite it feemsfor anew pamphlet to get an account of this great proofe. The Doubter next alleadeth to purpofe [that we engadgeour felves in that Covenant to adhere to this Church in do&rine, faith, religion and difdpline, *nd the fecond Dialogued 37 ^— — - and to continue in the dodtrine and difciplin thereof, which is Presbyterian difcipline;] To this he answers. Tbatly difcipline , cannot be meant Pr a plot of Presby tries,and his letter enjoyning their ere<3ion,& to diffolve prelacies,toge- ther with the fubferibed Covenant ? how did this ow* epifcopacy ? let Royalifts take notice what an ingrai- ned difTembler this man makes ^ing James , in faying that he ftill owned epifcopacy , when fo palpably dif- owningit tothefenfe of all reafonablemen* And if Y ing James came all this length as to the inttoducing of Presbytrie, Surely Minifters eflayes with him for this end , were very effeftuall. Befides , its a Door argument to prov* that this proteftant organick Church was not at that time owning Presbyterian goverment", or ex- ercifmg it (and by confequenre that the Difcipline as then exiftent,*fworne to be mantained in that oath, is not Presbyterian ) to fay that king James owned cpifcopacie, Nay , in granting theie eflayes of Mi- nifters 3 8 A Confutation of mfters for Presbytry , he grants that Presbyterian go- vernment was owned* For furelam what was their fenfe and endeavours as to Presbyterian government from the beginning , the fame were the fenfe and en- deavours of the body of this protelranc Church. But his id anfvver to the premifed obje&ion of his Doub- ter is ufhered in wirh a therefor\ — what next ? there- for the government meant in it mufl be Epifcopacie, if any farm ticutar mode of government be underftood. This is well Itept out* a piece beyond hisMafterthe Seafonablecafe, who hardly comes this length. The man that will let us Epifcopacie in this Church at that time.asthe Govern- ment imbracd by her, muft have odd profpe&ives,and of a like quality with thefe of our Informer , which have defcryed Diocefian Bifhops in Scripture* We heard that the Seafonable cafe grants [that Minifters then lookt on themfelves as oblidgedagainft epifcopacie, both by the nationall Covenant , and by the word of Godlpray Sir,be tender of thefe Ministers reputation, were theyfo principled and ftill owning epifcopacie too?chis is ftrarge, yea and owning it and promifing t o defend it in thisCovenant,Befides,howwill he reconcil our Churches labouring now dgainftBishoys,zckv\o\v\e&g- ed by him pag. 1 1 8. with her praHifing Epifcopacy ,which heaiTertspag, it 8* Buthisanfwerhathaprovifo [if any particular mode of government was underftood,] But why will thislatetudinarian Informer caftthe mift ot a hefitating [if J upon a clear and plaine truth? ftran^e ! Speaks not the Covenant of an exillent frame of Government embraced bv this Church ? What ! Were ihey embracing a Proteus ? was it an exiftent in- dividunm vagum , or materia prima , fome Embryon thac had received yet no forme ? But how proves he that Prelaciewasfworneunroin thafOath? Becaufe (faith h e ) the Year after, the King ratified the agreement at Leith in favours of Epifcopacie. This we heard before, and did ihew what an infignificanc reafon it is t from King Ja- mes the fecond Dialogue?' 39 mes practice a year after, to inferre whatisthefenfe and intendment of this Oarh>and the takers of it- A to- pick and reafon which none who are folid and ration- al will admitr. Yet the hiformer dill heats upon this Anvill. Befides, the Apollogifttellshim (rag. K- ) that this treatv at Leith, anno i?7f, teas rppofed and cenjured by the Nationall kfJemVy , the very next year ; So that this national Church in herfuprem judicato- ry , gave no confent unto , but oppofed that treatv, and whatever recefles from her Presbyte- rial Government 3 were therin begun ; Bur this mans fqeemifh eyes, ftil overlooks what he cannot anfwer. Now remai k our Informers profound ard fub- till reafoningln this point. Ktilg James did nor ab- jure epifcopacy in theNationall Covenant, why fo ? Becaufe the next Year he afted for Epifcopacie* And when we allege that the Government to which that Covenant oblidgeth , was Presbyterian Govern- ment which was then exifte-nt 5 he tells us that the Government then exiftentwas epifcopall. And when he is put to theproofeof this paradox againft fuch clear evidences, he juft recurrs again and tells us (for his proof) that King James then acted for e- pifcopacie 3 fine circular reafoning this is > and the Informer fhall thus never want a Medium > cV knows ex- adtly to anfwer the folideft argument a2dipft-him with turning , according to theSouldiers dialed asyewere. But what is meant by [difcipline] in that Covenant? Thefubjiantialis of it (favth he) and necejjary policie as e xpr eft in the firft dook of difcipline , 9 ♦ Cap. which is un- alterable , tho particular formes (as fome think) may be changed. But 1. Why will this verfatil Informer bemift his reader .what dark and genera! 1 expreflions. Whi- tker means he the [efiential necejjary Policy,} according , to' that phrafe of the bool^ , or a neceflary Policy expreft and aferted in that boo{ ? If the firft , I would ask him . U Why condeicends he not upon chat eifodtial and nc 1 4° A Confutation of neccffary folicy , and ^ives no account of its nature and extent , as it is contradiftinguiflied from that which is not neceflary , but mutable. 2. Jf by fubftan- tials of Government > he mean all Churcb-officers of divine appointment t according to the Scripture ac- count of their qualifications , their authority , and its dueexeicife,with whatfenfeorreafon can he fuppofe, or any els , that this wil,not determin a particular form , & canfubfift without it r how can a particular foim be more formaly and explicitly defciibed then thus ? But, next, if bv neafiaryFtlicy ,hz underftand tbe\P§li- cy held out andafferted in that firfi book > I w ould ask him. fc; Why excludes he ihe fecondboo{, which was at this time extant and received , and which doth in feverall chapters viz. 5,6,7, S. treat of the Paftor,Doftor3 Eld- er*, ane Deacons office , which he will no doupt own as fubfianttall peeces of Church -policy > being f© clearly afiened in Scripture. i* Why anfwers he not to the account & character of that firft book given by the Apoll: (pa£.io.) who tz]\s him that it overthrtmes pre- laey in the eftablishing of Church- fefftons , the way of election and mall $fMinifters,and feverall other things contrary to the epifcepall method s will he by this filence content > that prelacy ilands in oppofition to the fubfiantialh of Church Government , and the utterly necefjary Policy \therofi to a policy indeed umUer able , (to ufehis time phrafe)? • if he (ay, that he under ft ands by this phrafe, that policy which is necelTary in either or both thefe books,but not th^ intir. Policy delineated therin; how will he prove that the Covenant.obligation in the Intention of the irapofers* reaches the on and not the other ? Next\ would ask this Informer , whither thioks he that particu - /ar forms of Government are alterable* yea or not? if not, howcomeshetodiftinguilh them in this, from the eflentiall necelTary Policy which he cals unalterable ? it he think them alterable > why doth he not pofitivdy af- ferc the fecond Dialogue. 41 jertthis, but prefents this opinfnion 2%. the thoughts of Umeonly, and cenfurs StiJJingflcets opinion herin ( pag. 76.) Be/ides^ if by [fubftanrials of Government] heun- ftand[rhedifciplinaflTerccdin that book>]he juftlesand deals ftroak* what his reverend j father B. Spots- wood ? in his charader therof exhibit inhisHifro- T>' > Pa£- 174- Forfirft, hehyesit was framed in im*< ration of the Government of the refcrmtd Cbnrcb in Gene- va y which all know was Presbyter.an. adly.He fayes it m could not take effeB as being but a Dream* And did he call the [ fubftantialls of Government] but a Dream > thinks this man? Surely either the Bifhoporourlw- former dreams, gdly. Hewisbttb \ohn Knex bad ratain* ed the old policy , and therefore in hisfenfe this policy was diftinft from Prelacie. On the other hand the framers (theMiniftry owneing ir ) fupplicat the Par- liament after it was drawn up for [the reftauration of* the Difciplineof the ancient Church , ] and for dis- charging the Popes ufurpation, and of all that Difci- pline that did flow therefrom, as inconfiftent with the Discipline of the ancient Churchjand the Difciplin contained in that book. How abfurd is it to fup- •pofe that it was only fubjlantiall: which was at this time exiftent , and no particular forme ; it being a forme of Government and the Difcipline of this Church , which the Covenant oblidges unto ; and the Apologiftas, well as the AfTembly i6$8. could have given him a large accounted proof of a particu* Jar forme at this time exiftent. In a Word 3 let us have all the fnbftantialls cf Government, i. c. AUChurch officers divinely appointed,with their due power and Afiemhlies higher and lo\\;er 5 and it will quickly juftle his prelacie to the door , and rc ake him him and KSFathers feeft he dint of the true Church of Scotland , her fword and cenlure? for what they have dene, if they repent nor Y CHAP 4* A Confutation of C H A P. IIL The Abjuration ofVrdaciein thefolentne League and Covenant 9 mndieat from the exceptions of this Znformer. Alfo Mr Crofton and Timor- ous acquit of affoordwg any Patrociny to bis caufe. Dr Sander Jon ftands m terms ofc$ntra* diftion to him in this point. T>Ut now this ourOedlpesand doubt refolver who ^hath acquit himfelf fo dexreroufly inabfolving u* from the nationall Covenant, irarches up after the Seasonable cafe , to try how he can play the abfolver as to the folemne Jeanne. And his Doubter making a wide ftep to the id. Article [wherein he allegech Bifhops are abjured, and that Proteftant Bilhopsare meant]. To this he anfwers , That its not every kjndeof Pnttjlant 3'iflwps that tU there intended , and that Timor- cus (p4g.i4>ltf. ) hoMs that all epifcopacy is not abjured, but that they could in England freely Submit to the primitive tpifcopacy vi* , the prectdencie of one over the reft > with- out w\>om nothing is or dinarly to be done in ordination and jurtfdiSion that f hey affert its only the Englifo kind* of prelacy (Xprefad in the Article for that end)that is abjur- ed ^ which we haze not in Scotland. That Mr Vines and Cat- taly the 2d. Article of the league, which relates to the Ihurch of Englarjd,wherein only that prelacy was exi- lent. For fince Scotland, fiom the time of our refor- nation never had fuch a Prelacie as the adverfaries ac- knowledge, they muft confequently grant that the pre- acie which that article engadgeth to extirpat , is not blely or mainly the Prelacie which we ftand oblidged igainft in that Covenant, but a Prelacy inconfiftent with Presbyterian Government ( and under that for- mallconfideration) which in the firft article we are en* »adged to preferve. In order to which prefervation of [>ur reformed difcipline from our own Prelacie, the rd Article, which doth relate to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland 3 is fubfervient as a nv?an to its end. This is convincingly clear 5 fori. Extirpation and Prefervation being oppofite terms, and the laft being made ufe of as to our Church of Scot- land , muft needs relate to Presbyterian Government as then eftablilhed , in all its previledges > which clear- ly excludes the epifcopacy formerly exiftent therein 5 And the extirpation, and nfermation ingadged to in the 2d. Art. muit relate to the then exiftent Prelacy in England and Ireland, and that by way of mids leading unto? and for execution of the ends of prefervingour ownefiablijhed reformation , engadged unto in the firft Article. 2. We faid already that our Parliament did refcind all ails againft our epifcopacy , together with the foiemne league , and reftore Prehts to the fole poffeiilon of Church Government under the King, declaring clearly that the -prefervation engadged unto in the firft article, cannot confift with our Prelacie* Again , as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in fo far as is neceilar? in order to iheprcftrving of our own eftablifhed reformation > by this Church prin- cipally vowed and intended > io that claufe in ihe y 2 end 44 A Confutation of end of the id. Article , viz. [to extirpate whatfofcver is found contrary to found do&rine, and the power ofgojlinefs] amounts both as to us and England * to fuch an extenfive engadg^ment in oppofition to Pre- ]acie,thatit totally excludes it even incur adverfaries mould, under tYAs for malts rat$o as thus oppofit to found doftrine &<:♦ Which hath been cleared upon the firll Dialogue, Next , will this man deny that thefe officers, Arch-Bifli©ps , Bifliops > Deans, Chapters 9 &c# are not in tbcmfelves and limply ab/ured in that 2d. article , or that the Presbyterians in England would not difowne them as inconfiftent with the Covenant ? Sayeshenot that it is only a fixed prefi- dency of order which they are for ? and is this all thatjArch-Bifliops and Diocefian Bifliops do poffefs ? have we not in Scotland Arch-Biftiops, Bifliops^Deans and are we notengadged to extirpat thefe in the 2d. article? how then can he fay thatit is only that com- plex frame with all thefe officers which we are oblid- ged againft. Do not two remarkable claufes contra- dict this glofs ? I we engadgeto extirp ate all Eccle/taf. tkk^efjicers dtpendingon that Hnrarcbie , what? is it only all in bulk5 and not all aad every one? this were equivalent to fuch awilde affertioa, asifoneffcould fay that after the enumeration of thefe evills fcbifm , htrefie, profanneffe, • ...— » which are thus Summed up 3 whatfotvsr is contrary t & found dostyine and the fwtr o/go<#/wep) this engadgement did only relatejtoall thefe evills complexly , and not to every one Jigilatim or apart. 24Whatfoever is contrary to found do&rine in our principles, is there abjured as I faid : but fuch are Bifliops , Arch* Bifliops, and I adde, whatfoever. is inconfiftent with our eftabliflied reformation and with Presbyterian government, isalfohere formally abjured. In the 3 d place , Tinorcus is clearly againil QUI the fecond Dialogue. 45 qur Informer , for in explaining what is that pre- lacy which is abjured , he diftinguifheth a Prelacie of jurifdiEiion j and of meer order. The prelacie of ju- tifdiaion, he iaith is twofold, the firftis., whereby the I uhop hath fo!e power of ordination and jurifdi&ion (fuch as is our prelacy now in Scotland) in which go- vernmentT/raorctfj faith zhztMinifiers.do meet with the oiihoponly ex abundant , to give him advice > which s all that our Curarsare allowed bylaw 5 asis faid ove, and (car^ce that. The id fort of prelacie he paternally wherein the colledge of Presbyters a con.lanc Prelate or Prefident , who mud" con- currewith thcmordinarly in ordination andafts of jurifdiftion. He interprets the Covenantexprefiy to ftri ck againft the Prelate witbfole power of ordination and jurrfdiSlion; which prelacy he calls Popifo even though the Bifhop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government. Now let this man f2y > fince Timorcus (whom he will not afTert that thefe others divines do contradict in this point ) together with theparhament of England according to Timor- cus , do difowne fuch a prelacie asis here defcribed , and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof, doth not this article of extirpa- tion according to their fenfe, clearly reach and cut off the prefent prelacie of diocefian Bi/hops and Arch-Bif- hopsi obtruded upon this Church ? can he deny that they have the fole power of ordination & jurifdiftion, that all the power which Curats have according to our Law , is toghi the Bifaops advice y yea and not that either;, unleffehe judge.thenuo beperfonsof Kjiown loyahieand Prudence. And furelyif this precedency of meer order, hereexpreft , be the only primitive Epifcopaeie , it is far fhort of what our lnfor* mer pleads for , and will never come up to juftifie the prelacie no w exiftent. And iff in the ftnfe of Hmo^ Y 3 cusa 46 A Confutation of cus, and the other divines mentioned , and in the fenfeof the impofcrs of that oath, the extirpation cngadged unto, cuts off whatfoever is beyond this precedency ofmeer order', it is incontrovertible/ clear that even in their fenfe3 the prelacie now exiftentis ob- jured. That Mr- Crofton , and the Presbyterian Cove- nanting pmie in England according to him, are not reconcilable to our prelacie , nor the Covenant in their fenfe , appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant , againft the Oxfor^menand others. InhisAnalepfis (pag.7j.75.) he mentions a breviary of reafons to prove [chic the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie , and that a Diocejav Btflicp y and ane univerfat JAetropd'tan or Pope differ only in degree and limites, not in kind] ci- ting, and approving of Salmafius and Beza's, calling epifcopacie afteptothe papacy, fo that the very office of adiocefian Bifhopas fuch, is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Crofcons judgment,it being with him 2 part thereof. Again (pag.78 . ) whereas the Oxford me n plead [that thev cannot fwear againft epifcopall go- vernment* which they conceive to be of divine or apo- fioiick inftftatiorr] he chargth them and Dr Gauden , with fophiftick concealment of the ratioformalis objetli, and not describing of epifcopall government : And tells him that epifcopall government may denominac a governmeut , communi cmcitio Presbyterorwn , with a Moderator orChaireman, ordiniscauja, which he fayes isof divine inftitution , and exemplified aft 20. where BifhopandPresbytcter are terms fynonimous denominating perfons inverted with the fame office and authority. This he fayes the Covenant ftrikes not againft , and theprekcie which is abjured he defcribes to be a government wherein cneperjon is advanced into a di ft'mEt order of Mini jirie above other Mi lifters, And is 1 w- the feccnd Dialogued ^j tnvefled with Prince-likj power over them , eyijoying an au- thority peculiar to him to nomine as Bfftopfof foU ordination and piri [diction unto whom all other' bis fellow Minifiers are fib)e& , and mujr J 'wear obedience to him &c I wonder if our \nformer will deny this to be the charadteriftick of our prefent Prel-ts , oraffiime that they poflefsno more authority in Church judicatories but a meerprea. denes , or dins caufa , which isaU the Epifcopacy which MrCrofton holds that ihe Scripture, and the Cove- nant according therunro, wilJallow.Thereaftcr, (pag. 72) He telhthefe Matters, rhitChrift gave his Dif- ciples charge that they fhould not afte£tfupericrity one over another 3 or princely power over Gods hcritag , and puts them to prove, that the office of the Mtniftry, mas in or dination he divided , or that there are more orders of the hiiniflry then one (which our Informer ftill begs afup- pofition of) vi% Bijhop or Presbyter , or more officers in theChurch then Elders and Deacons appointed by Cbriji , or bis ApofUs by their ajjoflolicl{ authority. Thn the presbyter (in whom are required the fame qualifications > to whom is to be yeelded the fame obedience > fubjeBionandre* fpeB 3 who recives the fame ordination , and is charged with the fame duty „ and tnvefled with the fame power of feeding and governing the Church of Gcd , with the B[[hop, and noneother) is an order difltnB from , andfuhje&totbeBif bop , to be ruled by him , and not to exercife his office but by the Bifoops licence , and that the Presbyter muft j'wear obedince to the Bi'ihop as his ordinary. Which are the grand poftulataznd topicks of al! this mans reasoning in . poin: of prelacy. The amithefes of which tenets we ie? JVlr Crofrbn moft evidently mainrainesas the fen fe of the Covenant in point of epifcopacy ihe further defcri* bes (pag:So.and8i*) the prelacy covenanted againft, and anent which he challengeth thefe Mafters proof of a yas divinvm , to be fuch wherein one Minifler orBiflwp 1 doth flat;d charged with all the congregations and paflors —- Y 4 of A 4-8 A Confutation of of*Cmntit\ or many Counties makjng one ditcefs - - ■ who is by office bound to a p aft oral correction and government off hem ■■■ ,— that the fe Bishops maybefubjeBto one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop , to whom thev frail foe *r obedience — adding, that if the Word of Gcd con- clude fucb fuperiorityfover theC'turch inoneKjngdom>it will conclude a Catholic]^fuperior'uy\over the umverfall Church , and advance the Pop* as warrantable above the ^Archbi- shops , 06 the Archbishops are above the Bishops , and the Bi- shops above the Presbvters jthefe not being differences ofkjnd, but degree. Adding further , that no more is pleaded fir Prelats divine orApojlolicl^right in theChurch of 'England , Itt what it pleaded by BeBarmine,& theCouncil of Trent 3f or she Pspacit.Sow from what is [aid? I darre referre it is this Informer himfelf , whither Mr Crofton doth not cleanydiiowneall theeflTentialls of our prefent prela- cy ,and hold it to be abjured in the Covenantee office of our preient Bifhops and Arch-Bifhops being incon- travertibly fuch as he here defcribes. And whither Mr Crofton hoids not our prelacy, arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy, to ftand upon the lame ba- ils with the papacy , and to be equally with it , excen- trick to the Scriptures; and that he efteems conse- quently the Bifhops and Arch-Bifhops (which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenantjto de- pend (as (uch)upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy. Next(pag.8i) hefayes ,, that it is not thefirftfortof „ epifcopal! government formerly defcribed, wherein *, all Minifters are inverted with equal power andau- , , hority or dignity, are all of the fame order , and go- ,,verne by common counfel, butthefpecificallpre- „ lacy laft defenbed^which nrefumes it lelf to be a Hi em ,, rarchie. So that with Mr Crofton our prefent pre- lacie falls within th£ denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the (olemne league , and ok the Popes wickr *d Hi rarebit abjured in the nationall Covenant for the fecond Dialogue. 49 for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can de- ny that a quantenm ad omnti&tc* He tells them moreover in that fame pag. that 3, had he lived intiieChur- j,chesof Ephefus,Antkrh, Pbillippi, Creet, orthe 3, feven Churches of Afia3inveftcd with the fame mini- 3, fteriall authority which he then enjoyned > he might ^haveftood up a PetrtoanvBibopsiber pallors that governe in common (all the Presby trie) 3> with like authority among themfelves ( not a fupe- 3, riority over them) it is an Arillocracic , andinre- 3>fpedt the people are not excluded, but have their in- 3. tereft, it is a Democracy. The inferred parenthefes are Mr Croftons 5 and let any judge whither he afferc not with thefe authors, a Presbyterian frame of go- vernment oppofic to diocefian Bifbops and Arch-Eif- hops. In his Analepfis 3 in anfwer to Dr Gau den (p.^g. %.) he charges him (as before the Oxford men) ,, with «, an uncertain propofall of the objecft , and the rath 3, formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy , „ under the general terme of Eptjcopacie 1 therein alfo 5, lafbing our 1 h farmer for r he famekxnets andambi- n guity) telling them that by good demonftration (3if- „ hopjand [Presbyter] have been afferted to be fynoni- 3> mou s titles of Church officers3and are found to have 3J been fouled in the primitive times of the Church 3, and of the Fathers adding;, that the govern- 3, mint of the Church by its Mimiiers — in their feve- " Y; rail yo A Confutation of „ rail aflemblies , i^ith a Moderator Ordinis ciufa 3 „ to difpofe and regular what belongs to order „ is the primitive epifcopacie — which he grants ,,, to the Do3or3 th:c the Covenant will not iirike ,, againft ■ ■ * then (pag, 3* and 4.) he de- 7i fenbesthe Epifcopacy which the Covenant itrikes „ agiinft.Aiidpag.j.fumniethitupchus ■■ - ■ ■ that ,, the Covenant cannot be accomplifht by the remo- 3, Vil of Prelars pride &c. Whtlji the Preeminence y -pre* 1 y r;)gativ?y Patnnalpowr, and juridical authority afjum- 3> cdbytbsmatdiftinByovi, and above all other Mini jlers 3y oftbcgojpdydstheonlybnmed'atfuccefforsof the Apof- „ ties (So our Informer makes them) &c. — — - are 3, continued. What will this Oedipus anfwer to Crof- tons afTertion? Have not our Prelars this preeminence, above Presbyters, as a diftindt order from them? and have they not a juridical! authority over them , by our la>v2nd pra£ti(e3 and his pleading too? doth not Mr Crofron in terminiszffext, that the Covenant obligation can never be fatisfied untill fuch be removed ? are they no more in Church judicatores , but Moderators and Chairemen > fctup Ordinis cauja to order the aftions of the meeting? doth notour law give them a nega- tive voice in the meeting , and alloweth Presbyters only to give theqp advice, if cheir Lordfliipsdo judge them prudent and loyall. Again, vherastheDr, (pag. iS. ) did conclude thuth: Hierarchy being de id , muji rife in another qualitie. Mr Crofton tells him (pag- 6. ) „ That if it arife ac- 3, cording to the Covenant,it mult be in the eftablifli- „ ment of Congregational , ClafficaJ, Provincial and 3 , National Aflemblies or Synods of Church officers , 3J Communi conJUisPresbfttrerum (thisphrafeof Jerome ,7 hefrequentlieufeth) to debate and determine the „ affaires of the Church, in&Ex'rcifeallactsofdilcr- „ fine the iecond Dialogue* 5*1 i, pirn? and Ecdefiafiickpcp^r — each having a Prefi- 3, dent to propone qudtions , gather Cuff rages &c. r, and no more, ^hich mould of government , whi* ther it would notfmoofh our prelacie to a compleat Presbyterian parity, lee the Infirmer himfelf judge. It is incontrovertibly clear from thele paiTages of Crofton , that even in rheir feafe whom our Infermtp alleges to ftand on his fide, the prefent prelacie is abjured. Finally, as for rhe authors' after cited , and that de- claration oftheferf? of the id article which he men- tions , \re fay , as it is not clear (nay the contra- ry is evident ) that fuch propofals in explication of that article, were either mad or approven by all , or the foundeft Presbyterians there prefect, fo it is als evident that if prelacy even as by them referved> be found contrary to found A'fo8rint9*nd the power of go* dlinefs, that article of extirpation doth moft clearly and formally reach ir. Neither are we fo much con- cerned in the problemarick gloflings or difputes of any peifons in England (they not having tendered that oath tirrous) as in the obligation of this oath, and that of the Nationall Covenant lying upon us , to prefjrveour reformation as it flood then eftabliihr. Moreover this man would take Dr Sanderfons advice here that ,?an oath being firiW juris* — tne meaning is ,» to be kept when clear from the words .but if ,> it be doubtfull ,every one is to take care that they in- dulge not their own affe&ionsand inclinations , or give way to too large a hcenfe of glof!ing,to the end ,<> they may with more eafe ioofe themfelves from the ,, obligation , or give fuch a Cenfe to o;hers,or take it *s to themfelves as theunconcernddofeethat n the words will no tbear , both for fear of perjury 5, and enfnaring of others. Thus he, d?jurprom*fr*- fcS; 2, farag> 9> The >> 5* A Confutation of The Doubter objefts next [that we are not concer- ned in the parliament of England fenfe,butin rhefenfe of the Church andftate of Scotland , whoimpofed the oach, and meant itsgainft all fort of prelacie.] To this he anfwers 5 t hat it being a crmmon league of the thru Kjvgdoms y the meanhg mufl te determi* ed by all the and thatTtmorats fcetvs that the Parliament of England their (enfe was with concurrence of our Commi/Jiners . %A nf\ i. We have already madeit good , that giving the ln~ farmer the advantage of the fenfe of the ad. article which he alledgcs , it will notwithfianding clearly ex- dude our prefenr prelacy • Timorcus telling us exprei- }y (pag. t6.) that the Covenant, aperty Midges a* painft Arcb-Bishops , Bishops, Deans &c. which termes he fayes are lyabte te no ambiguh y , and particularly again ft all fucbexercife of prelacie y atMbyonejingUperfon, arra- ga ting to himfdffole and fingle power in ordination and ju» rifdtHion. Darre this man deny that our prefent pre- lates have this legal! prerogative exprefly allowed them by ourlawes ? is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only offuchof the Ciergie, as their Lordfliips (forfooth) fhall judge loy- ail?fo that the prelacie whichTimorcusand theEnglifh are for , is point blanck crofs to the prefent hierarchies ?nd the three nations fenfe of that article will (as we have proved) never be reconciled to his fenfe and plea- ding in this point. 2. We told bimalfo that it is not the 2d. Art. Whereby moiliy or principally ocr obligation againft prelacy is to be meafured > it being that which relates especially to England , where Prelacy was then exiftent ; and whatever fenfe any there do put upon that Article , yet they never offered to put any gloffes upon our great engad- gement to preferve our reformation then eftablijfhed , and neve* imagned nor offered the lead limitati- on of our obligations bath by the National Cove- nant the fecond Dialogue: $ 3 nantas then particularly applyed agai nil: prelacie > and like wife our obligation in the firftpart andarticle of th- League , to preserve our eitabliflit reformation , in Doctrine, Wcrmip^Pifcipline, and Government , which confequently (lands inviolable according to its native and neceflTary meaning , in contradiction to our Prelacie or any Prelacie whatfoever , as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the impofingdid underftand the fame. Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell hini [that we areen^adged toprtfirve the Government of the Church 0 Scotland, which was Presbyterian , and that therefor in the id. article wefwear againft all kf'ndc of Prelacie 3 Prelacie and Presbytery being: in- confiflent. ] To this heanfwers that if we are tn the r. ^Article hound to maintain Pre*byteriey*nd in the %d left at libertieforfomt kjnde of Prelacy , and with aU if Preset trie and Prel cie be inconfijlent , then we have [worr.e contra- ' i:ctkn\ vi%9 to adm't of nikjndcf Prelacie , and yet ad- mit offome kinle of it- Anf. \ . He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude (ac- cording to the Genuine fenfe of that Article ) dis to any prelacy , or whatever government elfe is incon- fiftent with Presbyterian Government , becaufe, 1 the generall oblidgements [to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and to extir- pat what ever is found contrarie to found Do&rine and the power of Godlinefs] will (as I have faid)neceiTanlv im^ortjborhas to us & them,ane engadgetnent againft ^ all kind of Prelacv under this notion and upon this ground. ft* As for[Englandsrefervin£ a latitude for a proeftos] which he here alledges> Timorcus will tell us (out of Doctor Sanderfon) of this rule as to the in- terpretation ofpromififory Oaths ,, that tho its granted ;, that promifTory impofed Oaths muft be interpret ac- „ cording to the fenfe of Impofers>as our privateOarhs accord- £4 A Confutation of „ according to our fenfe, vet both thefe rules are to „ be limited , Co that neither our private fenfe of our „ fpontaneousOarhs > nor yet the fenfe of thofe who „ impofe Oaths upon other sjnuft be other then will com- 3y port j withtbejuftfgnincationcf the words and phrafet, ,, tn the Oath , vow , or Covemnt , for this were to de- ,> ftroy [faith he] the fim^licity neceflary to every „ Oath, and indeed not to interpret, but to coin ane 3, Oath or new obligation. Now the obligation of ,, both N:.rionsin thisO&thjs to endeavour refirmathn according to tht Word of God , and to exttrpat whatever is contrary to Jound DiSrine andtfc power of " godlinefs. If therefore a fixt Moderator , or any fuppoied moderat mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto, no mans gloflines whatfoever, can (according; to this neceffary rule ) prejudge the native import, fignifica- tion, and extent of thefegenerallclaufes. In the 2c1. place, his contradiction here imputed to us, is but his owne airie imagination , for it is not ad idem, and tpdem modo- W herein he imagineth the contradiction to lye* Our duty to preferve, and our obligation thereanent > being relative ?o the eftablifht Government of the Church of Scotland , and the extirpation engadged unto , being re- lative to another nation and Church , wherein that foecies of Prelacy particularized in the Article * was exiftent; fo that there is no liberty left for any kinde of Prelacy in Scotland; and for Englandsreferving, I have told him that what ever gloffesaay may put upon that 2d. article , yet if the generall claufes and expref- fions mentioned will exclude all kinde of pre'la- cie, their gloffes will not comport with the fimpli- city and genuin fenfe of the oath , and therfor are not to be admitted. Since if it can be made good from the fcripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawful], dif- fonanctothe divine rule, and repugnant to the po- wer the fecond Dialogue yy wer of godlinefs , the oath doth moft clearly ftrike a- gainft ir. ,, MrCrofton pag. 110. inanfwerco the Author s, whom he calls X)i Featly's ghoft , objefting that in >, the Covenant, the Church of Scotland is lei before „ the Church of England , tells him that it is in 5> relation to different afts > the Reformed Religion :, of Scotland to be preftrzed , of England to be f^c- „ formed ; that it is no Solecifm toputrhe/tfcfwrabe- 5i fore the fieri 9 to iweare the prefervation of gcodac- it quired , before ane endeavour to obtain the fame or bet- „ ter, to prefix the pattern to that which is to be ther- ,, unto conformed. He adds, that his Antagonifl » hath little reafon to grudge that Scotland ihould be „ propounded as a pattern of Reformation toEn- „ gland > fince fteda reports that this nation did as firfl ,5 communicat the fcience of divinelenowledge without grudge „ or envy unto the people 0/ England , ciung his Ecclef. ,» hifl. genr. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers, „ that it is nofolecifmto propound us as a pattern $f ,, Reformation, who hadfiift obtainedit, and from ,, whom Chriftianity it felfe was at fsrft tranfmitted to ,, rhem. Here let our Informer 'mioxvat hi mfelf, firft, . that in the fenfe of the Engh'fh Presbyterians, [ the preferving of our eftablifhc Reformation ] is that arti- cle wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included; and that the article of Refor- mation yet in fieri , relates properly to England. 2. That they ftateadifiin&ion betwixt preferving and reforming as diftinft adts , the one relating to our Re- formation in Scotland already obtaind , the other 10 thatin England yet in fieri, wherin they check this mans blunt meafuring our obligation againftprela- cie firft and principally by the fecond article, and hisdenying our obligation to preferve Pretbyteriati government coataindin the firft > and his blunt con- found- 4 did no way hkider the fet- al ting up of Presbyterian Government, and rejecting ,, of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the Ge- 33 neral provifions ■ »- That, itwasaggreeab/e „ totmthandrightcoufnefs for ustoconcurre, with 73 that Church convinced of evills, but not fo enligh- „ tened as to remedies, in Covenanting againft the 3> evills in particular, andalfo to endeavour a refor- »i mation according to the Word of God,and by vertuc 3> of this general oblidgement , becooe bound to ?, make a more exaft fearchanent thelawfull^es or „ unlawfullnefs of things, not fo fully clear in the j, time of entering into the Oath , attfcftcr the difco- 3 , very torejed what feemed toleraby. So that no „ hefitation among them , doth hindelEngland and ^Scotlands refpeSive obligations to extirpate all 3>epifcopacy as contrary to/hat dodtine which is 2c- ] ,, cording to godhneft. What inconfiftency will the | Informer fhew us in this , that one nation vow adhe- rence to its owne eftablifhment in point of reforma- tion and Church Government 3 and likewife vow adi- ftance of another nation in the removal of 3 corrup- tion therein,tho the removall will not amount, to.fuch a compleatnefs of reformation at firft , as will be every way like unto this eftabliihment , both nations bein^ notwithstanding oblidged refpetlive . under generall claufes to make this reformation compleat. The Informer next tells usjhatitis doubteA by the lear- ned,whither in thefirji Article there be any obligation to main* fain presbyterian Government. His firftreafon is , becdufe there is m exprefs mmtim of prtftytcrian Government therm, but the fccond Dialogs ^9 huton!yofoUYreformedreligi$nmDoSirine9^orjhip3Difciplme9 and Government. JnJ. this reafon of the seafonabie cafe which he hath borrowed , is very infignificant. Our Church, after long wreftling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Wor(liip> which Prelates had introduced* andher Difcinlme and Government according to rhc Scripture paten fet ur> , in Presbyteries , fynods , and Affemblies , and all the priviledges of thefe her courts, puthori- 2«d and eftabliflit both by civill and ecclefiaitick con- fticutions and laws, willanydoubt ( but thefcef tick who will difpute that fnow is not white) that the difcipline then reformed and eftablilht , is in that oath fworn to be maintained* He may als wellalledge that it is not the doftrine and worfhip then efta- btiihed > which We Covenant to preferve , as to doubt ofthe government j fincethis reformation then efta- blifhed , takes irr all the three together, and in the fame [ca(^. Befides his M after the Seafonabie Cafuift* giants thar there was then in Scotland nofuch cfTi# ters , as are enumerate in the 2d article, butanefta- biifhc reformed government was then exiftenr. Now dsre any of thefe newabfolvers or refolvets fay > that it was not Pre$b\ tenan government, or that this was lotthefenfe of the impr.fersof that oath. His 2d reafon is, that Independents tool^thai Covenant 3 and tad a hand in wording that article, that it might nottmport any par- ticular forme of government. - ■— That the tv or ds im- port no one forme of government 3 but with thifprov:fi> as re- formed. The Seafonabie cafe faid this already , to which the Apotogift returned anfwer 55Thatthe go- vernment of this Church at that time, being Pref- ^bvteriall (as he acknowledged ) there could be no pother government underftood , then what was then 7>exiftent ., eftabliihed and reformed. That to fay ;,Ind«ndepemsunderiiood it of their government, «nl Z x no 6o A Confutation of no more refledl upon the Covenant , then upon the „ Scripture it felf , which Independents do alledge „will plead for their government. Next, I would ask this man , why may hot the fame infignificant quirkbealfoobjedledasto the dvfirinc , and worship > viz. that only the dodtrine and woririip with this pro- vifo as reformed , but not the then eftablifhed do- ftrine , and worihip a is underftood in that article , and fo fe&aries may lurk under this generall alfo. Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majefties authority willbinde, ex- cept his name and Sirname be in it, becaufe ibme may entertainea chimera of their own under his Ma- jefties general titles. Alas ! what ridiculous conceits are thefe. The Doubter next objefts [that the Englilli par- liament, who together with our Scots Commiflio- nersimpofed that] oath, did by [the reformed govern- ment] underftandPresbytrie which was then fettled here , and that therefore we are to underftand the oath in their fenfe who impofed it, whatever Inde- pendents think.] He anfwers , by denying that the En- glish parliament underjlood the l. article of Presbyterian go icrnment , for then they tvould have thought themfelves bourn toreforme England according to our pattern > but on the con* traire in anno i<*47 they told our Commifpcners , tha they could never finde Presbytrie neceffary by any divine right and charged them with Super cilioufnefs in judging that then is no other law full Church government , but what they call ft and with mifinterpreting the article anent Church governmen, This the Seafonable cafe alfo laid before him, and th hungry cafuift catches up his cibum pramanfum , bi could not fee the anfwer returned to this in the Apolc gy. Tothislfayfirft, that the Parliament of Englar tendered not that oath to us , nor is their fenfe therol principally to be eyed by us,as in his mould of the obj & i( the fecond Dialogue 61 <5tion and anfwer,he feems to fuppofe.The parliaments of both Kingdomes impofed the oath upon their own fubje&s, framed by the confent of both accor- ding to their own condition , and exigence ; fo that we are to look mainly to the procedour and fejife of ourChurch and ftate,for a difcovery of the genuin fenfe and meaning of that oath. Now it is moft evident that the defigne of ourChurch and ftate in framing and impofing of this oath , was to eftablifti and pre- ferve our Church government then iri being, which, he who denyes to have been Presbyterian , In its compleat formes « and courts , he may deny any thing, z. We told him alreadie, that whatever defection or liberty of glofling any might be guilty of, yet the words and dailies of the Covenant , as to that I. article, are clear and abundantly fignificant, and will admit of no evafion. And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was exiftent, the 2d Article , is as clear and con- vincing. And therefore whither they lookt upon themfelvesas oblidgedto follow our pattern yea or not , we have proved that they ftood oblidged , both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article, and alfo in the more generall claufes mentioned , to ex- tirpate Prelacie root and branch. This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths , if their fenfe and obli- gation muft vary , turne ambulatory or ambiguous , according as men do Ihift or turne afide. We told J him of Dr Sanderfons rule , anent the import of the words of an oath, in their genuin fenfe in reference to its obligation , whatever liberty men may take to glo(Te , or interpret , which is the judgement of all -found Cafuifts. j. Dare he fay, that ever the par- liament of England denyed , that de fatlo Presbyte- rian government was compleatly efrablifrted inthe Church of Scotland , or will he make them fo irratio- Z 3 nal\ 6% A Confutation of nail as to deny thisnecefTaryconfequence, that there- fore thei. Article ©f the Coveoant doth clearly oblidge this Church coirs prefervacion as the reformed Go- vernment then exigents and if his confequence cannot but be admitted , furely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no fenfe of this article contrary to our own fenfe, nor denyed our obligation to maintain our efta- bl fh?d Presbyterian Government. And befides > t e never denyed their obligation to reforme the Chuch of England according to the Scripture pat- tern , and that of the beft reformed Churches , in con- formity to that pattern. And that the Church of Scotland, and other Churches where Presbyterian Government wasexiftent, were fuch> was and is the fenfe and acknowledgement of the reformed Chur- ches themfelves > as from their confeifions wc have made appear. For confirming this further ( becaufe the Infor- mer h3th told us frequently of MrCiofton Jlct usheare how he will befp^ak him in this point. In that piece intituled [ The fattening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40.] He tells the Oxford men „ of the Church *, of Scotlands Philadelphian purity in deli- • , vering in writting , and excercifing in practice that ,, fincere manner of Government whereby men arc >, made partakers of falvation > acknowledged by Mr ,*Brightman on Apocalyps 3* and the Apology to 9ithe Doctors of Oxford, and of Bcza'sepiftle 79 to „Mr Xpox , exhorting him to hold fait that fure i>Difciplim which he had brought into Scotland > to- gether with the DoSrine. And ( pag, 41. ) he „cizcs the corpus cmfeJJ. ( pig. 6. ) Where the colle- j> dor layes down this as the ground Of that Chur- 3, chespuritv of doftrine , and 54 years unity without „Schifmc [that the Difciplinc.ofChrift and his A- poftlC5 the fecond Dialogue 6$ i>poftles, asitisprefcribedinthewordofGod, was „ by litle and Iitle received , and according to that ,, D.fcipline, the Government of the Church difpofed 3, fo near as might be] which he prayesmay be perpe- 3,ttialI)rkep:by"tlieKing&R.ulersof the church* Thefe Enghih Non-conformifts, Beza, the Author of the fynragma , in Crofcons fenfe, and Iiimfelf together with them i thus clearly avouching Presbyterian go- vernment , which Mr Knox introduced » to ha?e been the government of this Church fince the refor- mation , and which King lames aifo owned. For after he hath told us in the fame page „oi Arundel , ,, Hutton,and Matthews,three Engliih Arch-Biihops, ,, their approving the order of the Church of Scot- land, he tells the fame Oxford men of the joy »whichKiri£ James profeftin theaflemblyi59o**^fo ^y Was born to be afyg of the finccr eft Church in the world. ,> Agaih (pag : 39*) lie makes mention of this Chur- „ ches two books of difcipline> as the great badge and >, Tell of her government and in anfwere,to the Ox- a, ford mens exception againftthat article of the Co- venant , which binds to preferve the difcipline ,»and government of the Church of Scotland [viz. ,,that they were not concerned in , and had litle „ knowledge of that government] he tells them, that j, he wonders how an univerfity converging in all ,; books , could profefs they had no knowledge of ,, thefe books. So tha: in Mr Croftons fenfe and in the fenfe of the Presbyterian covenanters in England , the government engadged unto in that article* is that placforme of Presbyterian government contained in thefe 2 books of difcipline > which adverfaries them- felves do grant to comprehend anintire frame of Pref- byterian government. Again (pag. 141.) he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone , u tha: the royall Z 4 affent 64 A Confutation of j^aflTent was given unfco Presbyterian government in ^purfuance of the obligation ofth folemne league andQove* 3,nant > and that, in his Majeftres molt publickca- ,, pacicyas King of great Britain , France and Ireland, 3,forhimfeJf and SuccefTors : and averting clearly » the equity of the obligation, he asks the learned in „ law [ whither *he royall afientby fuch exprefilons *> publickly made knowne (as here it was unco afts 33and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions S3 to be pail here anenc ) be not fufficienc to make an 3>adtof parliament a perfeft and compleat law by the 5, equity of thzjtatute 33. Hen. j.xi. &c. ] Sothac Mr Crofton clearly aliens our obligation toPresby- tenan government to be contained in the Covenant, and to reach all his Majelties -dominions. For he Wlls iis in the preceeding page, ,3 that to all fuch as ap- 3,preh'«dthe conftitution of England to be hierum j, imperium , wherein the King hath Jupremam rWajefta- 3>tem, it is evident that his Majcities ratifying the ,, Covenant thus , hath rendred it nationally Again >•> Timorcusfpag, 70.) aflerts that the parliament who >, impofed the Covenant (anno 1648. ) fentpropofi- vtjons ro rheKmg wherein was demanded the utter abo- lishing of epifcopacie. Which is point blanck crofsto the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer, and doth evidently demonftrat ( compared with thefe paflagesofMrCrofton) that the whole body of Pref- bytenan covenanters in England , both impofers and takers, parliament and people, undcrftood that article of Presbyterian government. The Doub:er here poorly grants [ that England and Scotland did not underftand that arricle in the fame fenfe, but alledgeth that fince our Church underftood j$o Preslytry, we are bound to it in that fenfe. ] Uoon this he alliimes , That it will not follow that We are bound to it in the fenfe of our Church andjlatc , but rather that in relation the fccond Dialogue. 6$ r£lation to government it is with outfenfe , fwce the impofen themfelvcs were not Aggreei as to it: rneanmg* An:, we have already made ic good , bothirom thefenfeand fcope of the national Covenant, the judicial inter- pretation and application of it to our former prelacie exprefl;e , the nations univerfaH taking itfo, and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament , as well as by the recommendation of the afiembly, from the toral extirpation of prelacy .., and letting ur> Presbyterian government in allies courts, in confe* quence hereof , that that article of the folemne league which relates to the prefervation ofthethenexiftent Reformation in uoiirine, worfiiip, difcipline, and go- vernment > cannot without extreme impudence be diftorced to any other fenfe, then apiefervationof the Presbyterian government then exiftenc. Efpe- cially the league being framed and entered into by us , for our farther fecunty in relation to .what we had attained. And this being the article framed by the Church andftate of Scotland at that time , and this being alfo their fcope and deiigne , difcovered in their treaties with England, when that Covenant was entered into/ I dare appeal this mans confeience upon it, whither ever any demur re here anent, or any other feafe of this article, was offered by the Engliih when the nations firft entered into this oath? or whither, the impofers thereof in Scotland, would have engaged in that league with the En^lifh , upon any other terrms then theie , and in this their fenfe of that f. article, Thinks the Informer that if any fuch thing had been muttered in the firfttranfadtionof this bufinefs , that the Englifti did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Cfurch , that the Sco:sna:ion would have tranfadted with whem in this league \ Nay, when (as Timorcus tells us ) it was debated branch by branch, Z 5 ■ phrafc 66 A Confutation of phrafebyphrafe in the convention houfe, in the par- liament, in the ailembly of divines, was there ever fuch a notion as this of our Informer ftarted , that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland, Presbyterian government was not to be underftood > in a word, dare he deny that the godly confeienrious JWiniftersand people of England, did in the fenfeof this oath , and even in imitation of the Scortifh; or ra- ther the Scripture patterne, plead for, and had begun to fet up Presbyterian government, and are clofsto their principles to this day. Bithe adds, thatitisirratimall to fay tve are bound to it in thefenfe of the Church and State of Scotland , becaufe they Were but a part of the Impofers and the leaft Part. Anf I told him already that in relation to ths engadgers in Scotland they were the proper impofirs , the authority of therejpeftive rulers of both nations, in relation, toiheirownfubje&s being firft and immediatly to be lookt unto,and their fenfe & fcope therein to be main- ly eyed, and each Nation beingproperlyandimme- dutjy judges , as to their own national end in thisfti- pulation. Thinks this man , that the then reprefen- tatives of Church and Scate , did eye any other end as to Scotland, then the prefervation of the reforma- tion in Dodtrine, Difcipline » Worfhip and Govern- ment, as at that time therein eftabliflit. Moreoventhe fenfe and fcope of the article it felf being convincing- ly inciuiive of Presbyteiian Government , it can ad- mit of no other gloite without manifeft diftortion , and fruftration of the impofers defigne therein. Next he tells us 3 that fuppofe Presbytery were meant in the I ^Article , yet the 2d will admitt fometpifcopacie. What poor ftufft is this. Suppofe the Article ofextirpation relating only to England and Ireland, would comport with fomc epifcopacie (which the Informer hath not vet proved ) what hath that to do with Scotland > Or the fecond Dialogue 6 7 Or how can that enervate our cngadgemem to preferve the reformation astheneftablifht inDodtrine, Wor- ftrip,Difciplme>and Government? Becaufe in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the refor- mation in Scotland is com pie a ted and f*vornto > we are to bear with the English Church in fomc remaines of Prelacy, till God give further light, muflwethcr- forbe oblidged or allowed according to thefenfe and fcopeofthis Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that eftablifht reformation, ^m bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally era- dicate? Nay, this is too dull inadvertancie. ■ As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconfijlcnt with an) lynde ofprelacie. 1 aniwefjthac the presbytery eftabhfht and fworn to be maintained in Scotland , is , and Beza is fofarrc from difowning this, that (as we heard) he exhorreth John Knox to keep that Church andhouie of God clean of prelacy > as he-loved the limplicity of the GofpeU Chap. IV. The grounds yuf on which the Informer undertakes t9 prove that the obligation ofthtCovenantceafethy although its oblidging force for the time pajl were luppofed, examined At large. As alfo bis reafomng upon Numb* 50. Wherein his begging of the ^uejlton , his contradicting ofDr Sander- fon and other Cafuifts , and manifold inconfi- Jiencies are made appea r. OUR 63 A Confutation of OU R Informer having fpent his Mafter pieces > and the cheife products of his invention , ot ra- ther of thofc who have gone before him? upon this difficult task of reconciling theCovenant to Prelacy, doth next fas a liberal! bold difputer) undertake to loofethc Covenant, even upon fuppofall of its pre- exiftent obligation againftit. And therefore mak- ing his Doublet- tell him [ that he bears oft the ac- knowledgement of anyobligarion againft epifcopacie, either in the national i or folemne league , left he fall under thechaige ofperjurie]. In anfwer to thhhe mSfuppofc that cptfeopacy is abjured in both Covenants , and jet undertake to dtfend that they arenot perjured who notvfub- n.it to prelacic. The Doubter thinks this ftrange Do- ftnne, and fo do I. Becaufe [to fwear againft epifco- pacie and yet acknowledge it, is to do contrary to their Oath] To this doubt he returns a large refblution,but fli!l follows up the Seafonablc cafe clofs , for fear of miscarrying. Andfirft, he begins with a threefold partition, either prelacy (faith he) it an unalterable necef- far- Government of divine or Apoflohckjvawand^r itisfinfuU and contrary to the Apoftolick Government, or t hirdly of a mid- dle nature, neither commanded nor forbidden y but left to C&rijtian prudence as found expedient to be ufed or not. Here I inuftftopehim a little, and mindethe reader, that we did upon the firft Dialogue , difprove this indiffe- rent Proteus- Prelacie,as a monfter to Scripture, fincc the Scripture condefcending fo far as to its inftitu- uon of oSicerSiOrdinancesiLawesjCenfures; and (as we heard himfelf acknowledge ) fettingdown all fubftan- tialls ofChurchGovernment,prelacie muft of necelTity be either confo»iant or difionant therunto:and by con- fequence neceflary orfinfuli . commanded or forbid- den. Sochu luis tobelimitei to theftrfttwo, and any the fecond Dialogue, 69 any fuppefal anent theindifferencieof preracy> is but his petitioprnictpii, and the gratification of his adverfa- ry tor further clearing of this queftion : now proceed we- If h be the hpoflolick Government derived from their time^ to all ages of the Church , he hope s tv e tv ill grant that no Oath obkdgesagainftit. This I willingly grant to him. but what then ? Why , tee muft not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be folidly anfrereJ. Lee thisbargaineftand, i hope I have made his Scripture pretences, appear to be vaine, and proven the con- trariety of that prelacie now eftabiiihed, both to the Scripture and pure antiquity, and till he hath anfvvcred what is offered upon this point? we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment. What next > what ifit be (infill] ? Thenhe fayes tve need not plead the Covenant obligation. No? may we not plead the Co- venant obligation againftSchifme, herefie, andpro- fannefs > May not the Oath ofalledgance be plead- ed againft treafon , becaufe before this Oath treafon is a fin? Said he not already that the Baptiftnall vew is afuperadded obligation* though the matter it felt doth binde ? did not the Oath and Covenant (Neb* 8. J containe an abjuration of many fins , againlt which the people flood before preoblidged J But he adds, its true afupervenicnt Oath makes the obligation the f.rongcr. Right, why then may not we plead that w hic-ii makes it ilronger ? Efpecially a^ainit this man and his fellows , who have fuch a mighty faculty of refolving and absolving all S Peters fetters. Sure they had need of Double n^ts who would carch a Proteus. Then he tells us, That eheablejl champions fir Presbytrie dor not offer t eptjcvpacie to be unlawful!. What champi- ons are thefe that prove it to be contrary to Scripture, and yet dar not alTert it to be unlawful! ? Sure they are very faint difputants. We heard that Bezafwhom our informer will furc call a champion for Presbytery ) culled 70 A Confutation of catted eftfcopzcy dialolicaIl and theegg outof which A«- tichrifttvas hatched. Was not that near the march of calling it unlawful! ? But how will he now abfolve us? Why , itmujlbe indifferent , neither law full nor unlaw fuU and then the qurftton is with him 5 if tve could by our own Oath » make it absolutely and in every cafe unlawful I ^fothat tBt can never after fubmit unto it. Headd*j that we are miftakenif We think that an Oath dgainft a thing indifferent tvillin every cafebind. Here I fhall only tell him that fi nee all his revolving skill goes upon this fuppoficion , he fhould have travelled to Utopia with this refolution* iince we do fuppofeand have proven Prelacietobe unlawfull,and fo are not in the leafl: concerned in what he faith up-n this point: Since he is ftill arguing ex ignoratione elenchi. But let us fee how he will abfolve us upon this fur- pofition , which he muftin pity be gratifi -d with , be- fore he can draw foith his weapons. Our Informer ftill ftricks hand, with the Seafonablc ofe and rhe Sur- veyed tellirto; ns fiift, that the oath ceafes to bind , if , the thing fivorn a?a:n[i y be a waiter wherein our fuper tours have^power to command us , they by their authority given them of God , may require obedience of us in any thing I aw full . an i j^fp may inth at particular ^command us to do orufe what We have Jivorn cigainfl , it being a thing in itfelflawfull , and in this cafe our oath ccafs to bmde. Ans. this fimple notion, by* our Informer poorly propounded hath notafte in it,and cannot reach our czfe , even though he had won over that infuperab'fe mountain of the unlawfullnefs of prelacy, and had proven j orh's adverfarv had gran- tedit, to be indifferent, fori, his fnpnofirion runs thus-Thatepifccpacy is indifferent to be ufed in the Church or not as it shall be found expedient. Now , I befeech hi m , who is the proper judge y what frame of Church go- vernment beftfutes her condition? is not the Church reprefentative 3 to whom is intruded the power of the the fecond Dialogue. y i the keys? by what warrrnd will he bring in the Alagi- .ftrate primo injtanti to alter and fa up Church govern- ment as he thinks fir 3 even granting it were indiffc- -rent? he fought atfirftbuta grant that prelacy was 'indifferent, but ere he can produce one reafon for his point, he muft have a further grant ctEraftianifae* and that the Magiftrate is the proper competent immediat judge in matters ecclefiiftick. Who can Hope the mouth of this hungry caufe of his 3 that muft have multiplied conceffions of the adverfary , and yet cannot fubiilr, but ftarves with its own weaknefs when alhsdone, Fondly, although this were alio gran- ted, what will he fay in this cafe > wherein the fupe- riout hath bound and engadged himfelfe with the fame Oaths, vows3 and bonds that the fuh/e& is tycdwirh, and hath folcmnly vowed toGodagainfl: fucli a frame of Government ? Sure this will tye up his hands if we may beleevethe maximeafierted bv Dr Sanderfon and other Cafuifts that juramentumtoJlit ft- bertatem even in a thing indifferent. Had we not the ratification of the Nationall Covenant with the band and explication againftthe Scots Prelacie, in plain Parliament bv King Charles the firft , under his hand writing 1^41 r Did rot the Kim who now is in the "Year 1650 and ■■ « 51 > fwearand fubferibeboth this oath , 2nd the folemn league and Covenant , and kave all imaginable affurances for upholding Presby- Sedan Government , snd in oppoficion to prelacy? *fuppofe he had power to command in this matter, L-fure his commanding power is tyed up , when he hath vowed andOpen'd his mouth unto God, and lifted up his hand to the molt high , That Prelacy shall never be allow d within his dominions , far lefs commanded. Whatever power God hath given to Magiftrates ovet their fubj efts, fure he hath given them no power to Jcofc tbemfelves from his oath snd vow upon them Third* 7% A Confutation of is. Thirdly, iris toolixe a nrin isle, to hold ttjt in every thing , in it fe If indifferent . the Magtflrates powe) reaches to fupercede or loofe > the obligation of an oath or vottofthefubjehl. For a fubjedb freedoms and liberty , as in thatcapaciry , and the Magiflrats authority , being coordinate, as the fubje&s liberty muft nor juftle with the JVlagift rat's lawfull Command , fuited to the ends of government, fo neither muft the Com- mand of the Magiftrate incroach upon this referved liberty of the fubjeft , who hath m ny 'flings in his own power and without the reach of any lawfull com- mand of theMigiftrate. ASubietl, and a Jlave , are quite diftinit things. God relliained & let bounds to the pewer of Kings , and Magifti ates vhem he fet over his people, fo that they might not command fuch and fuch things. Therefor in whit things foever, the exercife of a fuhjecc!s liberty , croffes not the de- f gne and end of the Magiftrates power expreft in Scripture , his vow is without the reach of the Magiftrates fufperding or ioofing power. Na- both would not give Ahab his Vinevard , no not far money. What if a man in a parental! capacity , in- terpofeavow as to his childe in reference tofome occupation or inheritance , which ai e fuppofed , be- fore th s vow , to be things indifferent ? Sure the Ma- giftrates (ufpending power will not reach this vow. This will be clear, if it be confidered, That the prefcivation of the Subjects libertv, is one or ths great ends of the Magiftates fi uthority. The Second cafe wherein the Informer tettsus , that aneOatrrin rhinos indifferent binds vox >ts when the thing [worn i*fi altered in its nature , that it becomes finfull and cannot be lawfully performed. He tells us that Cafuifts fay , That cej] fat juramentiMgatio cum resnon permanenti incodtmfiatu AnfThis other cafe generally byhim pro-j pounded heiciriali be confide* ed &fpoken to, when wefhallfeehow hereafter he explains aiidapplyesit the'fecond Dialogue 7$ Therefore we fhall in this place dismifs ft with one word, Thar Prelacy is now the fame, andi*orfethn formerly, And therfor the premifed maxime cannot jeachhis Conclufionintheleaft. His Third cafe wherein he tells us , that the Oath in things indifferent ceafethtobind, is,whcnit\simpem ditivum major is boni ^ which he foyes the Seasonable cafe and thefurvey of Napbtali* do apply tothirOarh. And how- he applyes it we fhall after hear, He tells us , they do prove , that fuppofing Epifiopacie law full , though if Were meant\inthe Covenant , none should thinks themjelves bound to fland out againft it> our Superiours having com- manded us to obey and fubmit to that government. And that hefolidly repellswhat if brought by the Apologieor Naphtali to the contrary. But how infignificantly either he, or thefe new Cafuifts, doloofe the Covenant upon this Pretence, hath already in part, and fhall yet further appear. Whatalaxe Adiaphoriftisthis, who by his new divinity, firft takes this great duty of vowing ox [wearing quiteaway; For, no Oaths muft be pleaded in things neceffary , in this man's judgment, They carno is things that arefinfullor unlawfullhav? place > and1 fo all the fubjeft thereof muft bethings lawfull 5 and for this , th^re needs no more to make all Oaths. and vows evaniih, but a command from the fuperiour, and then they are gone. Secondly, he makes the .Magiftrat's pofteriour and fupervenient command, •ixronly loofeallhis fubje&s from the obligation of .what is lawfully fworn , but alfo himfelf from his pcrfonall Oath : Though he hath fworn and vowed never fo deeply , he hath no more to do but to make a Law againft it , and then the Oath , as impeihivum foni y ceafethto bind either himfelfeor his fubjefts. Thirdly , he makes all the referved liberty of the fub- j#3 ( which Government is for prefervation of) a Aa «er 74- A Confutation of meer nullity and Cbimara, fo as this liberty it felfe, or any vow or Oarh rn things which are properly within jr'sfphercevanirties at every arbitrary command of the powers. Hence a fubjefts liberty refolves into a meer nothing or flavery. Fourthly, thus the Judgement of all Churches in Brittain and Ireland under this Oath j muft in relation to the expediency of this fuppa- fed lawfull Epifcopacy. and its prefent fuitablenefs to her edification, beat the meer beck of this arbitrary command of the civill power , as the fole and proper judge of this matter. And fo. Firft, the Magiftrate k not onU the imm^diat judge ofalleeclefiafiick Government , or what is mod fuitable to the Churches State and edification in point of Govern- ment-. But adlv, all judgement ofdifcretion is taken avay from the people of 'God , in relation to this matter of fo high importance, and their a&ing in faith confe- quently, in this fuppofed obedience. So that men ar^ madeabfolutly Lords over their consciences. Yea jj/y, all regard to the ef hewing the offence of the weak., 2nd the Scripture Rules \n relation to their fcandal, and ftumbling, are made void ; the meer command ;orthe powers determining that matter , in the princi- ples of this Informer. Yea Moreover, all our' Chri- stian libetry in things indifferent , which Chrift hath pur- chafed with! his precious blood, and which we are commanded fo much to hold faft , is clofe fwallowed up,fo that both judgement&pradtife,fa matters where- in God hath given a liberty, are tyed unto, and ; only regulable by, the arbitrary command tff the pow- er? : And what monftruous abfurdities thefe are , the * meanefl: capacity may judge. £s for whatheadds here, that anOath about matter, . notfinfufl, is alwayes't^ie under ficod with this reftriBion ~f fi lon^ as lawfully! may] which the matter thereof requires ^becaufc the taker is under prior and greater obligations (vi: obediens the /ccond Dialogue 75* obedience to his fuperiour and the U\e ) then that of the Oath in a thing indifferent , and therefor when the pier obligation crofjeth this latter of th Oath, its] obligation muft ceafe* Ins. This prior obligation the Informer makes rela- tive to the Magiftrats command interpofingv^hich according to his laxc and unreftri&ed fupf>ofalls , *rrfc« kes all Oaths noftronger thenathreed touched with the fire , and when applyed to our cafe, is utterly impertinent 3 becaufe > firft , there are things in their own nature indifferent , yet within the fphereof thefubjefts referved liberty , and Confe- <5uently not within the reach of any lawfull command of the Magiftrat , nor of any anterior obligation , to that of the Oath by further confequence > and that the matters in debateare notfucb, he hath not pro- ved. 2ly, The Magiftrate himfelfe hath by his own Oath (in this cafe) fuperfeded and tyed up any right of commanding , which thelnformer may fuppofehe had. 3 ly, upon both thefe grounds , the performance of this great engadgemenr > can never juftle with any lawfull command of the Magiftrat. And by further Confequence, 4!}^ There is no greater or prior obli- gation in this cafe lying upon the Swearer , from the Magiftrat's right, to breake or cut fliort the obliga- tion of this vow* All which is yet further convincing- ly clear, if it be confidered, that this great fuppofi- tion of the la&fulnet or Indijferency of Prelacy (which is the grand Topick bearing the weight of his Argumenta- tion) is but begged by him, and as an almes , given by his Adverfary. But the contrariety of Epifcopacy to the Scripture , which we have alreadie proved , being once fuppofed> it followes , that tHere is an obligation Prior to all Oaths, lying both upon King and fuhjeft's for it's Extirpation, but which is much more ftrengthened by the Supervenient Oaths and vo- ws of God upon them > for this great end* Aa 1 ' Ths 7 6 A Confutation of The ItifoffleY adds further, that eur obligation to buy Superiours 5 isGodstye — — cur Oath a knot of our otvnca- fling * and that trhen Wo duties at once feeme to requirtper* fcrm^H'&f and We cannot get them bothfatisfyed, the lefjer 9*b*itld give way to the greater. Ans. I* The fame God who hath cnjoynM obedience to Rulers, hath refer- red the fubjefts liberty , and Chriftian liberty , and by hisauthority falv'd and authorized Oathsand vows which are within the compafs of that referv'd li- berty, fo the laft knot is of Gods calling aswellasthe firft. And fucb x\lexander-like abfolvers or Cutters as our Informer and his fellowes 3 will find that they are hewing at divine cords, when the curfe due to per- jury lhall enter into their houfes and foules, if they xepentnor. 2ly, Hence in this cafe and queftion under debate, our obedience to the M3giftrat ( efpecially upon our true fuppofition ofthe unlawfullnefs of Pre- lacy, and ofthe Oath againftit, lying upon theMa- giftrat himfelf) isfinfull; and fo the comparison is betwixt duty > and fin > not a greater and UJJer duty , which this man muft grant is ever to be preferred. Andbefides, theJw/brwerxfuppofition, thatthisOath is a metr voluntary deed of our own , which had fo full a ra- j tification ofthe Magiftrates Authority , is among the reft of his gratis fuppofuaznd Beggings ofthe queftion 9 which we muft fend back to him with alafii, untillic be retum'd with a dueTeftimonall of better proof then of his Ipfe dixit, j'ljr, Even upon his own fupvofition , Dr Sanderlbn will tell him , that any law made againft J an Oath , which is but fpontaneous , if the law be alternative , to obey or fufter , the Oath will bind againft theaBivepart, and oblige not to obey the power in that fupervenient command or Law, which is con- trary even to the privat fpontaneous Oath , de lur Promif* Prel. Setl. s>. But a fortiori much more will ihis oblige nos to obey that Law, if the Oath be not only the fecond Dialogue: 77 only fpontaneous , but hath been fortifyed by the Legislative power , yea and vow of the Superior him- felf, who Pretends to loofe it by his after- Law. 4ly» Whereas he alledges , Gods putting us under the commands of the powers in this cafe , and his freind Dr Burnet m this Argument, tells us that [our Oath being a voluntary deed of our own ( as htgttis fuppofeth with the Infor- mer) cannot prejudge the commands of our fupenoi rsf which are Gods own immediat commands. ] They fhould know ( asTimorcus long fince Informed them Chap. 6. feft. 35-) That the Topick of this Argument being, The dominion of the fuperieur evei the In fen our , it the command or Law be theexercife of a dominion in things wherinhe hath no dominion, the Oath will bindagainftfuchlawes. Thismanand his fellowsare (till talking of the prior obligation of obedience to the Magiftrat , but they muft know that the Mag ftrats dominion in this point muft be inftru&edby a Patent from God the fupreme Legifiator, before we can ac- knowledge it. And if our Oath interfere wuhthe exercife of a dominionwhich is without its due fphere, fure it interferres with no prior obligation which God hath lay'd upon us. Even Azorius ( Mor. Queft. 1. 1 1, cap. 6.) will tell him , that an Oath will bind Con- tra mores jure chili infmutos7 if the divine Law be in any thing croffed thereby. Nay » Cafuifts , even fuch as Abbas, Silvefter, Azorius , Molina, Lef- fius, Leyman, Sanches, Swares, do grant, That an Oath will bind againftany civillLaw, if it oblige ad p^namnon adcufpam necejfario, to punifhment, ard not neceflirly to fin. And further molt of them admit the binding force of Oaths againfhhe Laws or com- mands of fuperioursj ubi materia legibus oppofua fine pec ?- cato fieri pote ft, where the matter of the Oath, v.hict) is contrary to the lawes , may be performed without fin it being non contra jus natuule am divimtm, that i< , not A a J ajpinft 78 A Coufutation of againft the Law of nature or the divine Law, See Ti- morous ubifupra. $ly, Even putting epifcopacie in the category of things indifferent , this Oaths obliga- tion againft it> will countervaile & overfvvay our obli- gation to obey the Magiftrate, and (ubmit tohis laws , In fuch a cafe , wherin ix is found inexpedient for the Church , and particulate for this Church, as by its apparent dreadfull effefts is evident ; fuch as the defolation and wafting of this Church , the fpreading of poperie and Arminianifm , the Calling out of many of thegodlie Miniftrv, the fixed diviiion ciierin,. the endlefs Confufions and broiles* and thcrbythe wide door opened to allPopilh invaiions &c. For fince the Magiftrats fimple CommanJ cannot deter, mine what Government is expedient or inexpedient for the Church , this muft be fuppofed that Preiacie is befi , before the Command can be, fo much as fup- pofed Latvfull , els the Magiftrat may injoyne an Hundred Oaths this year in fuch andfuch things as he calls expedient, and null them all the next year, though himfeif be engadged therin , upon pretence of in- expediency of the Matter , becaufe of occurring circumftances, which will make mad work of Oaths, and hang them all at the Magiftrats fie volo fie jubeo , as to their obligation, its true that the greater duty (as isclear Math. 9. 13.) counter- balances the lefs , but I Pray 3 lhall the meer mil and Command of the fowcr, determine the greater dutie ? and be the fole and fupreme rule to determine the Confcience , as ,to the expediency of a thing hie & nunc. And though (as he fayes ) every pofittve precept oblidge not ad Sem* per. Yec he muft acknowledge, rirft.that it obltdgesfem- ?cr, and though not as to theabl, yet as 10 the eshetving the Contrary therof. And Secondly, to all Jempcr, ex- cept when Gods command fuperfeds it , as to other duties in their feafom. So that till he clear this in the point the fecond Dialogue 79 point of prelacie , and that the renouncing of our Covenant, and presby terian Government at the Magi- ftrats Command > is in our cafe thcgrcateft duty, this rule makes againft him. The Doubter 3 as to his firft rule, anent the autho- rity of fuperiours intcrveening , objefts, „that us , y hard to fay that mans authority can loofe the Oath of „ God,fince in this Cafe we muft fay,that we have ope- ,, ned our mouth unto God, and cannot go back]. To ,, this he anfwers. 1. That the law of God in the *>th Command layes the firft and Primarie obligation upon us to obey ourfuperieurs, which Command we cannot bind up eur felvcs from obeying. Anf. 1. the fame God who gave that Command , did by the third Command oblidge both fuperiours' and inferiours, to be a ware of taking his nameinvain, and therfor not toprefume to break their Oaths and vows in any Lawfull matter , unleilein- fuch Cafes as himfelf the bleft and fupreme Lawgiver excepts 3 which he hath not yet letten us fee as 10 this Oath , wherin both fuperiours and inferiours have entered 3 and therby oblidged themfelves to God againft what be pleads for* So that Gods referved Su- premacie, and Dominion , which (to ufe his own argument againft him) is the primarie and fundamen- tail tye, upon which this 5. Command is bottomed , and according to which our obedience thertomuft be Regulat , will cut fhort the obedience to the fupe- riourinthis cafe, wherin we cannot obey him in the Lord, and without violating our fealty and allead- geance to the God of Gods , and wronging his fu- prem dominion. 2ly3In this fame*). Command,God hath limited the Power of fuperiours , and tied them under many bonds of duties to their fubjedts or inferiours, which, in none of their Commands they muft trans- grefs, and if they do, their Commands oblidge not Inferiours to obey. Now, that this Loofingthe obli- Aa 4 garion £ 9 A Confutation of gation of thefc Oaths is in our cafe an encroachment upon the fubje&s right and referved Libertie , as well as chriftian Libertie , and an encroachment upon Gods fovereign rightjis above Cleared. Next he fayes* this were a way tofruftrat the fuperiour of all obedience , and every man might pretend, I have [worn againft fucha thing commanded, therfor I cannot do it. Thus privat per Jons might pre limit thetnfelves (rov obeying in everie thing. Anf in our cafe there is no fuch hazard , for the fuperiour hath prelimit Himfelf by his own oath , and this will not prelimit him upon fuch a pretence, from obe- dience in aav thing that is Lawfull > or which falls within the Compafs of his Power As a Magiftrate and is fuitable to the great ends of his Power, to fay, that he cannot Arbitrarly loofe people from a Lawfull Oath , (worn alfo by himfelf. But on the contrary, this pretended Informer his 4o&rine herein prehmtes and cuts short Subjedts Libertie, and Chriftian Li- bertie , and Liberrie of Confcience, fubje&ing it, and all Gods rules theranent, all fcripture Rules of Expediency and Edification , and all Oaths and vows fuperadded to matters fubordinat tothefe ends, unto theMagiftrats arbitrary difpofal and laws, which is a prelimitation equally if not more dangerous. Our Informer in the next place for proof of this his doftrine3 fends the Doubter to Numb, go; where (he fayesy the husband or parent is vefted with a Power to null and make void the vow of the wife or daughter y and by Pro* portion the Kjng, who is Pater patri*, hath the fame autho- rity. An[. it will be a harder task then this man can well manage to bring in the King here within the Com- pafs of the father znd husbands right , as to this abfol- ving Power* For firft, the Magiftrats Power is far different from the Marital and Parental, and the re- lation betwixt King and (ubjeft is nothing fo flrau, 25 betwixt husband and wife, parent and Children* the one the lecond Dialogue. 8 c one being natural , the other Political % the one chan- geable, the other not. A man may chufe to Live under what Magiftrat be plcafes > but the woman cannot caft off ber husbands nor the Child fhakeoff his relation and dutie to the father. Befides, fubjedts fet up their Magiftrats and Limite them : But fo it is not as to the Marital and Parental relations. Tne husbands authority flows not from the wife her dona- */ow,nor the parents from the Children. So that a pa- rallel argument can hardly be drawen from the Power of husbands and parents, fuppofedin this text > in re- lation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife, to that of the Magiftrat in relation to his fubjefls. z\y> in the beginning of that Chap, the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanation touching vows , feems to exclude the Magiftrat from this abfolving Power. For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows, viz. that the ftrfon vowing shall not breal^nor profane [his Word, as the He* brew Jigmfies , but do according to all that Proceeds out of bis mouth, i. The Cafe of the wife and the Daughter riot foris-familiat, isGods great and only cxception(expre& in the Text) from his own rule, and Law,touching the ftrick obfervation of voluntarie Lawfull vows.So that, the rule and Law feemsto reach all other Cajes> as to free vows, except only this, ily, in the Beginning of the Chap, we find that Mofes fpoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes , but the text is filent as to his apply- ingof this exception anent the father and husbands Po\vevmab{oWmgvo\vs,untothefeheads & z{ulcrs,\vhich fhould have been efpecially intimat to them. Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the obfervation of vows , ftands raft in all other Cafes except thefe here exprefly excluded, by the C reat Lawgiver. So thar ere his argume nt can reach us , he raoft give in Sufficient proof that the A a 5 Magi- gx A Confutation of Magiftrat ftands vefted with this Power, and falls wtrhin the Compels of this exception, in relation to his fubje&s. Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove, that this Judicial ftatute, as others of the like nature, doth belong unto the Chriftian Church. But in the fecond place, (Granting that the Magi- firat is here meant, it will never fpeak home to his Point, but much againft him, fori, the dominion of the Superiour being the ground ot this dis- charge, wherin the husband and Parent have Power, if the matter of our vow be found fuch as is excepted from the Magiftrats dominion, the Informer mud grant that this text will not reach our Cafe- And fuppofing the matter > antecedaneously unto the vow * to fall under divine Commands, this is evident beyond exception. But becaufe he beggs our conceffion , that it was before indifferent, Iadde, if it be within the Limits of our referred Libertic as freefubje&s, or of our Chriftian Libertie , its ftill on both grounds , be/ond the reach of his dominion, and confequently excluded from this exception, and the vow muit (land and oblidge according to the Grand precept here {et down ; fo that a hundred difcharges of the Magiftrat will never touch it. We heard him acknowledge, that by [difcipline of this Church) in the nationall Covenant y the jubflanttalls of Government is under [tood yand that confequently it binds therunto; So he mult acknowledge that ourfolemn Covenant will inviolably bind to thisdivineFrame of Government, &noearthlie power can loofe therfrom, no more then fiom Scripture inftitutions. And Do- dor Ftatlie acknowledged that people may Covenant , without their Superiour sy to fulfill Gods Lav. Now,give U5 all Scripture Church officers , and their Rules of Government,^ Prelacie fhall be quickly gone,So that upon his conceffion that the national or folemn league do the fecond Dialogue. 8 j do reach the fubftantialls of Government > or what is neceffary for the ends of Government fet down in Scripture, it will amount to that which we plead for ; and he mull grant it falls not under the Magiftrats Dominion , and that his argument from this text is loft. 2dly, this diffent which loofes the vow , mud be both aneepend'jfent > andalfo prefentlie in the verie day he heares of it* Quifcro ft noluifefigniftcatputan- dus eft aliquando voluiffe. That is , he that declares a latediflent, may be prefumed fometimesto have gi- ven his confent, faith DrSand. de jur.prom, Thishc cannot fay as to our King. 3 ly, It moft be conftant > the diffent fufpending, but not loofing the obligation. The oblidging vertue being naturall , and infeparable to the yow (as Dr Sand, tells us de jxr.prom. pag> 3. SeB. io* ) when ever the confent comes, the obliga- tion returns. Now have not our King and Rulers con- fented unto , and ratefied all our vows both in the na- tionall , and (olemn league and Covenant ? 4-ly, This confent of the fupenour osce given , can never he retr*&ti by a diffent again. Whither it be before or after, he can never makeitYoid* as the Text doth clearlie holdout* See Sand* 16* Prel. 7. Se.ft. 6' Mow have not both the national! and folemn League > the Confent &vows of all our fuperiours ratifying the fame. So that this text every vay pleads for the obliga- tion therof; for this their confent , once given, they can never revoke > farlefs their Oath and vows, but the vows of the inferiours , are thereby rendered for ever valid 5 asCafuifts infettingdown thefe rules doegrantj fo Aquinas, Filucms ( fradt. 25 cap. 9.) Azor. (Moral, inft. lib. 11. cap. 10.) Sanches (lib* 3. Cap. 9.) Amefius (caf.Iib.4. cap*2Z. Queft. 11.) Sand.(Juram.Prom.Prel.4.Seft.itf.JButthe Doubter objecting [ this confent and ratification of our fu- periours, which therefore they cannot make void.] He 8 but aifo folemnlie vowed and bound his foule to the Lord , inthe fimsvow, which is mod evidendie our cafe. Have we not the folemn vows, fubfcriptions ani Oathsofboth King; and Kulers, concurring with the vows of thsfuhjefts in this cafe? How then fhall theyloofe their own *jo^x.2ly,this wilde glofs is exprefly crofs to Dr Sanderfon > and orher Cafuifts , their fenfeofchis cafe and text as we heard , who hold that if once thefuperiour hath either tacitly or ev.prefsly> precedanioufly or fubfequentlyconfented^hecan never t>y his diffent again cither difcharge from the Oath or (fomuch as) fufpend the obligation of it- Dr. Sand, iairh ( i6* Prel. 7. Sedt- 6.) itsa truerule* qusdfc* melplacuit amol'nts dif pit cere non debet , what once in this cafe hath pleas'd the fuperiour, ought never to difpleafe ; Gods Word declaring it eftabliftied for ever. If he hath confented (faith the Dr ) either be- fore or after , be can never afterwards take away its o» bligation. 3. He makes the text contradict it felf, for (ver. 7.) upon-the husbands tacit confent, and botdin; his peace in the day he heard his wifes vow > theLord declares that her vv lhallftandt8z the bond whe* remith she bound her foule^aUfland. Andfverf. 14.) The husbands holding his Peace, eflalliihes her vows anc confirms them. Now then , God having declairecJ that die vow ftands, isconfirmd, and eftabliflied as; foulel the fccofid Dialogue Sy fulf-bond upon their foiiles ,by thisccnfent tacit or ex- preffehowfhallitbenull, and notftand, by ane after diffent? Sure [to Jland] is here oppofed unto [not to ftandluponxhe termes of the prefent open diffent in tie day he heard of it, which is the onlie exception. That which God declares to be confirmed , and to ftand, upon the father or husbands confent , admits of no nulling afterward by them 5 but fo it is, that the wife or daughters vow upon the firft con- fent and ratefication , ftands and is confirmed, as a foule-bond: ergo, it admits of no loofingbyane after diffent. I prove the major two wayes, 1. Jianding and Confirming here are oppofed , to nulling and making void. And 2ly, this would make more Limitations then God makes , as to the Loofing of the vow ; for there is no exception but that one, of the husbands open difent, or the parents , in the day he hears of it. This is the onlie exception from the rule in the 2d vers, aneht the binding of the vow. But this mans glofs brings in another limitation crofs to the veryfcope and exprefs fenfe of the words viz. the husbands dt\~ fent, after he hath by a previous confent ratified thexow* That God admits the vow to ftand, upon this exprefs or tacit confent , is evident in the text. As for the reafon which he adds, viz. That the wift is under a prior obligation te obey her husband-fit is abfurd and ridiculous, for will he carve our ane obligation in this point beyond what God hath fo expielly limit and declard. This were to give the husband a power not over the wife onlie , but over God himfelf , an j his exprefs declarator. As for that claufe (ver. 1^ \ that if he hall any waves ma\e them void 3 after he hjtfr beard them > then he frail bear her iniquitie. What a wi]ly, hence the obedience therof in faith, is excluded , and no zSts of obedience can flow from fpirituall knowledge. ■£« The Doubter next o^jedls [that his Oath againft Bimopshadthe firft obligation, and therfor he can- not be loofed by the after Law. ] To which he anf- wers, that thefth* command* and fubmiffionro the ordi- nance of man 9 had the firjl obligation , and that obedience to anthoritie comes under the baptifmall vow - that to fay our Oatk willollidge again fl the Magiftrats Command to the Contrary , will dude the exprefs precept Eel. 8. 2. to obey the kings command in regard of the Oath of God. Anf. This is nothing but what we have heard , repe- titions adnaufeam, andftill idem per idem. Our obli- gation in the gd command, not to take Gods name in •vain, and to keep and ftand to all Lawfull Oaths , and vows 3 unlefs in cafes which God himfelf excepts , is j furly a verie arlie, and a baptifmall obligation, prior to j anv Law of the Magiftrat , and fuch as no authoring snd Laws of men can cvacuatand enervat > and our j obedience *• the ordinance tfman% or the higher and \ Lower i the fecond Dialogue- 89 Lower Powers, being for the Lords fa !{e , "that is upon the motiveofhtsauthoritie,doth infer, that we rrmft not dare tocrofshis authority, under pretence of obedience to the powers, in breaking lawfull Oaths and vows which he has commanded us to keep. Sure no Laws ofmen can fuperfed this obligation. That the Oath under debate is fuch, hath been already made good, ?nd needs not be here repeated. As for that of Eccl. 8.20, It makes clearlieagainft hinvche Englifh annotations having upon that text, mentioned the mutuail tye , oath , and Covenants betwixt King and fubje&, inltancingi.Chron.il. 3. do tell us ,,thac 3, this is net only anc enforcement of the duty offub- „je6te, but likewife, that the claufe contains ali- „ miration, by which our obedience to men is bounded: „ And thus they fenfe jthe precept, keep the Kingscom- tnand, yetfo that thou do not vioUt thine Oath and obedience .due unto God. Our fewieeto the one ( fay they ) muftbe fuch as willeonfift with our fealty to tlx other. JVg are bound \:to Godandhisferviceby Oath and Covenant > andnofubor- iinat ubedievce to others , muft make u: forget our duty to \'bim. Which cleariie erodes this h\ifs<*\nformtrs feope Uvho would perfwadeto pcrjaric and breach of Cove- nant with Gcd , upon pretence of fealty to the Magi* ftrat, Mr Poole in his annotations having told us „That 3, the firft branch oftheverfe is not to beunderftood 3,univerfally , but of fuch comraandsasdo notcrofle ,3 the commands ef God, expones this Oath of God ,, mentioned in the fecond part of it , either or the „ Oath we are under to keepe all Gods Laws , or the i> fubordinat Oath of fealty and allegiance. But adds , 3,thatthisalfo maybe underftood, and is byleanied >, Interpreters taken, as a limitation of their obedience to mK*ngf) rhe words being thus rendred, as the Re- threw ( faith he) will very well bear , but according Bb uthe fo A Confutation of yttothefKrdoftbcOathifGod, obey the Kings com- >, mands, with this caution that they ^>e agreeable and J not contrary to the Laws of God, which thou art ob- liged by thy own and thy parentsQaths oft renewed, 3, to ©bferre in the firft place. As for what he addsfout of the gr*nd cak)anentlefuite. Oath in Rome to peach in England Catholic \ doclnne 3 and of a Law made in England againfi thifarm. It is fo pal- bablie impertinent and untuteable to the point , that I wonder at the mans confidence in preferring to the world fuch poor trifling fopperies in fo m eightie a mar- ter. Dare he fay that the matter of our vows, which our Rulers themfelves have taken, is in any meafure like to this* Nay, doth he not fuppofe the Matter of this Oath to be L is oppofedbvSilvefter and others , who fay, thatthe 1 Pope muft: determine the good to be better. So ratio- j nail and Confequent to their Principles ?.re even Papifts in this point. And mud not Proteftants be a- fn?medtorefufe this limitation, that the Scripture (with us the onlie , and fupreme rule ) muft deter- 1 mine this greater good. Next, Timorcus will tell 1 him, that the Oath thus irritat, miftheonliemadeto 1 God, for if it be to our brother , and for his advantage , ure 1 njuflhave kit consent as necefl arte towards the commutation.' A This he tells us , is agreed upon by Cafuifts « as well j -as theorher limitations. To thefe <*e adde Dr. Sand. ^ rule (de j'ttr. prom. Prel.$- Sett- 12.) that. ?, precife !;j cbhoequodvidetur impeditivwnmajeris boni 3 obliganiivim y non amittit. Id eft, That the Oath lofetbnot its obliging M flrceymeerlybecaufe itfeems the hindrance ofagredteYgcod, ]P uclefs other circumftanccs alfo concurr ( as ufji- :fl ,,allie there do) which either evinceit unlawful, * ,,or notoblidging* His reafonisbecaufein allcafes Bb 2 iiis 5*1 A Confutation of * 3, it \$ not true that everie one is oblidged to c*o * hat is ybeft., hemeans, jimp hater , ?r& abfrracTrine from ?,ihe prefent circumfta-ce* ) fmcethis wculdopena ,, fiood-gate for all manner of perjurv. As for that li- mitation f preferred with an efpecidily asrhe main one) anent the Oaths hindering the greater good , to which we trere prceblidged , which this man foifts in , to make wav for his naufeating repetition , anent the Magtfirats fewer y it may be alleged chat it is not confident with it felf: for if we flood Preobliged to this greater good, it renders the Oath abimti* null* forthetamecaufeon which it isloofedupon theprofpeft ofthat greater good. The greater obligaticn(as hcfayes)ftill overru- ling the !€(Ter,5caneOath in prejudice ofa greater obli- gation , and conrradiftorie thci to, can lay on noob- ligatlon , for Co we might be under contradidtorie ob- ligations according to his way of reafoning about the Magiftrats power. [I will have mercie andnotfacri- hce] is or.eof his illustrating ioflances. So that the .obligation of theOnh, according to his rcafoning in this matter , was like unco this inverted rule , viz. Sacrirlceand notrnercie, and being fuchaiiwVw. it could not bind* I know (as Dr Sand, frith) that which is abflra£ted!yand/?/Hp/;w a greater good, may h;c & nunc, and infuch a complex cafe become the leiTer> CGnfideratis csnfider^ndis- \\\ circumitances taken » in. Bur this he admits not,for he addsunro the known rule anent the greater and certain good in its time and circumitances , that other limitation anent thevower hisbsing preobliged unto it ■ which can no otheryvjf- be underftood then in opposition to tfvs .obligation of the vow, unlefs this his added limita- tion be redundant , or non-fenfe. But2dly, let us come to the afTumption, what is that greater good, attainable in breaking this Oath and vow rather then in keeping it. This he tells us is obidi* the fccond Dialogue. 53 obedience to authority ghat's the panacea curing allwounds the univerfalL topics and prunum mobile ) avoiding of Schifme, Minifters fervingGod , in the work of the mini' ftry to xobicbthty are calkd\thefe be fayes arc greater and bet- ter goods then adhering to thtOatkin a thing indifferent Then he adds , that -vUnijlers should confider whither it be bet* tertoUy afide their Oath, then their Mimjlenc. ( Ejpe- ciallie ane Oath about a thing indifferent ) and in* capAcitat , or do that which b - conjequence incapacitates them for the Minifterie — tbaiMinijterstlyn^thatby their Oath they are obliged not to continue in their ftations , *s matters now fund , and yet divines hold that the lejjer duty gives place to the greater , as David did eat the shew bread rather then ftarve , Paul and thofe with him , did cift their goods into the fca&c* In Anfiver to ih:$. we need not much enlarge, ic being nothing but what is upon the matter already • objected and anfwered. 1. It" the Oath, for its mat- ter contain important duties falling under divine com- mands » and unalterable obligations, ifPrelaciebe contrary unto divine prescriptions in point ofGovern- ment,& the difowning of it confequently be a ftanding neccflarie duty ('which we do fuppofe and have proved, andhe cannot disprove) then this man hirn- felf will grant that all ttr s tatle about the greater good in breafyngtbe Oath jsto no pmpofe.ilyfoyprehcic were butindirTerent>yet upon the fuppolall of the greater ex* pediencie of Presbyterian Government for this Church thenPrelacie , and upon the certain fuppofition of all the Rulers engagement in this Oath and vow to God againir. it , ( the lirft of which fuppoiitionsrienath not difproved > and thc2d he cannot deny ) it is certain 3 thatbo:h Rulers and Ruled their keeping the Oath, is a far greater & morefcertain good, then their bresking it»3ly, let Dr Sand. limitation here again come in viz. uThat the Oath is not precifely loofed becaufc it „ feem* to contradict a greater good, unlefs Other cir, 8b 3 cum* 94 A Coufutation of jjCumftances doalfo occurr, which cither evince it >,cobe unlawfully or not obhdgmg > andthst its not » true that ni evene cafe we are fcwtolto do what is ,, belt , that is anlefs omnibus penfuis > and e*ttw Pari- foj, ail circi-ruitances uueli^ pondtred a it be round belli xiid thzn the Queftion is whither it were beft for Rule * or ruled to keep this Oath for thefe^r eat ends which he mentions, than to break ir. Yvftuher it be a greater good to keep a Lawfail Oath , though I fuffer under aurhoricie levelling againft it, or break it , topleafemsn > or whither I fhall chute the evil lor iuf- fermg or finning? ( for he hath i be yerproved chat thcinterpcritagtifthe Rulers rmtrLaworauthontie > wiil make thtsO*th unlawfully we have ihewed that Caiuifts mantain the Contrary. ) Whither peace with God be a greater good in keeping his Covenant , thea peace with men and wi:h the world in breaking it? This Queftion was foon refolved with Elras. The children oflfiael have forfaken rhy Covenant * and I onlie am left &c. $!y* This greater good , he acknowled *fcs mult b£ fucb, as is no Other tPiJc Attainable then by brewing theOatb. Hence the Queftion will be , fP hither the Gofpel mt^ht not have been preached , fihifme a- voided, and God jewed m the Mimflerie 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 detoy thaj this good might have been ihusbeterobtain'd. Healledgeswe have now a great - Scniine '. and incurred much fin and miferie, Iknow he will fay that hefpeaksupon thefupofal of the Rulers difowning-the Oath , and Eftablifhing prelaeie. But then I urge him thus, 1. Since he cannot butgrant that the keeping of the Oath, or holding fail: Presbyterian governm«n:,wouldhave had the fore- mentioned advantages following upon it , fhall the meer pleafure of tb- Rulers catt the ballance , and difprove its native tendencie fua natura towards -the formenticned effe&s ? the matter of the Oath is (till of it felf , or of its own nature, more produtiive of thefe f;ood efte&s; & Confequencly the keeping is to be pre- erd to breaking of it , which is attended with evils counterbalancing thefe apparent good effe&sy which he imagins to attendjthisjbfeach. 2ly>iftheOath can- not be commuted or changed, but for a greater good, aad all thefe good effects mentioned, might have been bet- ter,& more certtinhe attaind ,by keeping then breaking ir, then the Rulers commuting the Oath, or altering or breaking of it , he miift acknowledge to be finfull upon his own ground* Since they might have attaind thefe goodeffc&s of obedience , preaching the gofpel, and unity, by keeping this Oath, and might have more furelie and better eftiewed the forementioned evils' then by breaking it. And then, let him in the third place feriou fly Confider, whither the Rulers fin in commutting or breaking this Oath » for neither a greater, nor more certain good , will warrand mv breaking of the Oath to follow them in that finfull courfe, and loofe me from my obligation. 4ly, It will B b 4 hence 9& A Confutation of hence follow, that he playes the petty fopbifler here , in calling difobedience to the Magiftrat, in this one point of a finfull command in relation to this Oath, (which on theformentioned grounds is proved Sin- full ) a difobeytng ofauthoritie. For he dare not fay that diftbtying a finfull command can come under this chara- cter. And the true itate of this Queftion is not , whi- ther it be a greater good, to obey the Magiftrat or keepane oath e. but whither it is a greater good in this particular to obey him, in Embracing abjur'd Prelacie, ertoftandtotheOaih ; and theifTue of thisis , whi- ther it be beft for the Church of Scotland to have or , wantPrclats? which, from what is faid is foon deter- mined. ?ly3 What if thefe pretended good iffues, be coun- tervail by greater evillsx fuch as perfecution of many thoufands, godiie faithfullMinifters and Profeflbrs, laying wafte Gods heritage* Blood, miferir , con- fulion, fchifme, ( the goalie adherers torhisOath, being without all queltion this Pure Church) famine of the word&c. Nay> according to Dr Said, rule mentioned, where is the Relaxation of all parties en- gadged in Covenant one with another > as weil as with God? were not the Churches of both nations nay in all the three Kingdoms » engadged to one anoiher in this Oath? now thinks he, not that this profpedt of a greater good in breaking this oath, ihould have been laid to the eye of the reprelentative Church in the three Kingdoms, in order to the change of government. And ihould not all parties engadged in this Covenant , have dilpenfed with it, and with one another in con- templation of this greater good , and for obtaining this better government ? thinks he that fuch a great queftion as this: What is this greater god in point of Church Government} And that other Qutition- M hither Juch great andfolemn Oaths may be laid ajiie in order to the obtai- ning of it ? Are Finally decided by tht Magiftrats Law With- the fecond Dialogue 5>7 without the leaft owning the Church reprefentativc ? and befides , he dare not lay that all are bound to obey the Magiftrat in all things indifferent. IsnGiJubjeRicn (by the acknowledgement ofmoft, and even of his Ma- iler the furveyer ) different from ailwe obedience. Finally, as for what he fayes of Minifters, the Apologia told him ? and his mafler the Seaicnable cafe , and I do tell him again 3 that God calls no man to preach the gofpel by fuch ane unlawfull meane as perjurieand breach of Covenant , and that in this cafe Miniiters faffering for truth a is a Confirmation ofthe gofpel Phil. 1. 12. That in deferring and not preaching , they are meerly paffive : being periecute for their integritie ; fo the charge and guilt of net preaching lyes upon their persecutors. Befides, the Hate ofthe queftionin truth, and in our principles importing a competition betwixt/la andfuffermg , and dutyandfin, not a Ujjer and greater duty > the f oily and im pertinency of his inftance , anent the lejjer duty over* ruled by the greater ( exemplified by that, \ will have mer- m and notfacrtfiee , repeated here ad naufeam) as alfo that inftance of Paul and thofe with him , their calling their goods in the fea&c, ismoft evident. The fin andperjurie of this courfe of conformitie, being our principle, which he cannot difprove 3 even though wefhould grant all his pleading here ( which goes but upon a begged fuppoiition of prelacies indifferencie > and the indifference ofthe matter of the Covenant ) what a flat folly is it , to tell us of preferring greater to ItJJer duties ? wheras with us the queition and cafe is , anent Minifters duty when fit? Magijlrat refufetb to ad- mit to preach , but upen Jinfull terms 5 which one confi- deration makes all his tatle here evanifh in wind. Sup- pofethe Rulers of a land difcharge all, preaching, but Upon the terms that Miniflers fhould commit lome horrid ad of wickednefs, would this man admit any to Bb 5 plead 5)8 A Confutation of plead as he doth fordoing evillthat good may come of it, and to tell what a weightie duty it is to preach the gofpel , and that the leffer duty of forbearing thai evi 11 commanded, is overruld by the greater obliga- tion to preach, &c. Well, he and his partie (like the pharifatk teachers , twixt whom and us he infi- nuats a companion ) are fare blind Informers and leaders , and maybe fetto learn better (thou that reached another teacheft thou not felf ; ) For they have vented fuch principles anent facred Oaths, as fome heathens would be afhamed of, and which bani- flies all faith out of the world. For what he adds anent the Rechabites , when he ihal equiparat the matter of their vow, a thing meei ly civil,relating to their ab- ftinence from \vine,and the manner of their dwelling, with the weighty and great duties of a Covenant with God, for publick and perfonal reformation, and with- al prove that hazart will equally plead for the laying aMe of the laft , as in fome cafes it may warrand a dif- p^nfing with fome partofthefirft, the parallel fhall be admitted, but till then, it mud pais among the reft of the Informers gratis dibit. The Dutch annot. ( on Jer. 35.7. ) Shew extended to this cafe. So that in their fenfe there was no breach of the vow properly and ftri&ly taken y but snely the laying afide of a part of a humane ordinance, in cafe of extreme hazart , and this according to the nature and defigne of the vow it felf,and the firft infti- tution therof. Chap. V. The Informers anfwers to our Argument for the Covenant obligation, taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites , and Zedikiahs Oath to the King ot Babylon , weighed. Upon the firjl Argument after a foolish traverfe About the con- fonaney of the Oath to the Law of God, heyeeldi ' the caufe ingYAntingthAt tbeOAtb did oblige the firft take rs,and their poftcricy. Uf$n the fecond he begs the queftion And admits its chief fcope and nerves. Likgwife his anfwtr to Tfalm. 1 v 4- His reflection on the Affembly 1 6 j 8, and his argument offered byway of retortion Anent our owning of ComiJ] Aries though abjurd in the Covenant f Urgly fanned. np Hus we have feen into what a fafcination and JL labyrinth of jabfurd inconfiftent notions this new 1 proctor hath involved hirofeJf, while endeavouring; to [ loofethefefacred bonds of our folemn vows and Co- [ venants with God, and that he hath run crofs to the : fcriprure, toCafuifts, yea to himfelf, in thisenter- ; pri{e. We fhal now proceed to examine what ftrengcri j is in the remnant of his r'eafonings upon this head; And i oo A Confutation of And how he acquits himfelfin his anfwers to fome pregnane parages offcripture pleaded for the Cove- nant. The firft that follows in this dialogue is that remarkable tranfadtiQn of Jofhua and Ifrad with the Gibeonices , larglyandunanfwerabiy preftedandim- proven by fuch as havewritten for theCovenants which this man though: he could not for very ihamepaffb over; but (ure he had better done fo,then to have made fuch a pitifujiandfuperficiallmurn. Well, let us hear it. The Doubter nowaffaults him as to this notion anent the greater good in quiring the Oath , with that inftanceoftheOath totheGibeomtesJwhomGodhad commanded to make no peace with , but enjyond Ifrael to root them out , to whom Jofua and the Prin- ces might have (aid 3 Gods command Loofes us from our Oath 3 audit will hinder agieater good, yet in that particular they rather difpenfed with Gods com- mandjthen with their Oath; theacceptablnefswherof to God, appeal d in bis punifiiin'g Saul a long time after for killing thefeGibeonites , to whofe predeceU fors joihua & the princes had fuorn.jln anfwer to this, he runs out a great length 2nent that tranfaftion, to in- fringe this argument. Which I fhall now examine. But before I enter upon this , 1 would premiie two thiegs* firft, that this trifling Informer hath fo moulded our argument from thistext as quite to divert it from its true channel and (cope, which is to prove tbcoblid- gjvg force ofane Oath or Covenant (Lawful upon the mat- ter j both upon the takers* and their pofierity , notwitb- fianding of many cir aw flan trail finfull aberrations from the divine rule, in tin manner of entring into it. Asis moftevicientinthis inftanceasl ftial after (hew. And this man could n3t be ignorant , that this text is thus imoroven by Timorcus and 0:hers, who have writ- tea for the Covenant , and this argument , and improvement the fecond Dialogue 101 improvement of the text which be prefents , is but a iran offtrawof his ownupfetting.Second!y,thatwe arc not concerned in order to the'evincing thepremifed truth for the proof wherof we adduce this text, pe- remptory to determine this quefiion , whither this Oat h did contradiB Gods p0(ime Law , and how far dny piece or c ire um fiance f ej the divine precepts ar>ent the defiru- citin of the Cannarires , making no leagues with thitnt jujiies with this Covenant and Oath , and aye found o~j*r- rulidky its oblgation : for our argument ftands fcood and in tire , tho we abftratt from any pofuive de- termination in this poinr. So that in tracing our Informers extravagant difcourfeinanfwer to this ob- jection of his own moulding, we (bal rather difco- ver the flippery grounds he walks upon , and the inconfiitencieswherin he 15 involved by his anfwers , and confident aflenion of the Oaths conformity/0 J the diTineLaw,then pofoively to rcfolve and determine anything in this debate, which this man hath nolefs ridiculoufly handled* then impertinently brought in* But to the point. Firft* he wonders that we ma he ujc of thh argument to prove the obligation of our Oath again]} Bishops. But fure it »s ane argument verie Surable, if ane Oath into which Joshua and all Ifrad were cheated, ane Oath to Heathens, and which had at Leaft-wife s yerie appa* I rent inconfiftencie with Go as command , to root out I thefe Canaanices y and not to pitie o~ fpare them , is found fo highly oblieatorie, and even binding the I jpofterity , how much more the nations Covenanting '* with God, and with one another for publickandper- fonall reformation. But he fayes , That &e m;fislte this place. Why fo ? Fhft> if we thinly Joshua was forbidden upon any itrmes to mal^i a Covenant with theft Qayiamitts > tut to rcot them aUoutt and ytt bacsnfi of this Oath fpared them , then (he fayc*) tte run in 4 mojl Wild andgrofs opU mm ox A Confutation of nion. Severe cenfure ! why fo, what is that opi* nion ? that ane Oath (faith he) can bind againji a com* mtind of God , whither ft be a mor all or particular Command $ its all one. So that as we [aid before > that ane Oath can bini ugainfl commands of men in authority , now we go a greater length , inmakjngthem bind againji ^Commands of Gnd. Butlanfwer, firft, that there was a command of God to cutoffthefe Canaanites, without pitying or fparing them , I hope he will not deny , and if he do , it is eafie to be produced, Exc. 23. -J2, 3 g. Exo.34. 1*. Deur. ?. 2. Nay more, Gods command herein was fo peremptory , that where he appointed his people to tender peace to other cities , before they proceeded f o deftroy them, there is ane exception made ( as lack- fonobferves upon Jofhua 9* 7.) of the cities of Canaan Deut. 20. 15, itf. thus sbalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from five, wltich an not oftheOties oj thefe nations. But of the cities oj the People which the Lord tbv God hath gh en thee for ane inheritance , thou shall fave alive nothing that breatheth. To this place Jackfon points us to clear this matter. 2ly, Its as evident that thefe Gibeonttes had their faftie from this Oath and Cove- nant. For upon this we bave the judgement of ail the princes of the congregation , (Josh. 9. 19-) in deter- mining that queftionabou^ their faftie , trebva foqtn unto them by the Lord>> tkeyfor wemav not touch them , becaufe of the Oath which we I ware unto them* Yea more , when many hundered yeares after , the injury nf Saul is mentioned in Haying them, the ground of their right to Live and dwell among the Lords people /ra- ther then the other Canaanites, is attributed exprefly and folely tothisOath;2.Sam. 21. z.Now the Gibeoxiitz. were notoflfraelbutofthejlmorhes, and the children 0 lfrael had /worn unto them > and Saul fought to flay them wher for David faid what frail I do foryow. Now th; command being foexprefs to cutt them off, andupoi th the fecond Dialogue 103 the other hand , their faftie being firft and laft attri- buted fo clearhe to the Oath , that which this man calls a tvilde and grofi opinion, he muft either impure to the Scripture-account of this matter, or refolve and accommodat this difficulty , which he is (in maintain- ing the Scriptures authority) obiidgeduntoas well as .we* 3ly, that which he calls a witde and g'ofs opinion y is the Judgement of Learnd Divines , particularly of I Jackfon , who upon the twenty vers, of that 9 of Jo- iliua, havingmoyed this Qb)?£t\on> that what tin ?rin- ces [ware was agztnfkeke exprejs command of God \whokai often enjoind te deflw ai tb^fi Canaanites. Returns this anlVer. That .hough one Oath or vow doth not bind men for doing of any thing that ts abfolutely unlawfully yet\in this [ cafe it was not fo , becaufe the charge which God gave for flaying the inhabitants of the Land , was a particular command 5 and fo far only tg bind their confeimces , as it might be obeyed without any breach of the morall Law » as in s\ahabs cafe it is alfo evident. But , here they could not obey that command of God cwcer~ ning their deflroying all the Inhabitants nj Canaan , Without ■perjurie y which is again ft tkeLavand light of nature, « he adds], t k&t their per \urie wauld have ghtn great occafion to the enemks ofGedspesple to bhf>hcme— — So th*t (faith he ) there lay a flrong bond upon the confeimces of tie If* raelites, though they were deluded b\ the Gibfonites. Now I think theaccount of thisdifikulty exhibit unto us here by this learnd divine, may make him afhatnedof his aflertion w, this point, & we may retort his objected ab- furditie thus; if the morall Laws obligation in oppofi- tion to permrie, ftoodagainft and counter-ballnnced a particular command of God in this matter,rr.uch more will the force and obligation of ane Oath , in a matter of far greater importance, ftnnd good a^ai nil any po. fitive Laws and fratutes of men. Andif evenGods pofmve Particular command y could in this cafe ground *o4 A Confutation of gound no difpenfation with their Oath y but Cod would rather difpenfe wicb the particular command > than with it, how much more abfurdmuft he be, who pretends a difpenfation with , and a nulling of , fuch felemn Sacred Oaths and vows to God as we are un- der , and in fuch weighty matrers , upon the arbitra- ry commands of men , efpecially men under the fame O itjhs themfelves. In the premifeddiftin&ion ofMrJackfon, the In- former might bavedifcovered the folly of hisbo3d un» reftridted atiercion s no Oath can bind again ft a comand , no not a particular command. For Jackfon diftingui- Ihes (which this man admits yea and pofnivcly af- ferts) betwixt that which is limply and abf dutch unlaw- ful 1 3 and that which is unlawful only upon the ground of a particular pofithe precept, which in tome circum- ftannat cafes may come toiuftle with the abfolutly binding moral Law > as in the inftances adduced by the Informer himfelf is evident- 4 Ly3 His own rule anent theUffer obligation over- ruled by the greater or Prfar , will plead for this , and his inftances, of Mercie and not Sacrifice, of Paul and thofe with him 5 their catling the goods i*to the fea 7 D ki*% Gods name in vain , did over-rule a particular po- fitive precept? Doth he not here fee Gods great mo* rail Commands ( inthepremifed inftances) binding againft letter pofitive precepts, And when he faith that whither the command be morall or particular which the Otth binds again jl , all is one as to hts fancied abfurditie % he difcovers ignorance, and inconfiftency withhirn- fclfj the fccond dialogue ioy i felf , for ra all Jv's formenrioncd inftances , mo* 1 ral precepts do overrule pofitive, particular and letter precepts. And why mall nor afforhe great moralt comrmnd a^enr not taking Gods name in vasn , over- ; rule that pofitive and particular precipe anent the flaving of thefe Gibeonires , and far more our (n- | lemn vows > the preie-it rtarires of men. Sure, he 1 will never be recorcled with hm/elf here, oratfi^ne adif.)3rirv* Hence Tackf n hav;n£fa;d that rh'* bond ofe'iis Oath lay ftronglv unon the co fcieiice^ of -he : Ifiaelices ro obrerve ir, thoueh rh v vvre de ud d py rh~fe Gibeonires , add^th that in this the Rule holds good J will have mercie and not ^acr;fice, and from his ovna-gument concludes that wucft ne here dcny£s. S^rhat firs cafe of theGib^oni:es (according to Jack* fois folutfon of his difficulty, and that fenfe of this Scripture foHowedby him and Other learned divines) iftronglv repells his rule, from the hindranceof agrea- jter good toloofe the Covenant, efpeciaily fince this [greater good doth with him ftiJl refolve into obe- jdience of mens Laws. Had not the Ifradites this? Igfound more ftrongly to plead ag?inft the keeping of their Oath to thefe Gibeonics, fince not only they were cheated into it ( and dolus aufcrt confenfnm fay Ca- ifuifts ) but it feemd to hinder a farr greater good viz i 'the obeying ofGods exprefs command to root them ■at; yet Joftuia & thePrinces knew not this new knack for loofing Oaths. But the interpofing the facred loame of God inane Oath , was with the n o weighty I matter , thatit overruled all thefe pretences. Thus we have feen how he acquits himfelfasto his firft charge of [a mi'lake of this place] and thar what le calls agrofi and wilde opinion, is the fenfe of rh* fcrip- :ure embraced by learnd divines andconfonarttohis »wn pleading ; fo that in thi* charge he difcover* f>o *o!d ignorance, What more hath he to fay ? he tells Cc x& x o6 A Confutation of u$ily> that we are miflakeniftfe think -> that Ushua h*A ro u>arr and to makepeace ivith any of the Canaanites % but wai commanded without once treating with them , to root them all out ' becaufe in Dent, 20. 10. he h commanded to pro- claim peace indefinitly to anycitiehe came to fight with, tht Canaanites not excepted, dm. How can this man fay thai the Canaanites are not excepted, from thatofferoi peace there injoyned, when as he doth not fomuct as offer to anfwer to thefe pregnant circumftancesoj the text j pleaded by Iackfon and Others to prove the contrary. For , after the Lord hath comman« ded them to proclaim peace to a city before they affau. iy ted it,thei e is (verfc 1 ?.) a limitation. Thus (halt r hoi Mdo unto all the cities which are very far off from thee 55 which are not ofthc cities of thefe nations (viz: whe were devoted to deftiudlion) therfor in the itf.verf after the Lord hath thus ridd marches , as to th< Canaanites thev get this precept , But of the citie* cfthej* peop le which the Lord thy God doth give thee for one inherit unczthou shah fave alive n* thing that breathcth. Gar any reftrittion and exception be more peremptory and that we may know, who thefe are who are thus , that the offer of 3> peace , is not to be underftoodof any city ofCa- „ naan upon thefe grounds, firft , becaufe they were „exprefly charged utterly to deftroy the inhabitants ,f of Canaan, to the end they might dwell in their 5>room and might not be enfaard by their dwel- ling among them y and fecondly, we do not read 3y that ever Jofhua tendered peace to any of the cities , ,,tho i:be mentioned asa ftrange thing* andafigne \3 of Gods hardning their hearts > that never any of M thofe people , did of their own accord crave peace, 3,fave the Gibeonircs Join., ci. 19. ~ Yet we never 3, find that there was peace profercd them, andic „feems that the Gibeontes did therefore feek it by 3, craft, becaufc Othcrwife they faw it would not be 3, granted them 3 andsdly, it is exprefly noted asa ,3 fault in the Israelites, Judges 1. 28. that they put tht 9iCanaanites t& tribute , and did not utterly drive them cut. 3, Hence he concludes, thac this is only to be under- 3, flood of fuch cities as they fhould befiege that were ,, not of the land of Canaan. And upon the 1 f, verf, >, Thus (halt thou do unto all the cities wbieb art very far off „ from thee , which are not of the cities of theft nations , ,, He adds, but thefe muft neither have peace offrred „ them , nor muft their women and little ones and „cattell be fpared when their cities are taken by force; i5 for the following reafon (faith he) doth mani- j, feftly exclude them from both thefc favoursfeking 3, verf. 1 8.) Th.it they teach yo:t not to do afitr all thh &"Q~ mintihnt <9lc. Sure it had become this Magiftfiriall fnformtr to ponder thefe reafons ere he had obtruded upon us his bold and inconflderate aflertions intrrs point. The Dutch Ann**: on this i<>. verf. exprefly affcrt ,3 thac the ckies oi the Land of Canaan are ex* Ccz „ eluded *o8 A Coufutationof ,, eluded from offers of peace 3 becaufe the Lord had ^commanded them to be banned (thatis devoted^o 3,deftrudtion ) as is related in the fequel. MrPooU f, upon this io. verf. aflerts that this feems to be un- ,, derftood not of the cities of the Canaanites^as is ma- ^nifefl:frocDverCi6>i7,iS.vvho wereunder^^e4^/c/x//( Sentence of utter d.fruBion, Ex.2j.32 $3. Deut7. 1, 332- Whence they areblamd that made any peace 33or league with thern , Judges 2.2. but of the cities ^ either of other nations who injur' d or difturbd 3,them, or commenced waragainft them, or aided y their enemies, oroppreffed theirfreinds andallies „orof the Hebrews themfelves , if they were guilty ,, or abettors of Idolatry orapoftacy from God , or of }y fedition or rebellion againft authority, or of giving 5, protection and defence to capital offenders. Ci- ,,ting Gen. 14. lodges 20. 2. Sam. 20. The En- „glifhamot. upon this 10. verf* doalfo all re that „thisofFerofpeace isnottobe underftood of the ci- 3, ties of Canaan, for they were to be more feverly 35 dealt withal verf. 7tf, 17. and for fhewing them ,3 more favour I frael is blam'djudg. 1. 28. butofci- ,, ties without the land of promife verf i<>. So that cur Informer is here runnig erode to the plain (enfe & fcope of the text , and the current of Interpreters. But he adds, that there was a difference betwixt theft Canaanites and the nations afar off in relation to this allow* ance of peace to them. Firft , it Wat to be upon thetermes ef relinqui filing their idolatry , yeeldtng up the;r Lands, and becoming fervants* That therfor leagu s with them are forbidden* they referzmg their heathnijh worflvp. But where will he ftiew us this reftndion , or difference in Scripture ? mn eft diflihguendum ubi Ux non difiinguit. We have feen Gods peremptory precepts to cut them ©fF, to fave alive none that breatheth of thefe excepted cities and nations. We find alfo peremptory com- mand i the fecond Dialogue 109 mands to make no leagues with them, no not forci- vill commerce , as they might with other heathens a- faroft, Exo. 23. 32, 3 3> — thou [hah make no Cove- nant (t>i?h th.m — — tbeyfaall not dvell in thy land , as thefe Gibeonires were permitted j fo Exo. 34* 12. Dtut. 7- 2 we have the fame precepts renewed. Now a where is this exception, as to thefe leagues? it lyes upon him as the affirmer to prove andinftrudl this limitation, which he here affirms, out of the text. G )d who gives the law muft himtelf alfogive the exception. And this man muft be charged with malapert intruding into what he hath not feen > in pre- fumin£ to put in his exceptions , unlefs hecanin- ftruftthem, which yet he hath not done. Iconfefs Godwhois above the Law might allow an imuKi'x in certain cafes , efpecially fuch as this anent their Oath , but looking to his own precept we find no fuch ex- ception from it. 2ly , he fayes , there was tbti diffe- rence betwixt them and other nations , that if they rejujed peace , they were to be iverfe dealt with then any ether city that was not of the Canaan'ites, becaufe ( Deut. 29. 1 d,i7. ) in cafe of their re fuf 4 > nothing wast* be javed alive while other cities Were butt* lofe the It us of the Males only, verf 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 Lawingenerali, anent their proclaiming peace to a city before they alfoult it, and fhowen (in the 11. ver.) That if the cityyeeld, they fhall be tributaries — (verf. 12, 13.) God injoynsthat if the city refufe peace, every male muft becutotf— and (ver. 14.) the Women, little ones, andthecatcel muft be laved, and its fpoile taken. Then (vcrf. 15.) to ridd mar- ches, and to fhew whom all thefe prefcriptions relate unto, and whom not. The lord adds ■ « tmt Jhalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from Cc 3 thee no A Confutation of thee which are net eft be cities ojthefe nation s. And then (as I (aid ) in relation to them the fevere command followes ( 16* ver.) but gf 'the cities of thefe nations tvtiichth' L)rd thy God gives thee y thgu P,i4l fare alive nicking that breathetbi And that thefe excepted cities and people maybe known they are particularly named as is above exprefk-d* Hefayes, in the eufe of their re- fupiil , netting was to £j lefi alive y and they were to be tvorfe i:.d( wrh thtn others, who refuted peace, who were folofe the malts onl Whcras the text appeares exprefi , that the Law anent offering peace , and dealing thus according as ic was accepted or ret did not behng to them at all , bu: that they are very clearly and peremptory excepted from it. As for hi fbng confufed parenthelis here foiftcd in anent the d fftrenee betwixt the peace and a league , and that \o :h ua fir ft made a league with the Gibeonites , but knowing them to be Canaanites braise it , becaufe contrary to the c§m- mandofGei (citing Joih, 9>2i322, 23.) and meerlj al- lowed them a feace. It is flatly contradictory to the text* forfverf. 15. ) it is faid , he made peace with them and made a league with them (and this league was) t9 let them live ? and the Princes of the congregation [ware unto them* Lo here is thejdentity of the peace and league 3 and the defigne and contents of it \toletxhem Vive. J The Dutch annoc. upon 15. v. [the princes of the congregation fware to them] tell us, that they rati- fied by Oath that which Jofhua had promifed them , viz. thatthey fhould remain alive. The Engltm annot. in ftating the queftion and difficulty concerning the contrariety of this tranfa&ion to Gods command, ex- prefs ic thdS,vhi;her Jo\hu t in making peace with then, nnd the Princes m confirming it by Oath 3 did Lawfully*? not. Andfpeaktothe Lawfulnefs , or unlawfulnefsof both Joyntly without any diftin<5tion,but make no exception in *he leaft o£tht league as if diftiwft from the peace con- firmed the fecond Dialogue. i 1 i firmed by Oath , which certainly in ftatingthe que- ftion they would havcexprefly excluded^had they ima- gined anyfuch difHnftion. That Jcfhua keept the peace and the league,and that this league 6c peace was to let them live , is accordingly fer d©\vn in the fame termes when the Princes ratefied it i and all along whevz the peace /j mentioned , The Oath (and by con- fluence the league which was therby confirmed) is propofed as its ground. They frnote them not be- caufe they had (worn by the Lord ( l8.verf.J And ( verf. 1 9. ) the Princes determine they muft not touch them 3 becaufe they had Oornto them. And (20. verf.) we will let them live left wrath be upon us be- caufe we have fworn unto them. And (verf. 21.) the Princes faid to the People let them live — as they had promifed unto them. Lo all along the Oath is moil confeienciouffly obferved, and that as accefiory unto, and confirming this whole tranfattion, both the peace and league, thefcope and fum wherof is ftill expreiTed thus [to let them live.] As the text makes no diftin&ion, betwixt the peace and league in this ratefication , fo the intendment therof is never extended byon d their life and fafticfirftorlaft. How then can this man fay that ]ofiiu3 brake the league,fmce the termes therof were to let them live (ver. 15.) which is acknowledged by the Princes 8c faithfully performed. The league and peace and Oath here areftill one , and fall under the fame consideration as confonant > or diflonant to the com- mand J if the peace was contrary to the command fo was th? Oath, and if the league was contrary rothe command fowas the Oath alio- For it is mod evi- dent, that the text fpeakes of the peace and league trim difcriminttim or without diftindiion in relating this tranfiiction, and of the Oath as accelTory both unto the one and the other; fo that the Oath was unlawful!, if either the peace or league was unlawful!, andifei- C c 4 ther xn, A Confutation of tbcc was broken the Oath was broken , and Jotbua and the Princes were perjured: Wheras the text re- cords rhe.r faiibfull performance ortheOatb as rare- fying all chit tranla:hon. But it is no rtrang thing to fee men lo notoriously blotted with perjury leek pre- cedent in fen Jture Saints if they could nndethem. Bucuus m.hince will ilandul judgement againftthem if rhev' repen not. U hereas he tauh }tb nfo %H* hik* the letgue as contrary to the wnmand 0/ God when be Kjietc tb^mto t?c C inaanitesy giving c'nis as a reafon why be allowed them a ptace miy. Itisfuch arlac contradiction to the text,and tokfelf,as none can be more plain For according therunto o- fhua could not break ih s league without breaking his Oach which confirmed u, and could b.eak neither the one nor the other> and allow them a peace. Since this peac^ was ih: import both of the league and Oath, and all hat the Scripture mentions as their de- mand of Joihaa> *'as peace an Ithei. life, and nomoie; and rhis all alon£ Jofhua and Ifra^l keept,and preafely becaufe of the Oacn* A* any wno reads the text may fee. The Outch Annotations upon Jo(h. 9.1^. expone rh it branch that reia:esto the Princes fwearing thus, 3,*hr thry ranried by Oath that wn«ch jofhua had pro- 3,mife>l :'neiP,viz3thatthevfhould remainalive. Wher- in> as ch-y clearly h>ld that the Oath was accelTory to tnis vi hole tr^n adt.on , fo rhev mdke it intirely to ter- minate in this that they fhouid have their life* And u^on 2. Sam. zi.i- Vv here Sauls gLilr in flaying thefe Gibeonicesis mentioned, they paraphrafe it thus, that it ^as conrratyro tne promi e made to them & rate- 11 tied by Oath. Joib 1.15 a 8 And \i hereas we are put , in roinde in the 2.ver.th Jt[theGibeonites were not of ^Ifrael Bur of the Amontes ] ■ they para- phrafe it thus , 3> that they were remaining of the hea- then nations whom Uod had commanded to deftrov •—and the fecond Dialogue i r j and the other claufeof the veife wherein we are put in minde ( that Ifrael had fworn to therm and Saul is faid to have fought to flay them in his zeal ] they paraphaie it thu - ,tbat it was „ irregular famed zeal ,, whereby he thought to mend wnat Jjihua ana other ,3 godly Governouis, accoi ding to his opinion had ne«- 3,gledted or ill done,buc it was directly a gain ft thcOarb ,1 made by Gods name, by his fpecialprovidence, for 3> which thing God was now greatly provocked, as by 5>this pleague upon the land,6cGods anfwer appeareth. \\ herein, ho,v evidently theyftandin oppofition to this mans glolTes and pleading upon this head , is ob- vious to themeaneft reflection lince oncly for thatOath they charge gu.lt on Saul. The Englilh annotations upon (ver. iS ) Ly , ,,that abft'acling from the Princes ,,Oa:hit had been cruelty to have ilain them feeing trey „ bad vieUt 4 law'ull Covenant. Now how this aggrees with this mansghfsof[Jofliuas breaking the league, as contrary to the commandment] let any judge. Jickion 3lthus fenfes vei -2 3 .-— ;,the curle^whichGcd had pro- „ nounced upon the people of this land requires that >, you be cut of! as well as the reft, yctbecaufc of the „ Oath which we have taken this curfefhall be upon >y you in bondage ar d not in death. H s next inltance ro prove his fuppofed limitation of Gods command to deftroy theCanaanites is thit o^Ka- hab her being fpared Jofh 6.17. Which clearlie cioffes his pleading ^argument herejfon. the fpies upon very ftrick terms ftatc their Oath: and told Kahab not only that if fh- ihouldmake theleait difcoveryof their bufi flcfs,but like wife that if ihe onher friends even fo much as oncof rjiem, were out of the houfcj when the city wis taken; this Oath mould not reach them, whatever fubmiffion (he had made. And 2d*'y , Ail Joshuas ground when he commands the fpies tofecureherand her friends , is ihzii Oath: they are commanded to Cc 5 brim* xi4 A Confutation of bring out the Woman , [ as they [pare to her ] and for no other reafon. jly. I pray, what fayed her friends and her relations as well as her felf from this common deftru&ion ? Surely , they made no peace nor any fuch fubmifTion as this man fuppofeth neceflary to cxeem them from the commanded deftrudlion > nor was there anyaflurance the fpies could have touching them , and therefore they could not be upon any other ground faved, but becaufe included in this Oath. Be- fides , what power had thefetwomen totranfac! a peace without Jofhuas advice and knowledge ? the ground of, their tranfafting with her, is their ne- cefiity, andtheWomaus offer of their faftie. Now Iretorthis argument here agaitift him ; to prove that they were fpared upon ocher terms then the Oath , he adduceth this infhnceof Rahabs prefervation upon the fubmiiiion mentioned^viz. her making and accep- ting of peace, and hence concludes tbatflie (and by coriiequence the Gibeonites ) together with her friends , Were laved upon other terms , then meerly upon the Oath , and that abftra&ing from it Ifrael was obliged to fave them. But one might argue thus, ifRahabs friends' (at leaft) might have been Lawfully cur off upon the ground of Gods command to cut off the Canaanites who made or accepted no terms of peace, and were only faved by the fpies Oath, then the Oath ( according to the Informers own principles) , 50, 3 r, 33. And Judges 2. 1, i. Upon which ground the Lord threatens as apunifhment that he will not drive them out : ji6 A Confutation of out : But that they shall be thorns in their fides* And this thrcatning we find execute , and the fame very guilti- nefs prefented as the caufe of it ; viz. That they did not defiroy the nations concerning whom the Lord commanded them. Pfal. 1 06. J45 35. which confirmes this af- fertion ; and therefore this hiftoricall claufe in that paJTage of Jofhua , is to be expounded in cor- • refpondence with the plain and pofitive command, which we have already feen clear, zly. Jackfon upon that 19. ver. [there was not a city that made Peace with ifrael &c. ] tells us , that this is added as a reason why the wars with the Cmaanitcs laffed fo long becauft the Inhabitants did objiinately flan d out , and attempted not to procure conditions of peace fave fitly the Gibtonites - - Which is far from coming up to his fcopeand defigne. For it is one thing to fay that de ra8o he wars lajUd long ■ becaufe none of- fered t$ yeeld but Gibeon,znd another thing to fay that fo- sh'ta was not oblidged nor commanded to cut off any but thofe who thus warred and refined. Which will be the more weighty , if it be confidered in the third place , tli at as in the command to cut them off, no fuch reftri- &ion*appeares5 but upon the contrary the Canaanites are excepted from mercy/o we do not find that Joiriua offered terms of peace ( as this man alleadges he was obliged) unto any of thefe that were cut off, butaf- faulted them as thofe whom God had devoted to be destroyed , in obedience to his holy , though fe- vere command , As we heard Jackfon hath ob- ferv'd. This will be more clear, (and therin the Informers adverfary might puzle him ) If we fhall again refiedt upon the remarkable circumftan- ces of that tranfa&ionj with the Gibionites. In the 6. ver. of that 9. of Jofhua ,' they propofe the matter thus , we are come from a jar country , there- fore ma\e a League with us. Whatever they had under- "ftood the fecond Dialogue 117 flood of Gods command to cut offthe Cananites, this furelie was a ftrong argument with Joihua. Now re- mark the anfwer in the 7. ver. the men of I r^lfaJdper- ad'jtntur vr dwell among us 5 and bow fca'lwe me ma\e a league with \w. Sure their offering terms of peace and fubmiffon , might have flopped this queftion and de- murre according to his opinion , who holds that upon their fubmi rting to terms of peace , They might have been fpared and even incorporat among Gods people , as he tells us from Jofh. if. 19. that a[l thefe Canaa* rJ es might have been Jpayed .had they thut fubmitted So that in his fenfe their fiifl offer was a ground of peace. Efpecially fince ( as is obferved by learned Interpre- ters from their offer in the 8. ver. j they fought peace from Joihua and Ifrael upon their own termes, and offered to accept anv conditions propofedby them. Which was the lowed ftep of fubmi ffion. And when thev further anfwerthat demurr about theplace of their abode with this general, rr* are thy fervants, i.e.We offer our fel ves to thee & all that is ours, which was enough in thismans Judgement,to exceptthem fromthe ftroak threatred, and commanded to be execute upon the reitoftheCanaanites. Yet this doth not fa tisfie Jo- fhua, but again he particularly interrogats them upon thefe two points, 'vho a-e ye? and next, from whence come ye ? ^ This their free and general conceffion ( as fome do judge) giving joihua ' juft caufe to fufpcdt that thev , were of the curfed Canaanites whom he was to des- troys and then thev tell him that wherin the dolus ky, we come from a frr countrev. Now, I fuppofe they had anfwered to thefe two Queftioiis thus , we are \- morhes , and we dwell here. Thinks this Informer that Joihua would havelookt on himfelf as obliged by Gods Law to tranfaft with them. What needed then his peremptory Interrogations ( after their declared fubmiffion) anent their flock and lineage 5 and the place 1 1 8 A Confutation of place of their abode ? What needed the people mur> mur, and defire to cut them off*, after the contrary o* what thev pretended was difcovered, notwithftan- ing hereof? Nay thirdly, why is it, that again and again their^ faftie is attributed folely to thcOath, with- out the leaft hint oftheir fubmiffion as having any influence thereupon ? Finallie thatpaflkge Jolhua n. 19. [ no citic made peace ■- — »■-»» For it was of the Lord that they might have no favour] feems to im- port no more but this, that favour might have been ihown them had they fubmitted, but how? Even by God the fupreme lawgiver ( whofe mercy isover all his Works) his difpenfing with his own Law*, andfe- vere pofitivc precepts, (as in the cafe oftbeGibeo- nites he did ) and in what Method it feemd beft unto him, but it will be hard to inferr from this a limi- tation of the precept it felfforthereafons already gi- ven. So that all that feems to follow from this paf- fageis, that had they fubmitted , God might have (pared them by a fpcciall difpenfing with his own Law,(Forhc will have mercieand not Sacrifice) and loihua upon Gods appointment., But not that the Law it felf did difpenfe with them. A s for what he ctdds in further confirmation of this opinion, anent Salomons impofing bond fervicc upon the remains of thefe cuffed Nations ,' and their pofte- ritv afterward, whom the children of Ifrael were not able to caft out (which, in ane odd phrafe , he calls a kindnefs) and anent thefe Children of Solomons fervants, mentioned Ezra. 2. $£, -jS. ] Jackfon will tell him [ That itccntyadiBs not the Law ( Deut. 7. ) anent utter fmhtng them , and ftwping them no mercy , (snee , that Law may be meant of the inhabitants that were in the Land at thc%eK'trrng fir ft into h , not oftheir pofle*ity. EfpeciaUv thefe who had thc'ir lives previoufly feared. ] Which fully cuts off his argument from this ttie (econd Dialogue. 1 1 p Text. And this is alfo the anfwer of Mr Poole stud other learnedimerpreterl upon this pafiage, Befides, that the Nethinims were probably the Gibeonites iffue, and were however all of them , by alone; tracl oftimeProfelyts incorporat among Gods people and profiling the true religion > which providcntiall title mi^ht; abundantly fecurc their lives The Dutch Anotations upon Jofti. 29 27-doinferr from the nature and mould ofthat phrafe which ligni- -fies [a delivering them over.] that hence it is though? they were called Nethinims i. e. given #nd delivered oier which conSrmsthe anfwer adduced. However the perfon who fhould directly impujrne the Informer as to what he maintains in this queftion (which he hath impertinently brought in without any ground, to make fomefhift of anfwer) might further tell him that this being but apraBice f cannot be pleaded againfi a rule, but mull: be meafured by it, which is a prin* ciple acknowledged bvaH. And here Ifhali exhibit fome remarkable inconfi- ftenciesofthis man with himfelf upon this point 1, he fuppofeth that jofliua and the princes their Oath cq the Gibeonites fteod inviokbleas to this trsnfaction both now and herafcer; for he fayesfpagc 143.) that SrJs Jlayirg the Gibeonites moved Goi to wrath , becaufe it was contrary to lofiiuas Oath made to their fathers. Now Jofluia & the Princes Oath rateFed all the Tranfa&ion frith (he&i»|& was acceflbry therunto as the text more clearly holds out, viz. both the league and the peace; yethe tell 5 us (page 141.) that a? fan tsloftwa /;>:np them to beCananitesJ?e brake th league as contrary to theccm- .mindofGoA.zvfd confequently hi" Oafh confirming it accordingto his dodtrine as Bein£ Likewife contrary to the command, ily, In that fame page he tells us that no peace was to be concluded with the Canaanites3\ttnlefs the) became ftrvAms & renounced tbvr Imthnisb idchtr.es , and 1ZQ A Confutation of and that with the Ume provifo leagues were difcharged wit thefeCanamites.Yet jmifteicKatlie after he m-kes a diflin <5Konin this point betwixt a peace , and a league , am tells u• d*d \osbua made peace with them , and made a league with them to hi them live , and the princes of the congregation fw are unto them. This league he Gives Joshua braise as contrary to the com* mandofGol , in hi s fecond anfwer ; yet nrrssd an- fwer he tell? us9 that the Oath confined iiit nothing contra^ tothe command. Again , he fayes God com- manded to m^Ve no reace wich them > But upon the term3-* of fibmijjion , relinquishing their theatric , and givingub the'r Lands* To this only he reftri Cts 'he Princes ftipulaMon , as falling under the command, vet acknowledges the command will include a j, Jeao-ue alfo upon thir terms , which els where ( as I I faid ) be dftinguifhes from the peace* which he holds was not to be allowed them even upon thir termes. And likewife , in his fecond anfwer he tells us that they had peace only upon their (ubrniffion , wirh- ouc mentioning thefe other termes. Likewife he fayes that the fecond Dialogue x « that on thefe ter mes he transaSed to fpareRjihah friendsl but where was tbis afTurancetas to her friends ? 4lv3 He acknowledges (pag.142.) that Cods wrath for flaying the Gtbeonites washecaufiofloshuas Oath, made to their fathers. Yet page I08. he cries out upon his Do»bujrs aiTertion anentane Oath binding the f>oJleritie>2S aftrangefancy, and tells us that Cafuiftsiay,that Jura- tnentum ejl vinoulum per finale , binding tkefi cnh who tak$ it. Now wheras this man wonders much at our argu- ment from this text anent theGibeonices^et any judge whether his own fluttered inconfiftent difcourfebe Dot rather an objedl of wonder. But to proceed > his third anfwer to thepremifed argument of his Doubter , from this inftance of the Gibeonites , is that Joshua did nothing contrary to Gods command, tvhicb tvas to [pare them upon their fubmijfion* Am. ( Bendes what is touched anent his inconfiftency with himfelf in this > and what we are to add , anent theimpertinency of this unto the point 5 though gran- ted.) Ifayfirft, that Jolhua and the Princes were bound to fpare them abftradbng from this ftipulatioti and Oath ? isrnorethenhehath proved , and appears Contrary to the command above expreflfed , and the current of the context where this Oath and ftipula- tion is fer down; whether we confider Jofhuas pe- remptorie demands and demurres anent receiving them to peace , after they had exprefled their fubmif* fion, or the Oath its being again and again mentio- ned , both in retting down the ftipulation its felf (ver. I^.)and the reafon why they were not fmitten (ver* 18.) and the Princes judicial determination- (ver. 193) as the file ground of Jofhuas and the Princes obligation to them , without the leaft hint of any other , which cer- tainly might have been ( and consequently if true would have been , might bis impugner fay ) very per- tinently and ftrongly pleaded by Joftiua and the Prin- Dd ces |£fc A Confutation of ces . to quafli the peoples murmuring at the fparing of them, ily, I might fay , that this ftipulatioo and Oath j although ciofs to a particular pofitive precept, yet notwithftanding , a* matters here flood cir- cumftantiat , was confonant to a general! moral rule of Gods mercy , who loves it better then Sacrifice, And the fparing of thefe Gibeonites was grounded Upon this great moral precept [of the reverence due co Gods name, interpofed by a Sacred and SolemnOath.] Which anfwer is the verie determination of Jofhua and the Princes in this matter. His impunger might here addethat it is utterly improbable , that in the Princes determination ofthequeftion [whether thefe Gibeonites were to be faved,andthe ftipulation with them held as valid ] their fubmiflion would have been omitted, if they had underftood Gods command with* this limitation 3 which is a doubt that would much ptizle this Informer to refolve. His 4t, ArX is, that God was angry at the flaying of the GibemiteS) becaufe it was contrary to his command , to give them peace upon their jubmiffion , aniunto loshuasOathto theiy fathers , and not meerly becaufe it was contrary to the Oath, Anf. Joftiua and the Princes Oath is both in that s>. of Jofhua,and the 2. of Sam- 21. mentioned as the only ground of their right to their life, without the lead hint of any command anent their having peace upon their Submiflion, which notwithftanding this antifcriptural Informer ( who will be wife here above what is written) fets in the firrt place, as the principal caufe of their right. When the reafon is rendered (2. Sam. 21. ) why thefe Gibeonites had a right to livea- mong the Ifraelites, though they were not of Ifrael', but of the Amorites, it is expreiTed thus, tbechildren\ ef Ifrael had f Worn to them , and Saul fought to flay them. Again, fincehe grants that God was angry at the flay- ing of thefc Gibeonites upen the ground of Jofhual an< theiccond Dialogued i2J and the Princes Oath to their fathers , heconfequent- ]y grants that this Oath, notwkftanding ofihe cheat by which Jofliua and the Princes were brought under it> was ftill binding and did oblige the pofterity , which is the Chief point that this inftance is adduced to prove againft him , as we fhall prefently fnew. For what he adds after , it is not much noticable* The reafons of tbeEngliili annotationsas touching this Oaths confonancie to Gods Law, we are not in this point coacern'd to fcanne » fince our argument (lands good even upon their I uppofition. As for rhefe who fay , that fahua and the Princes Oath , Was contrary to Gods Latvtand do therfore ajfert that it did not bind. We have (town that as herin they are not ours, fo in this affcrtion they clearly crofs the Scriptures > as is evi- dent from what is above touched* Here weftiall again minde the Reader for a con- clulion to this argument and inftance anent the Gibeonites , that all this mans clamour , about the confonancy or diflbnancy of this Oath to Gods Law, is out of the way , and never meets our reafoning from thispafage, even as its moulded byhimfelf, fothat we may without lofing our argument as to its main fcope, grant allth^t hefayes anent the confonancy of the Oath to the divine precept about cutting off thsfe Canaanitet , and that it dtd admitthefe teftriftions i'hich hefpeaks of. But our argument for the Covenant is here twofold I. That this Oath and Covenant with thefe Gibeonites though its matter were of a far lower nature then our Sacred Covenants , and vows > yet did not only o- blidge that , but all fucceeding generations, And therefore much more our folemnfacred vows, fo fo- lemnly and univerfally fworn, and about the great concerns of Publick and pergonal reformation , do oblidge all the pofterity* Now this being our main Argument^ is fo far from denying it, that hegratirs Dd Z U ix+ A Confutation of it upon the matter , in averting and veeldingunto us, that this Oath confonant to Gods Liiv y did bind' the pofierity, forthinkes he that we doe not fuppofe and hold the matter of the Covenant to be confonant to Gods Law > Why then wanders he out of the way, M'hile preten- ding to anfwer this 'argument, andpl-3afeth himfelf, and leads his Reader oft the way with unprofitable talknottotheourpofe? Theconfonancy of our Oath to the Lawof God, being; even his own fuppofition in this argument* ity« From this inftance we argue ( as I faid ) for the binding force of the Covenant even upon the adve. faries fuppofition anent the coacT:- ion, deceit, fear, or fuchlike irregularities in the manner of entring unto it , ( which they ufe to make a great clamour about) and from this text we conclude that all thefe will notloofe the Oath, when once it is taken* Since herethere w& a notable cheat whereby "jofnuaandaH IfraeJw?re brought under this Oath, taking a wav both a rational! aft ent Bfthe\ud#mmt , and the free futableeleRion rfthe tviV , quia dolus aufert affmfum that is, deceit takes away affent , fay Cafuifts, Yet all thi?dld notinitat this Oath when taken* And even as himfelf ftates the objeition, his Doubter alledges, that the pretence or appearance of a greater good in brca* king the Oath > was qot wanting , and particu- larly pleads , that this Oath did bind the pofierity. Now what his roaving di fcourfe anent the Oaths confonancy t( the Latv , fnyes toall this, let anv rational man judge; Since both his Doubter and he,do fuppofe the mattei of this Oath lawful!. He knew that his dating the queftion aright and f peaking to K3 would have made th< vanity of his anfwers appear, and therforehe ttarte^ this notion anent the Oaths binding againft a precept , tha toiling it a little upon his forked pen > the unwarrir Reader might beleeve, he had returnM a full an fwer to this" argument : Whereas he but beats the ai ii the fecond Dialogue 1 2 J inane airie difcourfeout b;the way> and yeeldsthc caufe when he hath done. Nex t he fayes,#? uje to plead ^edekjahs breach of Oath to the Kjn^ of Babylon , which the Lrd tvas Jo much difpleafed with. But how , and ro what fcope we plead that text, he durttnotfet down, nor put into the mouth of his Doubter any formall argument from it; Which if rightly propounded, he knew well his caufe would quickly fall before lt.This man could not be ig- norant how Timorcus,and others, improve thistext, viz* that Zedekiah who was of the Kings feed, the fon of Joliah (Ezek.i7.r3.) had ane Oath put upon him by the King of Babylon anent his,and the Kingdoms feal- ty and fubjedion to him (aChronj6. 13.) afterhe had overrunn the land , and made prifoner Jehoia- chinhis Brother, and keept Zedekiah himfelf under , his power. That he could neither have the crown, nor his libertie without this Oath of fealty to the King of Babylon , which was forced upon him out of fear ; ^andasa prifoner — ■■■ ■ yet for the breach hereof ( Exek. 17. ) he is threatned with the loffe of all. Shall he break the Covenant andbe delivered —~~— as 1 live faith the Lordfurely my Oath and Covenant that he hath bro- ken even tt will I recomper.ee upon his head, And in the midjl of Babylon he shall die. Here was ane Oath, forced upon a pnoner, and a King of Judah > and upon the matter inconfiftent with lfraels Laws, made that the King- dom might be bafe , yet the breach of it was thus ter- ribly revenged: Therfore much more dreadfullis :he breach of our folemn vows,whofe matter is of fuch ;iigh importance, and their end fo excellent , and the jower impoiing fo native and Lawfull &c. What ;*yes he to this Argument? he tells uss that the lews were tmmandedtofubmitto the Kjng of Babylon (ler. ij. 6. fife) ? that the breaking of the Oath was difobedience toGods com- mand. But who denyes this , and what doth this ar- D d 3 guing %i6 A Confutation of I reprove > doth not i is Doubter and himfclf alfo fupoofe the matter of the Covenant to be confonant to Gods command* iii.c how ta&cs he away thefe nerves, and tckling points of this mftance andargu- most fa c vn^ '^ovenan:, I . That this Oath was forced Upooh n as a pi lion ^r. zly, taken by Zedekiah outof fear. j,y nad aver/ apparent Inconfiftency with a greater good a viz. to free Gods Church and people from a heathen liavery. 4ly, was crofsto many Han- ding i--4ws of ifrael, yet neither the force ofthishea- Xbcti invader , in impoling this Oath, nor the fear and bondage of this K>mg of Ifrael when he did take it, nor the apparent inconfiftency of its matter with a greater good , and its certain inconfiftency with the Handing LuW$ ofllracl , did loofe the Oath when ta- ken, nor cxeem the breaker of it from wrath and Judgement. And all this becaufeit was upon the matttr warrantable, and allowed of God, as we hold the Covenant to be. And therfore neither force, fear, bondage, the greater apparent good in breaking it, nor tne incouiirtency of it with our prefent Laws , none of allthefv pretences (we fay ) will loofe the Oath of our Covenant t the matter of it being warran- ted of God 3 and of fuch high importance as is faid. z, ■ e U is obvious to any that this anfwer of his,fayes nothing to the antecedent or confequent of this ar- gument lor the Covenant , nor touches it in the leau- . i he Doubter objefts next [ the mark of the bleffco man ( Ffalm 15 4. verf.) fwearing to his own hurt an< not changing, ] *n anfwer to which this Informe; grants, tka m many things a man may [wear tobts hut mid no? change. This is iound , ana in fo far he mui giant, that the Oath may hinder many goods end>e not for all that be violat. And in recompence of thi conceflion I readily yecld to him, that\am Oath mil n bir the fecoad Dialogue. 1x7 Vtnitea mm hurt in everything, as to takeaway hUewn life* And that fuch ane Oach binds only to repen- tance^as being inujuitatis vinculum. But what will he fay to this argument which he makes his Doubter here mutter out? Why, whenit hurts ( faith he) thofeinau- thority and peoples Joules , it will not bind. True , but how doth the keeping of the Covenant hurt peoples foules» or thefe in authority > we read much in Scrip- ture of the hurt that breach of Covenant hath brought upon both thefe. But how a peoples keeping Cove- nant with God wrongs either their foulesor thefe in authority 3 we would gladly hear. Dare he fay that every difobedience to the command of Rulers , impea* ches their authority ? or that peoples want of the means and ordinances ot life , is to be imputed to Godly fuf- fering minifters , whom for keeping Goas Covenant they have chafed away from their flocks & families? As ioxfamilie hutt, or in relation to things of this life.ther's no queftion but that ane Oath in many cafes will bind notwithstanding therofi Which is the Judgement of all Interpreters. But now the Doubter having fpent all his arguments, hath only one poor General left, viz. that we are tender of Oaths* To this he anf- wers firit , by acknowledging , that we ought to hi confiderate before we enter into ane Oath, Very true , and had we all been fo , there had not been fo many contradi&ory and ungodly Oaths , {landing upon record againft Scotland , as this day there are- Withall he fayes , we should be well advifed befere wc think? ourfelves difcharged of tan Oath. And no doubt if he and ins party had advifed this better with God , with his word, with found Cafuifts, and,ftheir own confeiences , they had not upon fuch poor grounds as we have feen > firft perjured themfclves , and plea- ded for others doing the like. But yet ( faith he) to thinly Wi cannot beat all difcharged of an Oath, mathingnotne- Dd 4 ceQkry% I x % A Confutation of eejjary , istobe more tender thentve ought to be. True j but not to take every matter of an Oath for not ncceO fary, which he may have the confidence to call To , bui cannot prove it, and not to admit every ground oi diicharge as lawfull , which fuch Adiaphoritts as he may pretend , is to be no more tender then we ©U£ht to be. Buth*re, our Informer will reach a blow again at the Affembly 1 6^ 3 , becaufe of their loofmg hUnifieni tvbo nredby theftrmir LJreUtfyfrom their Oaths to turn, But where is his discretion and tenderneis 9 who ob- jects this as a fault of that affembly , and yet dar hiquitatis vincula, and from the be- ginning null or never obltgingy and do not pretend (as he) to looi'e from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding. Be- iides , Prelats being removed > this Oath fuppofing their exifling power and office, was ipfofa&t null and roid, as the fouldiers military Oath to the capta»n upon the disbanding of the armic, and fa its root . was plucked up. Sublata caufa totlitur effe&ur. Su- blato relatotollitur Correlatum. So that he gets but a Wound to his caufe 3 in kicking thus againft the pricks- But he tells us, that he will come yet nearer with an other argument , and Co he had need , for the precee- ding have never yet come near out caufe nor his de* figne. Well whati* thi6? CommjJJaries(hah.hh) tven ab- jured the fccond Dialogue* x 2? jured in the Covenant > as officers depending upon the abjured hierarchy, yet &e owndthetn, before bishops tcerereftored, and : wh may not hejhe abjured Bishop alfi. iiut will he fuffer a Reverend ftiher BifhopLigaiQntoanfwerforus, and friew him the difparity of our CommiiTariot fa meer ci- vil adrmnifrrauon, influenced and authorized by fupe- riour civilGovernours>as a par: of the politicall conftx- tution of the Kingdom)with a Church office Jn his firft letter anent the Accommodation, printed in that pkee entituled, The cafe of tkz accommodation examined, he will tell htmjhttt though we have the name ofCommiffaries yet they txcer rife not any part of Church difciptine. Which he fets down , expreilyto diftinguiih them from theCommif- ftrics abjur d in the id Antcle of the Covenant* 1 s o w , the difference of this owning our ComrniiTaries in Scot- ; land , from owning and fwearing fealty totheBifhop as a Church officer, in all his Spirituall ufurpa^'ons, is fo palpable, that any may fee the impertinency of ; this inilance even in .Biihop Lightons Judgement. 1 Moreover, we abjure in^the Covenant all EccUfiaflical officers defending uptn that hierarchy. But will he dare 1 to lay that the CommiiTary , whofe abwimftration is properly Civil, and when the Covenanc was taken had not theleafl dependance upon a Prelat > was an Eclefia- f: tea I officer depending upon that hierarchy. Surely the meanest capacity may difcover the vanity of this argu- ment. The Doubter ohjedh this , [ that the ComrniiTaries did not then depend upon the Bifhops , andtherfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant,] To this he anfwers , that upon this ground of a no?>dependancc upon Bishops , we might have ownd a Dean at that time , cr a Bishop , as having m dependance upon an Archbishop i and that he cannot jee why any member of the hierarchy under the bighift , might mtbave been owned and ret&indkon this ground, as well as theCommtffary. Anst The dijparity Dd y is 1 3 o A Confutation of is manifeft to any of Common fenfe j the Dean fits m. tura is an Ecclefiaftick officer , and the very office de- notes a relation unto, and Ecclefiaftick dependance upon a prelat, in fpirituall adminiftrations/ (a that Prelacie being laid afide , and the hierarchy fmoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government, the Dean is a meer Chtmara , andfois the diocefan Bifhop» and can no mor« fubfift , the bafis and fountain of his very office qua talis 3 or asfticbybein% removed 4ndex* tinft. But the Commiiiary ( a civil officer andMa- giftrat) his administration , ofits own nature civill, depends upon, and is regulat by, fuperiour civil Ru- lers , andfo in that cafe iub fills intirely as a part of the civil Government , where* prelacie is aboliflied ; and can no more be fcrupledat, becaufe a prelat did Ibrmime ufurpe an authority over that oiiicc> then the office of the Lord high Chanceilour, or any other civil office of ftate, and inferiour offices theron fpecially de- pending , becaufe (omtime a Prelat was Chancellour, andufurped authority in thefe matters , ought to be difownedor fcrupled at upon this account. 2ly y He fayes>*Ztf'y anfwer carries near to what he (aid be~ fore, anent the Engltsh divines who hold, only that com- plex frame to be abjured in the id article, which confifis of all the officers there enumerate Ans* i. It is more then he hath proved, that the fcnglifh divines do owne { even fjgtllatim or aparcj) all thefe officers , or looke upon themfelvesas only obliged againft that complex frame confilling of all the officers enumerat in that ar« tide. We heard before out of Timorcus (wboniBi- fhopLighton in that letter* and the Informer himfelf cites, as holding that ourtrelacieis confiltent with the Covenant, and whom they appeal unto in this de- bate) that they difowne all Prelacie , where one fingle! perfon exercifeth fole power in ordination and J urifr iidtion, alifreiacie beyond aProcftos, and partH cularly tbc fccond Pialogue. 1 3 1 .ularly the name and thing of Arch-Bifhops, BiThops, }eans,. Chapters, Arch Deacons. Timorcusin the '.Chap* adds, ■■ ■,.■[ »all Biihops notChofen by the ,clergie and people*— allBuhops who act by Deans, > prebends, and exercife their power by Chancel- ours , Commiflaries &c. Doth not the article it ielf ibjuro , all ecdejlaftical officers depending mthat hierarchy* ?o that though we did come near to what they fay m jhis anfwer, wc come never a whit nearer him. 2iy> we told him already that the Comtaifiarics office is property Civil , though ufurped upon by the Prelat , to |:hat when purged from thisufurpation , and runaingin the channell of a mcer civil adminiftration » in- fluenced and authorized by Superiour civil Govern lours , as a parr of the political constitution of the kingdom, it falls na>t within the compali of an Ecdefi- \tjltcal officer depending on the hierarchy > by his own Con- fefiion , and Biihop Lightons. How then was the owning ©r him before the introduction of Prelacie, contrary unto the Covenant. Bu: becaufe he fuftered not his poor Doubter to tell him chat the Commiflary , beiides that in our hie times, ne did net depend upon the Bifhop, isrealiy and upon the matter with us a Civil, not a Church officer, he thinks tofurprife him with a third anfwer. Ihat now the ComiJJams do a finally defend upon the Bishops, m we jcruple mt , nor decline their Courts and authority > and if we decline them net (as'-ac cording to our Principles we j*re oblidged) how are we free of perjury > and if we can ac~ [tyowhdge aCemmtfi&ry nuwithftandmg the Covenant , why- may not healjo a Bishop. Ans. What poor tatie is this I wetoldhiiiialieatfy that the Commiflariot isofitfeif lalawfuli Civil adminiiiration, not ane Ecelefiaftical fundtion, and the prelats ufurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull. Wheras the dicoefan JBifhops office , is a preteaded Bcekfiajlical jullion 13 X A Confutation of funBien \ and in its very nature a grofs corruptioi and contrary to the word of God 3 as is above clearc Which difparity is palpable to any that will but ope their eyes. Do we abjure any Civil courts or off cers in that article? are they not tennd exprefly E< clefiaftical officers who are there abjured : Nay, dot not Timorcus tell us that in England the Com miffaries >, exercife a power in Church difciplin, ,, by a delegation from the Biihop. And doth notBi- lhopLighton deny this to be competent to our Com. rniffaries here. For in that paflage of the letter no\* cited, hefsyes we have nothing but the name of Com- mijfartes , he means in reipedl of thefc in England who exercift ecclefiaftical difcipline under the Bis- hops. Didoclavius pag. 45$. Cites Cotvellus in J«- terprete5 about the office of the Bilhops CommifTary in England , {peaking thus , Corrmiflarq voxlitulusejt Ecclefiaflic* fyrhdili'onis (faltctn quoit fque commiffio per' mitt it) infartibus Diocefm a frtmaria Cwttate tarn Large itffutsut Cancelkriusfubditosadprincipaleconfifloriurn Eptf- topi citare non foteft G?c. „ That is , that Qommiflaxy „in England is a tide of Ecclefiaftical Jurifdi&ion fo ,.,feras his commiilon will allow in places which are fo „ far remotefrom the cheif city ofthediocefs, that the ^Chancellour without great moleftation cannot cite „ them to the Bifhops cheif court. Didoclavius tells us (ubtfapra) that according to the Statutes of En- gland, the Chancellouris the Bifhops principal offi- cialese theCommiffary the Bifhops foraneousofficiall. To conclude, I. The Bifhops power as toCivills, and their deputation of this their power to Chancel- lours is a moft groft ufurpation , Contrary to the Scripture , which forbids the Minifter to entangle himfelf with things of this life. Our Lord himfelf would not fo much as be an arbiter in a civil Cau- fe, Paul fpeakiflg of the minifterial duties, faith who the fccond Dialogue. IJJ irbo is fufScient for thefe things The Apoftles muft give thefnCelves continually to the Word. Cartwright aeainft the Rhemifts upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling, citing Jerome ffupet Sophon* cap- t.) who expounds that place again! Minifters mediing inS-cu- lar affaires. And Cyprian>who applies this place agaioit one who took upon him to be executor ofaTefta menu \Lib. I. Epi/?. 9. cowci/. Carthag. 4. Cap. 20. Apoflol.can* (Can. 6) SecuUres Curat non Sufcipite. Likewife Am brofe^vhoaffirrnes that Worldly Goverment it the tveal^- ■ nini of the prieft. (Lib. f.Epift. 3 3.) S me dtimnuus (p-1%. > g2.Sed. 10.) cites concil. Hifpall. 2. Cvprian Epift. ,28. againft this deputation of prelate power to Chan* cellours, Commiflfaries &c. and Brings in Bifliop Dounham aknowledging ^Defenf. Lib. 1.) that in j/Ambrofe time and a good while after, which was 3, about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly „ neglected, the Bifhops had no ordinaries > vicars, 35Chancellours3Commiftaries , thatwere not Cleric v, men. But this reftri&ion they affirme to be a meer blind? and Challenghimtoibew anyfuchunder-of- ficers of Bifhops in thofe times. So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bifhops, and the primitive Bifliops. idly, in England > not only hath the Commiffary a Civil adminiftration under the Bifhop , but hath Likewife power of Spiri- tual cenfures, and a great part of the Bifhops eccle- fiaftical adminiftration , committed unto him both over Minifters and others ; fuch as fufpenfion , depcf- fition , excommunication : See Didoclav. (pag. 464,4^?. dcofncialibus ) [Cartwright (2. repl. part- 2. pag. 69.) who fhews ,, that the prelars not only 3, exercifeTyrrany themfelves over the Church , but 3, bring it under fubjedtion to their very Servant* , „yea their Servants Semnts fuch as Chancellors, Com- 1 34 A Confutation of ; ,, Cemmiffaries &rc. j!y, it is clear that fince the re formation we never had inScotland fuchCommiiTaries but our Law and practice fince that time,and fince Po pifhPrelacies were diflolved,hath much reduced then to the Itate & Quality of other civil offtcers3whofead- miniftrationof ics own nature depends upon fuperioui civil officers. For this we have (as Ifaid ) Bifhoj: Lightens own Confefiion , that We have but the nameOj Commiffaries her6 , who havemtbing to do with Churchdif- ciplina Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prdats. 4ly, B Lighton and this Informer do both plead, 3, that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d „ Article of cbe Covenant , and the Commifliries as „ then moulded & Exiftent in the Church of England, £ that this Oath oblidges againfr. And fo according to their Principles and pleading* our Commiflary here 3 fo vaftly difcrepant from theirs, fells not with«n the com* pafs of the Covenant abjuration. Hence finally, the owning of the Commiflary in hi* Lawfull civil admi- niftratiens » can be no acknowledgement , either i. of the Englifh Commifiaries Power, which he hath not. Nor 2dly, of the Prelats ufurpation upon this civil office 5 no more then thefimple ufing of our ci- vil Laws, and the ordinary civil courts during Crom- wells ufurpation , was a homologating the wickednefs therof , which this man will not dare to affert. An ufurper may be in tituh , andfuch fubmiffion and im- provement of the civ 1 power invaded by him , as doth acknowledge the providential! Title , and his being pof- fefled of the power [defatto , and having as they ufeto fyvjusinre, oraftual providential poffeflion therof,If there be no aftive concurrancc towards his Eft a* blimment, is* as to civiils , free of any guilt of the ufurpation , and will import' no acknowledge- ment of the ufurper his Pretended jus. Which is the Judgement of all found divines and Cafuifts* But the fecond Dialogue i j ^ But the cafe is far different as to ourlnformcrs deriving bis deputed Ecclefiaftical Miniftery or fpiritual atttho- rityfrom theBifhop; becaufe, i. the Prelats offidr it felfisagrofs ufuipation, contrary to the Scrip- ture, fo is not the Commiffaries office, idly, the Pe- lats ufurped poffeffion of unlawfull power over the Church, which is Chrifts Kingdom, cannot give him fo much as 4 providentiall Title ; and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull. Thirdly , hisfubmiffion to prelacy as now it {lands Circumftan- tiat, is an acknowledgement both of the peffeffion > and/w, which this man will not deny, and this is fardidtinft, from an a£t which doth but indirectly acknowledge the ufurpers poffejjion. So that his Con- formity is ane exprefs acknowledgement and owning of a grofs encroachment upon Chrifts Kingdom (his .Church) which is toto Calo different, from acknow- ledging a poffeffion defaBo of, and a Providential title iunto, apart of the civil adminiftration ofthe King- doms of the world , which are mutable. And as for a teftimonv againft this ufurpation , I fupnofe that had the people of God difowned thefe civil courts, upon this ground of the Covenant obligation , his party, for the preceeding reafons, had fgnallv cried out againft it, as an AnaBaptiftical rejecting of Law- full civil Goverment , more then he doth upon this Pretence , alledge a homologating of Prelacie , in this acknowledgement. But however, wefav, that the people of Goditheir notour and (landing teftimo- ny againft Prelacie it felfas now Eftablimed , doth Efficiently reach this among other its ufurpations although this piece' of civil Government be catenas ^r in its own nature and as fuch 3 owned as for- merly. But now our Informer charges us with another xeach of Covenant , upon the ground offcbtfme , which 136 A Confutation of which he fares, tveare c^ryingen in ofpofitim t§ the peace and liberty of this Church, tvhtch Cknji has bequeathed tt her in Iegacie. This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will inftruft , and becaufe he cannot ftay to difcuTs that point in this dialogue , we will therfor fuperfed our enquiry here , and pafs over to his third dialogue , and Examine therm the grounds of this accufation,which we doubt not to difcover , to be as Irrational , as theie examined in the p'rececding Dialogues. Pag r A Confutation 0/ the Third DIALOGUE, Upon the point Of SEPARATION. Wherein. upon exhibiting the true ft ate of theQueftionfheprattife of adhering to Presbyterian %MiniJfers in the exer* fife of their Mmiftry*and denying of a fubjettion toConformifts as the lawful P aft ours of this Church j from whom Gods people are bound to receive the ordinances ,is vindicatfrom the charge of z finfull Schifmatick reparation^ the true and f olid grounds of this pra- Bife offered j and the Informers argu- ments againft tt j fully an fvver'd. Ec CHAP. z A Confutation of CHAP. I. The queftion fitted and cleard, from our Chur cbes (late he fore , andfinct the introduction of Trelacy , the different condition of Presbyterian t^MiniJltrs and Conformifis: Separation in many cafes not Schifme.The Informers ground- lefifuppofitions. Arguments preftnted And pro fecuted atfome length f whereby this piatti[e is acquit of the ehargc of a finfullfep oration, and difcovered to fall under Scripture precepts and abligattins as duty* II E ftate of the Queftion in the third Dia logue , is znent finfullftparatict; and Schfrrti whether the people of God begtnhy of it in ad- hering tofuch Mmfers as contend for our t{e- ■ formation , rather then Curat s or temfor* miftsi A n4 whether they fiand (inthis cafe of our Chur c) obliged to adhere to the one or the other , as their true Fa Jiours.fr cm whom they are to receive the gofpel ordinances and to whom they o#cfubje3hn > reverence, andoleiknc accordingly. This ftate of the Queftion our Informe cannot in theleaft pick a quarrel at> it being mof fuitable unto his pleading, which is all along ground edupon thisfbppofition , that conformifis do fiand in JMinifterial relation to this Church%and profefiours therein from which he conciuds peoples obligation to adhei unto them, as their only true> and proper Pafioun And in correfpondence to this principle and infe rence , doth univerfally and abfolutely faften th charge ofintrufion and Schifin upon PresbyterianMin1 ite the third Dialogue. } fters, and people, as to their refpeBive ails of 'preach- ing, and hearing in their prefect frate andcircumftan- ces So char if we can overturn this his grand topick,& fortify th» antithefis therof. he mult grant that all his reafonino in this Dialogue fails to the ground* For clearing thislet us rake a litle view, firft, of our Church of Scotland her cafe at Prelacies introducti- on. 2ly,of herprefent c?>fe.. jdly, of the different groundsVhichtheFresbyrerian andPrelatick partie plead upon 5 for the peoples adherence. 4thly 5 on whofe fide the reparation ftancs. Schifiii is a finfullfe* p oration from a Church , with whom , & inwhat aBstVe are bound te adhere. So that when this Queftion is clea- red , who are that Church ro which we fund under obligations to adhere , it will go far to clear this de- bate. Firft > As to the (tare of cur Church at Prelacies Jntrodu&ion , I fhall ly down thefe three fuppo- fitions in relation to the matter of fadt. Firft, that our Church from the infancie of her Reforma- tion, together with popry rejected Prelacy , and in her National capacitie , and in her fupreme judicatories difowned it as contrary to the Word of God , as a piece of Antichrifts wicke^ Hierarchy: And in her National capacitie abjured the fame often, folemnly, and univerfaUy. This hath been already clear'd upon the precceding Dialogue. 2ly. Presbyterian Go- vernment hath beenlook't on-by our Church , as the culy Government cj the Church appointed by Chrift in Scripture, and as the hedge of her reformed Dodt- line. Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion , to try. her true members; the fubfcribing the books of Difcipline > and thenatio- nall Covenant of old , and the (olemn league of late, with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Go- )ernment, have been the ordinary door of entry E$ 2 into 4 A Confutation of into her iVfiniftry. This, as to mater of fact, is clear and undeniable, sly, Our Church hath Judi- cially condemned Erafi-ianiTme, and Minifters their ftate offices , and appointed Judicially the cenfuring of the oppofersof this her eftabliftimenr as fear lows* Afiembly \%, Seft. 16; 17. Confirmed and re* newed fn Afiembly 39. So xAffcmbly 40. Sep 5. In the 'id place , as to our Church her prefent condi- tion, ch Kethiugs are clear and undeniable. 1, That ail 1] 1 te uork of Reformation is remove:; .. refciffaty. 2. Presbvterian Go- vernment is raz'd, <*nd the Church- Government moncpl;.z*d in the Arch Bifliops and Bilh ops ^obtru- ded upon this Chuieh : And the right and liberties of Pre: by rets and all our formerChurch- Judicatories is removed and ta ken away, jly, Ane arbkary and E -a'tian Prelacy is (etup inoppofition, both unto our Churches intrinficl^ power of Government .and like- wife her particular frame oj iresbytenan Government* 4, All her vowes and great Oaths both in the Natio- nal Covenant , as explaind An. 1*3*. And in the folemn League againft Prelacie, 2nd for maintain- ing her reformation, are difownM* raz'd, and caftat, asfarjslegall enaftings can reach. 5. Ane exprefs aj^eis appointed as to borh Minifters and people their owning this courfe of defection, and dif- owning the late reformation viz. mintfters fubmitting to Eraflianijm and Prelacy 7 and awning their new courts $ tnd peoples bearing their vicars and fub [titutes , for the fame fcope in th: rulers diclaird defigne. 6- Mini- flers betwixt three and four hundred difown, and ftand inoppofition to this courfe, and a great part and body of the profeflburs of this Church have like- wfe difownd the fame,& flood their ground. Hence upon what is laid, it followesin the 7th place, that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Do&rine , Worfliip the third Dialogue f Worfhip and Government; Thej is removed , viz : her folemn iowsx and befideV her dotlrina!! principles ancuti the Antichiift an! his Hierarchy , the Churches inr wer of Go- vernment, Ctfriftian libertie^theunhwfiilnefs of fig- nificant ceremonies in Gods Worihip ; her Do- (ftrineannt jidificarion, the Imperfection ofobe- dience, Chrifts certain, determinat , ai faction foriinncrs - in oppoficion to the Arminian errors > The morality of the ! are op, innovating prelati'ck partie. : dext»for her Worship ( befide what corru readv introduce. 5 and others pleaded for, a Articles &c. ) It is , upon the ttiatier , fubjeded tomeqs arbitrary impositions 3 And our National Covenant and Conf ffi< n isdifownd, acfoickjng*- gawfi popish corruptions , and alio our late confeflion as aflerving the above -mentionedDodrin-. !es. And for'Government , the Cu rats are meerlhves of its , in all their meeringsby his negative voice* and che Prelats themfelvesare but theMagiftrats crea- tures. And thusas our late coufeflion is difownd in relation to feveral doctrinal poinrs of Chriilian liber- tie>moraHtieoftheSabath, free election ,5cc fo like- wife in relation to its principles as to Church Go- bemment* andChrifts appoiDting Officers^ iawes > and cenfures^as head of hisChurch.his not giving keys to the civillAlagiftrat &c. Wherein our pre- latick party are come fo great a length rha: the la:e thefes from St Andrews an* 3 1, dafnes that Affem- bly ofDivines whofe confeffion isauthorirized by the generail Aflembly of this Church > with no other namethenthatofacor.twrtzc/tf. 81y, Our Churches cafeis now worfe then when prelacy was introduced by King James. The Limitations of Eraftianilm by the A& of Parliament An, 1592. in relation to 6 A Confutation of berpriviledges eonceyntng heads efreligio&y her eft , excom* wunication, and cenjures , clear this Next, Cburch- Tudicaiones were not d'continued, but Tat upon their oid ground ; and Prelats were reftored by Par. liament to their civil dignities only. Hence 9lv. Its clear that this pure Presbyteriaa Church hath been meerly paffive as toallthefe innovations ktely intro- duced h her true representatives or iawfull Affem- blies never having confented to this c^mfe of con- formity , as appears by the Aflembly 3 8* Their a£t anent thefe meetings , at Linlithgow \6o6 ; at Glaf- gowi6io.at Aberdeen 16 1 6. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 16 iS* Which confented to Prelacie; All which meetings thev demonftrat to be contrary in their frame and conftitution , to the priviledges of this Church. And at prelacies late erection Presby- terian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a\uli- cial Tejtirmnie , before they were raifd. So trwt the voice of our lawful Allemblies is ftill heard in oppoii- tion to this courfc3& finccPrelactes ereftion we have never had fo much as a fhadow of ane AffemMv 8cc. For the 3d point, viz. the different grounds which tie Presbyterian ani pretaticl^ party ( and tht<- man par- ticularly ) do plead upon > for the peoples adherence > take it fhortly thus, the prelatifts do plead tirft, that they are Minifters, and in that relation to this Church. 2lv. That corruptions inadminiitrntors will not (ac- cording to our own principles ) warranl fepanrion from ordinances. 3 ly , they ple^c order , and aw/oft, which ( ihey allege) is broken by peoples withdraw- ^ ing. Thefe are the cheif topicks they infift on. On the other hand Presbyterian Minifters plead for difowningthem according to the forementioned fta* teofthequeftion , firft, from this that the body of Presbyterian Minifters & profeffburs adhering to our Churches reformation, principles , and priviledges, arc the third Dialogue. 7 re the pure genuineCb urch ofScoiland,tho now fled nro a wildernefs, whole voice we are called to hear as ler true Chiidren. 2ly, that this courfe of conior- nitv is i meerintrufion on this Church, andinvafion Df Ch rifts Kingdome , prerogatives and ordinances, ttbjedjog the lawes , officers a"d cenfures of his Church unto fnen>exau&oratsng & putting in officers >vitrmut his warrands that Prelats , and their de- putes consequently, have no vight to ofliciat as IVlini- tters in this Chuich. Since both the one and the other ire arrand intruders upon the fame , and promoters of this SUiifmatick deftrqying courfe of defeftion. 3ly, that our Cburskes divins r't^ht and claim to her priviledges ftands iaft , notwithstanding the prefent encroachments and invafions thereof ; and herChil- obligation of adherence to the fame according- ly, ily, That henceit foilowesi becaufe ofthe na- ture an J tendency of this courfe of defection, that all are obliged to keep themfelves free from the leaft ac- beffion to i:, and therefore to difown CuratS; both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and do£Wne of rhisChiirchpnd as (landing in a ftared op- pofition to her^fic like wife as the obiet&s of her cenfu- rej > fhe ^ere in capacity to draw her fword. That the I z ofGod have both corrupt doftrine to lay to their charge, h-fide the cormption Worship; and alfo their go- ing o he fellowfhip of this Chnrch,and lea i- the people away from our vowed reformation ^c In the 4.I1 place, to come to clear, ths gr^ac (joint yn tvbo'efiJe the fiparationfiams i let us premife thefe tnings. i. Every reparation is not Gnfuli , even from a Church which hath the effentialls , yea and more then the effentialls , a man may go frpxn one Church to another without hazard offeparation.. But further, in thefe cafes feparation is not fchiftn. I. It if bi from thofc ftho Never fo many) who are Ee 4 draw- $ A Confutation of drawing back, and in fo far aid rawing back, from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind. For this is ftill tobe held faft,according tomanyfcripture comands, as we (hall (hew. So Elias when Gods Covenant was forfaken , was as another Atbanafius ; (I, and I only am left) in point of tenacious integrity, aly, if wefeparat in thai which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to difowri by her (landing afts , and authority , while thofe from* whom weleparat own that corruption^ 4- JfMini- fters their (uppofed feparation be are officiating as they can have accefs^fter a National Churches refor- mation is overturnd , and they perfecute fromtbeir warchtowers by thefe overturned. For in this cafe the perfecmers feparat from them, and chafe them away* 4. There is a Lawfuli forbearance of union and c^mplyance with noto ious backfliders,in thar which is of itfelf fififu!!, or induftiveto it, which is far from feparation ftricftiy taken; The commands of ah* Paining from every appearance ofevill , and hating the garment fpotted witbtbe flesh , do clearly include this- y. Many things will warrand feparation from (uch a particular Minifter or congregation, which will not warrand feparation from the Church National ; nor infer it ?by Mr Durhams acknowledgment (onfcandal fag. 1 29 J For iffcaniah become exceflive, he allowes to depart to another congregation. 6. There is a command* ed withdrawing from perfeis and focieties even in wqrfliipi the precepts, to avoid them that caufedivifions tml offences contrary to the received Doftrine, Rom* 16. 17. 1 0 come out from among the unclean & be feparat. zCer 6.17 to ceafefrom infiruBion that caufesto err e from ehe words of knowledge, Prev. l9+Z7*tofave our felvesjrom the untoward generation. Aft. 2.40, will clearlv import thisbycon- lequence. idly, This charge offinfullfeparation which they put on Gods people fuppofes many thi&s which m uft . the fecond Dialogue. 9 mud be proved , as firft , that the Prelats and their adherents,are the only true organick Church of Scot- land , which ssdenyeds h:r frameandcor 1 being fuch as it faid; furely the Minifters 2nd pre fours adhering to her reformation n't be the irue Church of Scotland tho the lefler number, as ihould have been ? if this p'tlatiokMeclicn hadbeen in- tirelyfopish.Thctefouldiersw : r s or- ders are the true army , rot:; .-of the fame* Either, the Church in th as larely reformd & conftitute, and to whofe conftitution many Confor- vowed adherence, was not the trueorganick protfeftant Church ofSc fconftitation, Principles to &rine&pra(9:ice,are point blank contrary therunto, is not. 2.1rfuppcfect that there is no law full life of ordinances among Presbyterian Minifters , as perfons who have no Lawful] call to of- ficial in tois caf \ Hence this ma:: I or disow- ning hem ttnivcrfally and abfilutefy; but we affirm they are Minifters ftanaij rekrion to this Church, and under the obligaron ofChrifts comand to officiat, which Conformiil^have net yet disproved 4,Hefuo- pofes that ev^ry thing which may be expedient as to the \vt*£m and order ofaChurcn , whenenjoym- > her full peacabk confutation , will equally obiidge in her r broken and persecute condition > when a prevailing tbackfliding party is in herbofome. Npw; fcripture and reafen will difproVe this: circumftances of order muft give *>lace to important diuies in extreme nc- ceffityas this is: the fcattered officers of the Church of Jerufalem, went every where preaching the gofpel (A eft. 8,) fo did Minifters in the beginning of ihe Re- formatio^. 4. It is fuppofed that our chmgeis only as to government t and fuch only as was in King lames time 5 bothwhichwe have fhowen tobefalfe*5.rIe takes for granted thit xheir perfoml. faults who are Conformiits f and i* A Confutation of and a fappcfed puilution of the tvurship therbv , is our ground ofnon- union 5 2nd that cur granting t^em to have the effence of a MmfterioB call 3 and thai y/ what will not exfe , orofn [elf plead for difowningthc hearingof the gofpel, or of a Mimfter fimpii- ctter , will plead nothing in this our cafe for dtfavning Conformifis* The mans weaknefs, perfonal faults-, notlefturingScc.arenorofcherofelvfsfufiicienr racut usofffrom hearing absolutely. But tho this be granted, * we have the pure genuineChurch of Scotland, and un- faithful Miniftry to adhere unto , and over and a- bovethefe grounds mentiond, conformist* fibijmatick jfraBice , and corrupt Do&rine to lay to then which will make this ground in our cafe very* and preponderating, and this the Informer hi mielf muft grant, for he will no: fay thatfuch like precen- ces or arguments in our cafe, were valid as ro owning of Noncoriformifts and deforcing of Cui Moreover he will grant , that Presbyterian J might Lawfully be heard j if Conformifts were not Handing in their way. Now fo the cafe is in rcl; to Presbyterian Minifters pleading; for that none of thefe things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples difowning of Confoimifts, were there no other Miniftersin Scotland > and if this Church had univerfally , both Minifters and people fain into this cou fe of backfliding, will be readily granted 5 But without any advantage tohis caufe , as is evidenr. To tfcieie- many discoveries of his begging[tbe queftion in this debate , our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a ihort view of our fuppofitionsin this cafe and n A Confutation of and queftlon, Such as I. our principle of the unlaw- hilnefsofprefacie. i*The binding force of our cove- nants. 3. Our Churches divine right to her Reforma- tion and priviledges once eitabJi/ht. 4. tharthisisa both of defi&ion, and perfection, y orcompe- tirion betwixt Y»inifters & profcffours contending for our Reformat/on, and a party ofbackfhders overtur- n-ngit. 6. Th- tendency of this coiirfe of Prelatick defection, tome our Reformation; and that if nor.. Rented, it will end in propery. 7. ThatPresbvte- s relation to this Church > and their -p.ro duty founded upon that relation, is not Hied but fubfifVnotwithftandingofthe pre- fer,^ o'ence and perfection, which chey with their weeding motherareexpofed unto. Having premifed thefe ih\p%s , fiom whatisfaid we may draw forth re?tftate©fthe queftionthus, 'vhether, & eforwatinn of a National Church in Dotlrine , itfciplme and government, is by]a backjlidmg par- ertHrnd) ar.d a courfe carrjed ontora^eit , God ha* left a cohfvkrabk b*dy ofMinifters & profeflours , who Jtandinoppofition to that com fe > and are in their capacities lit, are thefe Mi'iflers and prof effort who i hear in oppofitiont$ that course , or the corn- fly trig K. I hearers > the fcifmaticJ{$? This beingcle^; jy then teef thisqueftion> we ihail offer thefe arguments to fortifie our principle of di fawning conformifts in this our cafe, and denying a fubjeftion tothemns theAiiniiiers ofthis Church, andadhe- rencctoPresbyterianMinifters in the exercife of their Mini It ry , and acquit this principle and pradtife from the Informers charge of finfull feparanon. I. Whoever cf the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church3owning her conftitutions, authorise andpriviledges , its certain the contrary party muft be the Ichifmaticks 5 here it muft be feen who are the firft the third Dialogue jj firft departers, who have firft broken the hedee , v ho hp.vefirft difownd andoppofed the Covenants , the Government, the found and pure dc&rine of this Church/in compfyance with perfecuters, fureiy they and they on!y are the fchifmaticks* Had not this i fion been made upon ourChurch and her priyiled what would have been her Judgement of the pre principles and pra&icesof Conformiftsin any of her Lawfull courts? would they not have been judged cenfurableas the worft of Schifmaticks? Mow, v bat is the difference here, except > that this parry makes tkegrcater number 5 but will th:s take awry the d.ai ge of -chirm ? fuppofe a party of notorious fchifmaticks lhould cry our uponfuchas withdrawfem them as fchifmaticks, were not this a ridiculous chaig:j and Juft fo is that of Conformiftsin this caff. 2. Every fchifm fuppofesane obligation of adhe- rence tothat Church from which the feparation is made* Now then, let him prove minifters obligation tojojn into this Vrelatick courje (without which 1 ev will not admit them to official) ancTdifprove and give a Minifterial teftimony againft this defection, and peoples obligation to hear and take warning, uril prefs and plead for that whichhe calls fchifm and a (infull feparation* 3. Hence Presbyterian Minifters , and proft ire in this their pra&ife never toched, by a-ltii* ar- guments and defences. but thefe are weapons 1 lands againft him and the conforming party* 1 jess he pleads tbeeflince $fthe mmifmiaU call, which confor- j 4 A Confutation of cooformifts lay claim unto, Presbyterian Miniftcrs ^n- fwer , that Nonconforming M snifters have this , that they are Minifters of this Church , (and have abetter i;ehr to officiat as her true paftours then Prelatifts. And if'hisAvill not plead for hearing Non-confor- rnifis, whv fhallthisargum^ntbe thought valide foe ing Curat.s?is not the fame way from Athens toTbe- bef,zi>dirotnTl)ehstQ Athens ? if his conceftlon tou- ching the eff.nce of their Minifterial call 5 will not (with birr. ) infer hearing Non-conformifts, becaufe of their fup~ fofid fchifmX Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats > who really are fuch. 2* he pleads that corrup- tions , and failings in adminiftrators y or evenfome cor-\ ruptionsincriinancesy will not infer difbtvning of IsAiniA fters. Why then pleads he for difowning Presbyterianl Minifters and ordinances adminifred by them , to whom this is foclarly applicable* jly,hepleads union. But let him fay » what was the order and union of this Church before thefe innovations? was it ane union tinier Pretacie , Eraftiamfm , and perjurious breach oj Covenant > was not our Churches Reformation in do- ctrine, worfhip * difciplineandGoverment,abeau tiful order and uuion ? Now who broke this? fupppo- ft we fhould Plead union , agair.ft his withdrawing Presbyterian profeffbursfromPresbyterian Minifters will l eownethis pleading? or not rather difowne it becau.e he thinks our union is febifnutieah well, fo we hold and do prove the^reUtkkunion to be:& therefore untillhedifprove our charge againft hisparty, thi pleading is null.] 4. Divines do tell us ( particularly Timorcu chap. 7. p?ge 32. ) „that a finfull feparation whicl ,3 falls within the compafs of fchifm , is fromthecom & munion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule „ other wife 3 if the Churches deviation fpecially b- . ,great>there is no fear of any guilt by fchifm in depar t/'n the third Dialogue. 15* * nine from it; and hence infers, that unlersabfo]ver 5 *->can inftrucl that prelacy is juris dw'mt , difowning "and abjuring it cai chimerical. Moreo- ver rhis manhimfelf granjs . thfet (cr -.fm in its ordi- nary acceptation , it taken for r: caufiefJfepm^ingi 2nd tha: ^'here communion ivitb a Church cannot be held without that cafefepardtioti 7} ncceffafy Now i hen if wc can - , that our non unk-n is not cattjLift, and that connu- cannot be kid with Conform'tjls ( in our cafe and ces) without fir, j »ot Schifmaticks feflion.Tq cJea great point of F owning 1 :manded con- J orations. 1. Owning ; our felv^es to tbeji Miftfftrv as the each cfCovenant ink e ryow Hands, for all aiongwe mud force j and th c there is a confide- rable bod/ ofMinifters cxprofefToiirs contending for ii , a c qucftionis , to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere, and that accord- oun 1 inc-ulesanent its binding force 3 and the wfuloefs of Prelacie, which this man cannot dif- prove.TPhe owning of them in the mannerabove es- pied is a breach of Covenant many wayes. fpeci- al!y as this man pleads for it, with a to tall difowning I of Presbyterian Minifters in rheir Miniftry. In this czrz i 1 is a refiling from ttkat we have attain' din point ufre- fi-mation, contrary to the foil reticle, wherein we are bound to maintain purity of wo: fhip andDo<5hine as 1 hen eftaWifht. "Now their preaching is for the moft part confuting of corrupt doBrme contrary to our Re- formation ? And their prayers have feverall petitions with which we cannot joyn , fuchasfor profpering Prehts and rheir courfess Not to fpeakofthe abro- gating the lecture, repeating of 1 he creed at baptifm, finging a fet fo^me of conclufion 3 or what ianovan- pns 1 6 A Confutatioa of onsin worfnipare introduced. Again,thisisaconcur- ?rs of thiscourfe of backfliding* and a fearing our [elves to be tvithdratven jr$m our union 11 of futeible afjlflance to ftiitl. \ding for the Covenant againft jch are contrary to the other arti- cles thereof This will be fpecially clear^jf it be fur- ther confidered.Thati -The body of presbycerianMi- difowh* d in the manner and by this Informer, the presbyte- ria- i and our Reformarionaccordrgtothc Covenant > willbeex^inft 3 fold and betrayed. 2. Hearing Curats and peoples fubje&ing ihemfel- > their Miniftry as the Paftoursof this Church, is by the Rulers required as adirtB badge ani Tejt of ommng Eraftiamfm and prelacte , in [oppofition to the Covenant there is no getting o{ wrongs r^dreitjor corruptions in the Miniftry removed. Tb^s the Apology pag. 272. 4* We are in the Covenant engadged againft lndifferency , in this great work of Reformation, and is not this the way to fall into it more awd more. ^ We engadge that vefhall ende- avour , that thi tvort^ of Referma'ion shall remain invio- lable to pofterity. But what memory fha'l the pofteritjr have of this work if prekts and curats be thus fubmittedunto ? tf. We engadge oppofition in our capacity to all prelatick malignant enemies of 'the Lords worke and intereft ; but how is it performd >] when we thus ftrengthen their hands, intheiravowed oppofition theruflto. 7. How afjtfi We and Defend inthis common caufe of Religion and liberty , fuch as en- tet the third Dialogue. I J termto thii league % when we thus Divide from our fufrering brethren , .'wound and offend them and ihake ofF a faithful! Covenant -keeping Miriiftfjfc 8 How maintain we our reformed Doftrine, wor- ship , and union , when thus owning falfe" prophets, and the inftru&ion that caufethto err from the words of knowledge, and fuch as caufeDivifions and offen- ces contrary to the Doctrine we fnveLearnd. Prov. J 9. 17* Kom. 16. 17, 1 8* 9. How maintain wt tlx privileges of our Church and her gjformtd Government > when owning intruding prelatsandtheir creatures as Mimfters of this Church, and dii'owninz her true Mmifters, now taking her by the hand. This practice is ane approving of Curats call and miffion , rather tbeo rhat of presbyterian Minifters i which no man vi A ci.eny to be contrary to theCovenant. Next,owning and adhering to Curats in this our cafe j and accor- ding to oar principles, hath an acctfficntomucb guilt *W*f* fuch as. 1. The owning of a palpably Mafti'ff\ and Difowning a palpably {baled Riiniftry* 3' A high reflection on the fufterinzsof many Godly ijponthis ground. 3, Aihmtmg of our eves asainft JVlimflcrial Discoveries of the fin and duty of the time. 4. A carting of our felves on tentations of greater com^lyancec 5. A breaking of ftllowfliip wittwhele that are contending for Gods worke and denying a fyn-.pathv with them', yea a trampling on thur blood which has been fhedon this ground! 6. A drowning the Minifteriall authority , and ceanng the c6mmiffion of thrifts faithful! Ambafla- Jours , and depriving our felvcs of the bleffing and 3*efit of their^ Labours &c» •ne Mmiflvy of Cbnformifts , and of out Ruler* i-mandedconforniitvrhcrin unto the prefent courfe ?i dcf€<2ion p will bg found' to fell under great 1% A Confutation of {criptureohliga'i nsy lucb as j. The obligation of perfeve- fmg in integrity, and holding ttfafi. Colof. 1.23. Heb. jo. 23. PfaL 2T. if, Suppofing prelacy unlawful! , and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the wo; k of reformation as it flood eftablifht , this pra&icejis clearly crofs co the premifed obligation > both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy andErafti- ani me, and alio as a Difowniogof faithful! Minifters, 2. The obligation of keefing at the greateft Difiar.ee from fin, expreft Jude 23. I ThefT f« 22. I Tim. 5. 22- will infer Difowning Cuiats in this cafe. I. All Direct, or interpretative confent to fin > is here Difcharged. 2. A practice othervvife lawfull 3 •will on this ground become inexpedient hie e^r nunc. We muft not eat inthe cafe of offence, thowemay freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2y Now on theforementiondSuppolitionsj the owning of Cu- rats hath an acceffion to their fin y beyond that of ane apeayance or a touch > It being both a Deferring the pres- byterian Mmiftry , and a badge of coHformity to -Eraftian prelacy, and all the corruption and defection of the time, which is therby advanced & promoted, 'cis alio in this cafe of competition, a dehberat adherence to the prelatick rather then presbyterian intereft. ,3. The gr?at obligation of a tefiinwy to truth and D4y, expreft Heb. 10. 23. Mar. 10. 32. will plead for this practice > All-truth muft be avowed , & pacti- cMly ai-ow'd. We muft walk ctrcwnfpealj , or exactly as the Word imports, & we muft avow truth & duty on the greateft hazards even the fmalleft mater is -greats when a tefiimonj is conarnd in it , were it but the circumftance of an open window , Daniel durftoot ornmit it upon the greateft hazard. A nd as this teitimo- ny muft bc/«//,fo muft it alfo be conjl int. Demas fhame is, that the afii&ionsofthe gofpeJmade himforfake the Apoftje after great appearance* fox Chrift , and em- the third Dialogue 19 embrace th's prefent world. And befide , whaever truth or duty is oppofed , that becomes the fpectdl ob^eEt of this ttflmwy. Uence Miniiters and ProrefTours in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation ,• and Ministers filence as to a M'wifterirf uftim-Mj z or which weakens his plerophory or affurance » is here difcharged., Andnei:h?r the 1 awful nefs nor I-ndifFe— rency of the thing it felf , nor mens Authority com- mandingit, Nor the weakr>cfs, yea or wickednefs ofthofe in hazard to be {tumbled , willwarrand the Doing of that out of which offence arifes. Paul De- clares al! meats lawfully vet will not eat in cafe of of- fence 1 Cor. io* 2j. 1 Cor. S. 13. This Declaring of the latVjulnejs of that practice , is equivalent to any twill Qechratir er Law which alters not the nature of fcan- jfaL Paul will not have the weak {tumbled Rom* 14. 1,2, 3 1 Cor. 8.11,12. Nor.gjve occafion to the malicious who defired occafion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curatsas the cafeisnow circuroftan- tiat doth harden them in their apoftacy , and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not owne them 5 or may provoke them to a£t Igainft their light s and therefore tinlefs owning them could be proved a neceffary duty , as matters now ftand , the prCmifd fcripturc obligation will infer it to be fiaiull, 5* difowning coraformifts wUl clearly Ffz fol- 20 AConrutationof follow frorruhe (cripture obligation , to turn away frw ftducers, and fudi as turn afide from Gods way. 2 rim. 3. ju The apoftle having givena large mduflionof cvillsadhe^ng tothefeinihelaftdayes,puttin£among 1 the reft of their black Tbetas, Covenant breaking, con- cludes his difecvery with .his grand precept (ver. 5.) from fucb turn aunty. We muft beware of falfe pro- phets, theconctfon, and of Inch 2s walk not accor- , dingtothe received ordinances, Math. 7.1^. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3.2. 2, Thefs. 3. 6. Civifts fheep do flee from the ilranger , and hear not his voice. IJha io, 27. 1 All pr meters of wayes contrary tothefimpl ci- ty of the gofp:!3 arc here commanded to be efchewed* 2. We muft know and difcover fuch by their fruits and pradHwall unfaithfulnefs , as well as filfe Docfliine, iVlat. 7. 1 6. compared with a Tim 3. Thefe thatpra- dticaiiy act the foxes Cant 2. ij. are to be taken away, and confidently efchewed , the faints muft be for- tifved ag'inft thefe that ly in wait to decent , God difowns thefe th^ make fad the hearts of the gorily ' and ftreng'hen the hands of evill doers Ezek 13 22. fiich a:> (land not in his f ounei Ier.3 3 .21. & caii' e peo- pie to err by their lies and lighenefs. ler. 26 31. iS'ow upon the forem. ntiond fuppofitionsits clear that Conformiits are leading afide from our Reformavo-?, eppofing the principles & priviledges, of th s Chinch; thev are Covenant breakers from whom we are to turn cAvay, they are fperking peace to the wicked, and hea- ling the wound fiightly , and are runng with fo:ce and rigour 'd.zeV. 3 1.4. I Pec 5. 3. Witnefs their pre- fect violence. tf.Tnis practice of PresbyterianMiniiters operating in cp;3oii ion to this courfe, and peoples ad- herence to their Miniltry, is inferr'd from the fcrip- ture obligation of many lenihle charges ay;d adjuritions laid upon Mini ft, rs , in reference to a faith full diligence in tbvr WnijierialfunBion 9 and a {at ethic MirJf, trial ufli- rnonv the third Dialogue* ii mony concerning the fin and duty of th:timtt which is ne- ceffarly indufive of their peoples reciprocal diligence, W attending their Miniftry, and their obedience and .faith' all adherence accordingly. They are comman- ded to cry Mud and foe-P the people iktvrfm lfa* $S- r, and as'thev would not have the blood of fouls upon them, to give faithf jII warning; touching (in and duty, and heir peoples cafe and hazard, efpecially in times . of great (in and judgement, when God is terribly ^pleading his controverfy with them Ezek. 3.17. hence they arc enjoyried to be infant infeafon and out of fe.ifovy r:pr^v ng , reh kjng an^ exhorting with all longfujfcring andD^Brine 2 T/^. 4. 1. And as fai.hfuil watchmen on prufalemt wal i, never tofkold their peace day nor nfgbt t'tll foe ' e eft 0 b'i The yand made a praife in the earth I fa. 61* 6. t) filfiA and maf^e full pro fc of their Miniflrv Col 'of 4. if* And as thefe comands in order to Minifterial dili- gence, do (insularly oblige :herunto in this cafe, fo the fcripture tens and tbreatnwgt thundered again ft iM/rr- fters neg'irence and u fat hf dnefi , are very convincing and awakening. See Ezek- chap* 3. and chap. 13. 5 6i Hence on the rorementiorid 1 unpofuions it clear!} fol- lowes. 1. That Mibifters are oblidged to be copftantlv inftantm feafon andoutoffearon3 in their Minifterial teflimony againfl thi!> courfe of defection, 2. This cafe of defe&ionand perfecurion ampliats and extends this duty to all to whom they can have accefs , as the 'cat- ten d preachers A&>* 8. Went every where prea- ching the gofpel , afrer that perfecution that arofe about Stephen- ?. This Ministerial teftimony upon .the forementioned grounds, mud be levelled at all the corruptions of th: times, and aU the branches and degrees of oik defection. 4. The duty and obliga- tion of the people of God, is reciprocall and corn- men furabie therunio. And if hearing Curats and Ff 3 difowning ax A Confutation of diiowning Presbyterian Miniders , be not inconfiftent with this great obligation > let any Iudge. 4; That party in a Reformed Church , which having oYemund her Reformation, hath fliiu out:, laid and- , and perfecme away found adherers therunto boih Minifteis and profeflburs , and will not admit IMimfters toofficiat, but upon the (infull terms of complyance with their way , cannot charge the found party with fchiim in landing where they were,& ow n- ing and prosecuting their refpe&ive dimes, as Mi- nitters and flocks , inoppofition tothefe overruiners and backiliders. For this would ;udify trie mod ingraind fchifm that everwas heard of; Nowfothe cale is here, for all Presbyterian Minifiers are-cad out, and they and all found profefiours adheiingto th~m perfecute,unlefs they will retract their principles, and conform to prelacie. Miniders* in taking up a m w tenour andexercife of their Miniftry in a precarious fervile dependence upon Eraftian prelacy , headed and influenced by ameer civil papacy 5 Andpeople, in fubjcding themfelves totheMinidry of the fervile deputes of t radian prelates , as a badge of their hear- ty complyance with , and fubmiflion unto, thbblaf- phemous fupremacy > and confent to the overturning of the pure conftnution and reformation of this Church. So that the Presbyterians their plea is an owning of duty againft Schifinaticks difowning it. Do not our Divines tell the Romanifts on this ground, tltat they h+vefeperat and perfe cute us aivay from them , and that therefore thcfehifm lyts upon themselves .net on us : So the cafe is here. Let this man fay, what would have been the judgement of our Church in any of her for* mer judicatories, anentaparty owning fuch princi- ples as Conformids do, and perfecutrng or cading out all that oppofe rhem, and dare not concurr in their courfeof backflidingin overturning the fworn Re for- the third Dialogue 2 J Reformation of this Church; I dare appeal to the In- former himfelf , iffuch would norhave been judged cenfurable as the worft of Schifmaticks And he can afligne nothing now to turn orcaft the fcale^no ground of difparity > unlefs he place it in this , th*t prelates are the greater number , and have tb* civd paver on th:ir fide. And if this pitvfull plea will carry it , the Ro- manifts have long firce outweighed the proteftant Churches in this debate , which this man will not lor veryihame admit. 7. This practice of adhering to Presbyterian Mini- fters , and difowning Ctnais , hath nothing of the ingredients of fch fa or fwjull fcparat ion from this Church , included therein , as matters now ftand , and as the queftion is iiaced on the forementioned hypothefes. Which will appeare in thefe deare portions in the point of fchifm (which are evident in their own light) being applyed and brought home to our prefent cafe. I. Sc^iim is* flitting out from under duerelatins to a Church and from h.r hVniftry , and duties accordingly. But in this our cafe , and praiiife under debate , Mi- nisters and profefTburs are purfting the duties of their rt- fpeSthe relation to this Church , as it flood reformed and cftabliflit before thefe innovations, and the Apoftat prclacick party are doing the contrary* 2. In a finfull Schifrmtick reparation, i: is al waves fuppofed that the with drawing^s from thofe who are holding the cammtwion of the true Church , otherwife welofethe bafis andfun- dation of all found definitions of fchifm. But here the perfecute party art turning the Reformation of this pure Church agiinjl a party offeparatifts , who hive broken her order , union, and National vows ; and who are alfo cenru:able by all her (landing afts. 3. In a proper Schifrmtick frpara-ion, the principles and pra* Bice of thefe from whom the feparation isx made, aye fuppofed to be fubferlicnt to that Churches union f right ejlaUi foment, Ff4 M& %\ „ A Confutation of tnd for ma>ntrinhigher communion ; but tofeparat from thofe whole principles and practice is a dated oppo(i- tion (and in ib far as an oppoficion ) to her purity and Reformation , is to maintain her true union and com- munion , and not ftnfully to feparat from it. The AfTumption as to this practice under debate , might becleard by a large indudtion of particulars* Ifwetakea view of the two parties (Presbyterian and prektical) their carriage in relation to this Church: It will be evident, I. Ingenera!. That Confcrmifts their prindp'es and pra&ice, isa dired impeachment ofoureftablifht reformation, and that Presbyterians are maintaining and adhering to the fame. %. Gonfor-r mills do avowedly difowne and abjure our Covenants* Presbyterians adhere unto and owne the fame. 3. Con- forming are breaking and dtifipating our Churches eftabliiht order and union, Prcsbytesians are in this practice contending for both 5 the one party is woun- ding our Church both by perfecution and reproach , the other is taking her by the hand,endeavouring her help and comfort in this her deep diitreile > and To the Covenant obliges to difowne the firft, and adhere to the fecond. 4. The one is cenfurable by her, the ochcr deferves her praife. Now can there be any que- ftion in this , to which of thefe partie? people are obliged to adhere according to the principles of our Keformatiom In the 4th place 3 Inafinfull reparation as to com- munion in worfhip, itmuftbefuppofed ,lthetvor(lypof that Church ownd and eJlabMht therein , becaufea party innovating herein, as well as innovating in doctrine and government contrary to that which is eftablifhc y zxtbaBcnus , and ipfofaBo ( in this their pi adtice , and upon this very ground) fchifmaticks both in their worfhip and government. Therefore to difowne them therein can be no fchifm j for this would involve a palpable the third Dialogue t J palpable contradiction, that thefe withdrawersin this fame pra&ice, and in the fame refpefts and circum- ftances thciof 3 \tfere Schifmaticksand notSchifma- ticks. No-A'prelatifts their doftrine is new and odd, and not the voice of this Church. And i heir worfhip, (over and above the corruption adhering to it) is the vrorfhip of an innovating party, and contrary to our Churches eftablifht order.' Andtherfore todifowne th:m Therein is nofir.full feparation from this Church her. felloufoip and wo-.fnip, while exifting in her found and purer part, and oppofing thefe innova- tions. 5. Jn Schifmaeick feparation , the rent is made in the . • bowels of the true and genuine Church. So that when a fchifm and rent is ftated betwixt a godly Minilhy contending for a pure Churches Reformation , againft an apoftat party of the Miniftrysibe found profe flours ftandpreobliged to adhere unto , and ftrength.n the founder par r .upon ■ bis wy ground of holding the unim and conmu thm 3/3 v -re Church again ft thefe backjliders'^up- pofing thev will rent and ruine her, if not oppofed: and fo the cafe is here. The union and order of chis Church, is already broken bv the prelatick innovators and backfiiders, and by them onJy ; fo that upon the fup- pofal of this fixed fchifm , the people of God muft adhere to the found Church and Miniftry. And in this extreme neccfjiiv , the kffer obligation as to parochial or- der, muft give place to the greater dtties ofpreferving and maintaining the Churches union and reformation, when a courfe is carried on tending to ruine it. 6. Every finfull feparation is , from the frflowflvp of a Chnrch either in her Wilntj\xy9 latvfull courts ^r IVorjhtp and ordinances , according to the various relations , flare and condition of Separatifts, whether Church of- ficers or others. Bur in th is our cafe. Presbyterian iWi- nifters and profeffours feparatin none of thefe refpe&s Ff 5 from i6 A Confutation of from the genuine Church of Scotland. I. Mini- fters feparat not from for courts ; for none of her law- ful courts are now publickly own'd or exiftenr. %. People feparate not from for TVorfhip , as it flood re- formedand vowed unto , when they owne the ordi- nances dirpenfed by her true pafiours , for that only is the true Worfliip of this Church. Nor }. from for DoBrine , and a due fub)eeli n to her faithful I pafiours in the Lord : And therefore neither from the fellowship of her faithful Minifters and profeffburs. Where is then the Schifm? Since both the Do&iine > Worfliip and Government of this true Church are ownd > and backfliders and Schifmaticksonly (and as fuch) are ' difownd. 7. Schifm fuppofes that thefe whom we withdraw from , are fuch to whom we are under obligation to adhere: fork is a breach of union , which is cemented and con- glutinateby the obligations and duties of thofe who are concerned to hold it fa ft - So that where the obligation to the dury in fubferviency to this union cannot be demonftrate, to be incumbent upon fuch and fuch perfons, and in fuch a&s , By whom and wherein this Union is to be upheld, the charge of Schifm upon theft aft s, which are fuppofedto violatthat union, cvanifhesand falls to the ground. But if the perforr ( tho a Minifter fuppofed ) from whom the reparation is made, wants that which immediatly grounds this oblige t ion of owhi*ghmbic& nunc, as tnc cafe (lands cir- cumitantiac, in that refpe the Informer himfelf muftof neceffitjr admit this, for otherwife he will crolTe and cut the fine ws of all his pleadingand argu- ments which he presents in this Dialogue for disown- ing Presbyterian Minifters in this our cafe, fori am confident that out of this circumftanciat cafe he will grant the third Dialogue. 27 grant that, it is no breach of any of his rules or rcafonst* hetrtke*. That [they are Alinifters ] and [ are prea- ching faith and repentance ] that [ they have a lawful! Minilteriail call and ordination &c] All thefe he chinks will plead nothing, as the cafe is now circumftantiat * for adhering to them , becaufe of chat in their prefent condition , which outweighs all this , and loofes peo- ples obligation to owne them , which he thinkes is no Schifm but duty: Now, let our Informer turn the ta~ bles; if there befirft that in Curats prefent ftate,\vhich preponderatsas to our difowning of them now, tho all that he pleads as to their ordination, and minifierial caS were granted, its noSchifm in this our cafe to dif- owiie ihem according to his own principles and plea- ding in this point. 2. He muft grant that denying t* hear hie 6r fiuncy and infucha complex cafe , is different from a der.ying to h$ar fimjtliciter , or drowning fucb a mans Mmtfiry (impl>citer, or abfolutely, as he will grant that out of this cafe Presbyterian M'mijVrs might be beard, and that difowningthcmis no:/impliciter a difownixga true Mn.ijhy or Church 3 or them as Miaifiers', So that its this cafe •/ c$mpt$ki§M with Conjorwijh, which with him caftsthe bailance. Hence as matters now are Rated andcircumftantiat, and upon our principles and pre- mifedHypothefes, he muit grant there is that in con- forming cafe , which hie & nunc will loofeour ob!i« gation to receive the ordinances from them as the mitilers of this Church , which lithe white inthe marks wherat allhisarrowsare fhot. Such as 1. that we are pico- bliged by a lawful Oath to.extirpat and difowne them* z. That they arc promoters of a Prelatick dsfigne to ruine our Reformation. 3 .That'they have avowedly difownd our Covenants, and that we are commanded by theoverturners of our Covenanted Reformation » to hear them as a badge of our renouncing it ; and concurring in this courfe of backflidwg. 4. That they arc 2% A Confutation of are intruders , and not entiing in at the door, and in the way and order of chis Churchj That they are vio- lently thrafting out, and perfecting her frith uil Pa* ttbur^ rharthey per jurioufly renounce a call from the people, and ordination by the pie^byterie. All which grounds he muft either grant will fuperfede cur obligation to owne conformifts tic ($ rune . according to our principles, or quite hs plea and pleading 2$ to the di (owning of Presbyterian Miniftersin theexer- cife of rheir Miniflry. S- He pieadsinthe clofe of the preceeding Dia. logue > that the covenant abjures Sclifme. Now let us ftandto rhis Dedfion; the Informer will not be dif- fatisfyed if I iliall borrow one of his topicks , and fhoot ane arrow from his own bo fuch a Janus as wijl calf a maligne condemning afpe&upon bcth rbe contending parties, and bring adherers unto cither of the two, under this imputation* Butfo it is that difowning of Presbyterian Minifters in the exercife of their Miniftry, is condemned in the Covenant as fchifm this we have already made ap- pear, the third Dialogue 2j re*r , it being a 4ftbw&£ng of that cftablifhr order and union of this Church which theiin we do fweur to maintain, and a fchifmatical withdrawing from her faithfull AmbalTadouis and others contending for the ends of the Covenant j to adhere unro whom3a:}d keep up an union wi h them herein, the Covenant laves upon us anexpre S obligation, putting the imputation of fcbi(mafick dinfiBn , and dettftdU % idijfertney upon the contrary praftice. llrgo, upon the whole it follows evidently , -that the owning of Conformifts which he pleads forinthis Dialogue ( viz.fubjedtien unto , and receiving ordinance? iroai them as the JVlinifters of this Cnurch , and denying this to Pres- byterian Ministers, is abjurd in tte Covenant as Schif- Dhatical. Chap. 11. The Informers charge of internal and external Schifme, put upon Non conformifts \f imp cach- ing the Churches confiitution , and her practice in point of Worship for more than a i o oo Tears, examind. His argument from Rom. I 4. Heb. jo, 25. anfwertd , and retorted upon him. His anfwer to the argument taken from the command ofleeking the belt gifts, cwfidered. As alfo his argument from ancient canons, from the Ac: of the Ajjernhly 1 64.7. from the recipro- cal tye betwixt a KjMin.ifter and bis flocked for • tify his charge of Schifrn , repell'd. HAving thus cleard our queftion 2nd plea u& forti* lied our practice with theft arguments; We come 5 o A Confutation of now to examine the grounds on which this new Ca- fuift impazevfirifM fepiratitnto us therein, We ac- knowledge the evil of Schifm upon thefe Texts men- tioned bv hirn , which might have caufed fad refledl- ingsonhimfelf and his party, who are guilty of divi- fions and offences contrary to our received ordi. nances? and the dodfrine of this Church: And fo arebfhed by that Scripture Rom. 16. 17. And who would have have us faying I am of this or that Rabbi or Prelat,contrary to I Cor, 1 : 12 It's they who have difownd afpirituall pure unity with this pure Church , and are feeking a perjurious union in departing from God , contrary to that precept Ephef. 4: 3. And are fo far from efteeming others in Lowlinefs of mind better then themfelves , as we are enjoynd. Phil 2. si That their Rabbles trample on all M iniften; and their underlings do moft infolently persecute and def- pife faithfull Paftours for adhering to the Reforma- tion, authority, and union of this Church * againft their innovations. Schifm is no dcubr an evill which hath much infefted the Church, and ourChu;ch: and the Scripture fufficiently discovering the evill thereof we need not Cyprian, norjeroms elogies anent unity , to perfuaed it. Only where he infinuats from chat fay- ing of Cyprian, which he mentions, Who afferts from I Cor- 13. [that who areflainin their Schifin , their inexpiable fin is not purged by their blood, and that they are not Martyrs] that fuchis thecafe of the fuffering people of God at this time j we may difcern the cruell venome and ftiog of rhis mans ma- lice , for all the fobriety which he pretends unto ; I ihill only tell him , that as its more then he will be ever able to prove, that the Lords remnant are guilty of this fin, and are aflembling out of the Church, when attending theMiniftry of Chrifts faithfull Ambafla- dgurs in this Church , fo he and his fellow* fett- the third Dialogue. 31 ting thefe murderers upon them in this dutv, will (if t hey repent not ) be expofed to that vengeance which the cry of their fouls under the altar, who have been flain for this their Teftimony , doth plead for. He would alfo do well torefolve this doubt upon Cypri- ans Teftimony , viz. Whether Cyprian did ever hold5 orif himfelfwill dareto aiTert , that thebhodand fuf- firings of tkebeft •/ 'martyrs did expiat their guilt. As for Jeroms affertion [that Schil'm and Herefy , or fome degree of it go together*] I think it is fitly appli- cable to himfelf and fellow Conformtfts, uho fince their departing from the unity of this Church, and her fworn Reformation, have not only, to juftify their courfe vented grofserrours in point of Oaths , and otherwife, but arc now (as every one fees) pofting fad to Rome, in denying many rrod great points of our Proteftant profeflion.We accord to Auguftinesfaying [that (eparatifts fas fuch) receive no life from the body] & the unquestionable godlinefs,& fellowship with the FaiherandtheSon, to which many Presbyterians are admitted , and wherein they ftiine , compared with the abominable prophanuy of rh? whole ofthofe al- moitthatowne Curats, will by this rule declare who are the Schifmaticks , and feparatifts from Chrifts .body. The comment of the Thorn which rents the lilie •Cant* 2. 2. Is very futeableto him , and thofeof his way, who have now of a longtime rent the Lords faithful! flock, wounded our Church , and taken away her vail : efteeming themfelves Chriftians of the firft magnitude ; fo he efteem" his moll reverend Arch-Biihops and reverend under- fathers 5 What pi- I tifull preambles are thefe. The Doubter alleadges [that every feparation is not fchifm.] Tbis(as we heard)he acknowledges, and that \vhen communion with a Church emmt be held without £n* fyartfim is nuejjan j wherein he yedds all that we plead ^ A Coufutatioii of plead ; fince we have proved that in this our cafe, joyning t© their way and parry is in many refpe&s fin- full ; and (ince he Inftances the proteftants plea for fepa- rating from Rome on this grcund, knowes he not that the Papifts reil usfuchftories anent union with the Churchy and tb.it fufftr'.ng without the Church i* no Cbriftian [uffc- ring , ro Iuitifie thtir bloody perfeeutions , which very well fates his cafe. And no doubt the prote- ftants anfwer, viz [That we are in Chrifts Church, becanfe owning his truth, tho feparat from their fy- n'gogue, and that notwithftanding this pretence, the blood of proteftant Martyrs is in their skirts] doth futethe cafe of Presbyterians in relation to tbeirper- fecuters. But the great charge followes, viz. That we aregw.U /y of as groundUjs and unreasonable jtparatkn , as w£ Jh ill read of in any #g« of the Qhui ch. Bona verba \ How is this made good} firft, ( faith he) incafiing off Chi - fiian love which is heart Scbifm. 2. He cbargeth with :x- ternal Schi'm in fepara-ing inaftsdf IVorfliip. Now what if werecriminat in boththefe, and retort this doable charge upon himfelf. Have they not difownd the Worlhipof Presbyterian miniflers 5c ProfefTours , and charged ail to feparat from them, meerly for nor-* complyance with their peijured Prehts ? 2. Have they not for many years glutted themfelves with their blood j 1 may fay fweemd in it > upon the fame ver ground of forbearance as to prehtick complyance and endeavour by multiply ed law es and Acls, to root them out of the very nation? Good Sir,Pull this beam cut of your owneye^that you may fee a title clea- rer in this point. But as to thefirfthe fayes, that we make differ ince in Judgement as to lejjer matters ( Church Government) a ground of difference in ajfeBion, as I the were no Chrtfiians who are not cf cur ftrfafton in m< things , putting thus lefer pints into w creed , and u Churching! the third dialogns. 33 unchurching and unfancting all who aye not ofour^nfiiaJion sberin. Anf. As to the hrft general charge, I know none more guilty then themfelves, who are conten- ding with fire and (word tanquam pro arts <$ freis , for thefe rheir Ufa points, and with unheard of rage, feek- ing the mine of all who dare not comply in judge- ment and practice with them therein. 2. Irhinke Chriftian affe&ion to their fouls , is beft (ccn in oppo- xfingand teftifyingagaiiift their foul -deftroying fins. Tbra (halt by any mans rebuke thy neighbour , 4rid not Juffer fin upon him is an old (landing rule* Levit. 19: 17. And if they be even hated in fo far 3s own- ing pernicious waves > its no more then whatDa- v learn'd Chrift , to call every thing lefjer or [mall fonts , which his htitudinnian party have the confidence to term thus , fo we know no point of truth reveald ani fammetxttdtousiti the word 3 as theobfeftof our faith and matcer of oirpndtice , which fliould be keept o-Jt of o ; rcreedjsff our faith become muchhortrthen th* Scripture pattern, And we acknowledge not the nev/ jpdcchmeHC of mutt Lawes t which this man and his fellow- Conformiftshave annexe to their creed , and which can pro arhitro make or unmake thefe hh Ufa points. But he fayes, ?hat we unchurch and condemn a1! Chur- ches in ail ages who have ownd'Bi Iff* » Liturgies , f*flfm volt and oth r ceremonies !■■ And iftve make the removal offefe things necejfayy to a Church » there hath not been a aChurch for above diooo yeafis together <^ins,To makethe laft part of this argument not to contradict the firft , he ■ Ihould have faid that there has not been aChurch with- out thefe thingsmentionedihefeitfo** years, but the Gg man 1 34 A Confutation of man feeing his firft flight or Rodomontade too fierce » he did well to clap his wings cloffer. Upon a review of this page, i find our Informer in this charge playes : butthepityfull Camdion and verfipeliis : for finding i that this aiTenion of his , thxt Chriftians of all dgtsjine* j Cbrifts time and in aU places hive otvrfd Bilhops, Liturgies, Feftival dayes and other ceremonies, would have drawn up- on him the heavy burthen and task ofaproofc, he i lightens hirnfelf of this burthen, by a prudent [almojt] j which in this point is very fignificant* But his conii- ' ning the liturgies, Feftivals , and other ceremonies ! •within the compafs of the laft thourand years (fullied with all popifh abominations) appearing too firnple j inadvertency , within the compafs of two or three lines, { he^fecuresit with z[much above.] But left this prove too f broad reckoning , he inftances the jecond or third cen- I turyirom whence he fayes ? webeginne our reckon- i ing as to Bifhops, feftivals , liturgies, and other cere- ( monies. But I. why mends he the matter fo inad- 5 vertentiy, as to run infucha wide uncertainty as the I the length of 200 yeares in that calculation which Jhe | imputes to us, 2. I challenge him to fiiew what i| presbyterian writter did ever commence the original of liturgies and feftivals , with his blind &c. of other ceremonies ( which will traveH who knowes whither, and include who knowes what) from the third , far lefs the fecond century. 1 affirm that its more then he or any for him can prove , that the Church hath had Bifhops, liturgies, and feftivals fince Chrift. Our writteis have abundantly proved: the contrary j and we challenge him to Jhew cither his Diocefan Bifhops , liturgies, or feftiuls and! the &c. of his ceremonies , in the firft Apoftolicki Church, or in thefe two ages mentioned by him. That thtrc were not diocefan Bifhops then or long after, we have already proved, and far lefs Eraftian Pre- this third Dialogue. 5 y Prelats. For holy dayes , let him mew by divine ap- pointment any other then the Chriftian Sabath, in the Apoflolick Church if he can, orinthefirft fucceeding ages. As for the feaft of Efther, it is acknowledged to have come in bycuftome after the Apoliolicktimes. For liturgies, we ailert that the Apoftolick Church and age knew nofuch thing asfet & impofd liturgies and for- mes,other then Chrifts prefcriptions as to baptifm & the Lords fupper. and that they pray 'd as was futeable t ) the prefent action and circumftances of timf > place, and perfens ; If he betake him to the liturgies which are afcribed to Peter, James, Mathew, Andrew, Clement, Mark, Dionifius Areopagite, and other Difciples : protcftant writ ers will ltigmatize him for embracing that which they have abundantly proved to be counterfir. That liturgies had no place for a long time in the Church, is proved by clear teftimo^ niesj Tertuliian ( Apol. cap. 30.) ihews „ that in 3? their publick AiTemblies chrillians did pray (inemo- y^nitore quia dt peBore , that is, without a pyefcr'pthn „becanfe from their heart. And in his treatife de Ora- 3, tvne fares, that there are ibmethings to be asked ^according to the occaiions of every man — — that „ the Lords prayer being laid as a fundation , its law- 3J) full to build on that fundation other prayers, ac- cording to every ones occafion. Aguftine epift. „I2i. tells us that liktrumeft , Its free to ask what ., was in the Lords prayer alijs atque alijs modis , fomc 3, times one way fomtimes another. Like wife i 33 Juftin Martyr Apol. 2. tells us that he wholnilru- :j 3, cfcedthe people pray -d according to his ability x6iv<&> li tm 0-vmun uvaTTSfZTrit . -We might alfo tell him or. i Bhiiop Andrews fuccefs 3 or rather difappointment iWin fecking an old Jewifh Liturgie , which when fent {| to Cambridge to be translated , was found to be coni- 13 pofed long after die Jews rejection , fo the Bifnop > Gg z being $6 A Confutation of being afliamM,fu&red this notion to die and the Li- turgie never law the light. See Smedlim and Didoclav. pag. 6i$?itf5 I73»8,i9-&feq. 2. What confequenceis this, that becade we difowne aSchifmatick party of Innovators introducing thefe corruptions mentioned : Ergo we difowne them as no Churches wherein thefe have been admitted. Muft we bring in,, or comply with every corruption once purged out,the retaining wher- of may be confident with the ciTence of a true Church ? what confequence or reafon is here ? Again , doth not he and all his brethren ftand in diredt oppofition to the order and goverment of the Presbyterian Church of this Nation , and unto all that own's the fame: will he then admit this confequence that he unchurches her before prelacie came in, and other reformed Churches governed Presbyterially. So wc fee himfelf muft acknowledge this his reafoning naught. The Doubter alledges[that thefe things mention'd, are of later date then the Apoftles.] To this heanf- wers that B?fcops u^re from the Apoftles time. The contrary wherof we have proved cither as to diocefan or Eraftian Bifhops , fuch as he means , yea even a proeftcs which in the Apoftolick age had no place , as we have made appear. Next, He tells us that Fo'ycra- tes'tntkt debate shout ke tying of \L fiber whbVtBer Bifcop of R^m: , alledged Johns authority. But how proved he this 5 is the Queftion, not what he alledged 3 furely bare alledging, as in other cafes, fo fpecially in divi- nity is bad probation 5 Then he ask?, if we will hence \n\et that they Wire no good ebfiffiatis who ufed thefe things (up pole that they came in after the Apoftles times t I an- fwer wethinke that in fo far as innovating they were not S-iund Chriftisns , and fo muft he thinke unlefs he will be wife above what the Apoftles have written; Then he tells us^thatfrom fym. 13., It appears thatal- bvt the third dialogue. 37 hit fome thought ( he mould fay underftood and knew) that by their Chriftian I'berty tkcy wnc fred from the cere- moniall Law axd therefore mAde ne dijihSion of da'.eser meats yet Paul enjovnd them t§ bear with the weal^ , to ac- count them brethren 5 and not oltffff* them , andtheweal^ were not to \udge the ftrongm idtuQ I. How proves he , that the points in controverfv viz. prelacie, laying jafideour vows and Covenants, Eraftianifm, litur- gies , and feftival-dayes for myilical ends and ufes, are fuch nothings or indifferent matters 3 as meats or dayes were at that time, wherin pre re nata the Church might ufe her libertv. As for diocefan Eradian pre- lacy , we have made its antifcriptural complexion to appear, fo that it is not within the compafs of any Lawful 1 libertv of the Church to embrace or eftablilh it 5 We have alio made the binding force of the Co- venants appear, and that the laying afide of them con- fequently , is a horrid guiltynefs, which this liberty can never be extended unto. Likewife the liturgies and impofing of fet formes of prayer , and ad- ftricting publick Worfhip therunto, have beenfuffi- ciently impugned from Scripture and divine real on, by feveral of the godly learned, and difcovered to im- peach the fpiritual libertv of Gofpel Worfhip. The holy daves alfo have with the fame evidence been im- pugned by our divines, who have proven that they do impinge upon our Chriftian libertv , are contrary to the fouth command enjoyning worke all the fix dayes, except on fuch occafionall fafts and feafts as are held out in the word, & likewife are reprobate by the New Teftament .prohibitions about fuperftitious obferva- tion of dayes : The Jewim dayes being abrogat (as the Informer cannot but grant) how dare we impofe upon our felvesanew yoke ? If it were here perti- nent to dilate upon thefe points, our principles herein might be abundantly fortifyed , and the truth cleard Ggj to 3$ A Confutation of ^hisconvi&ion* and by confequence the impertinent cy of this parallel argument) and his pitiful -pe\ti9 frinc'tpti^in equipararmg the points now comrovered with thefejthings which are the object of Chriftian'li* bzriy.Thslrformtrt gives us nothing here but magifte- rialdi&atcs, Again, that tolerance which the Apoille f peaks of as to dayes andmeats3relates to that time and cafe oi-ly of the weak JeM7$ , when ihs ceremoniestho dead were notyetburyed (as they were to be honoura- bly Je-pecially while8;' -he temple oi Jmifalem Hood, and thelegai woiftiip therein by Gods providence was continued. But as thefe obfervanccswere ever dis- charged to theGentiJe^exceptasioblood and things ftrangled for that exigence only of the weak Jews ) fo after when chriftian liberty was known , and this par- ticular exigence was over, and the ceremonies buried, It is within the liberty of no Church tounbury them* ©r tolerat thefe or (uch like obicrvances in others* Finally this very text condemns him , thohis begged fuppefitien were granted. For I. tkf eaur mujinot dtfpife him that eats not: why^then do Conformifts purlue Noivconformifts, with fuch grievous punifh- ment and Lawes ? they not only defpiie but perfecute to the death, and vilely reproach thcmwbo art thou that judge fl another maps fervanii why then do they Judge & cenfureNonconformiftsfo highly in their pulpits and pamphlets ( and the Informer in this) asSchitmatick*, of as deep a dye as ever the Church w?sinfefted with? 2. He tb.«t but Doubts is damned if he eat, faith the Apo- ftle. Why then do they fo violently prefs confeien- cious Doubters co their way ? 3. If thy brother begric* W(iaitb th? Apoftle)/r/i/; thy meatjhou walks not chart* iably. W hy then are they fo uncharitable as to gi ieve Nonconfoi mills with prelatick exodlions ? if the Jud- gingand defpifingtheforbearer be forbidden > much more are their craell edids and conff raining Lawes , whe- the third Dialogue $9 whereby they burden the conferences of tender for- bearers in this caf e.The pra&ice oiVittcr as to theAfian Churches, was no doubt highly uncharitable, but it was fo mainly becaufeot his cenfuring about fach a trifle as Either- obfervationsS: we fee from this fchifm the fad effefts of innovations ; and that the Churches unity & peace is beftkeept by adhering to the fimpli- city ofthegofpe!:and foour departing from thegofpel fimplicityin point of government, and introducing abjured prelacy , is the chief ground of the prefenc fchifm , and confufiocs in this Church. But now followes our Informers main charge tfex* itrnd fchifm , in f pirating from tbt Churches communion in word and 'acr arntnt s , contrary to the af o files cine t'wn > Nttto forfakt the afftTtiblies Heb% 10.25. Jf fcems (faith he ) that fame then out of ptdt andfingularity ferfooke th z ordinary and orderly ajjemblits ofCbripians. Ans* In this accufation his fo much boafted of charity is evapo- rate. What ! No affembliesfor worftip in this Church but among Conformifts 5 doth he not thus unchri- ftian and unchurch all the AfTemblies of Presbyterian Minifters and profeflors for wcrfhip? why perfuades. he people to forfake thtfc AfTemblies ? and who now Iudges another trans fcrvaat ashe3 who brands with-, felt - conceit, ignorance 3 and fchifm all thefc AfTemblies of Noflconforming Minifters and profef- fours , who dare not comply with prelats. Again, how proves hethat noaflemblies are oideriy except thePrelatical? we avow our meetings for worihip,to be the mod orderly according to ourChurches efhbi:faed Reformation , and that their AfTemblies arecrofsto herconftution, order, and union, bothinrefpeft of Curats perjurious mtrufion> thedo&rine which they deliver , and their manner of vvorfnip , which is crefs to this Churches practice and appeintment; his charge offebf/m and dijorderlir.cf) is ftill begged, but not yet Gg 4 proved 4<* A Confutation of proved ; and orderlinefs is ( with him ) defcribed' from Church walls ; and as for unity , why have they caft out hundreds of Minifters from officiating, bc- : :they durft not joynwith Conformifrs, in their perjur'd courfe of defeft?on?if rhisman be not here felf cenvift , In any judge. Let him produce (if he can) in cur Afiemblie? for worihip, that which is con:raireunto then. mire, confHtution , andworfhip ofrheafTemblies mentioned in that fcripture ; andun- till this be , wtmav on better ground recrhninar this- charge upon his withdrawing people from the AfTem- l lies of Presbyterian rninifteisandprofcflorst The Doubter alikdges poorly that all do not for* fake their parochial Aflemb!ies , but fome donow and then keep them. He Anfwers , that tbo a!1 withdraw fih:ipi%aVtkjt degree 3 yettbcleafl degree is unwarrantable — ftiit pco; le advice from flep to flep , that fame after with- "r£ f'om f^em ; bear only the Indulged , or thefewho hrve flill preached without conformity in their own (h,r~ ches 9 and within a little will hear none of them ; that fome he tells of fome turning feparati 'ft s , who dyed Infidels- Ans% He hath not yet proved that rhe withdrawing vvhich he mentions , is a Sinfull Schifmatick. fepirat'ton j and we hope we have made the cqntraire appear. Asforthefe degrees he mentions, wefay. i.Hscruell uncharit3blnefs toPi-esbyteiian Miniftersis here very confpiciiousjjfiac^ he will not allow them to be in the lcaft heard or own'd in their prefent c?fe and circumftances. Certainly to tye up people from occafional improvement of the va- rious gifts which God hath beftowed upon his mini- fters 3 cyw in a Tetled ftatc of the Church, and in her right the third Dialogue. 41 right conftitutioR ; is crofs to that fmetefi irivneafto* ikers gifts And greets t which the membeis of Charts tryftical body (upon the ground cf their union and communion witn the head , and among themfelves) arepnviledged with. And in impeaching this the lnfvr+ mtr blores himfelf witti fcifmatick uncharitabknes of chedeepeit dve. 2. As its noftrange thin? that in fuch a time of darkreTs , defernon , and defe&ion , peoples recovery be gradual, andfemstime attended w.:-. Infirmities in the manna of duties incident to us while in time* fo the contrary influences of love to truth and diry, snd fear of hazrd, may be eafily productive of fuch variety in the carriage of* poor ten- der fouls in this matter. Ina word, theLordsfup- per beingafpecial badge of our rn:on and commu- nion in and with J el us Chrift, Its noiirange thing that tender fouls fcmpleroperrakc thereof from men at fo palpable a diftance from him,a5Conformiib»efpe* cialiv while ibis ordinance may be enioved more pure- ly eKwhere. He l$\lsvsjhat Schifmatic^s ar cut off from the bedvy andricehe no life from //, and (if we may craw- an inference and retortion frotri this aflertion ) the people of God mult judge Conformists to be fixh. For thefe erfedts of feparation which Baxter me»« tions, we b-efs the Lord the contrary effeds of found piety, in many who were prophane while o ^ning the Miniftry of Conformtfts , are convincingly apparent, fince thev feparated from rhjm: and the ertedts of backflidmg from Gods truth, viz.^grofs prophanry > or atheifticjll Indifference in the matters of God , are as fadly evident in thofe who having once own'd Pref- byterian Minuter* , have returned to Conformists again. As for what he objects and anfwers , anent p mi oftb.ir ottnpart* g >ing to others then thtir otvnparifti- Curats y whom iwkji mfuptrdbU lets hinder to attend their own p*r-fh-Cburcb 9 bt would ' b*vt bs ftlLxs not t* wnef we are not much concernd to notice any fur- Gg 5 jthcr, 42 A Confutation of • ther, then to tell him that parve dikrmine refirt ] which of them people go to, the beft ' of them being as a briar , and the moft upright as a thorn - hedge , and all of them blotted with iiich Schifmatick oppofi- tion to this Churgh her pure constitution and princi- pies , as may put it beyond debate with tender fouls , (lovers of truth and duty) that they ought adhere to Chrifts faithfull ambaflkdours rather then any of them. The Doubter objefts 3 [that its hard to hinder to go where we may be moil edifyeds Since we muft Covet the btfi gifts, i Cor. 1 1. J i .] He anfwers i . that the Apo- flle is not direftmgprivateChrifiians , what gifts in others to feel^aj ter>fer their td:fication9(n4t fluws that though there are diver ftties of gifts , and every one jhould be content with his ovn , given for the edification of others , yet that he fheuld feel^ after better, not in others, but in himfdf. Ans. Our In- former doth but trifle and deal deceitfully in his way* of reprefenting this , and fome objections enfuing $ for I . He fuppofes that this is lookt npon in iifelf, as a fufficient ground of adhering to Presbyterian Mini- sters., without previous consideration of all the drew fiances of our prefent c*je > and alfo in fuppofing that no- thing cafe the ballance (in the Judgement of the ob- jje&ec) as to profiting or not profiting , but difference c/g?/>/ -{whereas we grant, that the foveraign Influence of Gods Spirit , ( who reaches to profit ) renders the means and ordinances effectual to Salvation , whe- ther the Ministers gifts be great or fmall. 2. We; grant , that tho people have a difcretive ludgement as to gifts , and their own profiting, and are to try the fpirits, yet in afetled State of the Church , they are not to Shake off the due regulation and guidance, of a faithfull Ministry fet over them in the Lord, So as to be wholly at their own difpofal hereinrfince there is no Juftling betwixt the priiat difcretive , and publicly bAirit- the third Dialogue 43 Minifterial judgement, in this matter. 3. As in the trvall of Intrants , not only thefuffe'enev^ but futeabtc ncs ofgff s for fiich a people , is to be eyed. So when a faithfull Minifter is thus duely called and fetled.peo- pie are obliged to owne his Aiinillry ; by a due atten- dance upon the ordinances adminiftred by him, which is all that decencv , union , and order , and that aft of our Church after mentioned , doth call for; which notwithftanding cannot be fuppofed to ex- clude all occafional Ufemaking of other gifts beftowed upon faithfull Minifters , which were (as I (kid) crois to the communion of Saints , and beleevers intereft in one anothers gifts and graces. But 4. our queftion here being dated upon the fuppofition of the greater part of this NationalChurch their apoftacy& defection from our fworn Reformation , and a great part of Mi- nifters and profefibrsadhering to their principles, viz. to which of the two parties on this fuppofition people are to adhere in worfhip > fure the Lords palpable blading the backlliding party their gifts , as to any faving fuccefs , and on the contrary his as palpable owning and fealing with hisblefling the Miniftry of his faithfull fervants a dhering to his truth,is a loud call (in this broken ftate ©f our Church a and cafe of de- fection and perfecution ) to come out from the one party and way, and adhere to the other. So his Doubter in this and the next objection, fhotild have argued thus. In this cafe of defection and over turning of our Reformation 5 God being pic a fed to fed wit h a palpable bhffing on our fouh , the word from Minifies adjuring to their principles \we may f& f ;7y lool^on this a** call from God to hear them 5 rath'r then the prelats perjurd hirelings y tvhofe Miniftry we have found p dp dh Uifted fince they comply ed with t b'tS courfe §f perjurious backfiring, andcp* po/stiento Godstr$rl{. In this cafe certainlv its an ar- gument very pungent , and founded on that of Jer. 44 A Confutation of 3 . J I, J -. W h ere the Lord threatneth the prophets wboc.tufed the f to pie to err by their lies and Itghtnefl , and whom he hath net fen t nvr commanded tbo they prophefie > with this, that therefore they frail not pro ftte the people at all. So the Argument going upon the Tuppofition of our Churches broken and perfecute date s and a com- petition betwixt a faithruil Mmifiry , and a party of Schifmatrck Innovators , and overturners of our ^forma- tion , will infer nothing againft our Churches fetled order under Presbyterian goverment^ nor the a blies ad. 164^. prefappoiing the fame; and its not meerly the gift* , but Go-is fitting bUffing attending the fame, which is the ground of this argument , and that practice pleaded for , thereby. Now as tohisanfwex, Its palpable that it meets not this argument in the leaf! , and befides his exclu- iive glofs is very impertinent , viz. becaufe wearetofee}^ the beji and eluying gift s f r our felfs in our ft at ion , therefore we are not to feel^ the brft in others alfo. What confequence is this ? Sure the \r;f>rmer will not deny fimpliciter , that people are to feek after the mod edifying Mini- fter , and this will follow on the very ground efour ed$H» cation, which we are to defign in feeking the beft gifts in and for our {elves. Nay, the one is the great mean fubfervient to the other ; a rhithfull edifying Miniftry is Gods Method for winning to the beft gifts for my felf, and therefore as a mean ha ding to this end, fals within the compafs of this command, to [eel^and Covet the be ft gifts. So a greater then he, Voetius, conclu- des it a^duty to feek the beft edifying Miniftry, on this ground De politeia Ecclef. p-ag. 52. And likewifeon thefe Scriptures, Luk. 8, 18: 1 Theff. 5. 22. And removes objections to the cotraire. His 2d anfweris, That the Apofileis there prtffing unity > and not todefprfe tbemeaneft gifts , more then the meamft member, and to avoid Scbifm verfe 15. A*/. Thenl the third Dialogue. 4 j» Then it followes, that in the fenfie of this precept, , which we have explain'd, feeking the heft gifts js con- fident with unity 5 and avoiding Schifm, and con- sequently in this our cafe, its no wayes inductive to fchifm,but confident with a due efteem of the meaneft gifted Minifter who is fairhfull, to withdraw from fcanddhus innovators , who have already fixt a Schifm in this Church , by oppofing her fworn reformation , order, and unity. Nay as matters now ftand, this is the fureft way to keep our Churches union and integrity 5 Since this their courfe has fuch a clear tendency to the rttine of her Reformation and pure conftitution 3 in dodirine 3 Worfhip , difcipline and Government, as is above clear'd. His 3 d Anfwer is , that edification is to be fought in an orderly way > not in a way that marrs the Churches peace - ■ -■ and that though our fenfe rftbtsgenerall direRion were granted , ii$ thus to be under jhoJ. Jlnf* Let our fworn eftablifht Reformation, its principles, rules, and defign, fit in Judgement and determine, who are greater enemies to this Churches peace and order, they or we. Was not this Church pnviledged with a beautiful] order of Government , pure Gofpel-Wor- fhip, and found doclrine, before Prelacy was inn o- duced ? Well then, the way to this Churches true peace, Union, and order, mull: be in oppofing their pretended order y who are lettinginthe enemies, and have broken her walls and hedge. Many of them laid andfwore that the Presbyterial Government of . this Church, was a beautifull order, unto which fince they ftand in oppofirion , they ore the mofi or- derly, who difownc them. As for that which he adds, of peoples neglecling Mini tiers Jet operthem in the Lord , he muft prove that Conformists are fuch Minifiers , who are both Tcandalous for the fargreateft part in their carnage ? having no vifible badge of the Lords call ^ A Confutation of call , and do owne principles , and carry on a dc£gne point blank coritrairc to our reformation,have left the peoples condiid, in the way of truth, given up all their Minifteriall authority to abjured prelacy , and make it their work todeftroy, andwafte the Lords vineyard. Tho it were granted that they had been fo fet over people , yet fince they are tracing wayes of Schifrn, and innovations condemned by our Church , Chrifts flocks cannot owne, or be fubjeft to them, as their foules fpiritual guides, they being men that have corrupted the Covenant of Levi,and made many ftumble at the Law : And befides jince that comply- ance (in fubjediion to conformifts , and difowning of Presbyterian Minifters) which he doth here plead for , is in very deed a defpifing faith full Minifters Jet over their florkjly tU Lo^d, andft^nling in a Minifteriall n~ Uiidnto \hem\ and whom consequently the Lords people are called to honour and obey, this fame reafon whereby he would perfuade to adhere to the con- forming party , pleads more ftrongly againft them. And his rule aftermentioned not to do hhl that go^d may come of it , will conclude that we lhould not under pretence of keeping parochiall order , orforeviting confuflon , deprive our felves of the bleffjng of the Miniftry of Chrifts faithfull Ambafladours , to ad- here unto whom in this cafe we are under fo many o- bligations. As for the Canons aftefcited by him , *g*i»ft Mi- nifters receiving thefe of another congregation tothe^onbip, We fay, that according to the Informer himfelf its clear that fuch rules of decency and order 9 are not cal- culat for every meridian, every time and cafe of the Church : extraordinary cafes muft have fuitablc re- medies, and circurnftances of parochial order , cannot in this cafe be pleaded , when our main order of Govern- ment is already deilroy 'd, and a perfecuting party is in our the third Dialogue. 47 our Churches bofome, tearing out her bowehj when abefidged city hath within her walls a party of pro- fefled defendants betraying her to the enemie, they are the moft orderly and faichfull watchmen ,who i efift them , and run to the pofts which they have betrayed. Again , fhould the many Minifters now perfe- cute ( let us fuppofe they are refiding in the bounds ) plead parochial order, for their parifhes adhering to them* and difowning their Curats incumbent, the Informer will not fay , thztparocbial order , will plead for owning them in this cafe. Or in the ca*e of con- forming Minifters turning enemies to Prelats, and by coniequence Schifmaticks in his account 3 he will grant that 'he people (whom we will fuppofe they are breaking off from the union ofthePrektick Church J ought not to owne them, but we;c concem'd to go elfe where to hear. Now , the cafe being fo with u$ ihisargument by his own confefTlor, cannot now have weight until all that we plead againft them on this ground, beanfweied. Next.he cites*/?? AB of the AffmlUiCtf. Agamjl them who withdraw ufiallyfrom the Worfrip in their own centre- jgation ; except in urgent cafes made knotvemtnto , ar.d ap~ frown by the Presbyury* Concluding >that therefore they thought net this a fit meth$d of edification,?? that tbfs aB was made to present Schfm .But had he fet down the nar- rative of thataft,it mighthave coverd himwith blushes, and would expofe him to the cenfure of every Reader s for it is grounded upon,) the then compleat eftablfli- „mentof the work of Reformation , this Churches 3, comely order ofPresby t "rianGovei nment then exer- 3>cifed, her Presbyterian unity and peace, the purity »3 and liberty of the Gofpel ordinances then righly en- joyed. But what will this fay to the prefcntcafeof defection and perfecution , wherein the faithful Mi- niftry are thrufi from their flocks, and that workraz'd dare 4.3 A Confutation of dare he faythisaffemblydid intend toftretchrheir aclto fuch a cafe as this, or ro fto? Vinifters from officiating in fuch a diftreil &deftroyed condition of our Church Suppofe this cafe had been ftatedin that Affembly, What iff Presbyterian Government [hall be ra^ed , Pydacte ereBed , the Covenant and the wr]^ of Reformation over* turned and di {owned by a number o/Minifters , while * fled* fa) body of the Ministry flands againfl them y frail this a& reach the people in relation to their faith full Paftours , f- jeSed perjur'd intruders ? I dare refer it to this man bimfelfto.avtoit, what their refolution wouldhave been, and if they wouldhave concluded it the peo- ple's diry to adhere tothefe deftroyersin that cafe, rather then the fa thfuU contenders for the work of Reformation. In the 7th Article oftheirdire&ionsfor family Woifhip paft thufimeday , they fuppofe 'his Church robe then bteft with peace and purityi and there- fore do except from thecompafs of ihefe directions* the cafe* of corruption ad trouble, wherein they fry, many things are commendable , which are not othtrwie tol- ler able $ And dare he fay that thy would not call this fuch a cafe. He makes the Doubter yet again poorly except 5 [that men have different gifts] which is here a meer naufeattng repetition , to fill up idle pages. Upon this our Informer very difcreetly and charitably tells us , that we can title judge of an edifying gift 9 anddo call railing at Bifaops , or at the civil powers > and a tone in thev9icefo. ]uft as Dr Burnet faid before in in his roa- ving Dialogue^ What is the Judgement of Gods people as to edification , and the evidence of the Ma« fters prefence with Presbyterian Minifteri in preach- ing to his people , depends not on this Chan&er , it being comprobat by clear proofs, and fufficienr- ly notour to fuch as can fpiiuually tafte and dif- cern. But the third Dialogue 49 But he will offer fome confiderations about diver' fity of gifts , and edification by them , which is to no purpofe; fince our pica is not meerly grounded upon the gifts of preachers whether Conformifts or others j butabftrafting from this, we fay firft, there is much more then ntttr gifts , yea and an edifiinggift , requi- fit to ground a peoples owning a Minifter hie < may be gran* : ted without prejudice to our caufe. But let us bear his confiderations anent edification and gift s^firfi^tmh he)*// Mtniflers have not alike gifts, tb(rJore we mufl not undervalue the lowefk i C$r. 12. I told hire out quarrel is not meerly gifts;& a man may be hit Hh « fo A Confutation ol & nunc difown'd , and yet no undcrv*luing of his gifts , which the Informer muft either grant, or contradict all that he intends in thispamphlet.Forlaskhim.vvbatifl plead this for Presbyterian Minifters, whom for all their excellent and edifying gifts he and ris party will notowne, and whombeisin this pamphlet ftriving naightand main ianjuam promts and focis > to get uni- versally di found by all proftflours inScotland? why quarrells heuifh the Almighty (toufehis owncx- prefiionj in undervaluing their gifts* and wou!d teare their comm;ffion ? I know our Informer will faythat they are diforderly,and iod -fawning themes no defpi- fing their gifts. Wellthen> he grants thar men of excel- lent gifts may be hie & nunc or in fome cafes difown'd> and no hazard of this undervaluing anddefpifing their7 gifts,or quarrellingwith the AImighty>&fo the rebound of his own blow in this retortion fti ikes his argument ftarkdeadj and he muft grant that the queftion is , which of th two contending partus , have be ft right to offi- ciat as Minifters in the Church of Scotland , according to her principles and i\e formation > and according thereto it will not be difficult to determine who are the mod orderly & to be heard5c\:the diforderly have no reafon to complain. 2. He fayes we muft not thinly the meaneft ' gifts , ufdefs. But he muft grant that men may iinful-^ Iv render them ufelefs, as he alleges Presbyterian | M niftersdo- and we prove that conformifrsdofa- 3. Me tells us that the heft gifts cannot wor]^ without the fpi* tit , and that to dots on gifts , is to idolize men 3 as thofe 1 I Cor. 1. g. Then he tells us, h)W T^anchius was offended I tP'tb thet frenchman of Geneva 5 who (aid he would le ive 1 Paul, fliouid he come there > and bear Calvinf. But what I w?Il chis arguing reprove? muit they be ftigmatizM as] Mofizers of men and gifts 3 who will not Idolize! abjur'd prelacy , andperjurd apoftats , andinown-j ing them while wafting and deftroying a purely re-j formwdl thfc [third Dialogue- 5 i ormM Church, difcounrenance afaithfuU Miniftry contending for her reformation, and fignally blefTd therein f furely his inftance anent Zanchius > may be well apply'd to fuch as wiU hear none but Curats > and wholly difownePresbyteiian Miniftersj Again, if the beft gifts cannot work without the fpirit. and the fpirit works ordinarly and beft with thofe whoenter- tainhim, and as having their fenfes exerrifed, habi- tually wait for his breathings in duty 3 what hope is there that profane men, and greivers of the fpi- rit in walking contraire to God , his people , way andinterelt > (as are moft Conformifts) fhould have the fpirits feal attending their Miniftry. What more? He tells us 4. That \ome times the fpirit will aHwith the mean gifts more then the gre iter as Petty Abls i.tsfcmdto have converted more in onefermon^then We read that our Lord himfelf did , thohe fpo^eas never man fpoke. That Cbrift •ft , complahi 'd of fmail fuccefs , If a. 49. 4- ^53. I.CsT upbraided people far unbelkf Math. 11. Zt, 22,2}.IoA. f. 40. 1 ■ . » that after the jermon §n the mount we read ? ot that many were converted tbo they were aft oni flit .. that the Centurions faith was commended abovethateflfrael: and from the eaft and weft many will ft down With ^Abraham wkiU the children of the kingdom are caft tut. Ahs.i. He muft grant that this argument , taken from the fpirits working great things by fmalmeans* will not plead for ownng Presbyterian Mmifters , to whom many 1 of his Schli Rabbits impute wcaknefs of gifts, be- caufe they think that aliunde or upon other grounds, fuch Minifters are not in this cafe to be heard. Well ! i then let him take home his argument as inefficient , MgntiJl he prove that hic& nunc Conformifts aretobe * heard rather then Nonconformists , and prove his :i groundleis fupsofitions above mentioned ( wherein ^ihe b:g's ih: queftion) anddifprove our true fuppoft- y tions above alfo rehear fed , or this argument will fig* * J: , . Hbz uiif *i A Confutation'of nify Juft nothing, i. For his Inftanccs, as this man wouidbe fober in fuch companions, (owe mufttell him»ther*sagreat difference betwixt It tie, & no fuccefs» a MinilUy whh jmall effegls , and a Miniftry palpably bla\hd as to anyfaving iflue ; and betwixt finctft defigning 0/ uccefs , and mourning ovr the want of ft , making it a complaint (as our Lord wept over Jerufafcmsim- penrencvanddifobedience ) and the Minifters defi- ning M"*/^/ , and no fuch thing, and wanting this im- preftion mentioned Sure as it will be hard for him to point us to aw of th^ir cowftant hearers who have been converted by their Miniftry, fo it will be as hard to point out any of their preachers, who have the peoples fpirittial profit for their defign > or their unproruablenefs as their burden & complaint to God. And fince both thefe are confpicuous in Presbyterian Mtnifters, Irs quickly refolved which of the two arc {landing in Gods counfeb and travelling in birth to beget iouls bv the gofpel , and to have Chrift formed intherri' Buthe would have us praying for Con;ormifts% and laving dfidt fffjudicc. Ans. Ithlnkweare Inde-ed called to lav a fide prejudice at their perfons , and to pray for thar repentance ; but to pray for a Hefftng on their Ml* nilirv, who are in fuchd;re6t oppofition to the Lords people , work , and Intereft , were a mocking oi God , and hirdning them in their fin , and con- fequently hearing and receiving the ordinance? from them as the Minifters of this Church wer< attrenght nui£ of their hands in their d: obedience Refide , will he allow peopk upon their prayin; f >r Presbyterian Minifters to hear them ? I uo\ not, then itieems laying afide prejudice and pray ido 'for Curats , may confift with not hearin them. His next childilh objection put into the mout n of his Doubter [that tho fome withdraw ail will not] I not wcrth the noticing. It were good for our Churc|fc'; th the third Dialogued 9 } all her members did Co underftand their duty and obli- gators , as to deny chat fubje&ion to Conformifts which he pleads for. And thatfuch paftours as they who deftroy but feed nor, had no flocks : For they have-not brought back the ftraying, nor heaPd the lick &rc. But he tells us, he hath proved that none ought to withdraw. How infignificant his preceeding proofs arc, hath been difcoveied, and if his enfueing be no better, Its certain that Succeffus defuit aufu ;and that he hath overfhote htsroarke , in th and our own. Which I have already anfwered. Next , he tell s us, of the reci- procal obligation betwixt a Minifter and his congrega- tion which cannot befo eafily brokenythe Minifter is to labour diligently and faithfully \among the people of his charge E^ek. 3}« 8. Heb. 13. 17, thepeople of his charge are to attend his Mini [try to efteem him highly ^and love h m for his works fal^e Mai 2.7. iThef.<;.ii, \i. Heb.ll.l~.He2skshottrtrcobcy ibis charge, when we difowne , dij countenance, and turn our backs upon our Mini Jiers , and will not receive the Law from their mouth. %Anf That there is a reciprocall tye betwixt a Mmifler and hs fleck* is eafily acknowledged : but x\\et Informer forgot the main and neceffary point here (to make this weapon (hike home, and the ar- gument run ftraight without a byafs) viz* What makes up this tye according to the Scripture pattern. This he fliowld have condefcended upon , and made it good in the cafe of Conformifts , and then his arguing had been pertinent > and formidable to the Non- Confor- mifts, But what will this poor general fay , that there is a reciprocal tye betwixt a WAimfler and his flock # While he hath not made appear , whatisthe Scriptuje H h 5 found?* 54- A Confutation of .foundation and hafts of that tye,& but begs the quefti- onin the application thereof to his cafe. I fuppofe a Presbyterian (Viimiter fhould plead this to wan and his officiating among his people , in onpofuion to the Curat incumbenc/tar thepe$plt are bound to owne htm as their Mthifter, becaufeofthis reciprocaltye: That the Scrip- ture obligations (mentioned by the Informer) lye* on him to bcfatthfuU and diligent, which while he is endeavour- irig[accordirtg to his duty , founded on his re!~t'on to his peo- ple ) the people are therefore bound to attend on his Miriijirie tt tj :cc 72 h-.r, y love him > receive the Laiv from him , and And n .t to d;f countenance nor dircouragz him by withdraw- ing to another^ No v let this manlliew what he will anfwer to this pleading . snd his argument will quick- ly evartifli befdre Irs own anfwer: If he lay that the tye L loofeda let him inftrucl what that is which has in this taft looted it. Sure neither the Magiftrares violence^nor Prel. tick cenfures, according to our Principles , and the Dodtiine of found divines , when this cafcisrrue- ly ihted. And if this divine tye ftand , what will lie fay f Wi|l it not i. follow (according to him,) that a Minifter may be under a ftandingtyc to his people, and they to their Minifter, and yet the people for al I rh s may not be obliged to hear him but another hie {5 nunc , and that warrantably , without hazard cf difob?dience to thefe Scriptures- and then he hath with his own hand cut the throat of his bare ge- ne all argument from the reciprocal tye. Sureinfome caffs the tye may ftand,and yet the actuall reciprocal extr* c'ff a or obligation to the exercife of dunes maybe b'tc er nunc warrantably fufpended in very many fuppofable cafes as of Phyficall impediments in the people and Minifter, hoftile invafion , Peftilence , Imprifonment &c. 2. If the /ye or relation do ftand , and like wife all things which doimmtdiatly difpofetothe txtrcij* of duty > then the Prelatical incumbent is in ; this the fccond Dialogue f ~1J this cafe an intruder , and not to be own'd. For I fuppofe he will not fay , that a Presbyterian Miniftcr might lawfully officiat In his own Parifti,after the Cu- rat is fetlcd there 3 for this would quite crofs the fcopeof his Argument, Now theQueflion betwixt the two competitors is, which ofthtm ha:hthefrior Uwfully andftanding tye} will he dare to deny,that Pres- byterian minifters had this ; and fince he cannot fhe w how it is Joofed? nor prove it to be loofed, this ar- gument will militat not for him 3 but againfl | him* Next, as for what he cites out of Mr Durham on ; Revel, pag. 105: iotf. anent this tye , It is ftill extra okas, and nothing correfpondent to his purpofe 3 un- 1 till he inftruft that which is the bsfis and foundation of 1 this Relation in the cafe ofConformifis> which he neither |. doth nor offers to do, Mr Durham f peaks „ofa fpe- 3, cial delegation fromChrift, of his fpeuall warrand ,, and appointment to fuchamanto treat with fucha , „ flock. Nowuirethismoftbe inftru&ed from his ; Word and Teftament , as to Curats , before he can from this make any fhew of Argument, for Presby* terian minifters do upon better ground lay claim to this fpecial appointment in relation to their flocks, upon which conformifts have intruded: yet this man thinks thefe xninifters are not to beowncd. And fince this deputation and appointment is, with Mr Durham , the foundation of the duty betwixt minifter and peo- ple, itmuft becleard from the word in the cafe of Conformifts , before this paflagcof Mr Durham will afford any patrocinytohis caufc. Then he tells us > Thar Mr Durham holds that this obligation is not founded onmeer voluntary confent. Well lee bins mark this, and then he muft acknowledge, that its not meerly the Curtis gaping consent for the fleece and filthy Lucre , nor tH h 4 the $6 A Confutation of the peoples blind confent 3xhat will make them Minifteys *f thfe Congregations where they officiat. What is it then that founds this relation ? The Scipture-commands ( faith Mr Durham) I Thef 5. 12. Kjiowthem that la- hour among you and are over you in the Lord. Hcbif. 14. Obey them that have the rule over you , andfuhmit your (el- ves , for they watch for your fouls as tb and have nothing like Pauls delegation in their miflion. So that Mr Durhams arguments 1 and the Scriptures cited by him , are fo far from tying cengre- gations to conform* fts , as this man alleages , that they tye them to their ownfaithfull Presbyterian pa flours , and by confequence to difo vrne prelats and their intruding hirelings , as none of the lawfull Paftours of this Church. I might hereadd that the account of the Paftours duty, and the ground of the people's fubje&ion and obedience exhibit to us in thefe fcriptures which hementions3dothfufficiently exclude their party from any claim therunto. What ? do they hear Gtds word and warn the people from him , who are generally fo ignorant of his word walking contrary to it themfel- ves , and hardning others in rebellion againflhim? are they matching for fouls as they that muft give account ? Hh { who 5*3 A Confutation of who are loving to flccp and (lumber; and dare not (ay moft of them , rhat ever they enquird ac any foul how it is betwixt God and them? do their lips keep know* ledge, who have departed out of the way, and caufed manv ftumble at the Law ? are th°y labouring and ad- moniflvng as to fin and duty , who are ringleaders in a courfeofdefe&ion ? Sure if the duties of fubje&ion, reverence? and obedience, fuppofe fuch characters of Mmifters>and fuch qualifications as are here expreft, people arc hereby abundantly discharged from fuch fubje&ion and obedience as to Conform ills , who are fopalpablv deftitute of thefe qualifications* So that the 7 njormtr falls utterly fhort of his intended advan- tage bythis citation of Mr Durham,and thefcriptures therin mentioned do wound his caufe to death, and cut the fine ws of his reafoning. This man is fo unhap- py as to fi!! {till by the rebound of his own arguments, and the fcripture-weapons (which in pleading for *his caufe will never be found the weapons of his warfare) wounds him every time he handles them : which as it hath before, foitfliall prefently appear further , in fome more of his arguments andanfwers upon this point , which we now prefent. Chap. \\\. Tie Doubters argument from Carats not cntring by a call from the people , a nd that parage jiftsi^.i}* cleared and improvers* The In- formers exceptions upon the terme w<&i*r*i- vi; fully examined, and tbepcoplet right in i the call ofFafiours cleared tbcrfrm. His rea- fonings the third Pialogue^ 5p finings about Patronages $ and the frelatick erdination, and peoples difowning of Scanda- lous ^Unifiers not cenfured. As aljo bis great argument from UUath. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship , [canned and retorted upon him. tJWr Durham in this point pleads no* thing for the Informer. His anfwtrs and r ear- nings anent the charge of introfion ixamined. Our Informer upon this poirt oiftparatfan (which. he holds to be his fore royal in the prefent diffe- rences J having plyed his Doubter with offenfive wea- pons , will needs fhew his skill and juft dealing m a&ing the defendant for fome time. But I doubt that his defenfivc armour and anfwers ihall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate, as his impugning weapons are blunt and pointlefs. Well, thisfurdif- putant* will hear fome of our arguments againftthe owning of Conforrnifts , but befure they mult oeof his own mould and digefting, forthefe can beft fuiC the defign of that pretty piece of pageantry* wb'ch he is acSing in this pamph!et. The firft argument which hisDoubter offer* ? is [their not entring by a call from the people as all Minifters fhould(citing A.&. 14. 23) but by a prefentation from the patron.] Jnanf- wer to this , he fpends fome difcourfe upon that text , which wefhall examine. But to clear this point the. more fullv 5 I will premife three things. 1. That the people havea divine right to call their paftour, wepro- ved before in the 9th argument againft Epifcopacy, and from other fenpture-grounds befidc this , al- though it be a weighty ground alfo»umo this we refer the reader. 2. That upon fuppofal of thisdivine rule and pattern of a Muiifters Lawfull call > ic doth clear- ly 60 A Confutation of ly follow , that the patronages are a corruption, ren- dring the Minifters call in this refpeft maimed, and notfo confonanttofcripture as it ought to be. j. Though it be granted that a Minifter prefcnted by the Patron, and not called by the people, hath the effence of the Mini ft trial office f and might in Tome cafes be owned as a Minifter, yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curats as the cafe is now circumftantiat : Becaufe I. Its certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church, as eftablifht before thefe innovations, a Minifters entry byimpofitionofthe hands of the Presbytery , without the ufurping Prelate , and by the call of the people without the Patron , is the more pure and firipturalway of entry into the Minifiry ; and moreover theonly way of entry o&rid and authorised by herfupreme Judicatories, and by confequence its moft fuitable to Presbyte- rian principles, when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other , and Minifters thus Lawfully called, are violently eje&ed by men reeftablifh- ing prelacy * and patronages , formerly caft out and vowed againft , that people do adhere to their faith- full paftours rather them thefe Innovators and intru- ders 5 which will be convincingly clear, ifitbealfo confidered particuJarly,that as prelacy & allies corru p- tions & ufurpations now exiftent and introduced,were fully removed and abjured by this Church, fo laickpa- tronages infpeciall were upon moft weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Churches declarator as appears in the Narrative 0ftheir39.aft.viz. The fenfe of the obligation lying upon them, both by the National and folemn league (? covenant , by many deliverances and mercies fromGod, & by the latefvlemn engagement to duties, to preferve the doBrine and to main~ tain and v indie at the liberties of the Church of Scotland — ■ t olivine c the work of Reformation — and confider'mg that the third Dialogue 6* that patronages &perfent anions o/KJrkes is an r~M An<* ^on" dage under which the Lords people & Minijiers of this land have long groan' d. That it hath no war rand tn Gods wordjbut is founded only on the Canon Law t that it isapopijh cuftom brought into this Church in time of ignorance <2 fuperflitiony thai its contrary to the id book of discipline ywheyein uponfolid grounds tts reckon d among abufts that are defired to be re~ formed , and Contrary to fever al a&s of general ajjemblies , -prejudicial to the liberty of the people , and planting of Chur- ches , to the fret call and entry of Mini ft ers to their charge fifr. This i& the parliament i (\ 6 % did ranverfe among other pieces of our Reformation : Ordaining al A4/- tiifters that entered fince 49. to have no tight to the benefice 9 till they obtain aprifentation from the Lawful I Patron, and epilation from the Bil^op. Now upon fuppofal of the Covenant obligation , and our engadgement therein to feparat from any corruption contrary to our Reformat tion , to give a testimony to that work , to with-dravv from backiliderSjis there any doub: but that people are obiidged (upon thefe grounds) to adhere to that body of faithfulMinifterSjNvho are {landing to our principles and fworn Reformation(whereof tb-fe points mentio" ncd are one main piece ) rather then fuch as have tur n'd afide to this courfe of perjurious defection. Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Pres- bytciim Minifters, & exclude Conformifts. Presbyte- rian Minifters are maintaining the peoples rightand liberty to call their paitour, Conformifts are felling tway this peice of her reformation & liberty ,and thus croffing the fcripture-pattern, the firft are adhering to tbis Churches vowes ( and people are obliged to owne thefe Minifters that are purfuing the ends ) th- orherare cafting them away &c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the preroifed aft of parliament , and in our Churches publickafts in opposition to pa- tronages , and prelatick ufurpauons in a Minifters entry, 6% A Coufatfction of entry, areftill binding and in force, according to out principles , as the Irfurmcr will not for very fhame deny , and be muft admic this fuppofition fince in this point he profeffeth to argue againft us upon our own principles , and fo what did then engadge to nftort this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation , the fame doth no\ bindfo adhere therunto y and con- fequently toowne the Mioiftersthat contend for this Reformation rather then thebackfliders and deferters thereof. 4. This man dare not afTerr, that the granting con- formifts to have the cjjenceofa Mittfterial call > will in every cafe infer the conclufion of baring thtm , or that the granting a Minifterto have this , is theon!j& adequat ground which will in all circumftantiat cafes make hearing necefliry. For i. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the pre - vioufly caird Minifter his labours,to whom the people ftand oblig'd to adhere? Again 2. What if he -be pro- moting a Schifmatick couffe , fetting up an alcar againft an altar(as fome'of thefe men tell usin theirPamphleti) will a people crofs their principles as to his having the effeneeofa Mhiijleriailcall , if cheyrefufe to follow him in that Schifmatick courfe? Nay he will not fay it. 3 . What will our Informer anfwer to Presbyterian Mini- Jiers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lam.. julcallymiffion^and entry to their charges? will this infer a neceiliry of the ftople's owningthem > anddefcrtmg confor- mifts> If it will not (as he muft here fay , or yeeld the canre)then he muft confefs,that acknowledgment of$he ef- fenceofCuratscail, will not abfulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr, and by the confti* tinions and reformation of thisChurch,they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Mini- fters to officiat as her true Paftours , which willbe~ & whatever he can pretend here,as to difow- the third Dialogue. dj difewningof PresbyterinrM:niftcrs in their adminiftra- tions,nGtwithftandino; of their having a la$pfuH called paftora\ relation to this Church, will be eafiiy retoned upon himfelf, and abundantly counterbalanced by that which in the cafe of conformists may be pleaded tofupeifede, and Hop the peoples owning of them in this circumftantiat pofture of cur Church. So that the ftate of the queftion here beirg this , whether lAu niflersordMnedby Bifcops , and prefaced by Patrons, cr thofewho are ordained by the Presbytry yand called by the pec* ple.have beft right to officiat in this Churches ha Pafiours, according to the Scripture- rule 5 her reformation and principles , and to be ownd or difewnd by the people ac- cordingly. Thedecifion will be very eafy and favou- rable ro Presbyterian Minifters, and exclufive of all his fraternity. And whatever he doth here alledge anent P;evbyterian Minifters fchifnj, intrufion , or diforder, will be eafily retorted upon himfelf, xepu- tando rem in univerfum and ! that Budanis interprets the word fUbifchum^uffragium^ \ H.Stepbanus, manumporrigo. Becaufe (he faith) they did I in giving votes ^otoh'f thence the word came to be i ufed,for fe'tfe^decemo, creQ.\uflin>M*rtjr.Quzft. & J^/pV \ ad ortho'd.tHefp. ad tju>ft. 14. diftinguifhes tfiptmtm 1 -and tftpehn* as of a different fignification. Arrias Mon- j tanusinhis lexicon, doth interpret this word munutn ! ' tlrcare^ eligeretcrearc Magiftratum perfujfragia. Again 2. 1 The manner of ele&ion among the greckns clears this : metaphore,& fignification of the word. Demo jlh .Cicero I and others make this appears they hadaphrafc^poTtfu* t%}%-ni. omnium [uffragijs.obtinet, and another phrafe *Jto wTi-XjafitTtwivjio man gives a contrary vote. The approv- ing votes,in chufing Grecian Magiftrats in the theatre, , :>wasbv holding up,orftr etching forth of hands. See page • 10. ix. 12. Where this islearndlyand atlargerriade 1 good. 3. This is alfo made good from the ordinary : method wherin the fcriptures do exprefs the fetting a apart of Church officers to their facred fun&ions , i which is by the Churches election and confent, fee it 1 Cor. 16. j. iCor. S. 19. 1 Tim. j.7. Aftsi.23, 1^26. and 1 3. 3. and 15.21. And fincethe holyghoft •f doth here intend bv Luke to exprefs the manner of the n: cHablifhment of Elders , it is utteilv improbable thgx I i th * 66 A Coufutatlon of the churches faf&age flioidd be h*rc omitted. 4. Proteftant writers draw the Churches fuffrage in ele- dion ofAiinifters, from this word, Migd. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. %anch. in 4. precept. So B^rf , Bullingor decad. thinkt thjit Luke +xvbo jiraitneth bimfelfto keep the words of the ftvmtie Interpreters , wUra he could have utte* red things in better terms then they did , faoutd bereferfak* the phrafe wherewith they noted the laying on of bands , bang moft proper and natural to fignify the fame. Next, As for what he objects from Afts 10.41. had he been fincere or diligent in this debate,he might have found that the above mentioned learned Presbyterian writerwitho- thers doth here tell him iirft5that the word «r&;pty»7*»i« ufed there, is not the fame with giif •%*« 9 but is as 11 were a preventing of ^i/^ta*/* by a prior designation 2. Thar itsatribute to God ??>e tap for ice or improper ) y , fhewirig that in the council of God 3 the Apoftle were in a manner elected by voices in the trinity^ whid ':ars by that parallel Gen. 1. Let rus] make mat: A-' the third Dialogue Gy A dding , that this hinders no more the proper fignijtc at ion of the tsfcrd s when apphed to men , then ^.ira^iA*,* dfcribrd to Cod can prove, that there 's no change %n men > telxn they repent , because there is none in God. The Informers 2d anfwer is, That Greek Writers da crdinafly ufe this W' rd to fignify ordainingaperfon to a charge, without voices and fitjfr ages. And that here its So to be un- derllcod , he proves irom this, rhztPauIanl Barnabas are [aid to dotbuwer^exprefi by this Greek trcrd , and not the people \ 2 hat we trill net fay that Paul and Barnabas e/e~ Bed h£ imft crs to thefe Churches , n hich were to) eeld the qu$~ Jlicn. That therefore our translation readsit^ they that is Paul and Barnabas, or dainedthzm elders &c. they pray d and commended tlkm to the Lori\ So that it tvas not the aBion of the people > but ajf Paul and Barnabas. Anf All this is nothing but 'his petto principh and what is answer- ed already k That this word fignifies erdinar- ly the ordaining of a PerSon to a charge without votes and Suffrages , is moil falfe , and contrary to the fenfe.of the word in Greek authors^ contrary to the Scripture acceptation of theword5&to founddivines as we have heard. And to this may be here added(which is alfo the observation of the above mentioned learn'd writters)that we Sod extraordinary Officers in the A- poftles times not put into their functions without the [I Churches conSent.hence we may conclude,that far leSs I ought there to be an intrufion of ordinary Minifters I without their confent.Paul & Silas were choSen of the Q wholeChurch to their extraordinary delegation,A6ls. 1 .15. iz. Pauls company were chofen by the Church J 2 Cor. \9.. 19. TheCoirimiiTioners of Corinth were ■j approved by the Church rCoritf. 3. Matthias an B Apoftle, *$ic§*fimulftijfragiisQleBu? eft $ as i ArriasMontanus turn's it, was together chofen by fitffrages, 2 viz. of the 120 DiSciples. 2. How prcve's he ?.nd and Barnabas did this work expreft bv li 3 $ii 6% A Confutation oi this word xuptroit* , we told him that the Syriack 1 verfion underitands it of the Difciples. NrGiHefpy[loco' ] eitato) proves that *t/oTo>t» renders s A£tsi4-i}-'qHunx]ue ipfu per fujfragiacrcajfnt fresbyteros\ ; fo faith he a:,™,- is for ^v^, which he proves becaufe the Greeks ufe the one word fometimes for the other, as he clears from Scripture parallels. So he thus fen- i feth the verfe and context.,*/* Churches of Ly fir a, Iconium < gnd Ant'ioch, after chufingof Elders who werealjo folemnlyfet Apart with prayer and fafting, were pilling to let Paul and ' ar- ttabasgofrom them to the planting and watering of other Chur* \ chesi and commended them to God to open to them an effeBu* , all dm, Eph. 6. 1 8, 19- or for their faftie and preservation L«^ 23.46. Again, what inconfiftency with our fenfe i of the word fci/po&wF will it be, if all that is men-! tioned in the 2 3. verfe be taken as joint acts of Paul& Barnabas,andoftheChurches together with them,viz. That tbtyallconcurrdin makjn^them Elders by fuffrage, and tn prayer andfafting , and commending themfelves to the Lord. 3. How proves he, that the relative [they] in our tranflation is referred to Paul and Barnabas only , rather thence Churches} fure , this is a blind proof, and (as we ufe to fay) a Baculo adangulum; they ordairiJ elders : Ergo Paul and Barnaba* only ordain* d by Impufition of bands', fince the word^peftn* ., or t>j» £*//>* t?/i* as its refolved by the learned , cannot hardlv in propriety of fpeech import laying on of hands in ordination, which was proper to Paul and Barnabas 5 and the Septuagint whom Luke followes,exprefring the laving on of hands] by f?r/0f*j$ t#p %upat Our Informer muft acknow- ledge this from thefequelofhis own reafonins , for he tells us, that Paul and B arnabas could not eleEl Mi- niflws , very true , and therefore the %upimt* which in its native acceptation fignifies eleBion by fuf- fragc > as he hath acknowledged , muft relate tc the the /econd Dialogue 69 the people > Since there could be no hand-fuffrage be- . twixt Paul and Barnabas 4. Giving and not gran- ting that this was an a£t of Paul and Barnabas, di* ftindl from the Churches fufrrage, our argument (lands good and this will not in the lead yeeld the que- ftionasthis man foolifhlv imagines ; for to read it thus, Paul and Barnabas ordained elders by fujfrage, is all one with this , that they ordained fuch to be elder* as Were chofcn by the Chucb. The people declared by hand-fuf- frage whom they would have to be Elders, and Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders : As the Conful who held the court among the Romans , created new Magiftrats , that is , did receive the votes and prefide in the elections. Since ( as I faid ) the hand-fuffrage cannot in any propriety of fpeech relate to Paul and Barnabas alone. SeeCalvines Inftitut. lib. 4. caf.$%. paragr, 1^. and Mr GOIefp. ubifupra , who further tells usShat this may be either an aBion of the Church only , as the Syriacl^makesit, or a joint aSionboth of the Churches and of Paul and Barnabas * as Junius makes it , or an aBton of Paul and Barnabas in this fenfe , that they did conflitute elders to the Churches by the Churches own voices , tn alt which finfes w*nn* ftands good for us. To which we may add , that Calvine renders the word cum fuffragiis creaffent , when the had made by votes. Ad- ding, that Paul and Barnabas ordained Minifters to the Churches , for they did prefide over t and moderat the people's election. Presby teres dicuntur ehgere Paulus & Barnabas an ]oliboc privato officio faciunt auumfjtius rem pcrmittunt ommumjugragiisl Ergo in Pajioribus creandis libe- ra fuit populieletlio, fed ne quid tumultuofe fierct,pr*fident V aulus £9 Barnabas quafiModeratorcs. That is, Paul and Barnabas are [aid to chufe Elders, but do they this file ly and by fbemfilvcs, and do not rather remit this to thefuffraget of all, therefore in the making of P aft ours the people had a free el ccli- on and choice , but kjt *ny thing should be done tnmultuoujly Paul 7° A Confutation of Vauland Barnabas do prefiie as Moieratms. So he feyes we are to underftand the decree of the Council ofLa- edicea, which feemed to inhibit the people's electi- ons. The Dutch Annot.upon this pafiage do tell us, „that 53 this was a caftome among the Greeks in chufing their ,3 Magiftrats , that the people by lifting up their hands 53 give to underftand their voting,fo it feems that from 55 thence this cuftome was alfo ufed in the primitive 53 Church 3 that the fetting forth of Minillers of the 53 Church ^ being done by Apoftles or thofe that were . 5, fent by them for this purpofe 3 was approved bv the 53 Church by the lifting up of their hands -, which ufe 53long continued in the Churches the Ecclefiaftick hi- 5, ftories teftify. And having told us that others un- derftand this of imposition of hands ( which they fet down as the fecondary and lefs probable opinion) they add33that this alfo was done with confent of die church 5>as appears by the fafting aad praying which was done 53 by the whole Congregatioh 3 and was alfo done in 53thischnfingofthe Elders3 referring to f Tim. 5.17. 5, Acts r o. 41 . upon which paffage they fhcw3 that the 53 Greek word in Ads 14. 2 3 . fignifies properly by lif- 53 ting up of hands to choofe or ordain3and is here ufed 53Concerning the chooflng of ordinary Minifters by the 53 fuffrages of the Church, to which this extraordinary ^ choofing of Apoftles is here oppofed 3 as being done 53 by lifting up or ftretching forth of Gods hand alone. 5,Uoon Adts. tf.tf . where mention is made of laving on j,of hands,they tells us3that as this was ufual in bleflqg 5, Gen. 48. i4.infacrifices Lev. I. 4.andininftalling v into offices Numb. 27. J 8 .Deut 34. 9- So the Church M (pointing at theApoftolick Churches pra£tice)in in- 33 veftiture of Aljnifters,did thus dedicate them to God 53 his fervice, and ufed thus to wifh his bleffing I Tim. 5. 12, The Englifh ?.nnot. upon this text under de- bate >> the thrrd Dialogue) 7 l bate do ftew, ^that the word lignifies making of fuch „ achoife 3 as was made or confirmed by lifting up of .3 hands 5 to fignify fuffrages orcorifent, and having 3, told us of the general fignification of rhe word in re- ference to ordination or appointing chap. 10.4 f.they _ add, that the Syriack reads the text thus , [ and they ^appointed to them Elders in every Congregation.] ,5\yhence they collect thatPaul and Barnabas did not ,3 all alone in ordaining & Church ~government:other ^Chriftiansfhew'd their confent or approbation ofthe ^perfons who were ordained Elders by lifting up their „ hands ; as very weel knowing , of what behaviour a, they had been among them: Co &ixuZ»TI»*" fignifies „ (fav they) to difallow by fome a&5eledtion,or decree. ,3Adding>that5w^Ji' interprets xtwnn* by UAeyJwhich 33 his Interpreter renders ek&io>ddet~lus*pcr[uflrAgia con* ,jfirmatio9 populi tonus ctnfenfus > xneleElioni chafing, a 33 confirmation by voices , conjeutofaB the feofls. Let our Informer hereobferve 1. That thechooiing of Mini- fters by fuffrage , and confent of the Church , is im- ported and held out in thispaffage under debate 3 in the confentient judgment of Interpreters 3 and that this greek word , as in its ordinary , fo its fpecial ac- ceptation in this place 3 will clearly infer fo much 3 whatever authority in ordination andele&ion as to Paul and Barnabas 3 and of Minifters confequently , the circumftances of this text will bear out and infer. 2. That this inte/eft of the people in the election and call of Minifters is comprobate by the judgement and confentient practice of the ancient Church 3 as the hiftory therof doth verify. 3 . That that paffage Act. 10. 41. doth (in their fenfe) nothing invalidate this right of the people 3 held out in this text 3 the one place fpeaking of an immediat choofingbyGodj the other of mediat and ordinary by men b the one , poin- ting at ordination and appointing of the Apoftles to li 4 theis 72 A Confutation of their office in a general fenfe , the other of the fpecial orfpeciiical mould of the call and ele&ion of Mini- fters. 4. That this right and intereft of the people in Minifters call , as it is founded upon the ancient pra- ctice and unrepealed priviledge of Gods Church under the old leftament , fo it hath befides this, and fuch like inftances, and exemplary recommen- dations of the new-teftament, a conftant moral war- rand of the peoples knowledge anenttbe cafe and behaviour of their fpiritual guides. His 3 d ant wer to this text is , That if we under ft and it ofahandfujfrage we lofeby it. Why fo ? because we give advantadgetothe independents for popular eleBion of Mini- ftert whereas We give this power not to all the people , but to thfijjion. And he tells us, that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to prefi\this text. *Anf 1 .We have proven that a congregational Elderfhip isf uris divinize that by confequence this election ftri&ly taken muft be theirjpriviledge , See 9 Argument againft Prelacy onx the 1 . Dialogue. Who theft underftanding Presbyte- rians are , who do not understand this place as warran- ding the people's intereft in the election & call of Mi- nifters, the Informer hath not given us an account, fince his Doubter is none of them , and if he mean the Au- thors of jus divinum Mintftcrii Zvangeliei , he will finde that they do clearly alTert this truth {propof 1 . ) fo as it do not exclude the due right of Minifters herein. See pag. 127. and 129. And the AlTembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Minifters 4. Branch, do require the people's confent and approbation > as necef- farilv antecedaneous to the ordination. Befides , could the Informer be ignorant that there are feveral o- ther weighty Scripture grounds 8c arguments pleaded by bur writters to fortify this right of the people; why did he not then put thefe alfo into the mouth of his, Doubter, and give us an account of his own , and his Epifco the third Dialogue 7 f J Epifcopal Mafters' skill in difiblving them? Moreover i tno it were granted, that all here did concurr in this fuffrage where no Elderfhip was yet conftitute (as Mr \ "Gillefpy Judgeth probable mifcell. pag. 14. ) it will nothing infringe the power of the Elderftiip in Chur- ! ches conftitute , there being avail: difference betwixt ; the modus rei > in Churches conftitute , and thefe in \ fieri or that are to be conftitute. Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial fujfr age by ex- ; tending of hands, and that in commitiis, among courts, I fenats, and reprefentatives of the people, as in the I Roman fenate, in which the Confuls prehded. And that among the Greeks ^i^t^t®- is the Magiftrat created by fuftrages , in the courts folemnly held for that purpofe. That the Roman fenate did Xitzoniitt rxs tt*e as Chryfoftome faith , which Doctor Potter expones,»wie their Gods by $u fir a%e {Qhx- ritymiftaktnfagei^.) Again, fuppofing Elderfliips here exifient , this phrafe may be well referred to the people, as importing their confenr and approbation % reserving ftill to the Elderftiip their Juridical ftiffrage, and decisive vote in election. Mr Gillefpy (ubi jupra) clears this, fhewing that in Athens it felfe the people did wfout , whenSbey did but like well the persons nominated* at when aThefaurer offered fome to bejurety •vtki oht*<&* ZttZo&iGTti , whom the people shall approve. This he pro* ves jrsm Demojih. adverj. Ttmocr- from which oration he makes it good, that the vcx^n* the Afjcmbly , andh- k* , the court of fudges , are plainly distinguished fi fart that they might not be both uponone das\ ana that tho the pc& - flc did wTciur , yet n$t they but the «*<**«<, or fudges did xcth sttxjccpxv, ordain or appoint a Magiftrat. In a word, we give in this mater [the Minifters call j thejujfragc and ele8im to the Eldership ( I mean in a Church conftitute ) zndtbecsnfint ( which is diftinft from the deeifivs voice as the learned acknowledge , Ga- li 5 macks- 74- A Confutation of nuchtus in primtm id* out oflhomasqtteft. t <; fhewes this) to the whole people , and the formal authoritative mijfion, and imposition ofhattdr, making the man a Minuter, and giving him the i|«r/* who had it not before , to tljs Presbytery , according to the Scripture pattern ; which is teto c*!$ different from the Independents principles in this point. If any object that the giving the fuffrage and election of Minifters to the Elderfhip, excluding the people, maker, the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs , it being fuSkient to clear us from their principles, that we allow not either to the Elder- fliip or congregation, the formal authoritative million and impQftnon of hands. And that our arguments upon this head feems to give to the people not onely confent ? but fuffrage in election. I fhall defire firft , that 'Mr Gillefpies aniwer be considered (Mifcell. page 24.) to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point. Who fayes „ that in this „ point of election we do not homologate with them, „ who give to the collective body of the Church (wo- „ men and children under age onely excepted) the po- 3, wer of decifive vote or fufirage in elections., we give ?5the vote onely to theEldersljip orChurch representative, „fo that they carry along with them the confent of the ^ma:or or better pan: of the congregation. So that he 35makes the attributing of this decifive voice&fuffrage •5in elections.e/w/fl the people, to be downright Indcpen- „ dency & the march (tone of their difference from us 53 He tells 11s afterward^that the confine and knowledge be- 3. longs to the trhclcChurcb without which Minifters may 33not be intruded,& theccunfiUnl deliberation , (which U j.difrinct from this confent) to the ablefl&wifeft of the ,jCongrregat!on,efpecially the Magiftrater.Bm he diftin- ^guifhes from both thefe the deafive w.e in Court orjudi Kca&rf&ttitfirfhatcmfiftm^ cafe o election the third Dialogue. J% ^election, and this he fayes, belongs onely unro^aivd „ confifts in , the votes of the Eldership. A nd that the L Independents contranly give the conference and dehbe- 3, ration to the Elderfhip(as we ufe to do in Comittees) 35 but the decifioit to the whole Congregation. Adding „ further > that fuch as have written againft Indepen- 33 dents do thus ftate the difference betwixt them' „ and us in this point , viz. not whether matters of \ -;^reat importance and publjik concernment ought to 3,be determined with the pft>ples free confentffcr this %wt grant) but whether the caufe muft be brought to the body ^oftlxCongregation to give their voices therm together with the .: officers of the Church, citing Lage* in his defence of Church - „ government , chap. u and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the „ Affembly of Divines in that piece intituled the Inde* „ peniency\onfcriptures of the Independency of Churches page „ 5 .where he fees down this forementioned content to „the Minifter who is to be chofen,as that which we al- 35lowto the members of the congregation in common. 35 Adding further, thatlndependents place the whole ei- ,, fence of a calling in election, accounting ordination „ to be but a folemnizing of it , wheras we place the v poteftative miffion.not in the Churches election but ,>lawf-dl ordination. So that in the judgement of thefc Divines the refervingtothe Presbytry the formal au- thoritatiV: mifjton, is the not the fole point of difference be- twixt the Independents and us , nor can a man be Heard from Independent principles in their judge- ment 3 who extends the decifwejuridica^vnte inele&im beyond the Elderfhip, and gives this decifive Juffrage firieth tafyn to the people- Beiides, the abfurd and dan- gerous confequences following upon this opinion, allowing the fornul juridical eleBive fuffrage to the peo- ple, are evident, fuch as I. That this goes infome refpedt beyond Independents opinion as to the peoples power in elective fuffrage, who though they give it to y6 A Confutation of to the colle&ive body , yethvith areftri&ion exclu- ding women , children and perfons under age , not to every individual. 2. That this will infer/ tvery point of govetment and every caufe , relating immedratly to the congregation , muft be brought t$ the multitude or body of the people , to give their ♦ voices therm together with the officers Jof the Church, for upon the fame ground that the elective fuffrages belong to then^fo muft every piece of govern* ment. NowMrLaget ubijkpra exprefly ftates this as the Independents principle, and as that vherin they dif- fer from us 3 . f his cuts offal right and power of a juri- dical eldership > which is by ourwntters aflerted and made gooa from the fcriptures,and makes all their au- thoritative decifive fuffrages , in this and other points of government a in reference to the congregation , aninvafion of the peoples right, and unlawfull ufurpation of their power $ lor it this formall decifive fuffrage belong to all the colle&ivebody jure divinoy how can they give it away ? 4. This will bv confluence bring the collective body to have their formal decifive jun&i- €alfujfr*&e> infuperiour Church judicatories , Presbytrier% dndfynods , in every point wherin the congregatk nal clderihip andfeflion have an immediat interefr. A- gain , fince confent and knowledge , is allowed by our writters 10 the whole congregation* and deliberation and counfel to fume eminent members , the elderfhips eUElive fuffrage > ( which in their judgement is neceflar- ly conne&ed with this ) cannot be faid to im- peach the due right of the collective body of the con- gregation in this point'; unlefs (as I faid) we be- caufetheevefubfiftsinandwith the body, and cannot aft without , or feparated from it. So the people in a general fenfe and medtatly eletl bv the elderfliip., the whole colleBive body coricumng in what is proper to them herein. We heard from MrGiSefiylubifipra,] that among the Greeks , the people in consenting to a choife of governo'urs were faid xvpmMt , fo that although , upon the fuppofal of the divine ri ght of a juridical el- derfhip , reprefenting the congregation ( which right is abundantly proved from fcripture) the for- mal Coufiftorial %tpwu*bv juridical fuffrage belongs to them, yet the whole colledtive bodv their %upTw*, in the manner formerlv explained, flands good. His laft anfwer is , that tf we think tie peoples eURienfo neceflary that none can be a Mmjler without it, then we null the mmiflry of the whole Christian World for above loco years up- ward, andtheMiniftryofthis Church ever till the year 1 6 49. For unt ill then patronages were not taken aw of. AnfWe have proved that the People's right in the call and election of Padours is the pure Scripture pattern continued in theChurch of God for diverfe ages, which is enough to prove that as it ought to be endeavoured after and eftabliihed , by Churches who would imitat this pat- tern of the Lords tabernacle fhewed upon the mounts So 7* A Confutation of So where it is obtained it ought to be held faft againft any contraire innovations. That the people's in- terest in the election and call of Minifters and tea- chers had place from the Apoftles even unto his own time in a good meafure, maybe proven (befides what we have faid already to clear this ) by a very un- fufpeit witnefs h/larcm hntonius de Jominir de Repub. E*- clef. lib. i. cap. 22. Num. Io. he faith, in elcSume minim jtrtrum etiam Apofiolerum tempore (3 ipfaummftituto* piebem& totamtnultitudinemmagnam habuifie partem. And hb* %.cap. 5. Num. H lamveropoft conoiliumNicenum ineletlion'but cunde Council ofNice the fame ancient cuftome was own 5d 33 to his times by the Church, as to the peoples inte- *y reft in this election and call of Minifters, he under- „ takes to prove from the Fathers , from hiftory , ., and Councils and Laws, and the very decrees of 3, Popes. In the Council of Paris Anno <;^(j. There was fuch a deer e e, '8yia in altquibus crivitatibus cenfue - tudoprifca neghgitur. &c. ,. Becaufe the ancient Cu- 3,ftomeand decrees of the Canons are negleftcd in asfome cities <- ■ ■■■ they appoint the decrees of the „ Canons to be keept,and the ancient Ciiftom,;^ nullus civtbus invitii ordinetur Episcopur.nifi quern populi & clerico- vum eletlio pleniljima quJfiertt voluntas (£s* That none be ordained a Biiliop without the will of the citizens , but fuch onely whom the people and Clergy fnall chide with full confent. That the people had a right to require, call and eledt their Paftour in the ancient Church,Didoclav.proves from theExampIe ofEradiut, /imbroJeflavianus^Ne&arius ££c.From pag. J 2 to rhofe of A lexandrti, i LjbU* s$c* which is extant with Theodora Hid. lib. tm J cap. 9. Where'he fhrws that thole who fucceed in the j room of the dead Prelat muft upon thefe terms fuc- ! ceed. fi di6ni iidere?uur} ££ populm eligeret j£ thev appear 1 worthy and the oeople fhall chuie. That Cbrjfijtom ! fucceeded to NttMar; poftquam in hoc Clerus & populus \ fuffragia fua centuliffent i after he was called and chvfen by the j CUrgy and people. So%cm. lib. j.c,8. That Evagrius was 1 ckoicn fujfragiis, or by votes and fuffr ages , Socrates lib* 6 j cap. 13. x'hat Augujiine called' again and again for j the people's confent as to his fucceffour, Eicmibive- ! fir a affentaticne opus eft, F/>* j f . To which may be ad- I ded, a very impartial witnefs Biihop Biiibn {Per- petual Government Chap. 15 J page 434. } Where he j fnewes that the people had their right in chufing their I Paftours. Onely, to prevent miftake upon thefe I paffages , we would take' notice i that this fufjrage 1 here attribute generally and indifcriminatim , to the peo- j pie and clergy 3 muft be underftood po uniufcujuf- 1 que modulo and according to every ones capacity, for the reafons above rendrcd. Since both Minifters right in ordination, and alfo the right pf a juridicall elder- I fhip in churches conftiture in reference to the election of 'Minifters, hath ( as we have fhown) a clear foun- dation in Scripture and antiquity. But of this enough. 1. We have alfo proven that we are not concerned, nor in the leaft contained bv our principles and pra- ctice in this cafe 5 to null a Church $r Mini flry where this cafiis wanting^ it being enough for us, that the wantftf it is a corruption rendringa Mimftry not fo pure as it ought to be 5 and that our cafe being a cafe of compe- tition betwixt Minifters holding faft this piece of our Covenanted Reformation 3 raid a party of Schiima- tick fo A Confutation of tick Innovators oppofing and rejecting it, and turn- ing back to the vomit of this and other corruptions >* after thev have been feen , caft out , and vowed a- gainft : We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows, fufficiently warranted to leave thefe inno- vators 3 and adhere to the faithfull Miniftry. 3. As we did fhew that the granting of Curats their having the effence of a mtnifterial call, will not infer out bearing and oivntng them in every cafe ,and efpecially in ours (which himfelf muft grant, unlefs he fall in a palpable contra- didtion ) fo its more then he can prove, that this Church of Scotland from its firft beginning , till 1 649 hadpratronages $ Which being founded on the Com- mon law, and feveraljages pofterior to the pureChurch in this Nation , planted (asweheard) without Pre- lats byfome of Johns Difciples, howabfurd is it to affert that it had Patronages from the beginning Fi- nally, whatever tollerance of thefe corruptions be- fore they be removed may be pleaded for, yet fuch as have embraced them now,yea & as a badge ofowning this deformation of our once glorious Church , are certainly to be difownedbyall who would holdfaft their integrity. For what he adds, anent our owning Presbyterian \Hniflers adhering to our Reformation > tho they have been prefentedby Patrons , It's both impertinent to the point and already anfwered , For its not thAs /im- plicit er * or only, which we ground upon in this pra- ctice , as is often faid , but the principles , ftate , practice , and defign , of Conformifts in this com* plex cafe Befide , who {cqs not the difference be- twixt a Minifter owning the principles of our Refor- mation, and difowning this with other corruptions , although the times neceffity did conftrain to make ufe of patronages in their firft entry , when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage 5 and fuch as owne this corruption both in judgment and practice after the Third Dialogue. 8* after itisrejefted, and the Church delivered from if, yeaandowneitasanexprefsbadgeof Conformity to abjured Prelacy; Sure they are very blind who fee : not the difference betwixt thefe. The Doubter allcadgcs [ that patronages are ab- jured in the Covenant] and the Informer dejires to fee in \ in what place. But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or folemn league, he will eafily fee this; for patronages being a popish corruption co7itraryt$ ; tie Word of God ( as we have proved ) it's abjured a- mong the rites vrCufoms br$ught into this Church; without cragainji the word; And likewife in being condemned in the z. hool^of difcipline , to which we vow adherence 2sunxo the difciplins of this Church , itmuft beinthat refpedi alfo abjured; And as contrary t$ found doBrine, i thepowci of godliuef , and Governmentof this Church ex- , preft in the 2. book of Discipline, ii is abjured in v the folemn League, wherein we likewife vow ad' heren.e to that difcipline* But ( faith he ) Since vatro* \ naves were in uft after the Covenant , why was not this breach *difeerned:and Was this Church perjured all that time. Anf \ 1 he forecired aft of Parliament fhewes that this cor- ruption had been long by this Church groan'd under, ;and long before that time declared aid teftified a- ■gainft , both in the 2. book of difcipline , and by af- femblies thereafter, and if (cheinterpofingoftbeci- nll Magiftrat being neoeflary to remove this ) the Church ftilluntill that time graan'd under this bur. den, where can he fixe his challenge ? The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Karat*, is [that thev are ordained bv Biihops.] To l^hichheanfwersi. That alt whomwerefufetohear > were { ht ordained by Bishops. He means thofc who were or* lamed bv rhc Presbytery , and have confoimed, W*f>l. We have already told him that it is not theE- >iiccpal ordinition fimph and abjlraSeity fnm our cafe, K k which ti A Confutation of which is our ground of not jowning them , but the I pifcopal ordination ofper\ured intruders breaking ourun m And reformdtion , stnd ejetling ourfaitbfull Paftours, d? tefiified againfi by our presbyterian proseftant Church tchk ■they ha? c thus intruded upon i+ We have told himth; the conceflion of their lavfull ordination/or fubftanct will no more plead for our owning rhem in thiscorr plexcafe5then their conceflion oUbelappfulhrdinatimi Vresbyterian minifters, will infer an obligation upnn Cor, fbrmifls toowne them , which is aconfequencethat the all deny. Andrhat they mutt grant, thatowningof th epifcopa! ordination in this complex cafe , is different from fimple owning •/*> ,in relation to hearing. Even as Pres by tcrian minifters are acknowledged by conformifts n have a lawfull ordination/or fubftance 3whom notwithftand ing they will r.otfujfer the people to hear $♦ Thofewh< wereTo ordained and have conformed, having(aslf?.id eatentts or in fo far,renounc\d their Presbyterial ordina tion, and adhering to theprektical as the more per- feft , this their difovvningof our reformation (efpe. cially aggreged by their perjury and apoftacy ) put? them in the fame, yea a worfe condition as to oui hearing them , then tbofe that are meerly ordain- ed by the prelats. J. He tells us > ,, That on thi< >3 ground we would not adhere to thefe whom Timo „ thy and Tims ordained , nor would we have heard ,,aminifterformany ?gcsof the Church i Then he 3, tells us of Jcroms > qwi facit except a ordinationc Epij- 9iC6pus9 and that minifters have now a hand inordai- 3; fling Conformifts. Th2t on this ground we would 9\ not have heard the members of the Aflembly 163 ** 3, who were thus ordained, and fome now though jjnon-conformifhj who .were ordained before the 3,year 1638 by Bi(hops5thc valiridity of which ordina- 9; tion is vindicat by fus dhinum minift. Ang'itl Anf. \Ve have already proven > that} Epifcopal ordination hnot the third Dialogue. gj ls not in the left warranted by the Authority of Timo* 1 th* and Titus fuppofed in there Ef riles, but rarhera Presbytcrial ordination , which is the pattern fhewed "upon the mount, 2* We have alfo proven that his prelatick ordination , whereof the Prelat hath he ' fole and proper power according to this conftitution , isafirangen m the firft purer ages, and even in Je- f 'rom'stime* 3. We have alfo proven that the grant- 1 in* of the efTentialls of their minifterial call who are ordained (by Bifhops 3 will plead nothing for own- | ing Carats, who are both fcandalous and perjured in- 1 traders and have nothing for the moft p:rt which may in the leatt ground a charitable conftrudhon that they * were ever called of Godjand are {landing in oppofitiori I toafaifhfulminiitry3by them excluded and perfecute I from their watcthowcrs, none of which can befaid of the inftances which he mentions. As for that concur- rence which he pretends Conformifts have with the Bifhops in ordination of mioifters > it is according to our Law , meerli -precarious and fro forma. And therefore utterly inefficient to found his conclu* fion.. The Doubter objefts, [ that tbo fome of thern were ordained by the Presbytery 3 yet they are now lurn'dihe Biihops Curats4] He might have added , and turned court or ErajtUn-Curats , fince the alio? our ] prefentConforrnilh authority ;is derived from the court j and fubordinat to \hefupremacy, as is evident in the ait ] ofreftitutionanuorherfubfequentsafts. Inanfwerto ! thishe alleadgej tveakflcfi ojfsid^ementtfren^bofpajjion in jfl the ob^efte^but really fhews both in hurilel^by telling I us > that We my fear Chrfts threatnmg > be tint defpifet you defpifis me > fince be hath not yet made , it appear that ! the men he pleads for have a relator* to this Church as her '■' truePaftours, according to the principles and tenor Kkz o£ J 4 A Confutation of of our Reformation, Then he tells us , that Curat figni- fies a cure of fouls. But the TrueNon. conjormifi , told his fellow Dialogift, that ,, this term owes its invention to mens vanity > loathing the lowly Scripture ftyb of ^Minifter , and is in effect nothing but the iffhe of che „ corrution of the Churches humility , and that what >,they pretend herein while deftroying in ftead of feed- ing, is like toftandin Judgement againftthem at „ the great dav* For his next interpretation of [Curat] viz. he that ferves the cure tho not the Minifter of the plase, but the fubftitute of another , We owe him thanks , for one egg is not liker anorh tr , then they are to fuch vi- carious fubftitutes. But h^r will not hive them called the Bishop; Curats* as if he were Paftturofthcdiocefl , and they deputed, under him , and Bishop ( he fai:h) hath fuch thoughts ofminifiers. What their thoughts are > is beft {cCn by their deeds. We have proved that according to this frame of prelacy the Biftiop is properly the fole Paftour of the Diocefs. In the 7, Argument ajainft Prelacy. The Doubters next obfedtionis, [that they are perjured perfons, and therefore not to be heard. ] He anfwers 1. That many of them mver tool^the Covenant , mtd therefore are not perjured > which is already removed, when we did prove from Deut. 29. that itoblidges even thofe who did not perfonally fwear. Its renmr- kable that Deut. 5. 2, 3. God is faid to have made a Covenant with his people in Horeb, even with us ( faich MofesJ and all of us alive here this day* They were dead who engadged at Horeb , and many there prefent were not then born. So Neh. 9. 3 8. all ente- red into Covenant, but fome only did fealit. Sure the intention , and relation of 'the Covenanters, and the matter of the Oath itfelf, will make it thus extenfive. Next he fayes, Minifters that took it> and comply with prelacy are not perjuredjor the reafons which be gave in the lafl con* the third Dialogue* 8? conference* Which reafons I have there anfwered, and proved that there is nothing in our cafe, which may intheleaft limit or invalidates obligation, and upon the grounds which are offered to evince the Han- ding obligation of chat Oath, I doaffirme that they are perjured. 3 . He tells us , That fcandalous faults tho de- ferving cenfure ^ yet while it is not infltSed , andtbeperfin note$nvi8, hisNltmflry ought to be waited upon , ds\udas who came chat bed with Chrijts commijjion to preach > f* long as he was not convift > yet was to be heard. -^wM.He grants that fcandalous faults > fpecially of an high nature , and if the man be impenitent > dodeferve depofition- Now their faults are both fcandalous and of a high nature , fuchasprophanity , perjuryandapoftacy, in all which they are mod impenitent and avow the fames and as for their being con vi<5l and cenfured , which he requi- rethas needfull fordifowning them> I anfwer they ftand upon the matter convidt by clear fcripture grounds, and by the (landing afts and Iudicial decifion ofrhis Churcb inherfupreme judicatories andaflem* blies, which have condemned and made cenfurable with depofition their prefent principles and practices > in oppofition to her vows and government. Again , there isa great difference betwixt what ought tobe people's carriage toward fcandalous Minifters when a redrefs by Lawfull Church Judicatories may be had , to which people may have recourfe, and what the duty of a people is in that cafe, wherin a prevailing backfiiding party > and a perfecutingAiagiftrat own« fuch Minifters; fothat the true Church can have no accefs for cenfuring and removing them. In this laft cafefuppofing their fcandals to be of a high na* ture , this inevitable neceffity of the Churches in- capacity for pvefehtt may fupply thedefeft of a for- mal cenfure (in the judgment of fome) and ground a difowning of them , as if they were already caft out , Kk 3 efpe- t6 A Confutation of efpeciallyifthcirentry be by perjurious intrufion,and their profanity and fcandals therafter notour to all. Now how applicable this is to Conformifts , needs not my painesto fubfume> We might alfo here tell him that there are fcandals which are official!, rendrin* the man coram Deo no officer, and that in cafe of their becoming very atrocius Mr Durham will allow t# depart to more pure ordinances. On fctndal page 129. Althoughjwe will nowake upon us to determiue,how & in whatcafeSjduringtheChurchesincapacity,&dif- compofed ftate,aMiniiters atrocious fcandals after his entry % and perjurious ufurpation in the way and man- ner therof, mayfupply the want of a formal cenfure, yet abfolutly to deny that in any imaginable cafe, whe- ther ofthe fcandals and intrulion of the minifter , the Churches incapacity tocenfjre3orthe peoples clamant neceiiity, and apparent advantages for their edification otherwife they were oblidged to ownhimftill, and that nothing but this declarative fentence, could loofe their tye , would 3 infer very dangerous conferences obvious to the meaneft refle&ion, Specialy that in per- formance of fuppofed duties; flowing from the tye and relation> they would crofTe many fcriptur- precepts en- joy ning the contrary.ShallChrifts fliecp followthe hire* ling and Granger* and not beware of wolves andfalfe prophets, ftrcngthen Covenant breakers , and fcifma- ticks, becaufea perturbed Church cannot di aw forth her cenfure. If it be faid that this will open a door for reparation, fince everyone difpJeafod, may pretend that fcandals arc of an highnature.^n/.i/rhefinfulabu. five pretences of men , is a poor argument to infringe any truth or duty* 2. This abfurdity may be retorted in the other extreme y and under pretence of the mans exterior call who is not (nor can be in a Churches di- fturbedftate) cenfured, Chriftsfheepmay (as I faid) be given up to defraying wolves, the means and op por- the third dialognsi 87 portumties of their edification loft, and their foulcs expofed to mod imminent hazard of pcrifhing-2/rhcre is a pure Miniftry and Church free of their fcandallsi and teftifying againft them, fo that adherence to them rather then Curats is only a non-union to corruption , or a fcandalous party of Innovators who have gone out from the fellowfliip of this Church , and fuch a fep4- ration negative or nm-unim , as Mr Rutherfoord ailo- \ves+ Due right of Presfyt* pag. 2$i , *S4" fuch^ashe fayesw^s „thc carriage of the faithfull in relation to „the Donatifts in Auguftines time, or a reparation ,, from the my ft and worjtfart not the Ieafi and bejlpart, „ as he there diftinguiflies, calling the greateft cor- rupt part the Schifmaticks ; As before the Jewes „ came to blafpheme > there was no reafon to joyn to ^thern rather then the Gofpel Church , planted by 3, the Apoftles, to which Mr Rutherfoord fayes, t, converts verero adhere. 3. We have heard thae according to our principles and the tenor of our Re- formation, we are to look upon them as Schifmaticks from this Church* So that upon this very ground of hol- ding and mmtaining this Churches purity and union , they are to be difowned by Gods people. Our Informer will grant that abftra&ing from a Miniftcrs being o- therwife either cenfured or cenfurable ,he ought not to be followed in a Schifmatick courfc to the ruine of a pure Churches union,bur is ipfefafto to be Ieft:for upon this ground he pleads fordifovning Presbyterian Minifters abftra&ing from their being inyotherwayes cenfured. 4. Are there not many Presbyterian minifters neither con- viS nor cenfured, and whom he dare not czWjcandaUut , whofe converfation and walk is both convincing and ftxining, andfuchasdifcovers that Chriftis in them, that they have the maftersfeal and call to preach the Gofpel i who have entered into this Church by the door , and are (landing iii a miniftrrial rtUvmi Kk 4 v* S8 A Confutation of to her , yet he pleads for difowning them > meerly becaufc their Mimftryiscrofs to the prehtickun'wn and order. So he muft grant that Mtnifters may be difown cd on this ground of Innovating upon , and {lan- ding in oppoiition to a Churches eftabtifht union and or •- der 9 abftrafting from this formal cenfure. As for what he adds of Judas , its very impertinently alledged here, for his theft and other wickednefs was as yet fecrtt y and Hot become open and fcandalous , which excepts him from the compafs of this queftion > which isanerit Minifters guilty of open and avowed fcandalls 9 intrufioninto theMiniftry, violent eje&ion of faith- full paftours, and perfection of a pure Church. None of which can be faidof Judas. But now followes in the next place, his mainob' jeclion and argument from the Scribes and Pharifees , he tells us 3 what great exceptions might have been made againji their life and doSrine , Math, i$.that they were foemies to Cbrift, negleQed Judgtmentrmircy and faith: that they were proud hypocrites , and that tho all which Napbtali fayes of Conform! Jis were true (and all fees it to be true and confequently that he gives them no other chara- cters then what they put upon themfelvcs , and cannot more be charged/?/* £ dijlemper for this,then our blefled Loidin calling thefePharifees,ferpents and vipers, or Paul in calling thelmpoftours of*whom thePhilippians Were in hazard, dogs, evil workers, theconciGon, whofe God is their belly,whofe glory is in their fhame though they were ( as thefe pharifees ) grofs in their lives % and there were leaven in their do&r'tne > they wtre not to be di fawned yfmceahho the Pharifees for doHrine taught the commands of men'> andtool^ away the key of knowledge M Chrift in hts fermon on the mount purged tht Law from their corrupt gloffes , yet Simeon and Anna turned not (epa- ratijlf, lofefh and Mary went up to hfep the pa ff over, and Gbrift bids hear ibt&% tfowiika cavtaiHktwartoftbeir leaven the third Dialogue. %$ haven 3 and their iU example. Here he alio tells us 3 that be hath no pleasure to mal^e a parallel betwixt the Pharifees and our preachers in long prayers , and devouring widowes boufeSyCompafJingfea and land to makjprofelytes^tho we hav$ oiven t09 much ground for thefe com pari fons. Anf< i.To beginne with this laftinve&ive ( which he infinuats, and Dr Burnet prcfecutes at large in his trifling dialo- gues) If I fliould rejoy n that its a faming out their own fhame, to make fuch companies, and renders them too like thefe wandring ftars to whom this is attribute, It were no great overftreach. Dare he fay that our Lord did /*™ph condemn long prayers > becaufe he con- demned makjngaflietvof them; or that faichfull mini- fiers their traveJls to keep poor fouls upon the lblid foundation of our fworn Reformation , and recover them from this plelatick corruption andapoftacy, is toprofelyte them to be children of hell ? It may be with better ground averred that prelatifts who are enemies to either long or Ihort prayers in the fpirit, and plead for dead formes andlyturgies, and who have devou- red not widowes houfes only y but Gods boufe and Church in this land, and who compafs fea and land to profely te this poor Church to the Synagogue ofBjmc , are much liker thefe precedents in the abovememioned cha- racters. But 2. To his argument, The pharifees were fcanda- lous in their Uje> corrupt in their doBrine , yet the feints ftparat not from ordinances yand Chrijl allowed to hear them* This man might ( if he had been ingenuous) have found ihis objection folidly anfwered and removed by feverals. I anfwer I. Its more then he hath proved ^ that the owning of the Pharifees miniftry is here en- joyned, becaufe i.The command of obfervingwkat thtyenjoynedy will not neceflTarly infer this ; we may obfervewhat tnorall Philofophers , orpapifts bid us do under fucb like reftriftious and limitations > upon Kk j which 90 A Confutation of which people are enjoyned to obferve what the Phari- fees prefcribed ; we may obferve what civil Rulers bid us do , but not own them as teachers- 2. There arc many things in the context, which feem utterly to repugn to this inference that our Lord enjoyned the owning or attending of their inftru&ions asecclefia- ftick teachers. 1 • He bids beware of their leaven or do* Brine Math, itf.11. jovning them with Sadducees whoi denyed the refurre&ljn , and erred fundamentally, furenotto hear them was the bed way to evire their leaven > 2. It will be hard to prove that they were Prteft phartjees , finceall the Pharifees were not fucb» as Nitodewus and Jofepb of^Arimatb^a , who were civil Rulers, andconfequently 2ny command to nhty them, Will no more infer bearing thempre.ich, then fuch a com- mand as to council or parliament* The thing com- manded is not btaringthemas teachers p but onlyofo- hience which may be very properly enjoyned as to ci- vil Rulers* 3 . The qualtties afirihed unto them , fuch as their fitting in Mofcs chair $ who was King in Jefurun, not Aarens who was the Pieft, their loving the chief feats in fynagogues, (whereas, if teachers, their chief feat wasknowen, and appropriate them) their paying tithes (whereas, if priefts tithes were payable to them) thefe qualities (Hay) feem to import that they were not friefts and teachers by office , that hearing of them, <• or attending their miniftry as fuch , is enjoyned hearingoj and atceding their Miniftrjras fuch. 15.4. Chrift bids let them alone , which founds like, ewnethzmnot astea^ chers. He calls them blind leaders of the Mind, nay he calh them the granger tvhofe voice the truefljeep hear nor, but ra therthetriieibcpherdMath-i5.l3>i4iJoh.io.4,5.and fuch as ihut up heaven againft me«,and hindred fuch as were cntring ; all which feem very inconfiftent with a command of hearing them. 5 Chrift (poke to the difciplcJ as well as the people in this precept* Now itscertair tha1 the third Dialogue ? x bat neither the difciples did ever hcax them* nor could hey leave his Miniftry, nor isic found that Chrift who rame to fulfill all righteoufnefs, taught them to do fo, >y his example. Finally the words of this precept have "or their fcope toengadgeto beware of the Pharifees nfe&ious evillsrfo that thiscommand to do & obfervc *'hat they delivered as fitting in Mofes feat, which ;hey did then poiTefs, is but by way of concctflon , ivhich fuppofes only that whicAie intended ihonly :o aboliih, and now would haiPWfiiproYen for the beft advantadge. 2. Granting that they were to be heard, I denyhifi confequence , that therforc Curats in this our cafe are tobeheardalfoj the cafes are very different, andtha difparity when cleared will difcover his confequence CO be naught , from the hearing of the Pharifees 3 to ihtbea* yingefConf9fmij}s4 lofferk then inthefe particulars. i. Thefe Phanfees Miniftry was not of it fdf actually zxclufoeof, and a direct intrufion upon the Miniftry of faithfull teachers* "Suppofe they had chafed away all Ifraels Lawfull teachers, and by perjurious violence rhruft therafelves into their rooms 1 would our Lord ,iave biddenjown or bear them ? If our Informer fay fo lie will contradict himfel£and overturn the fcope of his ireafoning in this dialogue, forhethniks that the mi- jniftry of Presbyterian minifters , is intrufion , and irherupon pleads fir dlfewning and not hewing them* z. He pleads for owning Curatsai Cbrijis ambaffa- Uurs cloitbed with bis authority to deliver his meffage% !:>ut Chrift doth here (at leaft for any thing he hath /faidfrem this text,) only enjoyn to hear thePharifets interpretation and deciftonofthat natims Municipal orci- ^vilLaw, anent the rules of external righteoufnefs and civil policy,which two are very different, g. Chrift ha- ving guarded the Law from their corrupt glofTes , and ^.he difciples from t heir f naves, fhewesi/s thispreceps how ^2 A Confutation of how to make the bed ad vantage of that difpenfationi1 now ready to vanifhaway, fince he was fhordy toe- red a gofpel miniftry , and remove 311 that legal dif- penfanon , and then none of them were to be heard; Bin this man pleads fordifowning our faithfull fenc gofpel minifters under a (landing relation to this Church , and the obligation of Chrifts ftanding command , and commifiaon to officiac , and this in favours of intrudinplhitclings ufurping their places, and oppofing thefe SBfull Arnbafiadours in their mafters work and meflage. Now who fees not the difference betwixt thefe. 4. They were not in a ftated oppofition to a faithfull body of teachers , ack- nowledged and owned by the found Church of Ifrael and certifying againft them, feeking to root them out, and together with them a reformation, to which all had recently vowed adherence. 5* There was no iadge or Tejl of comply ance wttb all their abominations particularly appointed aad enjoyned by the Rulers, in this aft of bearing them , as there is in our cafe in re- lation to the healing of Curats , rendring (as I faid) the not hearing them » and adherence rather to a faith full Miniftry tcftifyingagainft them , aeafeof confef- jion , efpecially this difference will be apparent, if our National vows and Covenant, exprefly obliging to adhere to thefe faithfull mtnifters % in oppofition to them and their courfe of backfliding , beduely pon- dered. Next , as for what he fayes of Simeon and Anna • Jofephand Mary, their attending the temple Worfhip at t>*i: time ; as his argument there from is removed by what is faid, fo to clear this further , I add I. That its wide reafoning from the godly their lawful concur- rence with that Church (now under the ruft of old con ruptions ) in what was good and found , to our deferring a found Church and miniftry to comply with the third Dialogue. 9* with ahjurtd corruptions , and SchifmaticJ^ innovators » reintroduced after they have been caft out. 2. Its as wide reasoning, from their not feparating from Gods ancient Church upon the ground of corruptions, to conclude againft non~eomplyance with a party who are not our Church ( tho they ufurp her name) butareoppo- fedandteftifyed againft, by our true Church and mi- niftry. We in this cafe ( as I have faid ) donotfepa- rat from t he Church of Scotland ^far Do8yiney TVorfhipy or mimflry ,but only from Scbijmatick tackjliders from the union <$ rt\ormat\on of this Chunk But in the cafe ofthefe old faints8cworthies,feparationfiom the temple, would have imported an abfolute feparation from the mini flry & Church of IfraeU In a word, the utter impeuinency of all his pleading in this argument, 2nd from thefe inftances, appears in this, that he fuppofes chat its meerly for Conformifts per fonal faults we dilowne or- dinances adminiftred by them , as if they were ther* by pollntedjwhichhasno more truthin it, then that its meeily for Presbyterian minifters per Jonal faults as pullutingtheworftiip, that hepleads for di I owning them , but upon the grounds of the prefent cafe and crcurnftances* wherein they ftand, he pleads for dif- owmng Presbyterian minifters, and they more juftly becaufe of Conformifts prefent cafe , plead fordif- owning them , as is faid and cleard above. After this he cites Mr Durham on Revel. 3. infer- ring from what isfttd of the Angel ofSardis and Laodicea , that a miniflcr as to his cafe unfound s may be owned and tfteemd as fuck. But how impertinent this is to our pur- pofe any may fee, for their fcandalous carriage in their walk is much more then unfoundnefsas to their cafe, which. notwithstanding we acknowledge will not of it felf, and primo mflanti warrand feparation from ordinances in every cafe. But we have cleared lhatwe have much aaore to lay roth* charge ©f Con - formifts, 94 A Confutation cf formifts, then either inward unjoundnefs , or ouiwira fiandalls fimply confidered^ even their corrupt Do- ftrine, their intrusion , their (rated oppofition to this Church her principles , union, and Reformati- on* A $ro what Mr Durham adds, and our lnformn cites in relation to ,,theordinances their not fuffering 3, derogation in whatfoever hands they be anent a due ^ooinifterial refpe&.to the Pharifees tho their rot- 3, tennefswasdifcoveredby out Lord:that Judas was ,, to be received as an Aoibafladour with other Apo- >1 ftles ■■■—. that God makes ufefull Inftruments ,3 fometimes - and tha: edification doth not ne- „ cefiarly depend upon the hoiinefs of the Inftrument, Aft. 3. 12. March. 7. 23, Its utterly remote from our purpofe> as is clear from what is faid, for neither can he prove that this pradice is a fcparation properly fuch , nor doth that cafe of*/? Improvement of the fhari fees teach ing during that time $f the legal! di [pen Cation % now pnortly to b' abolifht, meet our pnrpofe, nor the cafe of Judas hid abom mat lens, correfpond with thar of avowed perjury and dp oft aev from the vows and Rj form *t ion of our Church. Nor is there here a fuppofed prior Migationof adherence toconformrjh mini fry 3 preponderating 3ny obj^ftion as to their fcandallt. What can this man fay, if we fnaH plead thefe reafons of Mr Durham 3 for adhering to Presbyterian rxitnifterSjViz, „i hat ordinances ought net to i'Jbi iefpifed in wbidiefer hands they best hat even the pharifees 3y and Judas btmfttfmrfrki b? heard , and therefore much >,morePresbvterian minitlersof this Church>that God ,, can make evengracelefs men Inftruments of good s 3, that the efficacy of means depends not on theholy- „nefsofthe instrument. Now will he admit a con- clusion of owning PresbyterianMinifters from thefe prin' ciples j nay, he thinks that maters ftandfb with them becaufe of their fuppofed Schifm and difrder , that for as applicable as thefe things are to them , yet they ougbc the third Dialogue. $$ ought not to be heard. Andfo by bis ewn corjcflion dndf leading this will conclude nothing for him , Un- til! Iiis above mcntioncdgr$undlefs fuppcftions be made good. Now let me retort of our \vfitrners angry Querie here , how can they Juftifie withdrawing peo- ple from Presbyterian Minifters, fince not fobad as the fcribes and Pharifees,if they have either knowledge or moderatien.He muft then of neceflity grant,if he will not contradid: himfclf,that ail thefe grounds will not plead for hearing in fome cafes,& that the London Minifters affertion anent the validity of the Epifcopal ordination for fubfxance ( repeated here again ad naufeam) falls utterly lhort of proving his conclufion. Thofe Minifters do affert , that the Presbyterian ordination is the more pure andcenferm to the fcripture pattern , what will he then fay to this conclusion ., that upon this ground (and ef- pecially becaufe Conformifts themfelves owne the validity of Presbyterian Minifters ordination) they are inconfequent to themfelves, c$ wdl as goirgcrofs to fcripture and found reaftn , in di [owning the minijiry of the Treibyteyian minif.ers of this Church , and withdrawing people from hearing them. Let him pull out this beam I from his own eye, and his anfwer fhalieafily ferve J for us. The Doubter alledges, that in Math. zg. [We are I not bidden hear the fcribes and Pharifees,and that the I words will not bear that.] He anfwers that he forbids I net to hear asweforb/dto hear Cm fit mi ft s. Ans, i. We I have feen that there is more may be all edged rVom the I Scripture as to a prohibition to be their ordinary and Bconftant hearers at leaft> (which he pleads for as to Conformifts) then he canalledge as to a command I of hearing. 2. That the tollerance t>r allowance of a j* hearing of them during thatlhortly to be abolifht !e- gall difpenfation , is far from coming up to hiscon- | clulion of owning curatsin this our cafe. 2. HeanC wer* 9 6 A Confutation of vers, that lArDurhamfpeal^sofamlnijlertalrefpeB duet* thefe Pharifees , and that without bearings this minifierial refptBis Lane. ^Jns. Mr Durhams reafon anent a Mi- nifierial refpedfc is in relation to the Improvement of their teaching,&tho granted in the greateft latitude he can imagine, will not inferr his conclusion of owning Curatsin this cafe as is already cleared. Admitting that a due Minifierial rtfptEl , will infer bearing in Mr Durhams fenfe andinftance, yet in our cafe, (which I told him Mr Durhams aflertion will not fpeak unto ) acknowledgment of a man to be a Minifter , and capa- ble of a Minifierial refpeft in fofar, will not bear this concluiion, elfe the Informer hath in a clap devoured and eaten in again all this Dialogue in pleading againft this Minifterial refpedt in hearing Presbyterian Mini- fters, whofe Minifterial authority he acknowledges. Tljj Heanfwers, that our Lord enjoyns obedience to that which thev hid do , and that as fit ting in Mojes chair _j and bow cnuld that be except the people heard tbtm teach from Mofes chair ■ ■■ he that bids obey a Minifiers injun- ctions fro n the word of God , consequently bids hear him dc* liver his doftrine from the word. Pins. We told him that for anything that he, or any of his fellow pleaders, have yet offered from this text , thefe Pharifees might be civil national doctors and interpreters of Mofes Judiciatt • Law , and of Vrads municipal Law i from his civil chair , who was Kjng in Jefurun > which will no more infer a hearing them tedch and preach as Church officers, then our obedience to the Kjng 9 Council , parliament andSefJion, will infer that conclusion. 2. His paral- lels as to the command of obeying a Win* tiers doRrinefrom the word its inferring an injxnSfon of hearing him deliver thefe doBrines from the word , is ( in this cafe and que- flion ) pityfull fophiftry and begging of the queftion , infuppofing that thGfe anent whom this injunction was given 5 were Ecclefiajlici^ Mmijlcrs , which he fc hath - the third Dialogue $7 i hath not yet proved. i.Th&iteaekmgfrfe/*b*ir, ; is in this cafe equivalent to hdinijUrtj.1 gofpel teaching | and preaching fom the ward r God , which he has not I proved either , fince (aslfaid) Gods word contained I the Jews municipal Law, which civil Judges might ! in that capacity deliver and interpret , in relation to ! external righteoufnefs betwixt man and man in things of this life. Finally, granting they were to be heard i teach and expone , which he hath not yet made good g from the text 3 it will nothing help hiscaufe for the i reafons often given : fo that the [titration which h« 'improves this place againft , being his groundl ftfuppo* fmon alledged but not proven byhim5 andbyusdif. i proved by what is faid above 3 and likewife the appli- | cation of this hearing the Pharijees to cur hearing Curats » i being his bare pethioprincipii , his afTertion after fub- i joynedviz. that this pafjage wiliftand Againft us to cur iconviclion as againft thefeperatifts in Queen Elizabeths time* \ is but a piece of hisignorant arrogant confidence^there being a vaft difference betwixt our cafe , and that of thofe feparatifts at that time , as fhall hereafter ap- pear. And befide , Presbyterian Minifters of this Church have much more to fay from this text , for -their people's adhering to them , then prelatifts can iplead. The Doubter next alleadges , [ that many Epifco- pall men have entered upon honeft mens Labours , land therefore ought to be difowned as intruders.] He Infwers i.ThataU are not fuch , that fome ConformjBr wfae kecpf their -places they had before the change, ethers mpg enter td in to the labours of thofe that are dead and tran* }orted elfwhere. Ans. Our Injormer doth miferably >inch and narrow a (infull intrusion by this defcription; vhich himfelf muft acknowledge. For fliould a Pres- >yterian Minifter ftep into his own Church upon the icath or uanfportatioa of one of the Curats, who LI ' wi\\ 9$ A Confutation of will queftion that this man will call it an intrufiori , according to his principles anent the prelatickChurch, and fo he muft acknowledge that notwithftanding what he here pleads 3 the Curats entrv is intrufion ac- cording to our principles; befide that the Miniftery of thofe who have conformed , and were Presbyte- rially ordained, being an exprefs owning of the principle prices and defign , »( this prclati cJ{ fchi fm attend tjxroy- ing party , and by their acceptance of collation and prc- fentation, and concurring in the Prelats pretended Judicatories, dminijlry compteatly of the prelatick mouldy its reduBive , if not fomalher , an intrufion 3 or par-i taking with the general intrufion and ufurpation upon the pure reformed Miniftry and Church of Scotland, even as a ftate officer or Magiftrat his taking his office from Invaders , while an army is in the fields againft them, doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invade? in the exercife thereof, tho it be materially the fame of fice and imployment which he had before. Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commtfjion from an ufurping General , and other ufur- pingfuperior officers, who are diflblving and betray- ing the true army , expelling the true General and officer; contrary to their firft commiflion, doth partake ir that ufurpation. Confidering theChurchof Scotland a; it flood eftablifht in do£trine,difcipline, worfhip, anc government, and her National and folemn vows furely this courfe of Conformity is a moftgrr,/} intrufu •n^tpon her, without fo much as a fhadow of confent and fo is all partaking therein by confequence, whicl no Conformifi: can acquit himfelf of 5 and therefor< according to the tenor and principles of our Refor mation , cannot be lookt upon as any of our tru Church her Sons and Minifters. But here our Informer pofeth us with feme grea f«fiwforfoothl. Whaler Cenfrrmrfts mere *3ivc in w tn the third Dialogue. 99 [lug Presbyterian minfters , or came in before they mere out, \nd their places declared vacant. Ans. Whoever is a&ive brpaffive inouttirig them, one thing is lure , they .re violently thruft out contrary to the word of God, md the rule_s,order, and Reformation of this Church. >o that come in who will, they are Intruders. I. Be- l:aufe they have come in upon a charge to which faith- jullMirii'fters of this Church have ChriftsKeyes and :ommiffion. 2. Becaufe come in and obtruded by hofewhoare ingrained w/ir/wx, thieves and Robbers $ [mean perfidious Prelats (often abjured and caft out }f this Church with deteftation) and not in the order of this Church , Nor by her door. A poor man is by i number of Robbers difpojfeft of his houfe , they put it^ ijeeming neutral, to keep houfe for themjthe poor own- t feeks hisfofJe(Jion,Sc complaines of this ufurpation, O kith the new tennant and Robbers deputej am no In- rudcr ,1 have a good right, I put you not out,butf ound rour houfe empty. Now let f A* Informer ufealitleho- left application and anfwer his weightie Querie. 2. He isle's, whs will tbofe difpojfeft mini fter s fuffer the peopled jarveMcjufe they haveftept out of their charges. Ans. The people ixtftarved & pevfoned too by thofe that come in; •SanefeMinifters are concernedupon their faith to the hreat fhepberd, to endeavour what they can to fave his t-ambes from the wolves , and give faithfull Minifte- rial warning of their flocks hazard. Next , he tells us# though a tninifler be transported againfl his will 3 yet the mople fcould fubmit to his fuccefor. True , when for the fChurches greater good, heistranfported to another twatchtower bv her faithfull guides, and true Church j Judicatories , but not when the true paftour is chafed tawav bvufurping; perjured Prelats, and an intruding hireling brought in as theirvicar. Its this mans petted felf ( to ufe his own phrafe here ) that blurrs his eyes 'to draw a fimilitudinar argument from fuch an abfimilar linftance. One thing he did well to add as 3 proviso, viz LI Z tU ioo A Confutation of thefucccffors coming in upon an orderly or fair cat. Anc doth this man think that Conformifts have this crier- ty call according to the Reformation and doftrine oi this Church > Nay, is he not difputing againft this call,and fo if this be „ a neceffary condition of a Mi- nifters Lawfull fucceffion 3 the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconfiftency near of kin to a con- tradiction. As for what he adds „ of the neceflitj „ of a Miniftry, and making the beft of what we can- „ not help inourfuperiours, we fay, that were the Rulers ufing their power for giving one Law)ullpaft$ui for another, and in the method of this Church , anc according to the Jcripture pattern > by Lawful! Churd Judicatories , thefe reafons would fay fomething -, bu when they have overturned the Reformation of < Church , and contrary to that Churches vows anc their own , are obtruding abjured prelats , and a num- ber of profane hyrelings as their deputes, to exclude and ruine a faithfull Miniftry , his reafons in this cafe are naught , and fpeak nothing to the point. As fo: what he adds afterward „of Minifters, in the yeai f5 itf48 eje&ed forafferting their duty to the King ^and their fubmitting while others were put into thei: 3, charges. IAnfwer, he will never while he breath be able to prove , that they were depofed for affertinj their duty to the King , and not rather for promoting an ungodly conrfe tending to the Kings ruine , and the ruine of our Reformation , and for other pieces o their fcandalous mifcarriages, by the true Lawful Judicatories of this Church. So that upon both grounds , the flocks were concerned to fubmit to fucr faithfull paftours , as were fet over them in the wa] and method of this Church , ^and according to the fcripture pattern. His laftanfwer to this argument of his Doubter a _s\en% Conformifts Intrufion is , „ that Presbyteiiai ..Minifter the third Dialogue loi \\y Minifters intrufion, is from parifh to parilh over *„ rheLabours of all the Minifters of Scotland, where- |„as Conformifts intrufion (if it be foj is but over j„ one parifh. Ans* We told him before, thatPref- byterian Minifters, notwithftanding theprelats vio- lence and ufurpation , are „ Minifters of this Church ,, of Scotland continuing ftill in that relation to her; i So that the prefent prefecution and violence , as well ^asbackflidingofthePrelatick fchifmaticks and Inno- vators, war rands their more enlarged officiating by the ['fame grounds ,upon which the perfecute officers of the Church of Jerufalem went every where f reaching tbegof-. 1 fei , and on the fame ground that MinifFers enlarged ^officiating in the time of our Reformation , was war-. ranted $ to which this cafe of defection is parallel and correfpondent. So that their miniflerial ohlgation^ land the many fcriyture commands as to dttigence in their mfim&h/j Being by the prefent ftate of our Church 1 extended to their officiating in this manner, their Mi- r|niftry is no Intrufion , but the Lawfull excrcife of their r| office,, received from the great fhephered, nor is it 'luponthe flocks',, who are under a tyeand relation to *„the prefent Incumbents as their paftours , but fo- rward poorftarved flocks committed to wolves , who Sfdeftroy but feed not; and the Curat's pretended Mi- ff niftry being neither of Chrift, nor for him, is ftill 'jjan ufurpation though over the fmalleft flock 5 fothac^ Shislnftanceofthepyrats.word to Alexander, andci*-' ^ration of the Apoftlc's caveat Rom 2.21. is extra oka* J; and reaches himfelf a rebounding ftrokc. For who (I ^ipray) have ufurped the name and authority of this ■Church , and endeavoured to have it complead/ "moulded in their way, and to extirpat all faithfull ■Minifters and profeffors' within the Nation, is it not ^14 ufurffag Prelats and their underlings , this is a rob- ^bcry indeed,and with a witnefs. io2 A Confutation of Now follows another argument of his Doubtet [ that Epifcopal Minifters are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy , and therefore cannor be hearc without breach of theO*th. ] In what refpeft* the owning of Conformifts, efpecially as that practice 12 now circumftantiat , is a breach of Covenant, we have cleard above , and need not again repeat ir. He anfwers. i. That Minifters are not menttorud in that ar- ticle But if they depend upon that Ecclefiafticul hierar- chy as Church Officers , why are tbey not mentioned* •Next, its enough for our purpofe, that the own- ing of their Mihiflry as depending upon prelats , is in this our cafe abjured. 2. Hetellsus, that dependance on thH hierarchy dothfupfo}e > and is to be nnderfiood of a hie- rarchy y made up ofali the officers enumerate in that Arti- cle > as the Engtifli Presbyterians fenfe it y which hierarchy we have not in Scotland. This conceit I have already confuted, and proved that befidc this Article • we are by the firft bound to preftrve the cftablijht Refor- mation and Government of this Church y and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath y in the pursuing of its endsi and not to fujfer our felves to be withdrawen from this i^e- formation , and our union therein by terrour or perJua/tony is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article, which doth abundantly (as we have faid J reach the drown- ing of Conformifts. 1 In the next place he tells as , that to binde our felves to difowneMhiifters defending upon Bifhops,is to binde our fel- ves to fin. I Anfwer whatever may be faid ofjfuch an en- gadgement /jTwpZ/c/m'andabfolutly confidered,yet cer- tainly toengadge our felves againft thereintrodufiionof Prelacy into a pure Church reformed from it, and againft all iependers upon , and promoters of that Inter eft tnfuch a* Church f\ri the capacity of Church officers, and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it,is both a law full and tieceffdry engadgmtnt, neceflarly flowing from Sc depen- 4«S the third Dialogue fqj rdcnt upon the abjuration of frelacn it/elf. That Mini- mi fters tho faulty may be heard, will ( as we hive oft de- j^monftrate) nothing help his conclufion. Since he can* ;; not deny chat the'u faultinefs in fome cafes may barrow $tting heard y as he fuppofes Presbyterian Minifters B faulcs putsa Lawfull ftop in the way of people's hea- I ringthem. Then hetelisus, that he hath {howtncpif- | copacy to be a Law full government which mr.e mightLawfuL - ly ak)ure , for this we referr the Reader to what is an- i, Iwercd on the fir ft Dialogue where we have proven the ; contrary, and that it is a government contrary to the word of God , which therefore we were obliged to abjure. Laftly he tells u$>thAtby\tbis expoftion jftki 2. Article we were bound not to owne Minifters who were in office at the I **ktng of the Covenant, but to exthpat themfime they depen- ded upon Bijhops as to thtir ordination ftW3 even ajter ibey . had taken the Coven an uunlefs they renounced their ordination received from Hi (hops > and had been ordained a new by mar Presbyters > which they thought themf elves not bound to do by tke Covenant y or they were Minifters without a true or- dination all that time , and then all thtir Mini ferial Atls were null fince they proceeded from that ordination. And yet ( hefayes ) we never fcrupled to hear fuch Miniflert notwithftanding of this deftndance upon Bishops in part , if they difowne Bt (hops for the future. Anf What a filly knack is it which all this tatle is founded upon , £i* Minifters who received ane ordination from Bifoops , ot B/- fhops with Presbyters , in a Church upon which tkey h*d u- furpedy areftill to be look} upon as Minifters depending upsn Bilhops , even ajter Prelacy is abolifhedt and Presbyterian Government eftablifhedin that Church* So poor a no- tion thar I am fure the leaft reflection [may difcover its vanity , ordination being Gods ordinance and ap- pointment, and the Bilhop qua Presbyter being veiled with a power iait, ordination by the Bifliop with LI 4 Presby- H! fir 1 6 4 A Confutation of Presbvters ( tho maim'd in rcfpeft of the Bifhop's ar* fogated power • which is a corruption adhering to ic) cannot by any good confequence be faid to depend in itsL 'Jff°r«*W upon thePrela:, andfarlefsin operator £[fe after that corruption is removed and abjured , ancj Presbyterian Government fet up. Doth a fouldier or Oncers commifiion or Military power flow ftill from a Colonel after he is disbanded? Nay this is toogrofs imdve tency Were %ufaglius , Luther, and other of on Reformers dependents uponthcp&p'Cyorpopifh FreUts after their cleaning to » anaerc bracing the Re- formation? Donot allourdivines diiiinguiflj theef- fentials of their ordination from the fe corruptions adher* ingtoit f and affert that they had a Mimrtry Lawfull for fubltance, and an ordination to their Mimltry, tho coming to them through that impure channell. Th-s man juftifies the Pope's plea , where is your Mi- niftry (faith he and the Romanifts) you hare no Mi- iriftrv but what you have from us? do not our Divi- nes tell them that the Mini by and ordination itfelf being Gods inftituaon , we have them from the Lord, now reftored and recovered from their corruptions % and are not dependers upon them for ourMmiftry? did all our Reformers Minifterial adbflow from fit pope or papal ordination as fuch ? Let our Informer take llged of this praemunire, for this dangerous error which he-hjath failen into , will expofe him to the fevcre cen- furc $f all proteftant Churches, 2ly, Hence Miniflers who &ere ordained by Prelats with Presbyters con- curring > were no more bound ( yea lefs bound ) to renounce their ordination fimply, then 7^inglius or Lu* tkerwerz obliged to renounce theirs* especially fince their ordination vvasinaproteflant Church , and un- der Prelats owning the proteftant profefiion (which our Informers charity will no doubt efleemaconfide- rable difference ) and theyj not renouncing it fimpliciter will the third Dialogue 1 o j anil no more make them ftill dependent upon the Pre- lates as to their Miniftry 3 when prelats arc remo- ld , then X^tingllut and Luthtr were dependent upon flic Pop* as to their ordination, and the ads flowing herefrom > after their reparation from the Church of Rome, or infer that they did owe their baptifmtothe \Popc , or the ordination of the popifh priett who bap- tized them, and were concerned 10 be rebaptized. ;3o that the popiiheaufe and intereft is much oblig- ed to our \rfrrmtr 5 if his pleadings for our prelacy ' ■ wilhold goods and it is no bad gmenzhzt bothinte- •jrefts are thus embarquedto^ether'in this man and his 1 fellows rcafoniogs for them, andmuft Hand and fall [together, which fortifies our hope and confidence, ijthat as the firfl hach begun to fall , fo the other fhall . gradually dteay , wither, and fall with it. Chap. IV. , The Informers anfwer to the Doubters Argument tnent fcpararion from a corrupt Church 5 and the retorted charge p/ichifme up$n Cenformifts, examined. J f\Ur Doubt- Refolvcr will feem ingenuous in of- v \~J f-ring an anfwer to fome chief objections againft rthe owning of Conformifts , andth-rfore puts into .< the mouth of his perfooat Doubter , fome niorear- i guments , in fuch a mould as he fuppofes is for his beft . advantadge, which I fhal now confider, and deal l faithfully with him and his fuppofed Boubter , inpre- i [dating thefe arguments > ("which he hath difguifed) 4 ia their genuine ftrength , and (hall examine his anf- LJ 5 wcrs, io6 AConfatationof wers , which when weighed in the fcripture ballance and according to the true ftace of this queftioti will nc doubt be found as empty and infignificant as any o the preceeding. The Doubter hath another argument [that we arc warranted by the word to feparat from a corrupt Church. ] This objection he curtly and advantagioufly propones, making his Doubter fuppofe I. aeon- felled feparation in this practice, from a Church to which we are bound to adhere? which this newad- vocat has not as yet made good* x. That any corrup- tions generally , or fuch as may denominate a Church in fome meafure corrupt , will warrand a feparation , whic^h is a principle we do not owne, We acknow- ledge a Church may be joyned withLawfully wherein there are great corruptions , and this with Mr Dur- ham and others on that fubjeft. Butasto corrup- tions, wefay> if thecontravertedjoyning bemthat which is clear and neceffary duty in theprefentcir- cumftancer, there can be in this joyning noftain,but in f o far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex cafe, cannot be performed without a direct complyance with , or ftain of *hefe corruptions , then a proportioned feparation is needfull in fo far as fuita- ble to that exigence 5 and yet even in this cafe we af- fert that other duties in the fellovvfhip with that fame Church may be owned: and that fellowship is not in- tirely to be broken off (upon the preceeding groundj in thefc things wherein there is no fuch hazard. But now what fayeshetothis argument, 1. He tells us, we dremijiaken if teething the Bijhops a corruption, and that this will not be granted, faf. I hope i have made it evident that they are a corruption , and therefore to be difowned. The 2 anfwer \s,that its a mtflake to thinly that for corruptions , and even great corruptions, a Church ti tobe ftparat from* Then he tells us 9 of the corrupted doctrine the third Dialogue. 1 07 $ tfthe Church of Galatia ; that in the Church of Coring an <* article of the creed was denyed ^ that there were great faults i in the Afian Churches ^^2.3. and of the great corruptions , that were in the Church of ljrael, as is evident in the books I of the Kjngs an^ Prophets t ytt the people of Cod were not I commanded tojeparat as long as the fubflance oj the worfhif V was not corrupted , as\tt was by Jeroboams calves, /ins. %9 h What if Presbyterians fhall borrow this argument from I him, and from thefe inihncesof not feparating from h a Church , notwitManding of great corruptions , 9 fhall plead for all pj^elTors in Scotland their adhering I to Presbyterian iViimirers and this Presbyterian H Church* a&ha\in%a#orfhipnotJubflantially corrupted, I whatever other perjonai faults, or corruptions they may behable untoj rhatyet they area true Church asta the main , and that therfore they ou^ht to be joyned with, as the Churches of Corinth and Galaiia( where- in there were #reat corruptions ) were full adhered ■ toby piofeflors What wilihefay inrhiscafe? I know II he willfay that its ridiculous forfuchapartyofSchif* I maticksto call our felves theChurch of Scotland. But 1 what if we return this anfwer to him again , that ac- a cording to the Reformation and principles of our v Church ( out of which Prelats were ejefted, vows i'. againft them nniverially taken on, and Presbyterial I government compleatly ferlcd therein) Jcs ridiculous 1 to cM a party of Prelats and their adherents the Church of 1) Scotland y or for them to ufurp her name , who have it thus overturned her Reformation. So that untill he , make good the above mentioned hypothefet orfuppo- I fiuons j viz. that Conformifls are the true organic^ Church it of Scotland t that this ourpra&ice is a feparation properly 0 fuch ; that its meerly becaujeof Conformifls perfonal faults ■ th^t we withdraw \ that we are under prior obligations t* A adhere unto Curat s with all their corruptions rather then our :i Presbyterian Miniflry and Churchy which is both free of 1 ux 16$ A Confutation of them and contending againft them > untill thefe ani fuch like fuppofnions be made good, his argument ** from the preceeding fcripturelnftances as to joyning with a Church that hath corruptions, is ameer petU- tio yrinapii > and will not help his caufein theleaft Which will be further evident ifweconfider in the £d place, that the cafe of thefe Churches and profef- fois therein was far from ours in relation tocorrup tions* For I. The Doctrinal ccrruptions o&zhmz* totheleoal Ceremonies > (by the bad influence of Judaizingtea- chcrs ) tho they were of a targe , yet the Informer will not prove they were cither cf fuch an univerfaJ fpread and tinclu;e,/ or ftrengthned by fucb an uni\erfaJ acknowledgment, as to make the (late [of that Church correfpond with his bypotbf/is in this argument. Z. That error in the Church of Corinth in relarion to the refurreclion , appears not to have been ow red hy their teachers and Church officers,far lefs publickly avowed and obftinatly andprefumptuoufiy maintaircd by them or any confiderable number of hearers > which makes their cafe wide from ours , wherein fd many preachers who call themfelves Paftours of this Churchj&manyotherSjObftinatly and avowedly main- tain our abjured corruptions; the Church of Corinth was in capacity to cenfure any handfull that owned thi« error ,& to purge 0114 this haven, but fo is not our Church in this cafe as to the mantainers of Prelacy and its other corruptions,fo that there is here no remedy but for the found part to keep themfelves pure from their conta- gious and deftroying courfe.The account of both thefc Churches in the point of corruptions, which is exhibit by Partus in bis Comment, wthe 1 Cr. is confiderable to this purpofe.upon the 1 2. verfe of the 1 5. chap, he tells- us that the A poftle 4ccufetb not tkem all, kutfome $nly% freeing the reft of this crime* He fit znim accufat $mr*s the fccond Dialogue 109 \\ed ejuofdam inter eoj4 Bjliquos igituraculpa lileyat. Nequc- • iffrtf* paucoyum cu'pt omnibus ejl imputanda. Therafter y\nc fhewes „ that iome do judge that this wzsHymcnaas ! „*n&Pbihtuss others, fome of the Jewifhs Saduccsor 1 >5 Heathen Philofophcrs who had inftilled this poyfori j7, about the refurreftion. Andalittleafreranfwering i Bellarmines cavill, [that becaufe of thefe Churches ,1 their corruption in do&rine , therefore pure doctrine is not the marke of a Church ] as the Churches of Co ffnth and Galatia were without the faith of the refurre- dtion, and found faith as to justification. Heanfweres by denying this aflertion. 'Nequeenim ( faith he) tot a Ecclefia Corintkioyum negabat refuyrectionis fidem : fed alt qui tantum , quos redarguebant alif. Idem de GaUts- rum Ecelefia fentiendum : qui necomms , nee tarn enprmittf crrabant in fundimento > nut ab ant fait em , utrum fides Cbrijii ad falutem fufficeret , ■ », dicit enim ibidem 3 ut & CoYintbys : modicum ferment i ferment at tot am mafftm JLr go ferment um%non cr at omnium fed alt quorum t ant um : d qtibus tarnen omnibus imminebat periculttm , qucd ^Apojlo* lus tent at ah cis avertere. ,> That is 1 th:s whole Church „ of Corinth denyed not the refurre&ion , but fome 3, only who were oppofed by others , the fame we ,,inufl judge of the Church of Galatia, whod'.dnei* ,,'therall, norfohainonfiy err in the foundation , but 3, by theperfuafion offalfe Apoftles were hefuaring, 3, whether tilt faith of Chrift was fufficient tofalva- 3,tion, or if the circumcifion was alfo ne^dfull , for „ he fayes in that fame place as alfo to the Corinthians, ,?a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Thcre- j, forethisleaven was not of them all butof fome only, 3, by whom notwithftandingall were in hazard, which 3, the Apoftie endeavours to prevent. The Dutch annot. upon the fame place [ Hew fay fome among you &c.]obferve >, that this error ^i j not common o:t^* f> whole Chunk) but effomt unly « hofe names aie not cxprefti no A Coufatation of ^expreft, as 2 Tim. 2. 17. mat by rtiamin£themhe 5, might not fright: them from converfion. And uoon ,> Gal 5. 9. they &ew that this little haven fpoken of, „ may be either underftoodof thefdfe doctrine it felf, ^ or f&e m^« who promoted this doftrine , who al- 35 though rhey were few yet did much hurt, " and „ therefore were to be efhewed. Now , how difpro* portioned for extent and infection , thefe corruptions were unto thefe of our Church about which our de* bate is, is obvious to the meaneft refle&ion, and con- fequently theLamenefsef our Informers (imilitudinary argument from the one to the other. Which will be yet further evident, ifweconfider. That $. He cannot make appear, that in any of thefe Churches there was a formal legal Judicial enacting au- thorising and commanding of thefe corruptions ,and en- deavours ured, to exclude and root out allwho would notfubmit to them, bv Barbarous violence and per- fection, particularly faithfull Mimftersforrcftifying againft the fame. Nor can he prove that adherence to thefe erroneous corrupters in their Wormip , was ap- pointed and enjoy ned as an exprefs Teft and badge of owning their errours , and renouncing the truth , and all the found party adhering thereto , which is fo cart- ing a difference, that it quite invalidate thefe Inftan- ces as to any argument againftour pra&ice , f>rrhis deftroying backfliding Innovating party of thisChurch have laid down courfes either toengadge to a formal owning of their corruptions tfpecully the faithful Vjjn'ftry of this land, or dfe to exterminat and root ihem out (3 all found pro fejTws, together ivitb theirTtftimony. In a word whatever concurence in duty thefe corrup- tions he mentions may be confident with, it is cer* tain that the found prof eflbrs were called tokeepthem- f elves free oj the contagion thereof by all means, and the Church was to ufe all endeavours t% purge out and rid her the third dialogue. i u iicr fclf ofthefe corruptions and corrupters too if obftinat, Paul wifhed they were cut cjf who troubled theChur- ;hesof Galatia,that iscenfur'd andlaid alideas rotten members who were in hazard to grangrene the whole aody* The Officers of the Church of Corinth are com-* •nanded to purgt out the old haven , fince a lUe would quickly Uavgnthc whole lump. And the Apoitle repre- hends them for not carting out theInceftuousmans& enjoynes the found profetforsin that Church to come out from among the unclean and be feparat , as they exfpe&to be received of God. And our Lord re- jprehends the Church of Pergamus for not carting out jthem that held the Dodtripe of Balaam , and the Ni- |coIaitans —and the Church ofT/;v^tfforiuffering jjezabelro feduce and infeft with fcandalpus errors and practices the Lords fcrvants. Now the fcope of ;thefe precepts will fay , that when the cafeisfocir- cumftantiatj that the Church and found part can have noaccefs for removing and ceniuringdeftroying cor- rupters 3 efpecrally- while by violence endeavouring (aft^r theyhave departed from a pureChurch her fworn Reformation and conftiturionj to force all ro a concur- rence with them , or exterminat the impolluted rem- nant>that this foun d Church ( I fay )are to keep themfel- ves free of their contagion , to follow their duty in op- pofition ro them , and mutually to firengthen on« another therein; which is enough to |uftifie our pra- ctice in this cafe. In like manner, the many com- mands of the Prophets toibftain from the pollutions of the time , and threatnings for acceffion theieto , will by proportion infer this our praftice mentioned , and that when a cafe is fuch that no concurrence can be had with Innovators in rheir worfnip without the ftain of their fin, and when they areperfecuting all that will not concur with them, a non-union and forbearance is xnoft neccflary. Had any corrupting treacherous prophets 2! m A Confutation of Prophets or others of the Church oflfraclinconcu rence with periecucmg Rulers, enafted unherfal co flyance with fume grofs corruptions , and ejected all t fasthfull non complying teachers pritfls or prophets , a, mitting none to official except theft corruptions ha been formally acknowledged t Let any fay what woul hav: been the faithfull prophets decifionin thscafe and whether upon the fame ground on which they f oft dehort from the lcaft complyance with any fin, the would not have allowed and commanded the fai h/ul prophets and members of that Church to oppofe the aod cleave unto their refpe&ive duties , and unto o another in th? following thereof* As for what ru adds 3 f h*t there was then no command tofeparat from tb fporfcip while it was not fub ft ant i ally corrupted. I won- der if fie will charge zcorrup ontfthe worrHp it felf , •; in the fub fiance thereof upon the duties now owned and performed by Presbyterian Minitters and profefiors. from wnom he notwithftanding thinks is duty to fepa- rat , fo chat untill he prove (as 1 faid) Conformifts their betrer claim to officiat as Minifters of this Church, then Presbyterian Minifters, this argument lights heavy on himfelf, andthe cenfures put upon Nova- tians and Donatiits falls upon their dividing and deflroy ing party. The cafe of thefe Schifmaticks being as far from ours as eaft from wefb A'ereNovatiansor Do- Batiftsfirftpft out by a violent backfiiding party for not concurring inacourfe ofbackiliding, in overtur- ning^ Churches fworn refo;mation> and were they enjoyed & cortamanded., toownethe courfe of thefe backflidcrsPIthink theDonatifts ScNovatians their vio- lence againft adherers to the union of the true Church, is a fit emblem of the prefent practice of Conformifts , how can this Man fay, that there were then greater corrupt tions then now. Can thzre be greater corruptions in go- vernment then a papacy of thebigheft degree, as is their prefent the third Dialogue 113 >.r:mKv and hierarchy ?, can there be greater coirupr *iom in practice ,-then perjury and fuch groile propha- lity ns Conformiftsare blotted with for thelmoit pait? greater corruption in principles? then Popijh Arninian E$ro;s &c, The Doubter obpfts, [that if we may notfeparat % oma corrupt Churchy what mean thefe fcripuire ^commands enjoyning reparation , fuch as 2 Cor. r5. 14, ^15 ,1^. iCor.5-n.2Thef 3.6 Rev.10.3 ] Wehave already faid that he deals deceitfully in making his Presbyterian Doubter afiert thac we may fepara: from a w.rufi Church in every ca^buz this weiay3thatin what* Ifevfci cafe , and in how farfocveri we cannot joyn with a corrupt Church Without rhe contagion and (lain of its corruptions , in fo far and in that cafe , a fepara* lien is neceHarVj and falls within the compaft of thefe fcriprure commands- And that in 1 his oui cafe, the de- manded conformity as to Piesbyterian JVIinifters and p-ofdibrs cannot beyeelded, without the ftain of pre;? latifts 1 heir fin, is above cleared. So that he needs not f el ] us here ■ that every corrupt ion is not kjuflic'unt g* zurA of \e partition. For we have heard our Informer at.kno w* ledge that a Church may be in that decree corrupted 7 as will raider a reparation warrantable, yea and nefejfary- I could wifhhe had condefcended upon tlmdegiee of corrup- tion , and fhowen us here the maximum qwd fie , & minimum faod non y as to the ground of this eparadon y and ho w far thefe corruptions may ilrike at a Churches vitals , and yet her life and eiTence as a Church fub- fift. And here I would clofe in alitle with this Man , and enquire, tha: fince a Churches corruptions will 'ifu'ith him) m fame cafes render a reparation necelTary, Jjupon what ground is it neceffary, and from wha* ptUff .{principle is rhis concluded ? fureitmuftbc upon this ground , left wnhntfnh that Church V on the fiul , and make us (hgrt in ht/ fm. £0 that in this (#fc , we are M m, no H4 A Confutation of not obliged to hold union and fellowfliip with her when it is infectious , as is molt clearly imported ia that command z Cor. 6> and if reparation be upon this ground allowed, whether the corruption be leffer or great- er , eatenus or in jo far , we are obliged to feparat , for lAi)Us . 1 1 . and 2 Theff. J. tf# hefayes> they are meant only of nee die fs fllowfhip in privat converfe with fcandalous perfons , hut allopes not to withdraw from the publicly worfhip becaujc of the pre fence of fuch fcandaleus ones9as if this did pollute the worJhip>t hough it may be the fault of Church guides not to keep them bacle^ Jnf. The ground here is the fame (and acknowled- ged by him) whatever be the withdrawing which is more the third Dialogue 7 » f more immediatly enjoy ned,vifc. U ft their fellow fhipprov* vontagiousi fcandalous $r in any meafurefinfully&C (o if fel- iowlhip with a Church in her Aflemblies be thus infe- ttious , thefe fcripturesdo enjoyn a (eparation upon the fame ground, and by neceffcry confequence from what he hath acknowleged: And therefore this anfwer is nothing to the purpofe , unlefs he will retrad his concefiion > that there may he irruptions in a Church and her afjemhlies , which will render * feparation nictffary* Next , as for what he adds , that ordinances are not polluted by the pre fence of fcandalous ones. It is not for him> nor againft us > fince he acknowledges, there may be a Law full yea nectffan feparat ion from a Church & her affcmblis in worfhip, tho not upon this ground of the ordinances their pollution by the pre fence of fcandalous ones : becaufe of the reafon which we have already heard ; and wedoalfo upon other grounds then this of a pre- 1 tended pollution of theordinances by their fcandalst 'maintain our difowning Conformifts in their fworlhip robe \ duty (as we have heard J even that they are for- cing ail to a iinfull complyance with them , in a fchif- matick departing fiotn the unity of this Church and penur ous overturning the work of reformation, and will neither buffer Mimfters nor profeffors to joyn with them in *o\ fliip,but with an cxprefs aknowledgemenc (in the intent of our Lawsjand owning of this defe&i» on. Sure we are commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks diford«rly , ( which our Informer pleads as a furficient ground ro difowne Presbyterian M ' ilten &u-ithdraw from them becaufe of theirfip- pofed difoiderand fchifm , tho the ordinances in their hands are nor polluted with their fuppofed guilt, | and from all fellowfhip with fcandalous brethren, which is contagious and may pollute us. Now, are not they walk^ ing dijorderl) & crofs to the doftrine> discipline, &Re- .torouuion of this Church? are they not confequently Mm % fchifraa* 1 1 6 A Confutation oi fchifmaticks ? arc nor theirfcandals infectious, when they will differ no Minifters to poffefs their charges , orofficiateither with, or without them, or people to enjoy ordinances among them,without dired own- ing their defection, and overturning ourReforma- tion, and a profefled fubmiffion to their abjur'd prela- cy, as is clear in the adts enjoyning Miniftersprea- » ching, and peoples hearing in conformity to prela- cy and the fupremacy. For that of Rev. 18. hefayes, thatitenjoymhafe- par Mtion from B^rnt's corrupt dcHrine and Idolatrous worship, \ut warrands ntt a feparation from a Church where nsfiich corruption is. I anfwer , The ground of the com- mand is the dangers/ InfeBion by Rome's fins, as is cxprefled in the text, which will confequently hold wherever this danger is, whatever be the the particu- lar fins from whence this danger flowes , for (as I faid) majus f£ minus non variant fpeciem ,and we may add,that other Known rule, a quatcnus ad cmne valet fequela. In whatever cafe an union is unwarrantable and infe- ftious i a proportioned feparation is upon this ground enjoyned. Nay,if the conjunction have but mah fpeciem or be indu&ive to fin only , the command of e'\'twtng> tvery appearance of evil! , will reach this withdrawing, unlefs the con junction be on other grounds an indifpcn- fiblc duty. Now our Covenant obligations , and our Reformation as itftocd eftablifhed being duely ponde- red , it will be clear that Conformifts are fchifmaticks and deftroying Innovators, and there is noprior obli- gation to joyn with them, but rather to difowne them in this courfe. Sure this man holds that fellowship mth Presbyterian Minifters in their ajjemblies for worship is contagion f , and that people are obliged to have > and come cut from them , tho he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor c&rrnpt ioBrine to their charge, and fo he muft acknow- ledge, that this and fuch like commands will war- rand the third Dialogue nj and a reparation upon the general ground here inti- nat , ab -trailing from that* ipecial cafe of Romes Ido- . itrous worfhip and corrupt do&rine. Its very fo- xhiftical reafoning from the denyall of the fpecial ground nd nature of Rome: contagion , from which chnilians [.re called to feparat , to deny afeparation upon any othtr \entagion to fall within the compafs of that precept, vhich is to reafon from the denyall of the fpcciesto the enyalofthegerw/. His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of sparation upon himfelf , and alledgcs [that we have >etter ground to charge Conformifts with fchifm be- aufe of their departing from the government of this Church, to which we are (till adhering a fo that they ave gone out from us, not we from them.] We •roved this charge already from the conftitution and Reformation of this Church as it ftood eftablifhed , ndour univerfal vows of adherence therunto/othac achas have overturned this work of Reformation , not Presbyterian government only) they are properly hefirjl dividers and defmtrs. But let us hear how he acquits himfelf of this harge. i. He fayes that\tkeir fubmiJfion\to prelacy is in obe* Hence to the commands of fuperior s > whom we are bound n m in things notfinfull , So that their obedience is duty , and 'resbyterians their nonfubrmjjion is dif obedience to authcri- t, and Schifme from the Church. But i. His Doub- •r alleadging that Prcsbyterial Government is the Government of thif Churchy and inferring thereupon hat departing from it is Schifm , and that Preiatifts ave gone out from Presbyterians , not they from hem 5 which is a very clear confequence j and will learly infer the departers to beSchifmaticks upon any efcription of Schifm which he can afligne; And more- ver5 this being the great ground upon which this lan and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Mm 3 Schifm lift A Confutation of Schifm, viz. That they are feparat from the prefix* Prelatic^conflitution , fince he offers no formal aniwer either to the antecedent or confequent of hisDoubters argument, what will the interpofed command of Ru lers fignify to alter the Nature of Schifm, or to make that pra&ice which hHaftenut upon Scripture grounds Schtfmatical^o be no Scbifm. This I muft fay is ftrange divinity 3 but like enough to that of thefe men who make the Magiftratc a Pope over the Church , her ordinances, and over facred Oaths and vows, x. We have proved that [their fubmiffion and obedi ence in this point, is a high rebellion againft God, in difowning at mens arbitrary command , the Go- vernment of his houfe appointed in his word, and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it, and againft which all the nations were engadged. So that ourpraftice is obedience to God, and a keeping of the union of Chrifts body, and theirs is both per- jury and Scbifm 2 . He tells us .that be bath proved in the fir ft conference E- pifcopacie to be the only Government left by Chriji » and pra- Hifed by bit ^ApofllesiSothat our dtf owning it it Schifm from the Scripture Church Government , and that of the prims $tve Church , as well at from them To this I only fay , that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for . appear to be a ftranger both to Scripture and antiqui- ty. Again he tells us, that in this charge of Schifm, bt means it net only or mainly inrefpeB of Government , but o, feparatingfrom their Affemblicsfor Worship , which is Scbifn tho the Government were wr on?. I anfwer i . If he ack nowledges thztfeparating from the Government is Scbifm why anfwers he not our countercharge that their part) didfirftfeparatfiom the Government of this Church , and tha thereforetbe Schifm lyesfirft and principally at their door, fo that which he fayes of the Nagiftatt command, is (a we have heard ) utterly infignificant to wipe of thi charge the third Dialogue If 9 ^charge, f . This charge of the firfi Schifincnbis pari .(landing good, for any thing he hath faid, that which jhe here adds of our being Schtjmaticks* becaufcofourfepa* I ration fro;?, their A ffemb lies for Worship, \$ likewife naught. ! For upon this ground of his Doubter , which he can- jnotdifprove, viz. That drey have made the firfi I breach and feparation, they are HaSenus Ubifmaticly, and | foare to be difown'd in their worship upon that veryac- €ount and ground, upon which he pleads fot difown- ing Presbyterians Aflemblies for Worihip tho he can lav nothing elfe to their charge, oralleadge any fubUntial eorrupti n of the worfhip. And fo the reco&cd cramLt which he here prefents to us again a- nent the Scribes and Pharifees , Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worihip, Zachariasand Elizabeth , Jofeph and Mary their not feparating there from &c. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian AfTemblies for Worihip (and much more ) then for him. Since he dare not fay that they are more cor- rupted then the Church of the \ews was at that time , and fo we may echo back his alas how will youjujlify thirfepa- rattonofyours, with an enquiry how he and his party will jufltfy their feparation from the true Miniflry of the Church $f Scotland) What if a party of corrupt Priefts andLe- vites had rifen up and purfued a courfe of defe&ion , tending to raze and mine all Gods ordinances, cart- ing out all fuch Priefts and Levites as would not con- curr with them , and had appointed an acknowledgment of and concurrence with their wicked defeBion , to be the only condition 'upon which they will admit either priefts or peo- ple to share sn the ordinances i In the mean time a great body of Priefts and people adhering to Gods ordinances* and contending aiainft themjhad been/keeping t heir pojfejfien oft be templeJVor- ship as long as they could? I dare refer to our Informer to give judgment in this cafe and fhew, what Simeon and Aana 3 Jofeph and Mary would haYC done , and to | M m 4 which (1*0 A Confutation of * which of the parties they would have adhered? And let our caufe bejudged by this. HisDoubter'inthe nextplace objc£ts[that Confor- miftslefture not?& therefore may not be heard, j Here he but trifles to ihfinuat that this is fblely lookt upon by us as a ground ofnotowning them.Butin fa far as in this our cafe its a piece of their apoftacy from our eftabhsht reformed Worrhip , and an expreife badge of conjgm.ity to prelacy, and in both thefe refpe&s , flat per- jury and crea~ b of Covenant , we look upon it as having it^ own influencewith other grounds to warrand a non ■ umontothem while {landing in a dated oppofition to iauvuiliYiiniftcrs mantaining, this with other pie- ces of our Reformation. To this objeftionoarFw former anfwers, i. That fiwe C infer mifts leftured ; andjit werejeparat from* And fo might ail of them be upon the fo; ementioned grounds s thus difowned andfe- \parat from, Akho they had keept a form of this, but I beleeve they are for figns and wonders# among them who keep the le&ure, or owne it at all.' Next hetclls-us, 53ofthe ancient reading of the Scripture .,, in the Jewifh Church, and of Mofesand the pro- 55phets in the Synagogues, A6ls 13. 1$, 27. and 5,15. 21. and likewife in the Chriftian Church. But what then ? who denies this , why , ,, they have „ (he tells us) the Scriptures publickly read in their " „ Churches. But I trow the reading is the better of txpuniing, and he] might have found, that „ the Levites «vNeh. 8. 8.) read the Law of God diftindt- ly , and gave the fenfe, and caufed the people under- ftand the reading ; Andhedaie not fay that the an- 1 cientpubJick reading of Scriptures among the Jews was by Gods appointment a dumb reading with - out exposition, Why gave God prophets and tedchti unto his Church if not for this end ? and faith comes mainly by hearing the Word preach 't. Why then grew the third Dialogue. i%i grew his reverend Fathers and their conforming Sons, fo angry with this Churches laudable pra&he d; jnving the fenfe together with the reading ( comprobat by thai ancient pKictife of the Jewiih Church , which he pretends ) fince othenvife the Text read ane ioo. times is {till like akernell under a hard fhell. Nay Lbut hefayes, if wefeparat upon this ground vc ^ would havefeparat from the Church in all ages. Sure not from that Church where the law was cxpon'd and its fenfe given, as well as read, befide that our non-union no our prclatick Innovators 3 ( or withdra- wing too lfhepleafc ) hath this as an appendix with other grounds , that Conformifts in withholding our 1 former lefture or expofitcry reading from the people , [and fubftituting a bare reading in its place, difcovcr themfelves to be teachers who are keeping clofe and not opening the feats of Gads bocl^y & are afraid that their hea- rers fhould learn too faft. In the jdpbce, he tells us a tedious ftorie, anent thedtfufefifourfirft authorise i method of Leiiuring, tthich Wat atfirft only to read one chapter in the old teftament and an- other of the New with brief explication of securing difficulties* but that thereafter we held With one chapter , then With apart of one y andraifed obfervations — m&ingii a short fermon % fothat its alt one tojeparat for this , as ttfeparatf$r shorter fermons , which are , cxteris paribus , thought better then a hng. Then he tells us further (to cloak this their la- zineis) that variety of purpofes at ehariiy retained^ and pro- cures a wearying, and that omthingputs out another Sec. But what fruidefs talkeisall this? If our Churches appointment was of this nature at nrft to open up difS- culties upon the reading, did fhe therefore intend to cut off the exercife of that gift anent practical obfer- vations, which is found in experience fo eminently edifying ashimfelf acknowledges in the next page, and the method of prtachingabrcad 3 to which method iii A Confutation of we arc beholden forfomeexcellentcommentaries upon the Scripture, which would probably have been by this time Intire through the whole bible according to the defign and mould projedted by the Reverend brethren and Minifters of this Church , If our Prelats lazy rea- ding tribe, had not invaded the pulpits of the Lords faithfull labourers. Again , fuppofe there was as to this method fome deviation from the firft appoint- ment, yetfince our Church gave a tacit approbation &univerfally ufed it,his cenfure is too critical&faucys befide , to plead from the variation in the pra&ice to a total difufe , is dull reafoningj and whatever the le&urewasat firft this is certain, that this univerfal pra&ice and eminently edifying piece of publick duty, owned by our Church , was prefently difufed and difcharged by prelats, and its difufe became one of the badges of conformity 9 and a part of their markjLpon their creatures , and therefore eattnus in all reafon it ought to have its own weight with other grounds > as to difowningthem, in their prefent; ftateand cir- cumftances. The experience of all the true feekers of God can difprove fufficiently what he adds, ofj tedious nauseating as the ifliie of variety ofpurfofts', va- riety rather taking off, then begetting tecfioufnefs whence the Scripture is compofed for this end of fucha fweet variety ofpurpofesand methods. His ftory of Pembosde firing to bear one Word tr fentence at once, and no more till after a long time, is calculat well to patronize a reading or non-preaching Miniftry ;but the many fcripture precepts given to cnriftians anent growth in Knowledge, and leaving the firft principles, and not to be alwayes children in underjlandin* > and likewife the fcripture precepts ftraitly charging and enjoyning Mi- nifters „ to be inftant in feafon and out of feafon prea- ching, exhorting with all long fuffering and doftrine, fufficiently difcovers the ridiculous tendency of this ftory. 4. He the third Dialogue 1 1 9 4. He tells us , „ that fuppofe it were a fault , every „ fault will not warrand reparation. We fay not that every fault , nay nor this limply confidered , will warrand feparation , but that this with many others prefumptuoufly maintained and avowed, will war- rand a non-union unto a fchifmarick party of Innova- tors deftroying and overturning a well reformed Church, and rooting out a faithfull remnant of ad- herers thereto. As for the want of the circumcifion and the pafiover for fometime in the \ewish Church , which he next pleads as that which did not cau[e afepawien, not to ftand upon the particular impediment of cir- cumci^on while in the wildernefs or an inquiry into what fpeciall lets might have had an influence (or a finfiill influence) upon the difufe of thepaflbver, yet Conformifts cafe , who are but zfcfofmatickjunfounl fart of this Church , reje&ingan approved ordinance and duty , in complyance with and fubferviency unto aperjurious courfe of defection , is fo far difcrepant from this , that any may fee the difparity. As for that of 1 Kings % 3. 22. „ That there was not holden „ fuch a paflbver ( as that of Jofiah ) from the dayes „ of the Judges that judged Ifracl , nor in all the „ dayes of the Kings oflfrael, nor of the Kings of Ju- dah. Its only fpoken comparativly in refpectofthe fpiritualityandfelemnity of that paflbver, and doth nor iuppofe ane abfolutc difufe of this ordinance through all that time. A learned Interpreter upon this paflage doth paraphrafe the verfe thus , „ that there was no „ pafiover celebratwithfo folemn care, great prepa- „ ration , and univerfal joy , the greater becaufe of „ their remembrance of their miferable times under „ Manafleh and Amon. ■ ■■ And that from the „ dayes of Samuel the laft of the Judges , as itsex- „exprefled 2 Chron. j<>. 18. None of the Kings „ had with fuch care prepared jthemfclves, thePreifts and t%4 A Confutation of 3,and offend at maintaining unity and peace , that this ra- 33 ther gives a good example , and to ly by from hear- „ ingConformifts for fear of offence of the weak , is 3, to omit duty and harden them in fin. Ans. The Informer offering this reply from the fenfe of that fcripturc generally hinted by his Doubter, feemsat firft view to reftrift the command of not giving oP fence , to thai which is in it felf finfull , wherin it mi ght eafily be made appear that he contradidts found Divi- nes , fcripture and himfelf. Efpecially the paffage to which the Doubter referrs being of a far other fenfe and fcope. But left this cenfure Ihould appear too Critical, and upon consideration of his fecond anfwer, Ifhall not medle with what he fayes here in thefi or this affertion in it felf confidered. But to the aflumption & application of this paffage in his aqfwer, I return to him this inftiort, that he doth but here (till beg the queftion in fuppofing that the owning of Curats is in this our cafe a 4uty and a maintaining of peace and order in the Chunk, wherof we have made the contrary appear: and the third Dialogue 1 27 and that maintaining the true union and peace of this Church , is to owne her true and faithfull Ambafla- dours, contending for her reformation , true order, and union againft their courfe of defe&ion : and fo this practice is both finfull in itfelf and fcandalous too- thers. His 2d Anfwerto this premifed argument of his Doubter is, „ That the Apoftle ordinarly when for- „ bidding to give offence, fpeaksof the ufe of liberty „ in things indifferent 5 that it muft not be ufedto „ the offence of the weak brother , left contrary „tohisconfciencehebe emboldned to fin , 1 Cor. 8. „ 10. Or be grieved becaufe he thinks we fin in „ doing what we fliould not, Rom. 14. if. Anf. We fhall not much ftand upon this, only we here fee that the lawfulnefs of a thing in it felf, will not (ac- cording to him ) Juftifyitin that cafe wheiein, ei- ther the weak is emboldncd to fin, grieved, or made more weak and his plerophory hindred. I And that the fincere enquirer for Truth may be con- firmed in this found pcrfuafion , and guarded againft what he after fubjoyns , I fhall here offer unto him thefenfe and Judgment of an eminent Father , and Reformed divine upon this point. Chryfoftotne upon Rom. 14. Homily 2 f. Expones all the Apoftles Ar- guments to the fame fcope, of the unlawfullnefs of offending the weak in things indifferent. Particularly upon verfe ij. Si nonfalvarefratrem (faith he) cut- pam hdket , id quod Ttamfifortif cfiet , tali cur a opmnon baberett nunc veto quia imbectllior cflmulta etiam €urandidiligentia opusbabct, that is, i£it be faulty not „ to favc oiy: brother , as the hider of the talent ma- »keth *i8 ACoofatattoriof „keth it evident : What will not even the giving of „Sfcatidal do. But you will lay, what if the weake be „ fcandalized by his own fault ? Upon the fame very „ ground it is juft that you beare with him. For if he ,,werc ftrong then hewould have no need,offuch care, ,, bacbecaufe he is weak he ftandsin need of much di- ligence for hiscure. In the next homily, he hath 3, many things upon the reft of the Apoftles argti- 5, merit to the fame urpole. Upon the 14. ver. I knotv nothing is unclean ofatfelf. He offers an ob't to the Apoftle for cleaving the words. Jjf/i tur non corrigis fratrem > ne putet aliquid immundum cjje ? Ut qmdnon i'lum ab ijla eonfuetudine omnibus vmbus abiacis „ Why do vounot with might and mam withdraw „ your brother from that opinion and pra&ice j a thing that our Informer and his fellows make no bones of as to diffentients. ) To this he aniwers in the Apo- ^ i tics name. Ver eor inquit , nemoerorcillmnafficiam unde f£fibdtt : Ver urn fi propter cibum fratertuur contriJiatttY , non jamficundum cbzritatem ambu las. Vtdesquo - 0 :ofami* hare)?, mtcrea y.bifacitt h fir mum Sudvorem . ofiendem tantams'diu* ratiencrn habere fe , ut ne mo?j turn redd at , e- tiamejutf vehement er eram mcejjaria , prce.ipcrtre non an- deat t Jed mdulgentia ilium **agis acdilxhone attrahat* Neque enttn pojiea quam vanu *> exemerat rmtum patenter ilium trahit autcogit , fid fin ifffitfs Dommum c;Je permit tit , „ that is. .} lam afraid leit I make him iad, and ,5 hence he fubjoins , but if thy brother be grieved „ with thy meat, now walkeft thou not charitablv.. 5, See how tenderly he deals with the infirme hearer, 5, fhewing that he hath (o great a regard to him , that 3, left he make him fad he dare not command thefc „ things that are mod nece:Tary, for he he doth not „ draw and force him after he hath taken away the 3,groundlefs fear, but permits him to be his own ,i A&fter: And upon the 1 Gor. 8 . v. 20. He hath many the third Dialogue. 119 3> things to tbepurpofe. On verfe 9* Non dixit quod U cent i* veflraoffendiculum ft jitqut cer to* ff ever avert t ne impudeniiores fcceret. Sedy inquh, lidete : timore ecs abclucft; & »cfacia;it prohibit Ef hen dixit fcientiaveftra^ fjuvd m n: SedUttntid quad \uli rhirt (J flnltiti* -> non dixit [run bus fed inftrrnis fratr'tbus^ut gravtus eosrOrcbrnderetquod ntqulinfufmis par- cum & maxirnef>\ziribus 3, That the Apofrle imputes 53 foli\ and pride unto them who offend the weak bre- ! 35threr.Upon the 10. verfe- the confcer ce of him than ,, is weak fball be emblodned to eat&c. He lliews ,) that she offender of the weak cannot 'charge the » guilt upon his weaknefs — tu tnim imbtcillionm facts duojunt qu tu auttn* neq> ei . \indulgezepattris. That is, 3) the offender makesthem 35 yet weaker , thattwo things render fuch as offend 3, them inexcusable , the one that they are weak, the ,3 other that they are brethren, and a third crime 3, may be added, which is rnoft horrid -.. — than 3, thourefufes fomuch astofpare thofejor whom 3, Chriftrefufed not even to dye. Upon12.verf.When ye fo fin againft thebrethren& wound their weakConfcience ye fin againft Chrift.He hath thefe words* quid hornhu inhumaynus cx'nVmari po* tefl^qui agrotum verier aitEtenim ornni plagagyavius [can- dali^are eft fiam (apznu*nero fs* mortem adfert. Et quomodo in Cb/ijturn peccant r Wno tjuidem mod 0 , quod qvafervorum \unt ipfe pro fcacripft. Altera cat em y quod in corpus ejus Ofsnemhrd faciunt qui ptrcutiwkt* Hertfo quod opus e;isy quod propria morte abfvlvit , u propria ^mhitione defiruunt. 5, What can be more i nhumane then 3, that man, Who beats one that is Gck? for to fcan* M dalize is more grievous then all ftrokes for it often- 3> times brings death. And how fin they againfb 3a ChriftrOneway, becaufe he takes tohitnfelf what N n eon- 1 3 o A Confutation of 33 concerns bis fervants; another way, becaufethey 33 wound his body and members 3 Thirdly , in that ,3 the work which he accomplice by his own death, ,i trey deftroy by their own ambition. Upon the laft verfe of the chapter j ?, If eating of flefh make my :, brother offend I will eat none while the World 5 iiands, He-faith, HocMagiflrioptimieJl officiumfoo exemp lo erudire qua dicit , ElKon dicttfive / ufte s five in» jufle: fid quGwoAocunque. Sednondico , inquit , Idoto- thjturn* quod $§ propter aliam caufam prohibetui ifedfi quod licet & pamhthur fcandal'i^at , etiam illisabflinebo^ neque una aut altera die , fed toto vita tempore*. Non tnim man* ducaboy inquit i carries in aternpm, Et non inquit , ne perdam fratrem : Sedfimp licit er > ut non Jcandali^em : That is , „ this is the duty of the moft excellent Ma- 3) ftertoinflruftwhathefayes by his own example. 5? And he faith not I will not eat whether juftly or :,, injuftly: Eur whatever way I will not. Asalfohe „ faith not that he will not eat of the Idolotby twhich 3, is forbidden for another caufe.But if that which is :, lawful and permitted give fcandal^ven from theft „ things I will abftain^ and not for a day or two> but ?3 during my whole life. For he faith I will not eat 33 fie& while the world Hands. And he faitb not left 33 1 fliould deftroy my brotherrBut limply leftlfhould j» offend him. And a little afterward having fhown, that what the Apoftle fpeaks belongs unto us . he faith 3 dicer eenim quid mihi curandum eft , fitllefcan* dalifatur, & Me per it ? Crudelitatis illtusatque inhuma- nitatiseft: ^Atquetuncquidemex eorum > qui fcandali- %abantur 3 infirmitateii contingebat, In nobis autem non itidem ; Talia namque peccata committimus , qua etiam fortes fcandah^ani : Nam cum percutimus , cum rapimus cum trahimur cupiditate $ & tanquamfeivis liberis abuti- nmr, nonne hatfiifficientiafunt adfcandali^andumlNeque mihi diuris ilium calceorumfutorem ejje^alterum Corearium Statu- the third Dialogue. I j r Statuariurnvero alium: Sedconjidera fidekmiUumeffe £? ratrem. Jllorum namquefumus dlfcipuli Pifcatorum, Publi- :otheraftatuemaker 3 but consider that he is faith- , full 3 and a Brother. For we are the Difciples of thofe fiihers 3 Publicans , and tentmakers. For ,Chrift was educat in a tradfmans houfe3& difdained ) not that his mother was betrothed to £ tradfman , ,andhimfelflay in a manger for his cradle, neither y found he where to lay his head : Was xvearyed with , his journey>and received maintainance from others. n which paffages 3 it is evident that Chryfoftome por: the great moral and Apoftolick grounds, of ths neak their intereftinChrift , his tendernefs of them , is dying for them* their fpiricual hazard while their onfcience is \vounded3their ! iberty inChrift, the cru- Ity and uncharitablenefs of offending them, demon- rates the haimifnefs of * & vehemently inveighes gainft this fin > and clearly ailerts with rhe Apoftie , jar the lawfulness ofthepradtice in irfelf , affords ot theleaft warrandfor doiegof that out of which, Nn i ftt iji A Confutation of feth , or whereby the weak brother it made more weak Next, Ifhal!o3erthefenfe of an eminent Reformed divine u .on this point. Partus upon this chap ter doth fully confirme our principles on this h^ad. Lee rhc Inforrmr read hi? analyfis of the chapter, where he will find him digeft the Apoftles reafons and arguments a- gainft the giving offence in matters lawful.and learnd- iy profecutes them in his exposition , which he will find to be fuch as do cut the finnews of the new and dangerous principles in this pointy which the Prela- txck formalifts do maintain . citing Chryf. in fome of thepafi^es mentioned. Which purpofe he alfo pro fecutes in his commentary upon Rom. 14. and if. Chap. Upon the 7. veffe anent the pollution of the weal cofifciencc y he fayes that this pollution is not jo much to bi imputed to themfelves,as unto thoje that did induce them u eat by their ill example. Upon the 9. verfe he fhew: that the lawfulness ofthvr praBtfe excufith not abufe inthv. cafe , calling fcandal, diBum velfaSum quo alius deteyioi redditur , citing Rom. 14. 21. Upon the 10 verf. h< fliews that the danger and guilt there pointed at, is tth iniucingofthe wea\ toimitat the praBice with a fluctuating confeience. Upon the 1 1. He fliews that the Apoftlc puts together agvTreging circumftances of this fin o: giving offence in things lawful viz. that we ought t< edify and not dejlroy by our kpowledzeMtzx. that the perfci fcanddW^td is our brother. 3 . %An irfirm brother, whom t wrong mujl be extreme malice > 4. Which is the greatef of all> that Chrijl hath dyed tor th e infirm brother. Th< fameherefumes upon the 12, verf. and explains th< fenfeof Chryfofh andBeza as to the wounding o the weak confeience* Upon the Apoftles cone 1 verf. ij- Hefhewes thathe expreffeth a yefoluthnc the fame nature and extent with that Rom. 14, 2T. v ^ not to do that whereby our brother flumbles, or is offended 0 is ma* the third D:alpgue^ I qn is made weak? Adding., idem- igi-AeMogcnuri rerum mediarum C licit -.rum , p on 'us in his ft liber late fua cefiurum, quzm ut fir at rem offeridat' Sh the/in ta ingerh qua ejl prefentrs loci doBrina prthis place.Thac in the enfeoff canSal we muft abftain ^from things lawful!', Becaufe then rhey become fins 33 and unlawful! by accident, yet by cur ' fault when 3, we guard not againft the offence of the weak, w! gwe can and ought to do. In the clofe he t the pApojik will have us in things lawful I notfimply to eye what is our right 3 but what charity and edification do require, I But nowiet us come to the aflumptfan i ea- rion of our Infoiinersconceffion , rot::: jueftion, ere there not many weak brethren who may be emboldeitioiin, or (may wefupnofe) con*- ch'Qinmefinfull^jf] hear Curats ? Suppofe the pra- ctice \ nil in it felf , what will cure this mala- dy ? Behold $£athlicon prefendv , V/e mufi hpmts (laith he) ■ ommand ofhnthorit y interpofi (J en- \o>n the thing In&fljfmnt jhen its no more in my liberty pro tanc.BecaH;c(forfSqth)la^irefir;Sledhy Authority >wmcb makes the thing riiceffiry. Anf. i . This ma n c haj iz.es a 5 peat defect upon the Apoftle Paul who in all his (courfes upon guard) offence in rhingsifl ' ferent3 makes no mention of this new cafe & knack, a - ncrit making the indifferent thing nccefiaryfiy the com ^ ifRjilers >andexeeming thus the giving of offence from g •But all along he pleads by many arguments in the pl.<- Nn 3 cu 134- A Confutation of ccs mentioned , that if the thing be indifferent* th cafe of offence makes it unlawful}. And all hisargu ments iiuhefe paffages, which do prefs the efhew ingof offence are moral and conftantly binding (anc confequcntly admit no fuch|reftri£ion as this J fuel as Chrifts tendernefsoftheweak , their redemptior purchafed by his blood, Chriftian liberty, the evill o my brothers doubting > whatsoever is not of faith h fin &c. And he moves objections againfthis doCt- line , fuchas, I have knowledge -3 I have faith _^— And fhall I be limited of my liberty, becaufe a»- therisweakbr wilfull &c. Such like- objections hi moves and anfwers, but of this exception and reftri &ion anew a command from Rulers altering the nature o the thing , and loofing all his arguments ih relation tc offence , the Apoftle mentions nothing. 2. This puts a blafphemous authority, upon the Magiftrat s we know the terrible interminations and threatnings thundered again ft giving offence, and dif- cgvenes of the dread full tendency thereof, wo to them by whom offence comes ; Agai n ^better U caft into thefea theft effend one of the little ones n » dejiroy not him , faith Paul (with thy oftenfive carriage) for whom Chriildyed. Now will znc Magiftrats command givemefufficient warrand andfecurity in and for a thing indifferent, tc dejiroy my brother, and will it lilt off Chrifts wo and make it lighter r hen a feather > which is more d read- full then to be caft into the feawitb a milftone tyed about ones neck. }. I would know if this Informer will deny that the Apoftolick precepts in relation to offence &fcandal, preffed with important and great motives in the pre- mised Scriptures ; aveofaneuniverf aland moral nature, and do reach and oblige aUt&atownethe proftjficn ofChri- fianity in their fever al relations and capacities. Thefe precepts founded upon the everlafting and conftantly binding the third Dialogue. o I3r binding grounds and motives of union , dutrity love to thebretbren (the great gofpel command )e:. tiotty the communion of Saints > ( tfie verjr bonds and K- gaments compacting and ftrengthnjng thrifts myfti- cal body ) none can deny to be of an univcrfal extent, snd to be among the grand rules of Chrift-'an pra&ice limiting and directing our carriage in whatever relation we Sand j whether Miniftersorpeq le rs or fervants, Parents or children fitc. Andtheftiperioar being under the obligation ofthefe ^reat rnle$(unlefs we will make God a refpe&er of perfons ) it neceffh- rilyfollowes that they do direii and limit him in tht exercife of his ptver , fo that this bein^ one P\eguli R?gu- lans as to all the Magiihat Laws s its mutt3 imagine that his counter-prafticeand Laws can Loofe himfelf or others from this divine fuperiour obliga- tion , unieiTe we will deieSehim and make his Law & practice the foveraign and fupreme rule in every point as well as in this. Whence it folio wes by necefTary confequence that the practice which is offen five, fcan- dalous, and deftru&ive ro our brother , in its pre- fent circurnftances,and upon the conftant unerring fcripturc grounds & rules, cannot be altered in ins preient quality and ftate by mens commands eroding the divineLaw.but remains a finfulfcandalous practice though a hundred Lawes enjoyn and authorize k. 4. Was not Pauls A poftolick declarator that evry thing fold in the shambles might be Lawfully eaten , as powerfull toexeem that attion of eating fucb things from the compafs of offence as the MagifiratsLaiv and authority} Sure he had atleaftas much* if nor more authority in this point, then the Magiftrat, efpecially as this Informer expones authority afterward from Ads i?.28« yet that fame praftice,Lawfulhnitfelf, and by the Apoftle declared to be fo , and accordingly enjoy ned and authorized bv him , mull not be ufed in N n 4 - *his i%6 A Confutation this cafe of the offence, even of the weak and ignorant, but the Apoftle bimfetf, though thus declaring and, I (mayl'fay) authoring thelawnefs of rhe practice, declares he wiU never ufe nor rake it up in this cafe of c. Ibefeechhim, was. no' rhe warrjntablinefs of this practice inicfelf by the Lorrlsword , declar- ing all things robe clean to the clean, and Panls A- pcftvjick declarator in i. , as valide to ren- derit, of i no. i Cerent , neceflaryro theufers, asthc command of our civil Rulers in relation to this pra- ctice under debate , and a lick more , he having; the , mind of Christ, and beinj; a Matter builder of rhe ^Churches* Yet the offending of the weak, ignorant yea orwdfull, will in his Jijgementcur fliorrthis liberty* and render the practice finfull upon that ground. Bu* moreover the inftance of the brazen fcr- pcntwill here bite «tndfting his caufe and argument to dear hi for it was an eminent type of Chrift, and refervedfand fure our Infrmtr will fav warrantably )?s a fignal monument of that rare typical cure of the peo- ple flung by the fierie ferpents in the wilderoefs * yet when the people were {tumbled, and ic became an occafion of their (Inning and committing idolatry, good Hezekiab brake it? called it Nchufhttn , and is commended for it by the Spirit of God. Now in this mans principles the interpofiug of authori:y for its prefe'fvation was fufrkient to keep itfrom being deftro^ed, though all Ifrael Ihould have been never fo much (tumbled, and enfnared ro Idolatry by it, but rhe keeping ofthis monument God would dif- penfe with in this weignty cafe. Sure that which rendred thd prefervation- of it highly provoking, and Heztkiahs breaking of ic commendable , was its (tumbling and enfnaring tendency and effedts, whatever authority 2nd afls might have interpofed formerly for its prefcrvation. Will the Informer fay that the third Dialogue* J 37 that Gideons ephod (which in his intention warmly defigndfora monument of that viftory ever tftflSLi-* diamtesj was lawfully preferved when it became thus enfnaring as the brazen Serpent , or that the preferva* tion ofic was lawfully authorized in this cafe ? furely he will not for fhame aff&t th island To the cafc is here; and he may fee in thefeinftances (ifhiseyebefL: that a practice though in it feif lawful i or indifferent, 5 e,when become offenfive in its prefent circumftance • andindudkive to fin , cannot ia that cafe bef$n warrantable by any Laws of tne Magiftrat. Finally, our I in this afimjori cpfleth f Divines; and Cafuifts cS well a< tfre ;, yea and fights with himfelf. For we have bfcard from C fiom and Parens ( tvho are herein accorded by all our writersPthat the action which is in its ptefeut ihte and circumftance, fcandahus , is, while doatfeed with thefe Circumftances, nccejjarilyevill, anduj weighty grounds [evenly pro'* bittd t y * God in the Scriptures forecited. So that no power and JL xtoi men o/can remove thefe/b-/;. nchif ji.nes. Next, :he great ground r.nd rule anent afcan- dalc usa&ion , and uponwrhicfa the fcriprure motives . againft it are grounded , is [the {late , condition and freedom of the i it bt kindred in its pi ere* fbory 5 emb&ldned to jutye without ground , andtheper- fen hindred to a& In faith, or induced to ati againjl /f&C. So that toaflertthat theMagifti ats command can inva~ Iddt the fe grounds and principles,Jarid render the aftion not fmtdalous which isfucb other mi ft , is to give him a Dominion overt}:* confctcnct > and fubjedl itinmediatl? and abfelutly to his Laws? which is a principle difown- ed by all Proteftants. Moreover the lnformerfi\mk\£ defines the offence ofthe weak brother in things indifferent, an emboldning him to fin contrary to his con- fame, crPojudye $kat tpefawben we fa not* citing i "?*"" Nn 5 Cor. x 3 8 A Confutation of Cor. 3. Rom* 14. Now ifthea&ionbe upon this ground & principle neceftanly finfull initsprefentcircumftan- ces, how (Ipray) can the Magiftrats command render l it no: dnly \JMf*ll , bmneceffary , as he is bold to af- J1 fert. Can the Magi ft rat by his Law embolden a mans l confidence to fin, and yet neither the Magiftrat fin j himfelf , nor the man fin in obiying him '- Amefius a better Cafuiii: then he will tell him (deConfc. lib. 5. cap. y II- QPefc* 6* /^. 6. )that nulla author itas humanawel totter? potcft fiamali rationsm , abzoquod alius ejjst jcanialum , vet peccati ratiomm a fzandalo dato. t Tnatis, 5) no _,, humane authority can take away the nature of (can- 1 53 dal from th:t which otherwife were a fcandal , or | 9, the nature and caufe of fin ftom fcandal given. And his ground is very confiderable> which doth; confirms what I have now faid; Sulfas cnim homo (faith he) pot eft vti chart t ati & confeievitiis noftris imp cr are, v el peri* culum fcaniali dati pr aft are. That is , ,, for no man ,3 can put imperious commands either upon charity „ or our confeiences > orexeemfroro the hazard of 3i fcandal given. But now to fortify this raw 8: ignorant affertion as to fcandal, our Informer brings A£h 15. 28 .~-*tbe]ene- cejpf? things —from which words of the councils fentencejiedrawesaoeargumentthus, that though of themfdves tb cj were not neceftary , batfomtimes indifferent , yet by the Authority of the council they were made necttfary for the good 0} the Church , (o[he [dyes] obedience to autho- rity preponderate the not giving offence y as the greater duty oj the two, as divines and Cafuifts shew , ani tn this cafe the man who thus obeyes gives no offence, but doth duty , and if any take it, its cauftlefs on his part, and occaftoned through the brothers weaknefs, fo that its fcandalum acceptum non datum ./groundlefty takenbut not given , and when the Apo- f tie forbids to up , our liberty to the offence of the Weal{> he Jleakf to tbofi who were not determined by Authority. Anf. What the Third Dialogued 1 3 9 What poor ignorant and incoherent reafoning is this, !♦ Itsa ftrange fottifhior rather popiih Affertion, that the necefiary things Acts. 1 5. 2S. were made fo by the councils' authority: For the text is moft exprefs , that the Apoftles enjoyned this upon wei -ihty fcripture- . grounds, and what Cetmed good to the holy gboft ( ' king in the word) as well as to them, to that the] ghofts grounds and commp: the main- taining of love, andunionin the Church,, and the great rule of edification, and?: vca^ \e:vs , were the great and (landing Scnptw e principles upon which this decree was grounded* Now to (hew how our Inforrftr :?,!'es tbe papifls here by the hand in this gloflejec us hear Calvine upon the place-- [prater hac ntctffaria ] MujusvGcis pretext* fii- perbe triumphant Papifia , quafi horninibus liceatferr sieges qua neccjfitatem conjeientiis tmpona nt — quia quod decermunt , Apjftoli necefTariofcrvandwn efie pronuntiant ft. e. t> the Papifts triumph proudly upon pretext ofihis ,5 this place, as if men might make Laws impofinga ,, neceffity uponConfcienccsbecaufe wfraYthe Apo- 3, files decree > theyaffirme, rnuftbe neceflar "yV „ ■ ■ ■■ Then he adds 3 atquiexpedita&c. „ But the 33 Anfwcr is eafy tofuch a fooliih cavil(fo hecenfti! es 3, our New Cafuift and his fellowes in this point) for 33 this neceffity was no longer vigenttben there was 3, hazard of diflbiving union , fo to fpeak properly it 33 was an accidental or extrinfick neceffity, which had 3 j place not in the thing it felf, but in guarding of of- 3, fence — which[faith he) is evident in the fpeedy lay- 3, ingafide of this decree. Then he tells us, that when 3, the contention ceafed ----- Paul fnewes that no- 3, thing is unclean , and again eitablifhes this liberty >> Rom. 14:14. And commands to eat freely what j, ever is fold* Adding3that the papifts in vain do inatch an occaficn to bind conferences from thisword and i4o A Confutation of „ and to conclude the Churches power to ftatute any „ thing befide the wo^d ofGcd. Telling us farther, ,3 tbatfroni the word of God the Council d 3, ground of exerting chanty in matters indifferent. ,, Then (faith he) in fumma , the fumrn is , if eharicji „ be the bond of perfection, and the end of the Lawi ,, if Gods cofnmand be that the faithfu)! ftudy mutual ,, unity and concord , and that every one p^eafe his „ nighbour to edification, none is fo rude who may ,, not perceive, that what the Apoftles h nan* ,, dediscontaindinthewordofGod. -«■ - * And at theclofehetcllsusi Apftofosex verbiDcifini s me egredi. ■ .■ :>That the Apoftles would not ftep >, beyond the limits of the word of God. But 2. This mans Babylonifh tongue Hill wounds himfelf a« well as the truth, fori* heacknowle^eth that what the Apoftles here decreed, was forth. Gcod of the Church 1 which (if he underftand any thin g ) he mutt needs take it according to the gro. In this Uifquiiicion , fpecially that which th James propofes immediatly before his and \ ths Apoftiee decifion verf. 21. viz. that Mi tvery ciiyytbem that teach himMing read every $ So that itwas needful] at th-it time upon the groi of chanty, union, and ardiftcanon , tobea weak yzws in abftaning from thefe. things charged by Gods Law, till the ceremonies were ho- nourablyburyed* Henceit followes clearly chat this abftinence was made jitctfjdrj upon thefe weighty grounds at this time , and not by the authority of the council only. Neither was the matter enjoy nd,of a thingindifferent, madeneceflfory, by their determina- tion , but upon thefe grounds , and for the great end of ihzCburcbes good, whichhe mentions , this abft> nence was at this time , and in this cafe neceffary ; And by the Apoftles declared to be fo upon divine warrand lot the third Dialogue 1 4 T for what elfc will he make of that exprf ffioiii Ufeenvi gooi t o the Holy ghbft. Again, Poland the other A- poliles had no power but to edification , nor any demi- nion over the faith of Gods people, and fo a^ted nothin 5 here pro afpitrio or imperio. So that their (entence , was only a declarator of Gods niiiiLcjnent that which was antecedaneoufly to their itozz hi.: '& mnc a neceffary duty, although we deny not that the A po- tties delation was to have its own weight in deterrni- ches obedience, a. He brings this paG- o prove that obedience to authority will pr 1. „ queft 3, Refp. n 2. tells us, that, in ornni fcandah necefie ejt utfit aliquod peccatum , in every fcandal of ne- ceifny there is fome guilt , becaufe it hath a ten- dency to the fpiritual hurt and detriment of our neigh- the feCond Dialogue* 14? bour* And defcribing pajjivs [caudal f which is without fin upon the givers part , he fayes that this falls out, cumfatlumunm , eft aheri ccoafio pcccandi > prater intentionemfacientis , & conditio?iemfatli , that is j, when the tztlof one is the occafion of anothers fin- ning, befile the intention of the doer,and the con- dition of the deed it felf. He draws not his de- fcription from the intention of the doer only , but from the condition of the deed it felf, which if tending to the fpintual hurt of our neighbour, is ftill an active fcan- dal , and no auchoriry of men can alter itsnatuf or remove its guilt , as we heard him before afiert* "Mt Durham on /caudal 3 part. I, chap I. defcribetb. fcandal, that ittaken only or paffive offence, that it is fuchwhen no occafion is given3butwhen a man doeth that which is not only lawful, but necejfary > exempli- fying this by the Pharifees carping at Chrifts anions Matth. 15: 12. and by that of Prov. 4. IP. where the wicked are faid to Humble at they know not what. Thus clearly averting that the lawfulnefs of the pra- ctice, will not wholly lay the guilt on him that ta- kes offence, tinlefle it be alfo necelTary. 4- The Informer cannot deny , that this necejjity of the a&ion, mult be evinced from clear Scripture commands and cannot be rationally inferred either from the afertion cfthepra&ifer , or the commands of the Magiftrat limply, or any fuppofed Ecclefiaftic!^ canon , fince this would evert the Apo files reafoning on this head. So that he is obleidged to evince the necefiityofthis practice controverted from other grounds then he hath men- tioned* or this charge ftands good againft him, ef- fpecially fince fas we have faid ) the Apoftles in- junction which he mentions as to the free ufe of me- ats , was a greater authoritative determination 5 then any which he now alledges to render the practice ne- celTary 1 4 4 A Confutation of ceflary. And if a pra&ice lawful in it felf, and corroborated by ane A poftolick precept enjoyning it, could noc be lawful in the cafe of offence 3 farre feflc can the conftitutions be mentions make th'S practice lawful in fuch a cafe. So that our Argument, a Scandalo , {lands good againft him upon this point , in anfw^r to which he hath brought no- thing bur what is contrary to Scripture, cafuifts,.yea andhimfelf. The charge which he after exhibites againft us > of ere3i;ig ftparat meetings in the houfcs and fields _■.!■■■ and of our being Schijmatichj if tier the l Church bad aw, we let pafs a- niongthe reft of this mans petulant afiertions , the grouuds \\ hereof wc have examined and confuted. The people of God in obedience to CLrifts faithful! Ainbatfadours (by Prelats perjurious violence thruft frora their watcruower«) affembling to hear the great Shepherds voice>eredno/^er^w^/^gj,but keep the aGemblies of *W/CWcZ? driven by them to a wilder- nefsj whereof (if the Lord open not his and the reft cf his tribe their eyes ) they will bear the fin and pu- niftunent for ever. The Doubter objeft next, [ Chrifts preaching in privathoufes and fields, and peoples hearing theiein, inferring that fo likewife may we. ] This argument our Jnfirmer ( according to his ufual candor) difgui- fes, we fay not that in afetled peaceable ftate of the Church, [Miniftcis m3y preach and people hear in this manner » but upon f uppofel ofjthis Churches diflurbed ftrftcuteccnditicnby a party of prevailing backfiiders j Minifters preaching and peoples hearing , is warran- table upon the formentioned grounds; both Mini- fters (upon whom our Prekts hands have been verj heavy of along time, yea (I may fay ) their lith finger thicker then their predeceijours loins, j ad the third Dialogue. 14 ? ftersandjpeoplebeinpin this broken deftroyd ftatt- »f ourChurch chafed, hiraffed , and •enyed^l. orJi- narypbees appointed for divine wofffifr, nav fence any place of r.e'idence in their mriv- land fr e from rhe fulmhtadc hur dei boTtsof Prelaw mad rsge. Bin what fayes he to this argument, hettlsus I- That tboCbriii breackei thus , v tit wa\ not to feparat from the Jetrifty {burcb , nor did be dijotvntthe bearivgo* their /eachtrs y va% allowed to bear Scntes and Phari 'ees with a (frgvi'o ) to bevare of their haven * ■■■ ■> ■ ■ that bt fent thoft u ho were miraeuUu f?v he aid to the Priejis , find did not hid dif- vwne tbem. Anf. I. Whatever be concluded as to {Thrifts difowning, or feperatingth? people from he teachers of the Church of the J^s attha-rime (wher~ in the hrjomer harh offered nothing which will a- mount to a dcmonftr2tion ofwh;t heaffirmeSt and his aflcrtion cho grimed will not forrify the concluflon he • jaimesat) vet this is certain and undenyable , (and in fo fir his Doubters parallel argument francs inviolable igainiihim;viz.rb t our bleffedLord preachr after this m-nrer which he condemns. Since h? condemns in mherfurnSz fimplv Presbyterian A4inifters preaching, ind peoples hearing themin this manner, abstracting "romthe fiifownirg of Curatsand their Mmift y, fo bat this anfwer meets not the objection as levelled a- ;ainft his principle*. And he cannot deny but thar in bfaras Chriftand his Apofties weie owned , their Tdinary Jew^fh teachers were feparat from and dif- wned, bur he condemns all owning of Rresb) ter an vlinifters., and vvi hdrawin^ from Curats, asingr^ind cbiftfi and finfull fepa^acion. This anfwer is fhe nore forcible , if it be c^nh'dered that our Loidhad btrrv of their Synagogues torieahin-. \et hefre- uenrlylefc tbem, and preacrt in p.iv r houfes and n the fields, and theefere P esbuenan M;niiters lay ufe this liberty ^ whom (ma pciceof crueity be- O o yond J+6 A Confutation of yond that of the Scribes and Pharifees toChriftJ they have bamfli'c from pulpits. 2, As for our Lord* not putting people to feparat from that Church o; the tea- chers thereof, we have already fhovn how far ic is from his purpofe, and whata wide confequenceic is, iromanon-feparation from the Jewifh Church, and teachers tho corrupt , ( while that legal difpenfation ftood, ivhich was fhortly to be removed, and the Gofpel Miniftry erefledin its place) and from our Lords tollerance thereof as Gods ancient Miniftry » though now corrupt, to which h« was to put an ho- nourable clofe , to conclude that a people aretodif- owne a faithful! Gofpell Miniftry and Church, in complyance with a number of deftroying Innovators ejecting them , and razing a fworn Reformation , which all that Church are bound to defend. This is fuch a palpable inconfequence, as any may upon firft viewdifcoverit. $. There was (befidewfutis faid)- this reafon in fpecial , wherefore our Lord would not have the Jewifh Miniftry at firft univerfally left, becaufehe cameasaMinifter of the circumdiion to confirm the promifes made to the fathers > he was to cometo the temple as the Kings Son and Lord of all the Prophers who went before him , the Law being to go forth from Zion, and the word from Jerufa* lem, Jefus came firft to his own* Therefore the Je w- ifli Miniftery and teaching, was to ftand for a time to make this apparent , and as Chrifts great witnefs for his authority , and the Do&nne of the gofpel , ei- ther for their convi&ion or conversion; hence bt*p~ ptald unto the Scriptures which they heard day ly read , and preacht , Search the Scriptures fw they ttfltfy ofmc* A nd when he en joynd the healed leper to go and flie w h:mfelf to thePrieft, it was to offer the Sacrifice which Mofes commanded for a tefiim^ny unto them. Soumtomakc the fubftituting of the Gofpel to the legal the third dialogm i 147 ! leeal difp^nfation and ordinances apparent, and its i Miniftry to the jewifh Miniftry and Pricfthood , to which Chrifts death and refurre&ion only w vs to put a final period 3 it was neceffary it (houldbe own'd in feme meafure. And Chrift could not wholly dif- I ownek without flopping a great part of his mediatory fulfilling of all righteoufn^fs* for he was as head of the circumcifedpeoplea and as of the feed of Abraham according to the flefh , to obey the Judicial and cere- monial Law , and therefore he duely attended the pafTover and all the folemn feafts, which could noc fubfiftin their exercife , withoutthe ftandingof fhae old Minifhyj Now how far this is from our Queftion* and inferring the owning of Curats in our care 1 is ob- vious co the meancft capacity. What he fayes of hear- ing the Scribes and Pharifees, is already" anfwe'red* Buc now this Infirmer will offer fome fpccial reafons ofChrifts preaching afccr this manner , to cut ihorc our argument here; thefirftis, Becaufcbeuw toh:niin Me D)Bnne of tbsgvfptl^nd preach himfelfthe true Me/Jiab, which w J-f medfuil ft he dine , and beciufe of the opieption oj hit doSrine by the Jettrifh teachers. Anf. i4 Altho he was to bring in the do&rine of the Gofpel into the vo-ld , yet as he was fent firft and immediacy to the loftfeeep ofthehoufeof Ifrael , and to exercife hi* Mini dry toward them mainly ( upon which eroundac his firft fending forth the Difciples , he commanded them to goto thefe loft fheep, not in the way of the gentiles; fo he had the fynagogues and Temple to preach in, and frequently did fo ; and yet notwith- ftanding went to the fields with great multitudes, and to other places then thefe appointed for their or- dinary and publick Worflib \ and therefore Presby- terian Mimftersrnaydothelike, who are denyedour Conformifts Synagogues or ordinary places of Wor- Qiip, they being upon ftnpbittftc grounds obliged Oo 2 ' (af. J48 A Confutation of (as our bleffed Lord was) to officiat and beftirrc themfelves in the exercifeof their Miniftry. And therefore. 2* Since he reafons from the neaffity of the Work which Chrift was about 5 and the oppofi* tion which he met with therein from bts enemies , thefe famegrounds pleads ftronglyforPresbyteiianMinifters officiating in the manner contravened > becaufe the preaching of the gofpel by thrifts faithfull Ambafia* dours 3 was never more neceffarj , and never met with^r^er cppofition from its enemies; and there- fore upon bis own grounds it followes \ that Mmifters ought to embrace all occafions of preaching and in any place where they can have accede* Sure he dare rot reftritt thcneceffity of thewor^ and the persecution, from which he infers the Lawfulnefs of preaching after that manner, to that particular neceffi 'ty and perfecution at- tending the firft planting of the gofpel, or affirm that thefe grounds may never again recur for legitimating of this practice , fince thus he would condemn out firft Reformers. Come we to the 2d Reafon which is this, Chrift was head of his whole Church > and was not to be limit tntbe man- ner of bis Minijlryas ordinary teachers , tut might preach where and when be plea fed 9 (ince all belonged to hts Mttiiflry, And that none will fay that he is paflor oft he wholeChurcbJtut the Pope , nor can any meer Man do what Chrift did in evt n thing. But our meetings (he fayes^ areindtjpiteofthe Law , and we adddifobediencetoourfchifm. Ans. I. We lball eafily acknowledge that all Chriftsa&ions a e not imirable, fuch as thofeof divine power, as woiking of Miracles , and the a&ions of divine prerogative, as the taking of theafs without the owners liberty, the a<3ing« of his fpecial Mediatory prerogative y fuch as the enditingofthefciipturesi giving of his fpirit, laying down his life , inftituting Church officers y Col. f* j*f Job. 10. 15. Mat. 28. 18,19. Thefe arc not imi- tabie the tlitrd Dialogued i 4§ table i nor ye t fuch a&ions as were mecrly oceafonaf 3 Pj depending upon circumftances of time and place, as the unleavened bread , the time, and fuch like circum- jftances of his flipper. But we fay there are a&ions I imitable , asi. m general Chrifts exercife of graces, 8 which have conftant and moral grounds , and are com- , mended to Chriftians for their imitation, every chri- ftians life (as fuch) ought to bean imitation of him the precious mirrour of grace, Mat. Ii. 29, Learn of me for lam meek. Sec. Eph. 5. 2. Walk in love asChrift alfo hath loved us. Joh. 13.15. I have given you aa example thar ye ftiould doe as I have done. The chriftian muft walk as he walked. 1. Joh. 2. i, 2. In particular} Aftions on Moral grounds, flowing from the relations wherein Chrift flood , do oblige , and are examplary unto, thofe that are under fuch relations , viz. Chrifts fubjeftion and obedience to his parents, and paying tribute to cefar , do exemplify children and fubjefts their duty as in that capacity > fo his Minifte- rial aBs and faithfull diligence therein , do exemplify Minifters duty. Now the queftion is , as to this man- ner of Chi ills preaching in this cafe, that is , not in the ordinary and authorized affemblies of that Church but in the fields, and in houfes, whether the grounds of it will not fometimts recur, and oblige ordinary Miniflers ? for its ratio exempli we are to look unto, rather then the meer circumftances of rhe Individual ail , as Cbamier tells us,Tom.$.lib.i7.dt]€iunys' And for evincing this in our cafe our Informers own anfwer is fufficicnt , if we {hall but fuppofe(which neither our Informer nor any o£ his fellows have ever been able to difprove) that Pref- byterian Minifters are under a relation to this Church as her true Paftors, and under the obligation of our Lords commands to officiat accordingly. His grounds, are the neceflltj of the wor^ and the bitter perfection of Oo 3 Chrifts iy° A Coufutation of Chrifis enemies y both which grounds areftill vigent in relation to Presbyterian Minifters as is faid. For what he adds •/ Chrifis aBingthtsas bead of bis "Church, and not limit in theextrcife of his Miniftrv , nificant here. For i. every piece of Chrifts Miniftry , his very teaching , and teaching in the temple , was as meffenger of the Covenant , who was to come unto that temple , and in the capa- city of head of his Church, yet are examplary for Minifters duties according to their meafure. 2. He dare not fay , that our Lords preaching after the man- ner inftanced in the objeftion of his Doubter, or his preaching while fleeing from persecutors * was meer- ty founded upon this ground, and did flow from no other caufe and principle but this viz. that he was no: limited in the way and exercife of his Miniftry, for he hath already afiigned other Reafons of this, viz. the neceffity of the work , and his ■pcrfecmim {imply confide- red, fo that if he ftiould aflert this, his 2 anfwer would contradict his firft : and befides , he will not deny > butthatfuchas were not heads of the CKurch . » and who were in an ordinary peacefull ftate thereof? limited in the exercife of their Miniftry , did preach aher this manner , for the officers of the Church of Jerufalem Afts. 8. in that fcattering and perfecution , went every where preaching the gofpel. So did our firft Reformers (not to ftand upon that moral precept given to the Apoftles, who were not heads of the Church, viz. when they perfecut you in one city flee to another)and the Informer will not fay that they were not to carry the gofpel- meflage with them in this flight Now that which thofe who were not heads of the Church, but Minifters, yea and ordinary Vinifters have done the parallel of and warranrably , Purely that Chrift did not upon any extraordinary ground now ex- -*> * ■ pired the third Dialogue. \$* 'pired: But fuch is this way of preaching, Ergo&c; ! In a word as its eafily granted that ordinary Minifters | are fixt and limit to their charges in a fetled itate of the ! Church , fo he dare no: deny , thai a Churches diftur* i bed persecute condition will warrand their unfixt offi- dating upon the groundsalready given ; and he fhouM know that others then the Pope were unherfal pa flours t and even in aSuexcrcito, of the whole Church* viz* the Apoftlesashirriielfacknowledged,norcanhedeny that ordinary Minifters are in aBu promo reteted to the whole Church, as her Minifters given to her by Chrift, and fit in her. As for what he adds of our meetings , th«tthtjan againfxthe Law, ifte knowes that all the Jews appointed that any who owned Chrift, Ihcald beexcorr.mranica-. From the violence andperfecu« tion 'fwhichLaw, hi mfelf infers our Lords, offi- cisting tn the manner contraverted , and he can ea* fily make the application to our cafe* and anfwer bimfe'f. The Doubter thinksithard [ tobehindred by the Law f om hearing the word of God and other parts of worlhip* or :h^ Minifters be hindered to preach, it bring better to obey God then men. ] Heanfwers !♦ that the Law allowes and commands'us to hear the word pre- acht in our own congregations in purity , and defends it 0 which' fs a great mercy , and that its better to worship God purely with the Laws allowance then in away contrary to it. A ■ s, i. Granting that the Law did allow fome to preach faithfully what faith this for their robbing fo many thoufands of the Lords people, of the Miniftry of(ome hundreds of fauhfull Minifters? will a piece of the Rulers duty in one point excufe ^heir fin in twenty others , and loofc the people from their obli- gation to duty towards Chrifts Ambaffadours ? This is new divinity. 2,. The law allowes none to preach (in the manner he pleads for ) but with a blotc of per- O04 jury i y a A Confutation of jury in taking on the P-tUt> marl^, and complying i w ha pcrjuiious courfe of defe&ion, and allpwefU lion, lodehver their meda^e faithfully in relation tcf? ei h~r the Cns or duties of the.time, which is fa: fiorra( ail ) \'\ ^to picach in puricy , and in this cafe we muftj,: f, her cohere coChnfts faichfull fhepherds lippri MU I command, tho croG Co mens Law, thcnfoliowbiindff vnf ichf.i:l *,uidet in obedi-iice thereunto* and thu| ip n hiriameground of Adts 4. 19 which hemen-c tio »s 0 i$d h' f .yes , hat *nfwer f the Apoft] s will no way. quzirt win ourcjjc, why fo ?. I. Becau'e he tAptflUl 5 h>4 an vnmebat extraordinary cS Jrom Cbriji to preach \ & h*s namt 3 andfo were mt to be difebargtd by any power ; 0 .irtb. , cm, ioyed about" the great goipel mcf-age , clo.i 'he'd witn his authority, and under the ojliga fon ofChrilts command^ lying upon them.] Jso v will not this qyadrat with our cafe as to the (ubr Itance of thif anfw er , dare he fay , that 1 he Magifi *ts L ..wscanexau&orata Mirifterof he ^otpel , or take av. av thar minifterial authority which he received fr« m Chrift, might not thus trie miniftry be put out ofth wo. Id? Larehedeny that heis a mini,;et fill notwithstanding ofthci avs reftrainr , and Handing under a minifterial Relation to the Church , as the Apoftles Were , and under commands and obi nations consequently in order ?o the cx-rcife of the miniftry ? Can the Rulers me^r prohibition loofe either minitters the x relation paftoral* or the obligations flowing therefrom t 2. Altho the third Dialogue. iff 1. A-Uho the call of the Ar-ovkles was imm ediatand xtraordimr/ , yer this will not prove that then anf- ver wi'.lncr fuitetbe ordinary and mediae callinfuch x caf ? s th "ts \ wh -n a rm niftcr is under a legal prohi- Mno.i tap*eieh: for firuS wedo not find thatthe ^ jo. tie did -lead their txtydordinzry or immediatcall nanhoronly lfat all in this cafe , but ttieir mini* t t a goCpt?l call andmeffage qua talis 9 the authority )fr e on: , and the weight and importance of the Mhcr , in relation to all Mmifters, are conitant moral iro nds eirin' t ae conclufion of the fame duty and ipolog} as coth m: fincerhe fubftance of this Apo- in k ar)olrzy Iv^s in this, that th-v were Charts Mmifters, dpxhdd with his com million to preach he^oipel, vh.cn ary faithf.ll Minifter may plead in u haca£c« 2. fho.th.ir call was immediac and extra- •oid nan , u on which % cand they were Angularly d. t or th: reach of trie Rulers reftraintas to their mi- liift y, yer'rrv weie fo likcwife 'as (Thrifts rheOen- je sand rrm-ftersfim --y inaceieral fenfe, iorma)ut er minus 5c j. .3 As the A*pofUts had their power im?rf ciu lv from Ch.il and not fiom jthe Rulers, wnn;hisrhe^ ea'^icurtd why th v could notbeLaw- fullv.pr' hibit:o preach , and would not fabmir their n.iiiittrr al , uihonty , ics a&s and cxercife, to the Rulers diipo al , eipecially th eolpel-mefTage being pf iogrcaf importance , (o the. e is derived from them a n lmitenal authority in the Church , independent in ts narure and exe -cife upon the magiftrat, as theirs yas, chone ^poftles ( as I (nd) bad lingular prero* skives beyond ordinary minifters, and in that refpecl: \ ere fi gularlv beyond the rea. h of their reftaint-Now ;hb aacho'ity was exercifedby theC>urch renhente Ma^.rnn for fevenl generation* , upon the fame ground of this indtptndtnt fphitnd power and the weight °° t of tfa A Confutation of of the gefpfl-meffjge which the Apoftles did heii? plead y The Informer an^wrrs lly, that this prohibition tende ,! to the abfvhte fupreftng of the gofpel , and there was then n other way for propagating it through the world y but by thei^ preaching 3 but now thofome be/tlenced , others are allowed toprtacb. A*u. r. This piece of the apology for no ;; ol^yin2 the Rulers rmndat , is of his bold putting in P but nothing of it is in the text, viz, that there werem others to preach the go/pel but they. Their Apology as]' faid h drawn from th "ir authority 3 and meiTagefim-* plv„ z I ask him) could any one of the Apoftles hav*' fubroitted to this prohibition , upon an infinuationor aflurance that the Magiftrat would not hinder orherr to promote the gofpel ? if they could not, then he muftr grant- hat thisanwer is naught 3riw*fk* Apoftles refu fed. :\ iecaufe the prohibition tended to fupprefi the gofpel: F^r ; the gofpel wis preachcand propagat, though one of them was a little after taken oft theitage, if he fay that anyone, or more of the Apoftles would have fubmit- ted to the prohibif ion upon thir terms , then. i*He contradifls his firft anfwer , that their extraordinary imrneiiat call could not be di [charged by any power on earth i and 2. He charges them with unfaithfalnefs to Chrift inlayingup his talents* andlayingby his work upon mens command not to preach. Sure Chrifts command andcommifTion tyedall bis Apoftles conjun&ly and feverally: PauHaid, woto[me) tf[J] preach not the gof- pel, and one Apoftles diligence, could notloofethc cbiiganon of the other > and excufe his negligence, i* We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary difchariingChrifts A mbaftadours to officiat , and confequently faithfuil JWinifters are not obliged to obey* And upon the1 fame ground that one apoftle could not warrantably iuifcr the Magiftrat eoijapofeafilence upon him , be caufe the third Dialogue t f f aufe others were permitted to preach , Its unlawful or ordinary Minifters to be filent , becaufe othei s arc Teaching, and much more when thole who arc reaching are declaring themfeives unfaithful], and (Citroyinsi but not feeding. So that our Infvrmtr doth juc mock God> if not blafpheme, while blcffing ,im, that authority , is eppofit to fwr diftrdets > noc l> tbcgofpd. \ Thtr Doubter next askshim [if the King and Laws bn (ilencea Minifter that he fhall not preach thegof- jel.] Hefhould h&ve added , by bis own proper di- \te d&s as Kjng or Magi f rat > or formally and immtdt aily « hit this man mufl ftill flirewd himfelf in the mift and |louds of deceitful generals, And mould ourargu^ iients in his own difguife, that his fimple evafiens may bpear anfwers. Well , what fayes he to this doubr I lis anfweris,(I ommit his inflgnificant reflection )tkat hrnm tbrufl out ^Abiatbar from the pricftbood i KJngs. , 27. which was a retraining fas priefly -power as to its Hual exercifc y to which he was bound tofubmitfo a Kjng ay difcharge a Minifter to exercif his Miniftry within his \minions y which he muft not counteract , fuppnfe he thinly c Kjng and law wrongs him , efpecially , when others do each tho he be filent. Art. This reafon and inftance ahacufo ad angulum, Solomon puniflit Abiatharci- j!lv for a capital treafonable crime , which deferved [path , telling him (as the text faith)that he was a man rfiieathj or one who deferved capital puniftimenr , .cording to the nature of the hebrew phraie, which * ntence of death Solomon (upon the grounds rnen- ipned in that pafTage ) did change into a fentenceof miftiment, and by this civil punifliment uidrow/*- f^rfrputhim from theexerciieofhispneftly office t hich he could not in that cafe perform : Ergo he for- ally and jaimediatly depofed him , and the civil ma- ftrat may fo inimcdiatly and formally depofc mini- fters, * $6 A Confiitation'of fters , this 15 a confequcnce utterly unknown toav rules of Logick, orfolid divinity. The Inftance it deed proves, that the Magiftrat may civilly puniflr Minifter for crimes, and confequenrlycut him off fror fheexercifeofhis Mimftry , but that he can /imply an immeiiatly.or by prober elicit acls, difcharge the exercif thercof,can no more be proved from this inftance, the* that the man who gives bad phyfick, or hum the Mini iters perfon, and eatenus flops the excrcife of his Mini fterial office, hath an authority to inhibit the exercif of his Miniftry, As for our Informers reftri&ion , anent the King inhiDinng a minifter to preach in his dominions , 'tis ; very poor and tranfparcnt fophiftical cheat, for n< man ever faid that he can exercife any magiftratics p >wer uf on thofe who arc without his dominions , whe ther mirifters or others* And thus fhould his do minion in Gods providence be ftreached over alhh chriftian Church , he hath authority (by this court divinry ) to filence the gofpel found in a clap, an. extinguish a gofpel miniftry when he pleafeth > am then "this man would do well to ponder how this con fifts with the nature and defigne of Chrifts great com mifliori tohisfirft ambafladours ( his Apoftles ) in re ference to the gofpel meflagc, and unto all minifter untill the end of the world, andhispromifedprefenc accordingly ; as alfo whether the Apoftles > Jand ordi nary minifters afterward , did warrantably countera1in;ft I from the txercife of bis Miniftry, which is above clearec I So that our Informers great Diana , which he is all thi 9 time declaiming for, viz. The impofing ofanabfc^ lute filence upon the true Paftors of this Church 3 tha Conforrnifts onely may be heard and ownd, dot;., fo itoop and bow down , that the underpropings c his (lender artifice , and poor mean pleadings , canno prevent its precipice and mine. i Chap. VI. Tht nature of?reslyterian UHiniJters relation U this Church and their call to offictat therits, vim dicatefrorntbe Intormcr* Jimple cavills. Mr Baxters rules for the cure of Church -di- vifions impertinently alledgei by him. The Teftimonies of the ]u$ divi num Minitt . Anglic. And of 'MrRutherfoordin his Due right of Pret byecry amnt unwarrantable fefaration , in* Jufficient to bear the 'weight of his conclufon. THE appearances ofour Lords AmbafTadours in his meflage and for promoting his Intereft , have been much oppoied by Satan in very various Me- thods and veriatile difguiies in all ages , but that Presbyterian Minifters of a pure Apoitolick Presby- terian Church fliould be oppofed in the exercife of their holy function and Miniftry received fromChriit, and the fecond Dialogue 15*9 nd this exercife impugned from pretended Scripture rounds and Presbyterian principles may feemftran- e, ifthefe latter days had not produced many iuch rodigies of errors and wickednefs. The progrefs f this perfonat doubt - refolver his impugnations rill difcover fo much , which we now proceed to xamine. This Infirmemext alleages That Minifters among u* take tbemfelves Minifters of the win I? Church , and the doubter alledging [That a Minifter isaMinifterof nciCatholick Church] he Anfwers from Mr Ruther- ford Due right of Presb. page 204. „Thatjtho a Mi- .niftcr is a Minifter of the Catholick Church , yet 1 not a Catholick Paftor of it , that by ordination , and his calling he is made Paftor and by election he is reftrieted to be ordinarly the Paftor of his flock. And that Mr Durham on Rev. page io6, 107. thinks there is odds betwixt being, a Minifter of the Catholick Church 3 and a Catholick Minifter of it , as the Apoftles were and the Pope pretends viz. to , have immediat accefs for the exercife in all places — that tho afa prim* they haveacommiifion to be Minifters of the whole Church, yet aBu[ccundo they are peculiarly delegated to fuch and fuch polls , But , we have made our felves Minifters of all the congre- gations of the Countrey. I anfwer3this doctrine crof- ts not our principles nor pra&ice in the leaft. For firf^ /rhen we afTert that a Minifter is by election reftridted d be ordinarly the Paftor of a flock, and efpecially'de- :gat3 and fixt to fuch a port & particular watchtower, : is not fo to be underftood^as if ther£ could be nolaw- llexercife of his Miniftry eifewhere : for firft, this ,: rere flat independency&c.i. All(uve they of this per- I vafion)grant that the Minifter receives no new *«rfco- 'ty as to his Minifterial a&s and officiating in o- ler places 5 btu % new application osly. Hence in \6o A Confutation of in the 2d place , is to be underwood of the Chun her ordinary fettled ftate unc^ra fettled MiniftryB when there is adeitroving enefftVAMithin herboforr Wafting her, and the fath full Miniftrvareputfroi their Watchtowers and pofts, by a number of Schi matick Innovators, who are diflblving her union and impeaching her Authority : In this extraord: tiary cafe , Minifters more enlarged and unfixt o ficiating, is no breach of this Rule 3 Becaufe \[ I this cafe the Parochial conftitution is impoffible t beheld, and God calls not to impoffibilities , andve his call to preach the Goipel (lands and binds, and'b- confequence to preach to others then theMinifterspa rifh. The common rule will plead for this viz. fk ct$t*s non habit legem , which this Infbwer himfel doth hold will in fome cafes warrand the laving bv o that which other/wife were a duty 5 he knows what hi inference is from Davids eating of the (hew bread t( keep fromflarving, and Paul, and thofe with hin their calling their goods into the fea to preferve frorr perifhing. So that of neceiTity he mufl admit thii rule and anfwer , upon his own ground. 2. The reafons which did warrand our firft Reformers offici- ating in this manner ( a practice which he dare not fay that the authors mentioned , or any reformed divines do condemn) will warrand this our practice in this per- fecute ftate of our Church, it being clear that the cafe ofReformationisparallelto that of a Churches defe- ction, andperfecution, in relation to this practice con- travened , as we cleard from Acts 8. 3. The fame great end of the Churches grea>cr good and td'tficaton^ which warrands fixing of Minifters to their polls in a Churches fetled peacefull ftate will warrand their offi- ciating more largely and at other polls, when put from their own in her difturbed, perfecure andde- flroyed coondition by a prevalent Schifraatick 5 b? ck- Hiding the third Dialogue 1 61 iding party. The . faithfull watchmen feing the city betrayed by a party of profeffed defendents , who fare letting in the enemy, do their duty to the city befl "n refilling them and running to help. 4. If faithfull jMiniilcrs their neceffary keeping their ports and the Junlawfuinefs of exercifing their Miniftry any where jelfe ^ wercin this cafe after ted , then it would follow jlthat a Minifter (landing in that relation to adiilurbed land deftroyed Church , and all his gifts and graces , iwere u[elejs in that cafe, which notwithstanding are ,c|given for the good of the Churchy but this is abfurd; Shall 3]not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her *|true Sons , when ftie is wounded and her vail taken a- Jlwav by fmiting watchmen . 5 . By our Principles the iPrelatick party are Schifmaticks who have already broke and overturned our Churches order, and Re- formation. Now this Informer will not deny , that roinfucha cafe, the Church may fend forth her Mini- lifters to officiat among fuch backfliders and Schifma- ticks, for their healing and recovery , he knowes up- on what ground Mr Lighioun not long fince, fent !coutfome of his brethren to preach in the Weft of Scot- land. Bcfide Mr GilUfpie will tell him, MlfMill.fagt 23- That a Schifmatick Church bath no juji right to the li- berty of a found Church, as to the calling or fetlingof Mi- ni ft trs. So that in our principles no Conformifts are duely or lawfully called and fettled. 6. Our divines fdo grant that in extraordinary cafes, even the want of ordination it [elf will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may beaneceffity which wTill fuftain '> and comport with the want of it. Mr GHlefpy M\\c. 1 :h. 4. p*ge6l. tells us , „ that in extraordinary cafes >,when ordination cannotbe had , and when there are ,none who have commiffionSc authority fromGod to „ordain,then and there an inward call from God ftirr- nig up, and aififting with the people's good will and P p con- 1 1 2 A Confutation of „ confent whom God makes willing,can make a Mini t „ fter authorized tominifterial a what warrand they have to freach and adminifte Sacraments to thofe of another Minifters charge , being net, ther called nor de fired by thefe Mmsfter*. I anfwer , the; have Gods call to preach the Gofpel as Minfters o this Church , and as this call would warrand their of ficiating in other pariflies upon the lawfull Minifter defire or invitation in a fettled ferene ftateof ou Church , fo in this her ruined and deftroyed conditi on 3 the fame call abundantly warrands their helping of thefe congregations , and fuch poor Macedonians who defire their help while under deftroying Schif maticks , who have no lawfull call to be their Mini nifters from God or this Church. But here our lnf$rmer affaults us with a dilemma \ ei thr Fresbyttrian Minifters callis ordinary, orextraordi nary. Ordinary they have none , fincc they are not invr ted by the Minifters of the congregations to whom they preach extraordinary they will not pretend unto* I Anfwer by counter dilemma , and retort his argument thus , eithe the pretended Minifters of thefe congregations hav an ordinary or extraordinary call to ofliciat therein ordinary they have none according to theDodtrine Reformation 3 and principles of this Church, bein ncithe the third Dialogue i£j Neither called by the people, nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church, ifwefpeak ©fthe gene- rality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelats, ifrpon thefe congregations where they officiat , and pi thofe who were otherwife ordained and have con- 3'brmed, we have told him that by accepting prefen- ation from Patrons and collation from Prelats , they rfiave renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination •iptind the call of this Church confequently, and thus iado fall under the fame confederation with the reft > mdforthe exraordinary call neither the one nor the Ipther 3 will pretend unto it. And when heanfwers Ifbis dilemma y and by the Scripture-rules , and the ^Principles , and reformation of this Church, (which fcche Jnjermtr hath not difproved, yea admits us to I uppofc in this queftion ) juftifies the Curats call to of t) ficiat in thefe congregations over which they afTume i m authority we (hall produce ours as to this practice r which he condemns. Befide, whatanfwer will he I ^ veto fiich a dilemma in the mouth of Schifmatick i congregations , offered unto fuch Minifters as the !l Church fends from their own congregations to officiat ► among them ? And whatever his anfwerbe, it will fuite our calf. Then he tells us o^atls of councils condem- ning this encroachment , as he calls it , But when he rtiall exhibit a cafe parallel to ours, which thefe a<5ts foeak unto , we ihall confider it. For what he adds of the,, Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Pres- „bvterian Minifters who preacht in their congrega- tions , with a pvadtice repugnant to the Scripture ,, and Canons ofancient Councils, he ihould have den-e well ro have produced thefeScriptures which the Doctors alleaged : And for ancient Canons , I think all things in their cafe con fide red , it wrould be a hard taskro produce thefe Canons (tricking againft that practice as it ftoodcircumftantiat3 confidering their Ppz Schif- 1 64 A Confutation of Schifmatick withftanding the Reformation of thii Church , their Arminian principles 3 and defen- ding popifli ceremonies which errors they hsd openly vented and obflinatly maintaiod. His next charge •/ ordaining others to perpetual our fchifm% is a manifeft calumny,this true organickChurch is by this^ praftice J only propagating a lawfull pure Miniftry in oppofition to their deftroying Schifmatick courfe, the blefied fruits whereof > and its feals upon the hearts of the people of God , have been confpi- cuous, and we hope yet further will. Andnolefl grofs is that calumny which follows , anent our grtat mixt communions , and ddmiflfon of ignorant vitious per* fons unto them , who ( he fayes ) by our way cannot be kept bac\ , there being none admitted at any feafons of this nature (which have been very rare) but upon fuffi- cient teftimonies from faithfull Minifters or elder- fhips. But is he not afharoed to objeft this to us , whereof his party is fo notorioufly guilty, who arc knowen to admit, yea callpromifcuoufly, tofilltbeir empty tables, (which tender fouls dare not approach unto) both grofs ignorants, and notorioufly profane to thefiiame andfcandal of Religion, and the con- tempt of that holy ordinances ourperfuading people not to owne Conformifts as the Minifters of this Church we hope doth now appear betrer grounded then all this Informers perfuafives to the contrary. And that we have been in anymeafurc fuccesfull in this , fpeaks out Gods purpose not to leave wholly our mar- ried land. For that which he cites out of Baxters preface to the Cure of Church divifions anent the od'toufnefs of Sacrifices prefented to God , without love and reconciliation to breth- ren , and of making a peoples communion in worflvp , the iadge and means ofuncharttablnefs and divi//$ns , we th nk reconciliation and unionin the Lord necdfull to accep- table the third Dialogue.' itfy, ^able worfliip > but an affbeiation with fcandalous ,j5chifmaticks and backfliders in their wickednefs, we jjrhinkisnolefs dangerous and obftru&ive toreallfel- owfhip with God in duty s efpecially fince God pret- ties our coming out from among fuch , and our being jjijeparat from the contagion of their fin > with this mo- • itive , that he will receive us* And as there is a holy hro* tfberbtod which we muft adociat with in order to com- j munion with God, fo there is a congregation of tvill t\ioers which we muft hate* Yea we have Davids prc- (jeedency (as is before obferved) to hace them with per- ,jfe& hatred, and count them our enemies. But who , {can fufficiently admire thefe mens talk of unity and love who having fii ft broken and divided this poor Church bave been thefe fo many years perfceuting to the death , yea fweerning in the blood of the faithfull Mi- nifters and profeflorstherof becaufe hey durft not oyn to their way , and conform to their fuppofed >rihVs and indifferences. Surely prelacy being :he grand Idol of Jealoufy provoking God a- *ainft us, and the fire which hath kindled all our com- Duftions, and hath opened the yeins of the Lords fer- rants and people to bleed for many years , occafioned uch horrid difpsrfion and unheard of oppreffion of he Lords Church and people in our Land 3 with what faces can thefe upholders of this courfe look up to the Sod of Love and peace , and how can they lift up fuch >loody wrathfull hands to him. But now his poor half profelyted Doubter confefle§ :hat[there is much truth in what he has heard from this 'omdlnformerforfooth » And takes leave with a :>rofett refolution to reflect upon what he has heard from him, ] Whereupon he difmiffes him with fome Df his healing advices , prefacing with an admonition :o feek illumination from God. But had this man been irious in feeking this from God , he had not vented m Pp $ the *66 A Confutatienof thefe trifling Dialogues fuch weak notions and rel proachesagainft Gods truth and people. But fince hH ►■ Doubter returns him no anfwer therunto, I fball makcjCU" up his want and fhortly offer my thoughts upon them.ju His firft advice, is not to be too confident of our own opinionw 4S undoubtedly right , tut conftder what be hath [aid in hisw three conferences. Ans. If it be truth which we hold , '» {\xte we mod hold h fa faith in a pure conference, and not*'' be wavering and toff ed children* We acknowledge not the Cartdian principle , and the popifti doubting way as found divinity , and a confidence of truth is far from a filf confidence. As for what is offered in his three dialogues , I hope it is fufficiently antidoted by what is faid above > fo that it needs not in the lead demurr our perfuafion, X. He will n$t have us thinhjhe matters of difference to be ihefubftanttats ofRjlegion > fince perfons ofbothperfuafions may lejep love and fellow flu p without renting the Church and negleHingordinances , becaufe greater differences have been, and communion not broken thereby , *An$. If thefe mat- ters contraverted be not fubftantialls , why then have they made fuch a fubftantiall bloody conteft for them tanquam fro aris (3 foci s , for fo many years , and if communion muft not be broken in a Church upon this account, why have they rent and overturned our Church , and perfecute away fo many godly Minifters and profeffors for thefe things , denying all fellowfliip with them in their wOrfliip, for adhering to their prin- ciples, and difowning this courfe of conformity ? had prelatifts fuffered Presbyterian Minifters and pro- feffors to (land as they were in this Church, to enjoy their principles, *nd to follow their refpeftive duties according to their ftations, faithfull Miniflers to preach , and Gods people to enjoy the fruits of their Miniftry , he might with fome colour hare pretended to this defire of union and fcliewfliip , but fince pre- lates the third Dialogue t6j -Matifts have caft them out , and do fo cruelly perfecnte iiihem for adhering to their principles, and owning thefe duties, this pretence is nothing bat deceitfull hypo- ri(y . He adds , that the difference ts but a matter ef go- vernment , and if rve fepayat fir this , we would have fepayat rom all Churches fince chriftianity began m and ifCbrifl held )}i9comunion with a Church , where prelacy was , he hath J hen feldom h&d a Church f and b*th been for many years a xitad without members, iAns. This is nothing but a re- newed repetition of groundiefs affertions : for how iproves he that our plea is a matter of government only ? Sifurely their courfe ftrikes at the whole ofourRefor- ijimarion , as hath been cleared. Again , how prove* arlhethatwe would have feparacupon this ground from the Church for folong a time, tho it were granted that our pica were only a matter of government , fincc he hath not yet produced inftances of fuch a prelacy as we have, in any Church. Befides , fince thp Informer pleads for prelacy upon pretended Apoftolical pre- cepts and pra&ices, and yet doth here vilify it unto a c meer pun&ilio, and makes it fuch a forry bufinefs ai d perfons may come and go upon it at their pleafure, wc may eafily difcover what nimble Sophifters > and llip- pery fingered Gentlemen he and his fellows are as to the retaining and holding ofdivineinftitutions, and that they can eafily expofe them tofale , for obtaining eafefull ferenity and other worldly defigns. Or how proves he that its the government of cur Church which they have introduced/* or that they are the Church ? cr that we are in this practice feparating from our dmrch ? HsthnotChrift amyftical body in Scotland without prelats? or finally , how proves he that there is alike ground for Joyning to prelacy > introduced by* an Apoftat party , after it is caft out, and abjured by aH* as there is for Joyning in fellowfhip wiih a Church continuing Long under that corruption , and not pur- Pp 4 ged \v6Z A Confutitiopof ged and reformed from it. Thejoyning vrith therr in their worftiip ? being demanded as a badge of oui content to prelacy it felf and ail the corruptions atten- ding the lame. 3. He fluids for char'tty > andthuwe fay not Confer* mijls are graalefs ktsaufe of this difference t he teJls us , thitfor all Corintbs corruptions > the Apofilefpends a whole chapter upon Love, and that fueh as have leaft truth , hwe haft charity y that the weak, chrijiians who under flood t not their liberty i\om. 14. in being loofed from the ceremonial 'Law , had leaft charity as they had leaft truth t andfopa- fifts tofroteftants. Ans. This charge lyes moft dire&ly home tohimfelf, andthofe of his way. Let more then 20. years Law & practice, in relation to the mine of a faith full remnant of Miniftei s and profefiors who adheie to the reformation and government of this Church , and their vows for promoting the fame , discover what harh been the chanty of our PreJaticaJ party, Befide , whatever be our thoughts as to their ftate with God, and without judging their eternal condition, its no breach of charity to know fuch as are feducers from Gods way , to beware of fin , and the enrnanngs of fuch feducers , for which we have fo many fcripture commands as we have heard , and the Judgment of discretion in relation to evils which we are toefhew, is not that uncharitable judging in mat- ters Lawfull and Indifferent , which is condemned , Rom- 14. 3,4. for elfe we could not acT: in faith. And the fame Corinthians whom Paul exhorted fo much to Love , he enjoyned alfo to come out from among the ungodly xCor. 6. and to flee the contagion of their. fife 4 Headvifes to confider the danger of divifions Gal* ?♦ 15. Marl^ j, 24* fintethe enemy mocks religion upon this ground , and while each fights with another , ^11 are *ver- fijnt >, wbkh he illuitnits with theflory o/Sciluius his iheaf the third Dialogue ity ijflieaf of arrowes Anf. Divifions indeed among Gods f!peopie are fad, and have had fad effects 5 but union Enuft be in truth and duty , and cemented with thefc : jonds , fince it is the unity of thefpirit which we mult 'tfeek Eph- 4. 3 > and therefore not in a way of defection >iand Rebellion agamlt God and in breaking his Cove- nant , which is nothing elte but a combination againlt Em i It is in the Lord, that we muft be of the fame \\mind9 Phil. 4 2. and Chnft who prayed foenixly^ for ^his diicipks union , Joh. 17. 21- prayed alfo for their 'IfanB'tfication inandbv tbetruth , 17. ver. and that they ''^ightbe kep$ from the trill of the world yi^.ver. And the •JApoftlePaulwhois fo great a pleader for Love and u- nion, would not give place by fwjeclien to deceitfull wor- kers, no not for an hour Gal, 2. 5. The beft way to maniain union & preferve the Gofpel (which their dividing in- novating courfe of backfliding hath expofed to fomuch prevalency and reproach of Papifts) is to keep our gar- ments free of their defilementSj&to put aw ay that aceur fed thing which hath made us fo weak before enemies. 5. He advifes his Doubter to acquaint himfelf with the writings of the old Non conformifts in England , fu ch as Cartwright , Bradfhaw , Ball, &C. Who tefti- fyagainftthe Brownifts for their feparation from that Church ( for which he fayes much more might have been alledged then for ours.) *An[. We acknowledge that thefe worthy men have done well upon this fub- jeft, and that reparation which they wrote againftjBut our cafe[anent aChurch purelv reformed from coriup- tions of doctrine, worfiiip, difciplineand Government and under univerfal oaths of adherence to that reforma- tion.infefted .encroached upon,and invaded by a party ofSchifmatick overturners of her reformarion,tlanding in oppofuion to a faithful Miniftry, and profeffoisad- henng to them,] is (o vaftly difcrepant from their cafe, [anent keeping up fellow/hip wiih a Church univerfal- PP5 iy J7° A Confutation of ly tainted with corruptions , from which fhe had ne- ver been purged,] that by no imaginable grounds^ can a confequence be drawen from the one to the o- ther. And any confequence relating to us , or appli- cation of the pleadings ofthefe Divines againft the Brownifts , will properly ftrike againft his dividing party, who have gone out from the fellowship of this i pure Church , to which they were Joyned, and did vow adherence to her conftitution and reformation, yet notwithstanding by them thus miferably rent and deftroved for many years. As for thefc Rules of Mr Baxter in his Cure of Church cUvifionr^hichthis Informer doth afterward commend unto us , we are not much concerned in their explica- tion or application, fince they do not in the leaft ftrike againft what we maintain, therefore we fhall brief- ly run over them. For the firft here mentioned , [ anent not making communion with a Church ftricker then Chrift hath made it] when we difowne dividers and Schifmaticks renting and deftroyinga pure Church , and introducing abjured innovati- ons , we do not narrow thefc terms of communi- on, which Chrift hath given. For he hath com- manded us to withdraw tromfuch*scau{cJiviJi$mdnd effences , contrary to our received ordinances , and not to have fellowship wirh the unfruitfull works of darknefs, to turn away from Covenant-breakers; And its their dividing party who fall under the cen- fure of this rale , who make complyance with abjured prelacy the terms of their commsnion , and fo cruel- ly perfecute all who will not conform to their courfe ofbackfliding. There is no doubt equal danger on the other extreme in making the terms of our commu- nion Uxtr then Chrift hath appointed. For the 2 rule which he mentions [anentadue impreffion of the cvillof divifion and difcord> and the rcaSons and ne- cessity the third Dialogue ly * '-leeffity of union. ] I think indeed had this Informer and vhis party, kept up a Scripture impreflion of this,they >!had not for the punBilio't of their trifling Conformity, ;- Co miferably rent this poor Church,and overturn'd her 4 Reformation. For the 3. [anent not engadging too ? far in a divided fed: , ] it reaches Conformifts , "ano- ther blow, who have fo far engadged for Prelats and i their Intereft, that for many years ic hath been the J great work of our Laws ( by the mitigation of them , i and their Rabbies) to root out all Minifters andpro- feffors of this Church , who do not conform , and *;ownethis courfeofbackfiiding. Dare this petulant Informer call adherence to this Church , her fworn Re- formation , principles, and faithfull Miniftry , *d- hereme to* divided SeSt. For the 4. [anent the differ- ence betwixt a iound andfinfull zeal, and that we be fufpicious of our Religious paffions ] we fay, zeal for the Gofpel , for keeping Covenant with God , for re- formation from popry and prelacy (which is the the Teft of our zeal as dated in oppofition to them ) doth convincingly evidence its foundnefs. For the 5. [anent not being over tender of our repute , or impa- tient of mens cenfures, ] we fay, 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 difpleafing all who are thus tender, is nothing but a true and Gofpel- tendernefs. For the 6. [ anent efhewing needlefs fcllowiriip with the more cenforious Chriftians] we fay , we (land oblig'd to keep fellowfhip with all the godly in all duties, and this charge of ovrr cenfmoufnefi we deny as to our plea againft Conformifts, neither hath he informer yet made it good. For the 7. [ that we lay not too much weight on doubtfull opinions, nor begin with them] wetjdcfsGod that in this pure Church, Gods people have been taught the filid keginmn*r dnifirft frmciples, and on DOB 172 A Confutation of and do build on that foundation ; But we have not fch learned Chrift , as to put into the Category of thing: doubtful! , breach of Covenant 1 abjufd Prelacy , and a{! febifmatick finfull comply ance tbenwitb* For the 8 . [ a- nent not adrnirmg or favouring a preacher for his., voice 3 affe&ionat utterance, &c. Without folidL underftanding , ] we fay, Gods people with us have \ been helped not to regard mens fpeech , but their po- h wer. And as they know Chrift the great Shepherd' ** his truth , bv his voice from them , accordingly as his fheep to follow them. For the p. [ anent not reje- cting a good caufe , becaufe owned by bad men ] we farr, the caufe we difowneis bad initfelf, and we difowne the owners of this bad caufe, upon this f round 5 And are confirmed inourdifowningof it, y the fruits which we fee the owning of it produ- ceth in its fupporters and abbetors, which are fuch as dowarrand us according to'our Lords command, to avoid and fatvare of them. For the io. [ not to (follow the bad examples of Religious perfons , ] we blefs the Lord we are taught to walk by the rule of GodsWord, not by examples of men, and not to follow even a Paul further then he is a follower of Chrift. For the II. [ anent keeping an eye on the ftate of all Churches upon earth , and pondering how Chrift keeps fellow- ship with them , left while we think we feparat (only from thefe about us , we fcparat from almoft all Churches ] we fay , that we have lookt upon our own Church defervedly , as among the pureft and beft re- formed , and by the fame rule are concerned to keep upfellowfhip with her, as knowing that fuch as re- nounce fellowfhip with her, would renounce it with all Churches. And this we do with a due charity for all Reformed Churches , and whatever Churches do holdjthe foundation . But upon thefe grounds we are bound to difowne dejIryingScbifmaticfcfis are our Con- forming the third Dialogue 1 75 ■°ibrmifts , who have introduced abjured innovations Contrary to her pure conftitution and Reforma- pbn, and have gone out from her fellowfhip , !jnd by the fame confequential reafon, from the fjellowihip of all Churches. For the laft rule ■Mhich he mentions, [ that we count it as comforta- " !)le to be a martvr for love and peace by blind zealots, I tis for the faith by infidels] we fay 3 that we owne no l^eal which is not according to knowledge, and arc contending for the union and reformation of our Mo- ther againft a party of blind fiery zelots, for aneab- lured hierarchy contrarv to the Word of God and this Churches vows, in which honourable quarrel that many have fuffered even to bonds, imprifonments , yea death itfelf , it is our Glory, As forwhat he adds f of the Engiifh nonconformifts , their Rifling tgAinflfeparatvn . as a way whtch God never blefied u*th peace and holinefi though they dijjented from the Ceremonies J I no- thing doubt , but that they would have put the fame Character upon the practice ofthePrelats and their followers , had they fecn and known all the circum- ftances of our cafe. They diflenting from fellowship in the ceremonies, and eatenus from fellowfhip in the Worfhip, though that Church, had never been purged from them 3 how much more then are we concerned todifowne innovations introduced into this Church, after they have been call: out and rowed againft. Suppofethat Church, had been (as ours) Reform- ed in dodtrine Worfhip , difcipline and Government , and a party had rifenupdeflroying that pure confti- tution, contrary to all their vows, admitting none to fellowfhip without acknowledging of their wicked courfe, periecuting and carting out all Miniftcrs and profeffbrs , who would not concur ? And then let them tell us what thefe nonconnifts would have done in this cafe , furely upon the fame ground that they elhewcd 174 A Confutation of efhewed a contagion in communicating with the Ce- remonies , they would have efhewed this piece of contagious conformity alio. Efpecially the exprefs rows of adherence to that fuppofed reformation in e- vcrv piece of it, andofdifowning all reccfles, all back- Aiders, and of owning all adherers to thefe vows in prufuingthe ends thereof., being taken in 3 andduely pondered. After the clofe of this Dialogue, our Informer will needs ftrengthen his plea in prefenting unto us, by wavof Apendix , fome paflages oftheEnolifh Pref- bvterians, their J*s divinum IV iri' fieri] hn^icam t and likewife in Mr Rutherfoovd his due right of Presbyter j y anent the unw arrant ah lencp ofSeparatio t , which as they are utterly alien from our pur poie, fo (as would feem in the convi&ion hereof) he doth not fo much as offer to draw an argument from any of them , while pro- pounding thefe his grand fuppofed topi ck s , except a general Hint at the clofe , which is utterly inefficient tofortifvhisconclufion , as we fhall after fhew , but leaves the favourable conclufion to be drawn by his half-profelvted Doubter , or friendly partial reader. However fnltho upon the matter any feeming conclu- fion he might draw from them is anfwered, yet) we fhall view them breifly, having premifed (i . ) That he fuppofesbut hath not vet made good, the charge of a j / finfullfeparation upon the people of God in this cafe y which we have fhown to be more applicable tohim- felf. 2. That the crfc of feparation from that Church dt that //>/2?becaufe of her corruptions/is far wide from this cafe of our difowning Conformifts now, andcon- fequently all his citations will never come home to ourpurpofe, becaufe. I. Not to. feparat from a Church upon theground of corruptions which hlave been long fetled in her , is very far diftinft from this pra&ice of difowning an Inno the third Dialogue. 1 57 Innovating party introducing corruptions to the mine of a pure Church , after they have been feen , and u- niverfally caft out , which is the practice he now pleads for; a Hop as to an advance in Reformation, is much different from backfliding in this cafe, and efpecially thejoyning to a backfliding party who are not the true Church , is much different from adhe- rence to a Church tho backflidden. Its a far different cafe not to leave the communion of a Church becaufe of fome corruptions, and not to joyn with an un- found party of aChurch drawing back from her Refor- mation : So that upon a due confideration of the mat- ter of faft, and Presbyterian principles , itseyident that thefe Teftimomes do levell againft Confor- mifls. 2. Its a far different cafe to owne the Miniflry of a corrupt Church wherin prelacy is univerfally owned , and wherein there hath been no other way of en- try into the Miniflry for many generations but by Prelacy : and to owne a party of Schifmatick Intru- ders introducing Prelacy over the belly of a Presby- terian Church, andmutting outher faithfull Mini- niflry , furely thefe Intruders are in this cafe the Brownifls. 3 .Its a far different cafe to fubmit to a Miniflry meet' ty Epifcoptl * and to keep the Worfhip in a Church long underthu Government , find to fubmit to an Ep;/c#- pal ErtftUn Minifiry , and a Church Government fun- damentally corrupt j deriving all its power from an An- tichnflianfupremacy, and meer civil papacy, after it hath been eminently and univerfally difowned by that Church, and vowed againfl, Efpeciallv when a backfliding party only do thus ufurp over the found Miniflry, and have eje&edthem, and this Eraftian abomination isfetup to raze this true fpi ritual Go- vern- i?6 A Confutation of vernmentof the Church once univerfally fetled and owned. 4. Irs a far different cafe , tofubmit to an Epifco- pal Miniftry lb far as pure, while Epifcopacy isu- niverfallv ownd, and no obligation is upon any to difowne it,further then its own corruption in that cafe will amount to and infer: and to owneand fubmit to an episcopal Eraftian Government introduced by an Innovating partv into a Presbyterian Church a- gainft bet ftandtng a8s , folemn Oaths and vows univer* falty taken on by that Church againft the fame , while a faithful! Miniftry, and the great part of the people are in Confcience of their vows contending againft it. Surely this fuperinduced obligation requires a higher degree of zeal againft that defection , and renders it the more hainous. The high places permitted to Da- vid and Solomon before the Temple was built, are cenfured in after times $ greater light and obli- gations do in this cafe caft the ballance. Thefe confederations do clearly repell any argument which he would draw from his citations to our cafe. But now to view them , The Englifh Presbyterians in that piece do firft aflert page 10. [ that all in the fame bounds moil be under the care of the fame Mi- nifter , and that thefe limits ou°ht not to be brangled %Anf This mall be eafily accorded , give us our beau- tifull Church -order and a lawfully called Miniftry and this parochial order fhall be obferved, and o- beyed. 2. ( page n. ) [A man under a wicked or Here- tical Minifter muft remove his habitation rather then brangle parochial order. ] *Anf Then it follows in their principles, that when the order and union of a Reformed Church is already brangled by Innovating Schifmaticks , whole wickednefs and errors are pal- pable j men may attend a more pure Miniftry with- out the third Dialogue. 177 tOUtSchifm, by clear confequence, fare he is a lofer ,by this, 3. (page 12.) [toappoint Elders in evtry Church. ani tvery city, is all one, and-converts in the city muft joyn with the congregation in Churchfellowfliip.] Anf. But what if a party in the city call thcmfelves the Church, fhut out the true Mimfter,and bring in one of their own , muft not the true converts own their firft Minifter,andoppofethefe Innovators?Surely this Tc- Timony rebounds another blow upon our mis Informer. 4. (page 25.) [evil men defdflo have been officers, Hophni and Phineas, Scribes and Pharifees, whofe Minifterial a&s were not null , and Chritts commif- lon authorized Judas. J hnf This will as much plead :or owning Presbyterian Miniiters as Conformifts : And if he alleadge that they are diforderly , Schifma- :ical, &c. and therefore mult not be ownd inthis :afe. I anfwer i he muft prove this which he hath not vet dene. 2. He rnuft~acknowledge, that the grant- ng that the Minifterial acts of Church - officers , are ot null by their fins , will not plead for hearing Mir lifters in every cafe, untill aliunde > and from other rounds, oar obligation to owne fuch men as our Mini-*, 'crshic&nuncbz made s;ood 3 which he hath not yet ;.one as to Curats. Neither Hophni or Phineas , nor be Scribes and Pharifees, were fbotitig out the faith- nil Mini/try of the Church of the Jews , who would ot concurr in a courfe of defeclion,afrer 'they had laid own a courfe to overturn the ordinances : which is the afe of Conformifts in relation to us,as is evident. A- ain , ftatethe queftion fotrm Hophni ^nd Phine- s , and ^e Pharifees MiniiW could not be wned\vichout partaking in their f n , then thismsn }lhl. needs grant, that Gods people wer« obliged to ifowne them, and had difowned them. Nowrwe ave proven this to be our cafe as to the owning of 'onforniifto. Qq 5> 178 A Confutation 0 f f . ( page 4i, 43. ) [Ifracl is called the people Or the Lord, even after the Calves werefetup at Dai { and Bethel, and Cajaphas was own'das hi^h prieft though they came to the office by bribry andfa&ion ' andthehighpriefthad an hand in crucifying Chrift. ; ite/.Thefame reply and retortion recurs as formerly j whatwill he fay if we plead this for presbyterianMini J fters,whom he will not call worfe then thefe mention ' ed, nor will he fay that our Presbyterian Churcl' is worfe then that Church. So that he muft gran ' this will not reach his conclufion , till more be fuppo- ! j fed and proved in this point. Again , tho God in hi: foveraign difpenfation had not as yet caft off the tcr tribes , having a faithfull remnant among them , yet 3 I hope he will not from this plead for owning the Cal- ' ves,or the Priefts Miniftry whom Jeroboam had ob- truded, and fet up contrary to Gods inftitution, anc for keeping up that wofull breach in Gods worfhip . andinlfrael, which was therby promoted , and this is a fit emblem of their Innovating prelatick Miniftry. Befide that the high priefts were men in a confiderablc meafure deciders and Interpreters of the civil Law. and might in thatrefpedt be owned. But however, it is ( as we have faid ) bad arguing from the com- porting with corruptions in that old difpenfation and Miniftry efpecially when drawing near an end, to the receiving of abjured corruptions into a Church which has been rid of them , and from a nonfefauting in the firft cafe , to conclude againft a non union or non complyance in the fecond. And thus neither will Pauls carriage toward the high prift, A&S2J. plead for adhering to Curats upon the fame grounds. For he will not fay that Paul underftood not his office in a fpiritual fenfe to be new expired , and that he was not to be owned as a teacher, who was every way defti- tute of the truth of the gofpel , and an enemy unto it* " Jackfo*" the third Dialogue 17$ fackfon thinks with fevral others, „that Paulfaid, \kne# not that he Wds the high prieft &c. ironically,it I being very improbable 3 that Paul knew not the thigh prieft j arid fuppofe it were fo , he knew him to I be a ruler as his own words difcover , fo that it was 1 no excufe to fay he knew not the high prieft, becaufe • as a jud^e it was againft the law to revile him.Ther- jfore (faith Tackfon upon Exod. 2,2.28.') though they underftood Paul as excuiing himfelf , yet he fpokc by way of derifion as difdaining he mould be xounted Gods high-prieft , who carryed fo. Which (faith he) is the more probable, when its confide- red how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended , when Chrift had aboliihed the legal prieft hood. Calvine n that place of the A&s fayes , Its not credible that aul gave him his wonted honour. ■ 1 ■ Cum abelita Tet adventu Chrifti [tcerdetij Mdjcfttey & fecut* turf is •ophartdttd , Pdnlum quafi Integra vigtret > folito honor e fr$ - cutumfutjje, qui tuneful? Pontificum tituloYiulUjuredo- inabantur , „ after the majefty of the prieft hood was aboliftiedby the coming of Chrift , and vilepro- jphanity attending it , that Paul, as if the prieft- hood had been ftanding intire , would have allo- wed the wonted honour to fuch who under the title of Priefts were governing without any right or juft tie. And having obje&ed to himfelf, that we muit Dt contemn civill Magiftrats , in his anfwer he puts a inference betwixt civil Mahiftrats and Church rulers - Inter chiles Magtftrdtuf (faith he) domination. But our Informer will fay, that I thu: let the authors of///r divinum minift. anglic by the ear: with Calvin and faeifin as to the fenfc of this place. I anfwer, they do not peremptory and pofitivdjL affert that Paul acknowledged him as high priefl: , but & onely , that many thinly be did. 2. Hence the weight t| of their conclufion fubjovned, viz. that corruptions clca j ring to Gods ordinances null them notjs not laid upon this J folelv, nor pofuivlj at all , even as a partial, but onely as a probable ground. And the conclufion it fclf when ad- mitted, will never reach his defigne as is above cleared. Again , admitting that Paul acknowledged his provi- dential title , or \us in re as to a civil office and admini- ftration at that time, as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premifed conclufion , civil rule, as fuch,being Gods ordinance, which is not made null by corruptions, fo upon the the difference of civil from facred rule* this conceffion will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the fpiritual part of his adminiftration. Thus we have fecn how well our Informer hath ac- ouit himfelf in his arguing from the Englifh Presbyte- rians. Let us next confidcr, how he reafons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited , if at lcaft we may call that which he here offers a formal reafoning , fince he offers not (as I faid ) any argument from thefc citations, but furc we will find that thefe paffages will burn his fingers. In that piece[fcil. Due right of presb< pageit o.to2f<*.] There are feveral paffages which thi$ man takes hold of , as i. [ He afferts that feparation from a true Church where the orthodox-word is prea- ched,and facraments duely adminiflrat , is unlawfull J and vindicats 2 Cor. 6.} Am. This in Mr Rutherfoord^ fenfc will plead more for the Presbyterian Miniftry &j dro* the third Dialogue i^£ taofeflbrs then for Conformiits, whom he will not jay that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon a: our Church , yi fuch a c?Se as this 3 fince ( as wc heard ) he holds ^hat in cafe of fuch a breach as we have now , the pure fchurch remains with the fmaller ftedfafl number , fjnd that the backfliders from truth and purity, tho the neater number , yet really are the Schifmaticks. And In thisfenfeweare to understand him when hefayes 1 hat this feparation as toworfhip, will not infer an .bfolut feparation, And hisallowing non^union^heve here is not fufficient caufe of feparation, in the cafe of jSurertobe joyncd with, and his admitting a partial ipar*tion, becaufe of a partial corruption of ordinances Veacahle plea page ill. ) will much more plead for a, otal non-union in this our cafe ; and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words (VeaceabU pleapage 1 22 . ) doth not fuite our cafe and exprefs fuch a fenie :herof as we have explaind -, and if he would not have ipplyed that which follows unto our prefent prcla- :ick party , had he feen our Church in this pofture and nher prefent circumftances , viz. we [eparat not from 1 true Church or her Lair full P aft or s , tthenwefeparat from hirelings andldolihepberdf, who Will not go before ut, and whether he would not have thought and called Con- formists fo? Thus (page 148/concl. 6. ) he tells us, me mayfeptratfrom the worship when wefeparat not from the thureh. So that its evident , that in Mr Ruther- foords fenfe we feparat not from the Church of Scot- land, nor her worfhip , while withdrawing from Curats , in attending the Ministry of Chrifts faithful! ambaSTadours. In the Next place this Informer prefents to us thefe paffages further in that pcice mentioned , viz. (page plj.) [the pcrfonal faults of others, are not fufficient ground for feparation — That the difciples thought not the fociety unclean for Judas fin > though they Qj[ 3 knew igi A Confutation of knew one of them had a Devil.] Again (page2jo,;;pfi [It was not Lawfull to feparat from thePharifees prca-, $ chingtruth.] (page 253.) [The Godly feparatednoipp from the Church , when the altar of damafcus was let t up, things dedicat to Idols, as Lutheran images. w are called Idolatry , 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by partici- \\ pation , and the cup of devils , yet Paul command! fr not reparation 3 and the table of the Lord was there." y I anfwer , this is already removed by what is faid a- g bove , as to any conclufion for his caufe 9 which thi« y loofe difputer doth not fo much as offer to draw out |< upon thefc citations. 1. Unlefs he prove the Con-c forming party to be the true Church of Scotland , to 0 which in this cafe we are obliged to adhere, or 2.1i\ we can prove , that according to our Churches Refor- 1 mation , Presbyterian minifters and profeflbrs are the true organick Church of Scotland , though the perfe- 1 cute fmaller number (which according to Mr Ruther- foordis veryeafy, for he fayes that in cafe of defe- ction, truth as life recools to the fmaller hidden part , ( Due right page 2f ?. ) In either cafe I fay this will plead more appofitly for adherence to Presbyterian Minifters and their Affemblies. Next, Mr Rutherfoords fcopc h to prove, that perpml faults corrupt not the worship, which wee deny not , but as we have above cleared this falls utterly (hort of reaching hi* conclufion , as to the owning of Curats, until! he firft prove hisforementioned fup- pofitions, wherein he begs the queftion, and this1 principle or affertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more ftrongly for not difowning Presbyterian Mini- fters untill this Informer prove fiis fuppofitions , and i difprove ours in this debate. In a word, the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this , that there is no reafon whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presby- the third Dialogue i8? :)>resbyterian Minifters, and inferring a conclufion of *>wning them, bat it will either* firft be retorted I ipon himfelf, or fecondiy, the univcrfality of the argu- 5 aeot , and the conclufion deduced there from>fo limi- ted , as utterly to irritat his defign, fincehe muft ac- knowledge, that rhere maybe a Lawfull reparation I rom a Mimftry and ordinances , altho not polluted 1 >y perfonal fcandals. And therefore this principle fn every cafe will not infer a feparation to be un- it awful! , far lefs a now awo* , and he muft acknow- ■J edge thauto argue the unlawfulnefs of a feparation J)r nonunion in every cafe, or meerly, from this I ground [that there is no pollution of ordinances by l;he perfonal faults of Worfhipers or adminiftrators j rhereof] is a grofs ptith prineipii&iimrdtioclenehi>zti& h which his cafe , luppofeth many thingswhich areto 1 De proved , as I. That Conformifts are this Church. It. That this pradtice of difowning them as nowcir- cumftantiat , is properly a finfull feparation. 3 • Thai Prelatifts have the bed right to officiat as Minifters in cbis Church. 4« That we have no other reafbns for a non union but this pretended pollution of ordinances, and that we (land obliged upon this fuppofition that the ordinances are not thus polluted, to joyn to them rather then Presbyterian Minifters. And fince this principle will prove them all to be Schifmaticks who difowne Presbyterian Minifters in preaching the Gof- pel> it will follow therefrom that our Infermtr is in this pamphlet pleading for Schifm, orelfehe muft fo limit this pofition , as thereby his conclufion againft us ihall be utterly cut off as is faid* Fourthly , heprefents unto us that paffage ( page ^H>) where he (hews [ That the godly in Eng- land thofeparating from Biftiopsand Ceremonies did not feparat from that Church ; and approves their doing fof and in keeping communion therwitk Q3 4 i* x&4 A Confutation of in unquestionable duties > the contrary whereof he charges upon tbefc feparatifts agamtt whom he reafon- eth, celling us ibidem, that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked converiatio.i , and yet retain tine true faith , i:s tobeprefumedthat God hath fome there ro be faved , — — — • that Chrtft himfelf is where his or- di nances are , and fome union with him the head — that though a privat fcandalous brother ought to be cafteff, yet not an Orthodox Chuch.] if ft/, i. The Presbyterians have all this to plead .for pleopies adhe- rence to them^untill this Informer prove that th- prela- tick party are our national! organick Church, which will be ad Kjtlcndas Gracafr 2. Mr Rutherfoord alia-* 'long flares his queition as to feparation , from a Church jo ani fo polluted. Ergo he fpaks not of a SohifmA* iickdefirojmg Innovatingparty , or a feparation from them x^theijthen a found Church contending againft ihem , which would quite in vert hisfcope and arguing, *nd the ground and hypothefis thereof. For I pofe t^is man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators caft out the true Miniitry , and fhould plead this paffage of Mr Rutherfoords for their fchifro and the peoplesadher- encetothem, fure he would charge them with begg- ing the queftion > aswedoConformiftsinthis point , and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them- Fifcly, Mr Rutherfoord fayes ibidem[We may fepa- rat from the Lords fupper where the biead isador'd— — • and frombaptifm where the fignofthe crofs is — yet we are not to feparat from the Church.] Anf. We may hence collet that inMrRutherfoords principles I. We are to fepai at from all contagious Warship , tho not abfo- luriy cor rupt.i. That this is no feparation/r«fi tkeChurcb while thereis apurer Church & Miniftry to be joyned with>and to which we \rere joynd. J .That ajbttwi a wniinion unto , and difowning of a backflidtPg par- the third Dialogue. iZ$ ty , who are not our Church , is warrantable becaufc of their contagious corruptions, efpecially when fas is faid) the oppofition of that party to the true Ghurch is fo virulent. Mr Rutherfoord tells us there, that we feparat not from the Ghurch when we profefstofetfr the word, and allow the truth ofDoilrine, and do noc Presbyterian profefibrs owne the true Dc&i ine of cur Reformed Church, while hearing and and adhering unto her faithfull Paftors. Befide , Mr Rutherfoord tells us , that there may be ciuie of non-union where there is not fufficiejncaufe of reparation, as Paul fepa- rat not from the Jews till they blafphemed , yet3 (aith he,there was no caufe why people fhould joyn to that Church beforethat time, fince they had the cleaner to joyn with viz. That of the Apoftles Ergo in cafe of a truc^Reformed Church her beiag divided, and rent by a backfliding deftroying party opposing her Authority, union and purity , introducing Innova- tions into her,contrary to her Reformation and vows, andcifting out her faithfull Miniftry who dare not comply with their wicked courfe, a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithfull Miniftry contending againft them , is no finfull reparation from the Church, nor afeparation at all by Mr Ru:her« foords doctrine* Sure the Presbyterian party are in eur principles the cleaaeft Church , to whom there- fore Mr Ruiheifoords allows to adhere. ( pagq But here the Informer prefents us another paflage in that fame place torepell what is faid, viz. that heaf- ferts [ there is no juft caufe to leave a lefs cleaa Church (if true) and to go to a purer, though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that which fce conceives purcft.] Anf This makes as little for him as any of the reft , for I. He isftill fpeakingof # Church, thus imireJyleis pure, in comparifpnofa Qjl j more 1 86 A Confutation of more pure. But blefTed be God their prelatick impuri- ty , has not infe&ed all our Church, their being iooo ef Minifters &prof eflors who adhere to the truth. This man will not fay that this will plead for a peoples ad- herence to a party of Schifrmtick backfliders Intrud- ing upon a pure Church , Introducing Innovations intoher> and ejc&ingher faithfull Miniftryas Con- formifts are now doings which will be yet more con- vincingly clear, if we eonfider 2. that Mr R;:ther- foordlayes much weight upon this,thn a man rs already a member of that Church which islefs pure , but we can- not be faid to be baSenus members of, and on this ground under a prior obligation ofaiherer.ee unto,a party of Innovators and backfliders , who are decoy- ing and ruining the pure Church, but in this cafe our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithfull Miniftry , thusoppofedasis faid. But now at laft our Informer who hath been hitherto filentasto any inference from his citations, drawes out a general conclufion from rhem, that in Mr Ruthcr- foords \udgmcnt and the English divines , neither the perfonal fault f of Minifters , N#r real faults about the Worship (much lefs fuppofed only) Villtvarrandafeparation, which when admitted lifts not his caufeone Hairbreadth off theduft, as is clear from what is faid; fincehe hath proved none of rhefe three, cither i.That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to thetcnour and principles of our Refor- mation , nor i« That this practice of difowning them in this our cafe, is a finfull reparation* Or $ . that we difowne then meerly for perfonal fcandals, or fome corruption in Worship* Whereas we have pro- ved that abftra&ing from both thefe, we havepround of difowning them as Schifinatiek Innovators aeftroy- ingthis Church 5 an.4 himfeJf muft grant 'fat there may the third Dialogue . 1 87 mav be a nan-union unto , yea a ieparation from a for- ty ground lejly ajfumingthe name ef a Church , though nei- thcrtheir perional faults do pollute the worfliip , nor the worflaipit felfbe fimpliciter difowned , orelfe he muft yeeld the caufe when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyrerian Minifters, and for not feparating from (hem: fiuce it is upon this ground , that all along he pleads for people** difowningthem , though he dare not fay that the ordinances are polluted by their fup- pofed fcandals. After this our Informer exhorts his Doubr^r, to try all things and net to be ashamed to retraB what is atnifl t as dttguftin wrote books of retraBtons ani \erom exhorted Rpfiinus mtto be ashamed f confefi an error. Jw. I think indeed , we are to fearch all things by the rule of the word, and had he withafingle heart and an eye to the God of truth, fearched better , he had not obtruded upon Gods people ( in defence of fo bad a caufe) fuch infignificant arguments for demonftra- tions. But why exhorted he not his Doubter t$ hold [aft Watisgoid, aswellas totrvall things? Icisnoi tic to b- ever learning, and fixe in nothing. And no doubt this latter part of that fcripture precept, juftifies our oppofing their Innovations. But he pleads for re* tractions, and its no wonder to fee men who have Jufti- fied the casing aftde fuch folemn Oaths and vows unto God, plead for retraBuns^wt if he and his party retraft not fuch monftrous retractions (the very naming whe- reof would have made Auguftin and Jerom aftoniihed) th* wo threatned againft perjury,backfliding,8c breach of Covenant is very near them- His concluding pray- er thatGfi blejlus with truth and-peace , is good , and heartily accorded , and furcly when our Jerufalem fliall have this fpiritual profperity , peace , and truth (which this man pretends t© pray for) withinher walls, prelats and their wofull train and corrupt principles % which 1 88 A Confutation of which have made fuch fad breaches in her wall*, will be without them. And the profperity of fuch as love her, will ruine her enemies. His Doubters Refolution [to hid fifi what is good upon the proof of all things] makes up nis lame advice. And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the ferieus Doubter in that which this man harh been mfinformng him about s and antidoted chis poyfon , vve pray that all the fincere enquirers for truth, may hold it faft a- gainft the times errors and dofedhon. The cbarafter offebifm prefented to us at the clofe of the pamphlet , is venfyed in the party he pleads for: fince their proud ufurpation of the name and authority of this Church , after they have thus rent and feparat from her, demon* ftrats this their fchifm to btfuperbia proles. And in their taking up fuch grofle unheard of principles anent Oaths, anent Magiftracy &c to maintain and uphold this ufurping hierarchy, they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of»fchifm, thatuufc pcrfc- verandofitb A Confutation of 2. Hepraifes "Magiflratsinthe bounds where beis,whofe authority together with his mightie conviBions (for ooch ) ht back^peopk who went once to hear Presbyterian Mini* fitrs out ofmveltic. Anf>\ ;s no irrull peice of our fin and deiola ion that the Magiftiats fword given him for promotion of the Lords faithfull AmbafTadours in following thcire duty x according to there folemn vowes to G d, (hould be improven infuch a fin- full oppofuioa to them. What peace and order in this Church hath attended their monftrous per- perjurious backfliding , were 2o years experience mav difcover efpeciallie to thof- who have feen and known the beau ti full order of our firft glori- ous temple > the verie rubbifli , whereof is yet re- frtfhfuH in any remains of a faithfull Miniftrie that fa left. * . Agjinft hiimodeft relu8*ncie( forfoo* b )fome ofautho* ritie andlearmug among his party thought it fit t that thefe hi Dialogues should fee the light , becaufe fchtfmatick prin- ciples and practices are not laid afide- but carried on\ and this Informer thouht it a mater of confeienceto difaver to fucli as are Willing to h informed, how unwary aran" table fucb courfs are , if Scripure and even the Dotl me ef Presbyterians may be admited to judge. Anf. How he hath £* lined this charge of Schifmaticl^ princi- ples and praSices upon Presbyterian Minsters and Profwflbis , I leave it to the Impartiail to Jud^e from wba- is heie replved. And how far any thing which he hath aflfcred either from Scripture , or the principles of Presbyterians 3 is from reach- ing the condufion which he aims at in thefe trifling Dialogues; which all who are confeientiousare (we hope) hythis rejoynder, and a refpeft to truth and dutie, fufikientlyantidotedagainft , and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at fuch prodigi- oufly bold ignorance. 4. He the third Dialogue. 151 4. He bonders that f$ many of good note and not of the c$- mom only art drinking mthe principles of Erounifts , which have keen ^cakujly difputed againft by oldmnccnformifts.Anf Mow he hath made good this charge I refer it to the perfufall of what is here replyed, and how far the plea- dings ofthefeNon-conformiftswhomhementionsare from helping his caufe. I muft here add, that its afto- mnifhing to find this man pretending a principle of cor* fiience for this undertaking, when his confeience could notbut tdlhim, that bothuponthe poyntof Epif- copacie,the Covenants, and reparation alfo, he might have found'all ar.d more then he hath faid fully anfwe- red , and that he pitifully fnakes away from ourargu? menrs&dar not propofe them in there genuin ftrength. Nay he doth not fo much as offer fairly to ftatethc queftion in any of thefe three great points which he pretends to inform us about? but confufedly ihufibs them up for his own advantadge. And upon the point of the Covenant obligation, he poorly followes the ar- guments of the Seasonable cafe, and fome hints fiom the Surveyer without lb much as offringany return unto what the Apologift hath long fince repeiyd unto them. If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge ? and yet he is not afhamed to tell the worldjhat because Epif- topacieand the covenant: are by people made the great grounds of Separating > there f$re he premifed his two dialogues concer- ning Hpifcopacic and the Covenants , to shew what a fandj pound they are for feparation , if pelade be found at leaflLaw* full , andtbeCovenatitsinevrycaJcmt obligator ie* whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacie lawful, or the Covenant not obligatorie, but what is by fe- verall of the godly learned abundantly anfwered and fullv bafled, fevrailof which (viz. the Afollogift > and jusdivinumMinijlery Anglican, he feem* to h^ve had before him in writeing thefe Dialogues, and yet na- thcr dtth he touch the anfwers of the Apologift to his argu. 1 6 1 A Confutation of arguments anent the Covenant 3 nor dar he fcan the pungent arguments ofthe London Mimfters againft prelacie,3nd likwife there anfwers to fevrall things which he has offered for it, and particularly there \eaitntd Appendix in thepoyntiof Antiquitie, which cuts thefinnews of allhis tedious legend of teftimonies * hedurft notmedlewith. Befidelt wold feem he hath feenSmeftvnmus upon this fubje much more the Eraftian 1 doth the very fubflanrialls of Pref« 1 byters divine power, which this learned author is in i that piece pleading for. And in a word I dare pofe this Informer , whither Blondell would not have i thought a national Churches liberty in this point of I Cuitome or alterable circumftances of decencie and ! order ( even tho we ftiould grant that he puts Epifco- pacy among thefe) istyed up andreftrained> byfa- cred foiemn Oaths and vowes univerfally taken on a- gainft the fame ; fo that his caufe is never a whit better- ed by thefe blind Teilimonies which (asisfaid) he he dirft not tranflate , ashe profeffeth todoein the reft of his citations 3 for the advantage of the unle* arned- TbealTertion af:er fubjovned by him v\. that the uri avplnefi cfEpifcopacie was queftioned by none of the an- dents except Amused rarely tj any of the modern except jomeofour British divines , that antient and mdern divines thinkjhat prelacie was the primitive Government left by the A* pofiles] we have proved to beamanifeftuntrurh. Spe- cially when applyedtothe prelacy exiftant wiihu<; and that it is the confentient judgment of the far gre- ateirpart, both of ancient and modern that there is r.o difference jure dhino betwixt a Biiliop and Pref- by ter. And inat our Prelats now in Scotland are as far different from the antient Bifhops as eaftfrom Weil > fothitno patrociniecan bedrawen from the one to the other. That Blondell profeiTes tovindicat |e- rom from that which he calls Aer'anrfm , who will he- liev- , taking Aerius opinion tobc for the premifed I- dentitieof B'ihopand Presbvtenfincewe have made it appear byTeftimonies ofthe lesrned , that both Greek and Latine Fathers held this fame opinion u>jth Aerius, How heharh proved Epifcopacie [to be the Rr 2 Govern* 19b A Confutation of Government which bath beft warrand in the word , and hat I continued without interruption/or many years] we refer it to the reader co judge by wnat is above replyed, whe- rein we have made it appear, that as his pretended Scripture proofs for prelacy , andhis anfwers to our Arguments againft it > are rnoft frivolous , fo none of his pretended Teftimonies from antiquiric doe reach his conc!ufion,nor any ftiidow of a patrocinie for ouf prefentPrelatnoweftabhlh-d, whom ws have fully difpro ed from Scripture, both in his diocefian and fc- raftian mould. What poor fhaddowes for proofs doth this man grafp at B]oj dell thought the Scripture f7zr««*-9 lawful, and its vm^xn to belong to %vt*\h and good order. Ergo, he pleaded for the Diocefian Bi- fhopwith fole power of ordination and Jarifdi&ion, and a Bilhop deriving all his power from the civil Magiftrat as immediatly fubjeduntohim, whichisa very analogical proof and a meer rop of fan J* Laftly he mainly commends to his reader this Dia- logue anent reparation [wherein he fayes all the reafons. brought for it are propounded and anfwered without paj- fion which dcth but alienat the minds* An], How poorly this mar. hath anfwered the true grounds of difowning con- formnts, or rather pad them over,andbowpityfull\ he all along begs the queftion in fuppofing what he hath to prove > v\e hope is made fufficiently appear to the Judicious and impartial As for paffion , its true there is lefs of this in his Pamphlet then in fome orherofthis ftampwhch his fellowes have flung out amone the people, yerhehath hisfignal flafhes of it [ in \uftifying Dt Burets parallel of nonconformists with Scribes and Pharifees , and in calling them as great andcau- felefiSchifmatickjasevertbo Church had in any agey nay in his grofic malitious reflecting upon the futierings of poor Innocents in this land^telling us under the cov ert of thfe third Dialogue 197 ■ Cyprians words [that their inexpiable fin of dtfcord it \t f urged by their bufferings ■ ■■ that firing Chips hutch 1 they cannot be martyres nor reign with kin , ] 'hich , with what a tin&ure of malice it prefents its :lf , lee any judge. His conferences he fayes do flfog water to quenchour flames^but they bring rather jfefd to the fire* and wood and hay to uphold BabelK rtie Rabfres'tfhom he pleads for have kindled our lames, and the bed way to quench them Is to put thefe ncendiaries to the door. Next he cites the preface of the Syntag* Confefs.edit. *enei> [ tvherin the Church of Scot land is commended for her unity at well as purity ofDoBrme, and then he cry es out O botv hav? tee loft our good name, dndtheftajfofbonds isbro* f^enimhemidfiofus] butheflnuld have been foinge* nuo.isascohavctold usthatwe are in the preface of th;*tSyn:agma commended for our reformed Presbyterian itfcipline as the great bond and cement of our unity, md the guard of our pttredo8tin$ , and who have bro- ken this bond andfacred hedge I need not tell him > md what bath been the diftrefi, confufioninddefilation afour Church finceitvas broken > every one now fees ; fo that he might lament the lofs of our good name upon this ground^ and efpecially of our integrity where he a truefon and watchmen of this Church. The confequences of our fad divifions> through the vi- olence and Sehifmatickintruflon of abjured perjured Prelats and their underlings have indeed hazarded the (landing of Chrifts Kingdome among us accord* ng to that of Mark. 3.24. And the biting & devouring wolves* the Prelats for whom he pleads have hazarded i:he confumingof Gods poor remnant Gal. f • 19. Our Churches diffolution & corruption, & werche as ten- der to prevent this, as to preferve there worldly peace mdfinfull union > he would have feen Prelacy to be R r 5 the 198 A Confutation of the Idol lealoufie , the wedge driven by the popish ar- tifans to divide and break this Church , and as the true caufe of all our breaches to be removed in order to healing. The popifh invafion doth indeed plead for union ofthe true Proteftant Church and intereft againft rhem,andconfequently to hold out and op- pofe fuch arrant upholders and promoters of that Antichriftian intereft as Prelats have firft and laft been founi and never more then now , lince popry bath never more prevaild then fince they were efta- blifhed (by the confeilioneven of our Rulers) and that without control. While they arc en flaming the powers to the out mod height oi rage againft poor innocent nonconfomifb , fo that union with them who are at fo palpable an union with Rome is not the unity of rhe fpirit which is to be keep in the bond of Peace,and to be ownd by any that favour the Pro- teftant Intereft. The texts which he prefents unto us upon the fron- tifpeiceof the Pamphlet will be found to rebound a deadly blow upon his caufe. For that paflage Pfal. Hi. 6. 7. fray fir the peace tfferufilcm £?c We alfo pray for this peace, and in order to the obtaining of this fair, that the Lord would makeup the breaches in - her walls,and remote the treacherous breakers there- of, who. we may fev again and a^ain that in this they have dealt very treacheroujly , but what peace with Conformifts whiletheirwhcordomsarefo many.The next rextis Pfali i^.i+bcholdhow good dndplcafdnt athmg it isfo r brethren to due II together in unitie. It is f o i n d eed 1 and therefore woe unro them (if they repent not) who have broken this bond of holy brotherhood , have rent Aaronsgarment*corrupted the Covenant of levi,j and do avowedly owne principles and wayes upon which herinons dew ( heavens bleffing) cannot be cxpt* the third Dialogue j y 9 :xfp6&ed. Therefore this command of Lovely mion engadges to dicjoyn our felves from therru 7orthe next text Mark 3. 24. a kingdom* divided againft tsfelf cannot fiand Sec We fay , Gods Church ha' a toodamidil great divifions, is one and intirein it felf, ind will at laft be delivered from all divisions and of- fences; and therefore upon the fame ground we are to ivoid prelatifts who have caufed them. For that of ieb 10.2$. anenr net forfalyng the Affemblies , we blefle :he Lord that fuch as are iorroufull for ourChurches rrue Affemblies, and to whom this man and hisfel- lowes reproaches thereof are a burthen 3 have had the Affemblies of drifts ambafladours to attended that :he great Matter of Affemblies hath not wholly left :hem, but hath covered a table in the wildernes in this our Churches flight unto it,to theft who with perill of heir life are feeking their foul food because of the 'word of the wildemefle* drawen out by Affemblies of Schifmatick deftroying Intruders^from whom weniuft depart,and who have perfecut us away foradherance o our fworn Reformation and Covenant with God » which they have diflound. Thcfentence next fubjoyned vi% opinionumvarietas tfepinantium unitasnon funt afuftata , doth highly re- lea upon himfelf,and the party he pleads for,who doe terfecut with fire and fword all who differ in judge- ment from them inthefe things which they aknow- edge but trie* & maters indifferent, fo that in this they ire uvT*K*7u*£tTi^ For us, we are chafed out from hem> and can be admitted to no union with them ex- :eptwe unit m there fin,which throw grace we are ixtly refolved againft. Uis defign [to qwet peoples ninds^ndfitle them in mire peace and unitxe ] 1$ of it ielf o good to be prcfented as a porch here to fuch a fliat- ered pafquill, and to be pretended to fo badacaufe and xoo A Confutation of & in this place may be not unsuitably afllmilated to So lomons ring of gold in tfwimsfnout. No doubt folic peace and uniueisonly to be tound in Gods way, if keeping his Covenant and owning his MefTergmo peace (whofe feet have. been beautiful even on theft reproached mountains Scctber places whereGods peo- ple affembledjfince they ha ve his call and feal to preach the gofpell)and not in following the foxes in a way of perjurie and breach of Covenant as this panaphktei would perfwad. FINIS, Curteous Reader. There being feveral confidarable Typo~ graphic all err our ts in the fir Jl part espe- cially , thou art dt 'fired ere thoureadeff , or in the reading to amend with thy pen thefe enfuing, orfuchlikeasyuiUoc- curr unto the m theperufal. Firfc Part. TMfcAg- '$•!• !?• read £T/r»07ra<. p. 6. 1. a^r. 1%. I. wr*9s r. inequality, p. S. 1. iS. r. chides. p. 9. 1. 2. JL r> jtmcftcal. i. 8. r.-high. p. to. 1. 6. r. Paftors. I*. r. dogmatick. 1. 3 5T- r. juridical, pag. n. for as the foundation of ] r. influencing, p. 13. 1. 30. r. his. p. 17- I- 6- r- hhvmxos. 1. 24. r. pofefled. p. 18. 1. r^.'r.he. p. 19.L 3~- r« qualifications, p. 21. I. 7. r. lath, p. 2,x. 1- 11. r. tell. I. 20. r. the. p. 25.1. 23. r. vkhLp.^-M1-1"-00^- p- 27.1. I- r. up. 1. 7. r. hefe. p. 28. 1.2+.r. unto. p. 29. 1. 26. r. power, p. 1 l! 17. r. there, p. 32. 1. 32. r, it. p. 36. 1. 16. r. vorn. p. 37- 1.9. r- bring, p. 39. 1. 13. rt he. p. 12. >. 46. 1 23. r. Rom. 12. p. 5 i.l. i.r. GraVari. ]. 2. r. ftoliticorum. Chap. 7. Tit. 1. j . add. in. p. 59. I. o. r. wearing. L *6. add. a. l.ult. r. not.p. 63. 1. 9. r. )econonemy. I. ult. add. fhewes. p. tfS . 1. ?. r. fimply Kj».r. to. p. 73- 1-%1- r- ^e- P- 7*- 1- 9. add. is. p. 8r. 10 r. fubjeft. 1. 30. r. ofdominion. p. 82. I. 25. r. nformes. p. 84. l.'i. r. negatively, p. 8f. 1. 9. r. this. 8tf. !. ult. r. the. p. 89. 1. 13. r. iTnrxomiv. So. p. ] 4-1. 32. r. can. p. 94. 1. $3-r. in. p. 95. K J. dele, "p Qd.l.4.r.he. p. 99- 1. 27- add. is. p. 102. 1. 10 k [the Corinthians] r. Churches, p. 104. l.ij. ele, Faswe mavafter fliiw] 107. 1. penult, r. ofk- *rs and offices, p. io3. 1. $0. r. can. p. 109. 1. 9. add, his. his. p.114. l.io. r.thus.l. J2.add.no. p. Ii6.1.n.add, according to the feries of his reafoning. no. p 1 19. 1. 9. r. this. I29.T. inferiour. p. 120. 1. 30. r. this. p. 123. 1. 4. r. Chriftian. p. 124. 1. 9. & to gather. 1/ 30. dele ry. p. 125. I. 24. r. been. p. 126. 1. 22. r. Spurious. P. 129. h *• r. commanded. 1. 4. r. Presbytry. p. 1 31. 1. 13. fupple. in theproper Scriptural fenc. 1. J2.r. grad. p. 1 3 7. 1. 1. dele. had ane office next to that of a- poftles and do&ours. p. 139. !. 20. r. his. p. 140.I. ti. 1. for. p.148.1.1 2.r. fupple.Takingitin ane authorita- tive Juridical fenc p. ifo. J. penult.'r. pray. p. 157. 1. i4.deIe,apoftolikand.p. 162.1.27. r.circleftil. p. 163! J. 9. r. with. 1. ult. r. ceremonial, ibid. r. part. p. 1*4. i. 3r. r. '. ubi. p. 177. 1^ J 1. for!/ even> r. except, p. 17&. I. 2. r.wpirfivTfpi*. p. 183.I. go. Ar.itfelf.p. i8tf. 1. 16. r. and pride. 1. penult, add^in. p. 188. l.wlt. r. true. P. 191. 1. go. r. profligat. p. 19?. 1. 16. r. interval, the, L 11. r. nothing/ p. 19$. I. 3. r. bold. p. 198. p. 199. J. ?. r. what. p. 200. 1. 2.delemeflage, or. 1. 13. add. in. p. 20i.l.*33, p. fuppofitia. 1. 33, r. fuppofitious. I. , ult. what. p. 2o*5l. 17. r. till. zo4. 1.6. r. confuetudo. p.2otf. 1.24.r.for,i.p. 211. 1. 2 1. through the. p.fcif. I }. 25. r. diftributive!y.2i7J- 9#dele>by. 1. I9.add,is. p. 219. 1 tf. r. or. p. 221. 1. 24,add3the. 1. 2?. r. oppo- sed, p. 222. 1. 25. r. of. p. Z2.4S, r. ctitifa$ix«tri. 227, 1. i25r.Var/r*<>?r^. p. 2.29. 1. 14. r. deligatur plebe p.23i, 1. 30. r. lfemdi. 1. ult. in. p.|2j tf I.ii. r. eorum. p. 238 ]. 16. r. fit fegregatus. 1. 2?. r. fet afide or cefured. p, 24l, 1. -O. r. iiipsftixlcu. 1. 25, r. bhixnioy. p. I423l.' 10. r. lowly. p, 143. 1. 10. r. unakerablenes. 1. I93r.j harmonious p. 245 J. 7. r. commune p. 246. J. 28. r.j name. p. 247. 1. 28. r. office, ibid. r. none. 1. jo> r. us^j p. 252.1. 3. r. 5.1. 33.fupple,andbefides.l. 34^. this. ibid- bid. fupple, which is p. 261. 1. 28. r. forgat. 29. n ror.p. 25^tfT«f«^iiV:p.i^?.l. io.dele, s tofooma&s. p. 272- 1.©. r. 7re*>«*p. 281. 1. 9. r. x.Parr.pagt.I. 15. fupple. both, p. 7. 1. 24. fupple, nno 40. and|4i. p. 14. 1. 17. f. 1671. p. $1.1.4. r- his p. 73. 1. 2. r. then 1. 10. r. cannot, p. 99- 1. *3. r. :ommiflTaries p. 117. !• 4. dele.me. p. 124. 1. 4. r.con- onant. p.132.1. 19. r. Discefeos. 1. %i. fupple. the. Parr. 3. Pag. 2. 1. 13- r* our. ]. 14. r. or. p. 4. 1. 29. %'declared p. 12. L 13. fupple. and arc. p. 14. 1^8.r. toe. p. 26,1. 1 fupple comparing this with what he pleads from the inftance of Solomon* depo- sing Abiathar. p. 481 L 9»r.byc p. $3, 1.2, r. obliga- tions, p. f9, 1, S3 r. intmfion. p. 6i, 1. 32, add. therof. p* 64*1-27* rchouiing. p. C7>\. 15 5r. petirio. p. 69, I, 2$,r. they. p. 7}* 1.3 1> r.**^****,^;^ p. 78, 1 ult. r. Sabinus. p. Sr,l. i^r.the p. 83, l.penulrf. relation, k 84J. i^r.no Bifhop. p.9o,1.2i'.r. Prieft. 1. 27, pele. hearing of. p* 28, dele, and attending their Mini- Itryasfuch 1^. p. 94,^ n,?adde, gracslefs men. p. 55, U4, dele. of. p. 103, U 18 ,r. ofU2j,r fcruple. p. 1 1 3 , K t , r. fupremacy. p. 1 27, 1. 28, r. inquies. p. 1 50, . ulc r. calceorum> p. 134, L 12, r. another, p. i$8,- .26. r. authority. J. penult, r. our* p. 160, 1. i>add. rhis. p.162, 1. 27, r. Presbyterian, p. i<$£, 1. 17 , r. they. fc 167,!. 27**. for, or, r.againe,p,i6S>K 1, adde, Specially, p. 1 70, I< io,r. which rotwithftanding i.s; 179, 1. 29, r. Magiftrats: p. 181, 1. r2r. a purer Church. P. I8i,l. itf5r. and whi:h doth. p. i$6, I; t,r. thoufandes. 1. 16> r. this* p.i$o> 1. Hi r> more .hen. 1. 28, r. offered, p 1*2, 1.8,r.Sme&ymnuus.p. ►, Uvii^r, the Holy Spirit 3 dele of ibid. p. pe. ruler, the pfcfentEraftianH^archical degrees* p.i£ 1. i2,r. zanchy fayesp. 165. 1. f„ dele, by. p. 196,1 22, dele the. p. 197, 1. 7, n build* p* 2 98, 1. 4> add oui | l,i2,r.utmolt.p. 199,1. pewit, r. too. In the contents, part.i,cap.7.1.io.delead.cap. 8,I.8,adde,is,p.6,1.2i,r., Theodoret. 1. 3 1, for, rulers, r. rules. Sol. 32, p. 7. 1.4, r. poor ground 1. I45r. of. p. n,l. 6, their point, r. the point, p. 14,1. 6. rinconfiftencies. 1:8. for and r: which p. 17. b 7 r: ownd: p: i8;l. 23 dele is p. 19. 1. 19; to the hearing of them. r. to the hearingofCurars. In the Preface p. 3,1. 2*, r. the world, p. 6:1. i> r. fweet. in loom copies, p. 8,1.6 , the fhold> r. thref- hold. 1. 7, dut. r. duft. in foom copies, p.9, l.ult* andp»io,l* I, wan:ing,fotobefupplyed[confequen.» ly in all other debeats in theology, nay, we muft mea- fur the temple, J p. 10, 1. 2o,fcr agerr. anger, p. 20, 1. 4. r Scupturs, 1. 25, for, [antiquity Churches and the practice J r. antiquity and the Churches practice.: p. 15, 1. 11, r* fcarrcrow. p« Z6> 1, 19, fluttered. p4 29,l.i7,r*lapp.p,32,l:i:fora:r:be, i8,r-.atal.p$45l. ir,r;Texts.p. 3 5 ^ 1. i9^for[ this ]r.thus.l.|22, for wher r, for. p. 3 2, 1. 5 . for , polites ,- r policed, p. 4*> 1. 12. for, above r. here 1. penult, plead fork. r. for this. p. 42,1.2,1*. limiteitl. 5, but beating, r. but a beating.l.H3te3add:rand:p.4vl.3fh3ttered.l.i73for, perfual, rperufal. p. 4<*> L 24. dele, and,p.4<5.'« *?• for, (hepherdlirael, r, oflfrael. 1. 30: dele of- Others of lefis importance, fuch as the 'deficiency J redundancy, ormijvlacmg, cither of vowels, conjonants , or foomjilldblesior the tificiency ^redundancy tormiJp laangofcom- maes, colons, or t he I i\e points, thou may amend as thou readeft. Jhepagesthat are vmgfigurd.orthe numbers offome chapters inthe fifft part, thou uillfindcorrecled > in the index, and fixt in due order, if any err ours of more importance occur* , the candid reader is defird to par don the fame; and ameni them in reading. ADVERTISEMENT. Reader j Having upon further view of this impref- fion found that the bad moold of lome Sentences! and feveral other omnnflj- ons of thetranferiber, have crept inro the fame j I have thought fit to fill up fome pages with thefe notes enfueing, to be added unto the ERRATA. pAG.7.1* 2,-r. Minifters. p. 5. L29. n The Pre- I late is the proper immediat fubjed of the power f both order and jurisdiction , and hath the exercifc aereof properly and immediatly intruded to him. . 11. 1. 16, 17, 18. r. They are made therein rulers , fovernours, Ovetfeers 3 Paftorsand Stewards in the "hurch, which Scripture epithets ( and the power Herein consequently imported ) our adverfaries nil not for fhame deny to be competent to preach- ig Presbyters, p. 16. 1. 12. r. hence it follows that e &c. p. I$* 1. 22. r* his praftice in the exercife of lis power, p. 20. 1. 1 4. r. The Schoolnaen with fome .ncients. p. 2 that the inequality which they were ftriyeirig about , included a dominion and primade. p.77.1. 13. after [ touched] adde , fince oiir Lord was now exercifdng, an abfolute fupte- rnacie over his Church, how thin (I pray) will this argument taken from his example, Suite his Scope & purpoieof difchargeing aSupremacie. p. 79. 1. io. 21. r. thus, did nocChriitdr; charge ane inequality, in diichirgeing a primacies an inequality of the high eft pitch, p. 79: 1. ult. r. Seeming to make. p. So. 1 ulr. After [power] adde ( to ufe his way of (peaking) p:8l. U2o:r, and neither defpotick nor princely, p. b^. 1.28, 19. r. That Church - officer* are of fuperiour or inferiour orders or kinds, p. 84.. 1. i6. r. A preaching Presbyter or Paftor. I»3i,j2.r. Such Presbyters have the Scriptural Epifcopal autho- rity. p3 85*1. 17, r. Superiourand inferiour kindesot orders* p. S7.I. 6> i\ After [Church rulers]adde, we all know how Frelatifts and the popifti Church appl; KaJp^ or Cierus. 1. 9- after [denomination] adde conii-iered in us true extent & import, p* 89. 1. 5. r, To the higheft ordinary office beaiers, intruded witl the Power of the keys,!, 14, r. Whatever Power o order or jurisdiction , the Scripture Bifliop can la; ciaimeunto. p. 90J. 1. r. The Scripture Epifcopa Po -. er, I; 9 : r. All this Epifcopal Authority. 1. 2f>i Elders or Bifhops in a perfect parity, and in com roon. So, 1. ult. after [ flocks ] . p. 91. 1. 3. after [Presbyters] adde, when applyed (as is (aid) t the higheft ordinary officers enrrufted with thePowc of the keves, 1: 12, r . preachingPresbyters or Paftor SoU f S,l. 32. after [elder] adde (he muft undei (land the preaching elder or Paftor if he fpeak to th point. ) 1. ult. and pag. 92. 1. 1. r. When God j| pointing out thereby the higheft ordinary officer i n truit^ ADVERTISEMENT. trufted with the word and doftrine. 1. 5. r. preaching Presbyter, 1. 15, r. preaching elders. 1. 17. r* this higheft ordinary ftanding officer often mentioned , p. 9**1. 17. r. When the Word [Bifhop] isapplyed to the higheft ordinary Church office: entrufted with the Power of the keyes. i. 24. r. preaching elder af ' Fiesbyten J. 30. r. the fame hL'heft ordinary officer. 1. 37. r. preaching Presbyter 5 So p. 94- 1. fj and 7. and 19.. Sop. 95,1. i6. Sop. 1 01 J. 14, 2nd 18.I* 34. 1. that the Paftoral office admitts of different orders, p. 102, 1. 2$. r. Preaching Presenters. So. p. 103 , i, 6. 21, and 28. Saalfo3 p. 104. 1. 23. p. 1 ii,U 3o,r. Such different orders of Church officers J. 34. r. different orders, p. 110. 1. 14. r. his fancied EccleOaftick Offi- cers fpedfically different, p. 122. 1.8,r. of a Superi- our order and function, 1. 1 1, r. of the fame function* il. \6>r. Several functions, !. i§, r. different functi- ons, p. 124,1. 24. r. as appearing to the lnforfher fipil- copallike. p. 131. I. 1$. r. thus" ( or of the Scripture fenfeimbraced b} our divines, viz. for the Apoffles extraordinary unfixt affiftants in their Miniftry. So Calvin on the place. Bucan, loc. 47.de Minift. > Mufculus, loc.de minift. verb. pag. 362, &c. and the. latter pa« of his Anfwer feems to admitt this ) I: 21. r. (which the 'nroymer\v ill cadly grant is not that ft i£t proper fenfe of the Evangelift , fuppofed either in his doubters objefiion or his anfwer.) p, 153. 1. 5i» $^3J.r. Thus, in the Scripture proper fenfe^but thofe that preach the Gofpel in that extraordinary rway aboveexpreft , for , as for thofe that wrote the 'iGofpel, the Informer will not fay they are intended :il ere, and although fuchmay be in part called Evan- 1 zelifts upon this ground, as MatI{C,& Lukj Senfu An- V0WC \ as Bucan cxprcflech it, ubi'fipra, yet this b tttt' 2 is no ADVERT fSEME NT; is not acknowledged to be the proper and adequate ground of this office and denomination, as contra-' diilinguifhedin Scripture from Apoftles » two Apo- ftles themfelves-,M thefe pre- cepts, 1 Tim. 6:13. and iTim. 5. 21. Joyned with the promife mentioned, will not reach , and include every peice of the Apoftolick and Evangeliftick offi- ce rejpeSlive > p: 158. 1. 10. r. is not that which Amp- ly and abfolutely in it felf confidered they hold to have the force of a rule , p. 161. line 10. r. different office; and functions, 25: r. before Ephefus Crete ando tber Churches were fettled in their organick bein an A D VE RTISEME NT. and theirordinary and inferour elders, p. \6aAai. r. is mentioned in fuch aneaft of Solemn bleiiing , thus circumftantiate both as to its fubjeft and okjeft as this. p. 176. (mifprintedi49.)r. From the firft Scripture Bifaops or preaching Presbyters, p. 177. 1. 30,31. r. That this Epifcopal power over Presbyters, though farre from the Diocefian Bifnops power was not nil the year 140. p. 190.L x8. r. Aaronhimfelf [mediariy at leaft and upon the matter.] p. 194 L 1*. r. Hanrftcr p. 197. 1,13. r and expound thy Scriptures which ca- ftome hath not known &c Difcwning thus all cufte- mary or traditionall innovations, p. 200. 1. 27. r. from Mark the Presbyters, 1. 29. r. fpeakingof this curt o- me he excludes him* p. aoi. 1. 2, r- thus , to the Presbyters election as their aft fimply,but would have platnely afTerted that it was byMark's appointment; the fimpk observing of this praiiics orcuftome, & obfervlng it by his appointment , being quite diftinct things j bjii- .de thir we flaall after fhew , that Jerom never intend- ed toafTert any fuch thing, p. 203* ). 16. r. The Church in this Nation. p,2o7* 1- 7. r. Common coun- feli, or in a joint parity and equality, fo, 1. 15. ibidem after. 4 figure? r. if m Jerom's fenfe the Apoftles &rc p.2o3. 1.3.r.preachingPresbyters.FromJ.ii:toi7* r. thus, can he Jm ike it appear that the Schifme in Co- rinth (from which he drawes the change injerqms' fenfe ) was anterior to his proofs from* 1 Pet. f . and Afts. 20. M-ich more his proof from John , forthe divine warrand of this intire paritv and common ;ovnr Government of Presbyters, or that this Schifme was not attended .vith fuchabfenc? of the Apoftle , as he fuppofes did influence this new Epifcopali Govern- ment in Jeroms fenfe. p, 207. 1. j. After the word [nature) adde,befides that the pafTage it fe!f>will rtev^r prove cither Marks praftice or appointment in relation to this fuppofed Bishop as is faid, p.iil.i.ix.r U- poa ADVERTISE ME N T. pon the ground of this firft cvaflon andglcffe, 1. 20 r, which in the tro collated pafftges of Jerome, 212 Lj-u thattheApoftksin Jeroms fenfe aid a 1,24-r. bv common courrfel, or in a compleat parity, (thus alto. p. 214,1,24) p. 113.]. 22, r. preaching Pref- bvtersp. 216J. 19 > Jo, to 32, after [Jerome fpeaks of] r. thus. So that this Srhifme was bred while there v-as no Presbyterian parity to breed it. He tells us, that in Jeromsfenfe the Corinth Schifme gave a rife to this change > while Paul was prefent in Spirit and Governing them Epifcopally ( for he will not fay that he let gohisreighns of Government upon every perfonal abfenc*!) and therefore it took its original according to his pleading from the ApoftolickEpif- copacie. p. 220, froml. 33, top. 221,, r. he makes him refleft upon (Thrifts immediate commands and inftitutions in point of Government , whereof feve- rals can be produced in the Evangelick Hiltory, as if they were not only altered? but ftated in oppofition to the Apoftles institutions and pradice therein. For Jerom doth thus clearly oppofe to one another , the Vifpoptio Divina, and Ecc/efia ujiis or cuftome in this paffa^e > as two contrary and inconfiftent things, thus he alfo refle&s upon Chrifts inftituticns as at firft praflifedby the Apoftles before this change, p. 225. J. 17. r. no fuch delegation, p. 231.I. 17. r. the pre- fent prince-like power of our Prelates, as Diocefian B. jarre lcfs their Eraftian ufurpaticns. p. 137, L 8, 9> &c. r. the ancient fiifhops were not all fett over whole provinces , but city by city for the moft part (yea feveral cities had more ) who certainly wfcre not Bifhopsin thatfenfe., wherein we heard Theodoret and Oecomenius denyes a mulriplicity of Bifhops in one city, which alfo proves a great variety in the Moold and denomination of Bifliops fpoken of by the fathers, p. 23S.1.23,r.fettafide;> feparat^andfufpen- de4 ADVERTISEMENT. ded, So, p. 2'69,1. 2, p. 247-'. *T;> r. a preaching Presbyter or Paftor* !. 35, r. Se#. Il.p. 2^0.!. 9. muftbe^ioth'tis. Befides , what can he irferrefrom Calvin's aiTertion of the precedency of one at that tyme'r had not Paul &:c. p. 2 h 25, r. which 35 early crept into (he Church 5 as the prelacy he pleads far yea much more ejirly. p. 263,!. 32, 34,?^ r: thus; nor hath the Informer proved that thisProeltcs, caff in the moold of the prefent Epifcopacie which he pleads for, Was allowed of ijlbndel , fince he holds it to be crofs ro the divi :ie pattern ; and from S : ture difputts againft k. p. 233, 1. 21, r. from the ty- mesoftbe A poftles, and appointed by 1 i62y from, I.22, r.o \+29 r. thus : prefented unier an E- pifcopal notion toEufebius, and the Power of B> fhops which then had obtained, whom he toocre- duloufly following in his Character and accounts of them , and f as Irenseus alfo doth ) calling them Bi- lhops in the Catalogues, might deceive ethers inna- meing them, fo, p. 2(53, from, 1. 9, to unread, what ever impreflion of them Irensus might be fuppofed to have upon the ground of his expreflions cf them , or might thereby beget in others , becaufe of the language and cuftome of their time , yet&c. from!. 14, to 16, r. the narure, and ftateof thefe Church- officers, whom termeing[Bifhops] they were fuppo- fed tobe fuch as had then obtained ♦ h 18, to 25 « r. tttt 4 thus ADVERTISEMENT. thnsj in that Irenarus calls them [ Presbyters ] accor- ding to the promiscuous ufe of the names Bifhop and Presbyter in his tyme , they prove that ihefeexprefli- ons of them which feem to favour of an Epifcopal notion, or what impreifion he might have, or o- thers take from him , was a miftake : fince accord- ingto the Scripture language &cl. 26, to 32, r.thal what impreffionlrenaeus might pofiibly have ofthefirft moderators^ whatEpifcopal notionEufebius might prefent them under, upon his credulous reports ta- ken up upon truft (as he fayes himfelf) from his fore- fathers, were a miftake : and this becaufe the perfo- nes,wbom they thus reprefented, and of whom they meanedandfpeake, were upon thematter meet Prep lyters- p. 264, 1. 21 , r. next , if thtlnformer will drain thefe words to plead for his hierarchie even in the A- poftks tyme , and will affirme thatBucer &c. 1. 25, r. he muft needs grant that Bucer was obleidged to take notice &c. 1. 3 o, r. els there will be no confiftencie in the words, if Bucer reckon &c. p. 271,1. 5-, 6, r* but as the Informtr will finde it hard to prove thisdi- ftin&ion of thefchools to be asancient as thefe fathers, fo though it were granted that it was , it is certain that what gradual difference they admitt betwixt -the Bifliop and Presbyter, they found k &c. p. 28 1, 1. 3,r. colledledby one under the name of Clemens, 2d. Part. p. jf,l.t, r: haveing no tin&ure of Prela- cie, butintirely Presbyterialin its mold & members, according to the then degrees and State of our He- formation- p. 23, 1. 7. after [ SeafonaWe cafe] r, ( and himfelf in objecting the fame afterward , p. 69. ) p 29, 1. S, r. in their nature , and originally flowes from the Pope, p. 64, 1. 30, after [Government] adde, whatever defe&ion or liberty of glofling any of them might fall into or plead for. p. 76 , 1. penult, read, prxl. 3»parag. 9. p. 78, 1. 3, r. of all Oaths of this nature* A DVE-RTISEMENT. nature, p. S2, 1. 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 ChrifHan Church: I.28, 2,9, r. this divine frame of Presbyte- rian Government , which both as to its courts and officers , comprehends the fubftantials of Govern- ment: p. S$,l. i$3 r. prael. 3, parag. 9, 10, 1. %$% r. pr2el.7> Parag. 6: p. 92, 1. 27, r. but fuch can- not be the Inf, rmcrs meaning in this place, nor will bismooldof arguiogjadmitt thereof: p. 98, 1. 14^ a matter not only of it (elf indifferent, but a dome- ftick and private concerne 1. 22, after [gratis dicta] r. Befides, upon thefuppofal that the matter of both Oaths is alike or equal, and that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent t the parallel will not hold as :oa difpenf3tion with the matter of the one and the other, p. ioi,l. n, after [obligation] adde, for vhither we conclude the lawfulnefs of the matter of his Oath, from its conform'tyto the divine pofi- ive Law , or from the overuling of this pofitive pre- ept in this cafe bv a Superiour moral command* 11 is one as to our defence and argument for the Co- enant from this text, p. m, 1. i8,r. Thelnformer athnotreconc led this cither with the command or 'ith the promife &c. p. 117. 1. 1536,7, r. Sure in is opinion their offer of a league , if ftrangers , ad • itted a demurr , and if Canaanites their offering to !mitt of terms of peace might have ftopt this quefti- 1, even though inhabitant! of Canaan &c. 1. H,r. > their firft offer was aground of peace, if ftrangers, 1 3 , r. efpecially thefe continued demurrs and rene- *d interrogatures recorded in this contexture ; confiderable , if we confider what is obferved by rnsd interpreters from v.§. that they fought peace, :. 1. 17, and when, r. for when. Par.. 5. p. 3f> tttt 5 p«f- A D V E R T I S E M E N T. Presbyterian Government and the eftablifht Refor- mation of this Church, p. 47, 1. 28, r. the work of the Reformation then eftablifht , p. fo, 1. 3. for, pamphlet r. Dialogue: p. 54, ]. ult. r. and fuch things 2S upon our , and the Scripture grounds ( which the Informer cannot difprove ) do imtnediatly'm amoral fepfe difpofe &rc: p: 56, !: 3 3 , r: ( befides that as to the maineof this Cfcara&er,, they are all fuch as we have cleared ) he makes &c: p: 77, 1: 14, r: which e- veriastb the Apoftle himfelf, was folemnly fealed, confirmed and commended to rhe gentile Church : p.7J,U'ip;rii extending hands 3 and that not only, among the people, but alfo in commitiis &c. p# 75, 1. 275 r. independents and us in this point of a minifte- rial call. p. 76,1. 8. r. that this electiv (uffrsgeftriftly taken or juridically > may be pleaded for as belon- ging to them. P*77,K 0, 9, &c*r: thus: and as that which is proper to fotne part of this o.ganick body (the Church) may in a General fenfe be faid to be the due rieht of the Church it felf: in like manner, ?may this call and cle&ion be faid to be the right of the wholl congregation, as including the body of the pie and theelderlhip, the juridical deciftve fuffra^ longing to the elderfhip,and the Confentient tori of the people^as is faid. p. 1 8 ? 1: 9, r- they are abjured. p. 9? 1: i7>'^>r. a#une3 'tis obedience that is en- ijoyned, which is more General and extennve ther j hearing them as Ecclefiaftick officers, and will no oeceflarily include it, 1. 20,21, r. firting inMofe chaire who \?as King in Jefurum> appears diftini i from fitting in Aarons Prieflly chaire, p. Pi , 1. io3i 1 , r.henoe.theconceffion \ that they were to be heard ji will not bear a conclusion of hearing Curats, intfr | ourcafe. For u (here adde what is under the fe I cendhead) then proceed thus, next, fay they wejfc ADVERTISf E M E N T, to be heard as Ecclefiailick teachers , the cafes sre very different &c. then proceed to I, 3,4, 5. head. P- 97 >J. 9, r. teach and etpoxit in thefenfe and ex- tent he pleads fbra which he hath not &c. p. 103. 1.29.3. depending as to their ordination, p. 104. i. 24, r. did the rainifteijal adls of our Reformers now mentioned flow &c. p. 105,1. 6. r. did owe the yahdine of their Baptlfm< , ::c. p.115.1. 27. after Wefcaion] adde, and deepei iraine of more and more pradncal acknowledgements thereof, as to the de- figne and endeavours of rhe Law - makers, p. ng,l. 2.r. Since in this his firft reply 3 taken homtMr*- tedicnceto the rulers, he touches neither the Antece- dent nor coafequent cor , it being made £ood that Presbyterian Go- Vf/rJTent IS b0lh tfrScriPtureChurch Government , and alio the reformed ejlablisbed Government of this Church , ^cc this recorded charge, neither he nor any of his par- ty are able to difprove.For&c.p.iiP.I.jo. r. abfolute unavoidable con virion: p. IiS,l 33. r- that are very hecefTary3 but allures him rather by love an J tender for be- itranct: p. 119,1. 6, r — Sedlicentia, quoi teme- Htatis, &fupcrbi* & fiuhitU { in margine arrrogantiac ) ma; oris videbatur. p. 130J. i$>r. bu: I fay not ( fayth ie) theldoloshyt&c. p. 131.]. io,r.thus, at that yme this came to pafs through thc*r weaknefs , &c. h i?3 »1* fo.r. that in thefe things he will rather :ede from his liberty (or intermit its exercife ) hen offend &c. p. 141. 1. 33, r. no more indifferent* put duty, p. 142, ]. iy, r. takeing this phrafe in a noral fenfej and in the Scripture acceptation, p, 1°, 1.16, 17, after [Miniftry] adde, and did ne- ccfla- ADVERTISEMENT. ccffarily fuppofe the fame: p: i5?*l. penult, r. Ergo, by his Magittratical Power, he did properly and immediatly filence and depofe him, and the civil .Magiftrate may thus immediatly andlormallybyhis ' Xiagiftratical Power reftrainethe exercifeofthemi- niitrie. p. i<>7,1.2. r. that he can by his Magiftrati- cilPower and by elicit a&s immediatly reftrain mini- fterial duties, or that the Magiftrare hath aneimme- diatePower orer the exercife of the Minifterial office, todifchargeit at his pleafure. p. 164,1. i4,r. Rone anent whom an inquiry might be ftated. Praef. p* 24. L 24. r. contention and hatred, p. 26. J. 6. r.come toBethel.p. 35.J.10. r. after the firftfcrah- cnt view which 1 had of it. Several fuch might poffibly beyet gleand up : iffomepafiages of Authors feem too generaly cited j or not tranflated ad vcr- bum* the notoriety of the places them- f elves may excufe the fir ft f and the con* dition of Reader s% to whom this is main ty addrefied j may plead for the fecond The