A
Confutation
Of
the
First
DIALOGUE
,
Upon
the
point
Of
EPISCOPACIE
.
Wherein
it
is
demonstrat
,
that
the
Episcopacie
now
existent
,
both
in
its
Diocesian
&
Erastian
cutt
,
is
contrare
to
the
Scripture
,
to
the
first
and
purer
Antiquitie
,
the
Doctrine
and
Confessions
of
Reformed
Churches
&
sound
Divines
.
And
the
Informers
Reasonings
for
it
,
from
Scripture
&
Antiquitie
,
are
weighed
,
and
found
wanting
.
CHAP.
I.
That
the
Prelat
,
now
established
in
this
Church
,
is
both
Diocesian
and
Erastian
,
cleared
.
The
Informer
is
engaged
to
defend
both
.
A
twofold
State
of
the
Question
propounded
accordingly
.
Some
Arguments
from
Scripture
against
the
Diocesian
Prelat
,
as
a
pretended
Church-officer
.
Such
as
,
1.
Perverting
the
Scriptural
term
,
Episcopus
,
commune
to
all
Pastors
;
in
appropriating
it
to
a
Prelat
.
2.
Making
it
relate
to
Pastors
,
which
hath
the
flock
for
its
immediat
object
.
3.
Invading
&
nulling
the
Authority
allowed
unto
Presbyters
,
which
is
demonstrat
at
large
.
4.
Impeaching
Christs
Kingly
office
,
as
Head
of
his
Church
,
and
the
perfection
of
his
Word
,
in
obtruding
ane
Officer
upon
the
Church
,
of
a
different
moold
from
those
described
and
allowed
by
him
.
THE
state
of
the
first
Question
in
the
first
Conference
is
,
whither
the
Episcopacie
now
established
by
Law
in
Scotland
,
be
warranted
or
condemned
by
the
Word
of
God
.
For
clearing
this
,
it
must
be
understood
,
what
that
Prelacie
is
,
which
is
now
existent
,
and
which
this
Author
pretends
is
consonant
to
Scripture
and
Antiquitie
.
As
to
matter
of
fact
,
it
is
undenyable
.
1.
That
the
Parliament
1662.
did
expresly
raze
Presbyterian
government
,
in
all
its
preexistent
Courts
,
Judicatories
and
Privileges
,
declaring
it
voide
and
expired
.
2.
They
did
Redintegrat
the
Bishops
[
to
their
Episcopal
function
,
presidencie
in
the
Church
,
power
of
ordination
and
censures
,
and
all
Church
discipline
to
be
performed
by
them
,
with
advice
(
only
)
and
of
such
of
the
Clergie
(
only
)
as
they
shall
find
,
(
they
themselves
being
judges
)
of
knowne
Loyaltie
and
prudence
.
]
And
they
redintegrat
them
to
all
the
pretended
Privileges
possessed
be
them
in
Anno
1637.
What
time
their
power
was
at
the
greatest
height
.
Since
,
of
themselves
they
framed
the
Book
of
Canons
,
which
doth
establish
their
sole
power
and
dominion
over
all
Church
Judicatories
,
razing
classical
Presbyteries
and
Parochial
Sessions
,
and
drew
up
the
Liturgie
and
Book
of
Ordination
without
the
least
shaddow
of
advice
from
this
Church
;
Threatning
even
excommunication
against
the
opposers
of
that
course
.
3.
It
is
also
evident
,
that
all
this
Power
and
Authoritie
of
our
Prelats
,
is
fountained
in
,
derived
from
,
and
referable
unto
the
Supremacie
;
As
is
evident
by
the
Act
restoring
Prelacie
,
after
the
declaration
of
the
Supremacie
,
as
his
Majesties
Commissioners
in
the
exercise
of
his
Ecclesiastick
Government
,
and
,
in
the
administration
of
all
their
pretended
spiritual
Authoritie
,
as
accountable
to
him
,
their
Head
and
supreme
Legislator
in
all
Church
matters
.
Hence
,
it
is
evident
,
that
this
Author
is
obliged
(
if
he
would
answer
his
undertaking
in
pleading
for
the
present
Prelacie
)
not
only
to
evince
the
warrantablenes
of
the
Diocesian
Bishop
in
all
his
pretended
spiritual
power
over
Church
Judicatories
;
But
likewaves
of
the
Erastianbishop
,
deriving
all
his
Authoritie
from
the
Civil
Magistrat
.
Wee
shall
then
(
befor
wee
come
to
examine
his
pleading
upon
this
Head
)
offer
,
I.
Some
Arguments
against
our
Diocesian
Prelat
,
as
a
pretended
Church-officer
,
and
shall
shew
his
office
to
be
contrare
to
Scripture
.
2.
As
ane
Erastian
Prelat
deryving
all
his
spiritual
power
from
the
Magistrat
.
I.
As
a
pretended
Church
officer
,
the
Diocesian
Bishop
is
contrare
to
Scripture
,
in
many
respects
.
I.
In
narrowing
and
restricting
the
Scripture
term
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
ane
office
and
officer
,
distinct
from
,
and
Superior
to
,
a
Presbyter
or
Pastor
.
For
since
the
Spirit
of
God
in
Scripture
appropriats
this
term
to
Presbyters
,
and
consequentlie
the
work
and
office
therin
imported
,
Tit.
1
:
5
,
7.
Act.
20
:
28.
1
Pet.
5
:
2.
3.
Sure
it
must
be
ane
anti-Scriptural
and
Sacrilegius
robbing
of
Presbyters
of
their
right
and
due
designation
,
to
make
this
proper
and
peculiar
to
a
Diocesian
Bishop
onlie
,
as
the
Characteristick
of
his
office
.
Episcopal
men
themselves
(
and
this
Author
particularely
)
doe
acknowledge
this
term
to
be
in
Scripture
applyed
to
Presbyters
.
Let
them
then
shew
a
reason
why
they
have
made
it
peculiar
to
a
Prelat
as
distinct
from
Presbyters
;
Or
,
let
them
shew
where
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
denots
such
ane
officer
as
they
have
shappen
out
(
viz.
)
A
diocesian
Prelat
having
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
over
a
wholl
diocess
,
with
a
negative
voice
and
a
sole
decisive
suffrage
in
the
Church
Judicatories
thereof
.
Should
they
appropriat
the
term
Pastor
,
or
Minister
,
to
a
diocesian
Prelat
onlie
?
Who
would
not
call
this
ane
Anti-scriptural
usurpation
of
the
Presbyters
due
?
And
why
also
,
shall
it
not
be
thought
such
ane
usurpation
when
they
appropriat
the
term
Episcopus
or
Bishop
,
to
such
a
pretended
distinct
officer
:
Since
this
term
is
as
much
given
to
Presbyters
in
Scripture
,
as
the
terme
of
Pastor
or
Minister
.
Judicious
Calvin
hath
some
remarkable
passages
to
this
purpose
in
his
Comentaries
.
On
Tit
1
:
7.
Having
observed
that
Bishops
and
Presbyters
are
all
one
,
He
calls
the
appropriating
of
the
name
,
Bishop
,
to
the
Prelat
,
a
profane
boldnes
and
ane
abrogating
of
the
holy
Ghosts
language
Abrogato
Spiritus
Sansti
sermone
usus
hominum
arbitrio
inductus
praevaluit
—
nomen
officii
quod
Deus
in
commune
omnibus
dederat
in
unum
transferri
reliquis
spoliatis
&
injurium
est
&
absurdum
.
Deinde
sic
pervertere
Spiritus
sancti
linguam
—
nimis
profana
audaciae
est
.
Act.
20
:
28.
He
collects
the
identitie
of
the
name
&
office
of
Bishop
&
Presbiter
,
from
the
elders
being
called
Bishops
,
And
having
observed
the
same
on
Philip.
1.
And
that
after
,
the
name
[
Bishop
]
became
peculiare
to
one
.
He
adds
,
id
tamen
ex
hominum
consuetudine
natum
est
,
Scripturae
autoritate
minime
nititur
.
Telling
us
that
under
this
pretext
of
giving
the
name
to
one
,
ane
unlawful
dominion
was
brought
in
.
But
of
this
againe
.
II.
The
office
hereby
designed
,
doth
alwayes
relate
to
the
Flock
,
and
hath
them
for
its
immediat
object
and
Correlat
,
as
much
as
the
word
Pastor
.
The
Bishops
of
Ephesus
were
made
by
the
holy
Ghost
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
over
the
flock
of
God
whom
they
were
to
feed
.
Whereas
our
supposed
Diocesian
Episcopus
,
or
Bishop
,
His
office
and
inscection
relates
immediatly
to
the
wholl
Pastores
of
his
diocess
,
who
are
alse
much
,
his
flock
and
the
object
of
his
oversight
,
care
,
direction
,
correction
and
censure
,
as
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
layetie
.
Peter
,
bids
the
Episcopountes
feed
the
flock
&
act
the
Bishops
over
them
;
But
our
diocesian
Prelat
,
pretends
to
feed
and
rule
the
Pastores
themselves
.
The
Scripture
Bishop
is
Populi
Pastor
but
the
Diocesian
Prelat
is
Pastor
Pastorum
,
Presbiter
Presbiterorum
,
And
therfor
is
ane
Antiscriptural
Monster
.
III.
The
Diocesian
Prelat
usurpes
and
takes
from
Presbiters
that
authoritie
allowed
them
of
God
in
his
Word
.
For
both
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
is
soly
and
properlie
in
the
Diocesian
Prelat
according
to
Episcopal
men
,
and
likewise
according
to
our
Lawes
,
As
we
saw
above
in
the
act
anent
Prelacy
.
For
according
thereto
the
Prelat
is
a
Superior
ordinar
Church
officer
above
Presbyters
,
he
is
sole
as
to
ordination
,
may
doe
it
alone
,
and
assumes
Presbiters
onelie
proforma
.
Which
no
more
lessens
his
Principalitie
and
Supereminencie
in
this
pointe
,
then
a
Prince
in
assumeing
Counsellors
(
saith
Dounam
,
Def.
lib
5
,
Cap.
7.
)
weakens
his
princely
power
and
authoritie
.
Presbyters
exercise
all
their
Acts
of
the
power
of
order
in
a
dependance
upon
him
,
he
only
is
the
proper
Pastor
of
the
diocess
(
as
shall
be
afterward
cleared
)
Presbiters
are
but
his
substitutes
and
helpers
.
They
are
likwayes
Subject
to
him
as
their
proper
Sole
judge
and
censurer
by
Ecclesiastick
censures
of
suspension
,
deposition
,
excommunication
,
the
decisive
power
in
Church
judicatories
is
properlie
his
.
For
the
most
unanimous
Acts
and
conclusions
of
the
diocesian
Synod
falls
unders
his
cognisance
,
to
be
ratified
or
Cassat
at
his
pleasure
.
He
is
the
Sine
quo
non
,
and
hath
a
Negative
voice
in
the
judicatories
:
the
law
allowing
his
Presbiters
only
to
give
him
advice
,
Nay
and
not
that
either
,
unles
he
judge
them
of
known
layaltie
and
prudence
.
Now
,
in
all
these
,
he
usurps
over
Presbiters
authoritie
allowed
them
of
God
.
For
I.
Wee
find
the
Scripture
atributes
the
power
of
order
&
jurisdiction
,
equalie
to
all
Presbiters
,
who
have
both
keys
of
doctrine
&
discipline
given
them
immediatlie
by
Christ
.
In
that
I.
They
are
command
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
1
Pet.
5.
28.
Act.
20.
2.
which
comprehends
the
authoritie
and
exercise
of
both
the
keys
of
doctrine
and
discipline
.
2.
In
all
commands
relating
to
the
exercise
of
this
power
,
ther
is
not
the
least
hint
of
ane
equalitie
among
them
,
which
were
very
cross
to
the
Lords
Scope
,
if
the
Diocesian
Prelats
Superioritie
were
allowed
and
appointed
.
The
Presbiters
or
Bishops
of
Ephesus
,
and
those
of
the
Churches
which
Peter
writs
unto
,
are
commanded
to
feed
and
rule
jointlie
,
equallie
,
and
with
the
same
authoritie
,
but
non
of
them
in
dependance
upon
,
and
deryving
a
precarious
authoritie
from
another
,
in
feeding
and
ruleing
.
3.
In
all
the
commands
relating
to
peoples
Subjection
&
obedience
to
Church
Rulers
in
the
exercise
of
their
power
,
their
is
not
the
least
hint
of
disparitie
among
these
Rulers
.
1
Thess.
5
:
12.
People
are
commanded
to
obey
them
that
labour
among
them
,
and
are
over
them
in
the
Lord
,
and
to
esteem
them
highly
.
And
Hebr.
13
:
17.
They
are
commanded
to
obey
them
who
have
the
rule
over
them
and
watch
for
their
Soules
:
but
nothing
of
a
special
degrie
of
obedience
to
this
supposed
highest
&
supereminent
watch
man
is
heard
of
in
these
or
any
such
like
precepts
.
And
no
wonder
,
for
thes
simple
Gospel
times
knew
no
Bishops
who
watched
not
over
Soules
,
and
laboured
in
the
word
and
doctrine
.
When
the
Apostle
Peter
commands
Christians
to
obey
civil
Rulers
:
He
distinguishs
the
King
as
Supeream
,
and
Governours
sent
by
him
,
that
a
Chief
subjection
may
be
yeelded
to
the
one
,
and
a
subordinat
to
the
other
.
But
nothing
of
this
is
heard
of
,
in
enjoining
peoples
subjection
to
Ministers
.
Ane
honour
must
be
allowed
by
Timothey
(
by
the
people
of
God
consequentlie
)
to
elders
that
rule
weil
,
yea
and
a
double
honor
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
especialy
,
to
those
that
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
.
The
Apostle
in
stating
a
distinction
in
the
degries
of
honour
allowed
to
elders
,
and
in
this
different
character
of
the
one
from
the
other
,
diversifies
elders
higher
&
lower
.
Now
by
the
same
reason
,
upon
which
Divines
doe
rationaly
build
this
conclusion
,
it
must
be
granted
,
that
the
enjoyning
obedience
to
all
Pastores
promiscuusly
and
without
any
Note
of
distinction
,
will
inferr
their
equal
office
and
authoritie
.
And
by
the
same
reason
that
the
Apostle
added
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
especialy
,
in
this
place
,
he
should
have
added
,
in
these
,
or
some
such
comands
relating
to
the
peoples
obedience
,
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
especialy
,
to
distinguish
the
Diocesian
Prelat
from
other
Pastores
,
and
expressed
it
thus
,
esteem
them
all
highly
obey
them
,
be
subject
to
them
that
teach
and
watch
over
you
,
All
your
Pastors
,
but
especially
the
Supereminent
Pastor
or
Bishop
who
hath
the
cheifinspection
,
and
from
whom
all
the
rest
derive
their
authoritie
.
Likwayes
in
enjoining
the
pastoral
duties
,
he
should
have
been
especially
noticed
,
who
had
the
cheif
hand
and
authoritie
therin
(
which
is
a
Topick
improven
by
this
informer
)
but
nothing
of
this
is
seen
in
Scripture
,
as
shall
be
after
,
more
fully
cleared
.
4.
Wee
find
accordinglie
,
A
practical
Equalitie
,
among
Pastores
or
Bishops
in
the
exercise
of
this
governing
power
,
abundantlie
held
out
and
exemplified
in
Scripture
.
The
judging
and
censuring
of
the
incestuous
man
,
is
by
the
Apostle
enjoyned
to
the
Church
Officers
or
Ministers
of
Corinth
joyntlie
.
1
Cor.
5.
Chap.
compared
with
2
Cor.
2.
Chap.
The
Apostle
all
along
supposeth
ane
inherent
authority
in
these
Ministers
to
put
forth
this
grand
juridical
Forensical
Act
;
●…ydes
them
for
so
long
neglecting
it
,
and
shewes
its
object
(
viz.
)
This
person
under
the
formalis
ratio
of
wicked
or
scandalus
.
Again
he
shews
its
nature
to
be
Ajudging
,
or
puting
from
among
them
,
and
delivering
to
Satan
,
upon
this
judging
previous
thereunto
:
He
also
shews
,
that
this
authoritie
touches
,
all
Church
Members
,
not
them
that
are
without
,
whom
God
judgeth
,
but
those
that
are
within
.
Now
,
as
hee
supposes
(
I
say
)
ane
authority
of
this
Nature
and
extent
inherent
in
these
Church
officers
,
so
he
speaks
to
them
indefinitly
and
universally
all
along
,
which
were
very
cross
to
his
Scope
,
If
he
had
set
up
or
allowed
,
the
Diocesian
Prelat
whose
sole
prerogative
this
were
:
And
the
inflicted
Censur
he
calls
,
with
the
samine
indefinitnes
,
A
punishment
inflicted
by
many
,
who
accordingly
are
commanded
with
the
same
indefinitnes
or
universality
of
expression
,
To
receave
&
absolve
him
upon
his
repentance
.
The
exercise
of
the
binding
and
●…owsing
power
,
being
in
the
representative
juridicall
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Church
,
to
whom
scandales
must
be
delated
,
and
to
whom
the
promise
of
ratification
of
her
juricall
Acts
in
Heaven
,
is
made
.
Matth.
18
:
17.
Besids
we
find
the
exercise
of
ordination
in
a
Presbitry
,
1
Tim.
4
:
14.
And
that
even
in
relation
to
ane
Evangelist
Timothy
.
The
Presbitry
here
,
must
be
a
juridicall
Senat
and
meeting
,
for
the
Office
can
lay
on
no
hands
:
And
ordination
is
ane
hie
authoritative
juridicall
Act.
Pauls
presence
and
laying
on
of
hands
together
with
them
,
confirmes
their
authoritie
,
as
being
cumulative
thereto
,
not
privative
therof
,
even
as
his
countenanceing
of
,
or
concurring
,
with
,
our
Adversaries
pretended
Diocesian
Prelat
(
let
us
suppose
it
in
his
Act
of
ordination
)
would
not
infringe
his
pretended
right
herein
.
Ergo.
By
their
own
Confession
,
and
by
paritie
of
reason
,
it
cannot
infringe
or
Impeach
this
power
which
is
attributed
to
the
Presbitery
.
Had
the
Apostle
in
stead
of
Presbyterie
,
put
in
Pr●…at
and
expressed
it
,
thus
,
By
the
laying
on
of
the
hands
of
A
Bishop
,
or
Diecesian-Bishop
:
I
suppose
our
Adversaries
would
have
thought
the
Episcopal
power
of
ordination
invincibly
demonstrat
ther
from
,
notwithstanding
of
Pauls
saying
,
2
Tim
1
:
6.
By
the
laying
on
of
my
hands
,
(
viz
)
together
with
the
Bishop
.
Pauls
extraordinare
Apostolicall
imposition
of
hands
,
being
no
white
derogatorie
unto
the
supposed
Episcopal
ordinarie
power
,
now
,
verte
tabulas
,
the
Apostle
sayes
,
by
the
laying
on
of
the
handes
of
the
Presbitry
,
Ergo
,
the
ordinary
and
equal
power
of
Pastores
,
and
its
equal
exercise
in
ordination
,
is
herin
convincingly
made
out
.
Nixt
,
The
Prelats
monopolizing
thus
in
himself
,
the
decisive
suffrage
of
Judicatories
,
is
cross
many
wayes
to
Scripture
.
For
,
I
Its
a
stepping
up
(
in
a
peice
of
Diotrephese-lik
,
or
rather
papal-pride
)
above
the
Apostles
themselves
,
who
in
Churches
constitut
,
did
alwayes
take
alongst
with
them
,
the
advice
,
consent
and
authoritative
concurrence
of
ordinary
Ministers
and
Elders
in
Government
:
As
is
evinced
in
the
premised
Scriptures
,
wherin
it
is
convinceingly
clear
,
that
Paul
,
though
ane
Apostle
of
all
the
Churches
,
indewed
with
extraordinarie
unconfined
inspection
over
the
same
,
and
Pastor
thereof
,
in
actu
exercito
,
having
extraordinary
Miracolous-gifts
,
&
being
the
Master
Builder
and
Spiritual
Father
,
who
by
the
Gospel
had
begotten
both
Pastores
and
flocks
of
many
Churches
,
Yet
would
neither
excommunicat
the
incestuous
Corinthian
alone
,
but
put
it
upon
the
Church
Officers
as
their
duty
to
doe
it
by
a
judicial
,
decisive
,
joynt
suffrage
:
Nor
yet
did
he
exclud
the
presbyters
in
ordaining
even
ane
Evangilist
,
but
took
in
their
judicial
and
presbyterial
concurrence
.
And
in
Act.
15.
In
that
meeting
or
Counsel
at
Jerusalem
,
where
was
a
wholl
Colledge
or
Presbitery
of
Apostles
,
and
mett
about
ane
Act
or
decision
of
a
high
Nature
,
wherein
was
put
forth
both
Adegmatick
,
critick
&
diatactick
authority
or
power
,
in
relation
to
the
clearing
of
that
great
pointe
of
truth
,
anent
the
abrogation
of
the
Mosaicall
ceremonies
,
and
censuring
the
opposers
of
Paul
and
Barnabas
herin
,
who
had
disturbed
the
Churches
and
belied
the
Apostles
Doctrine
:
And
accordingly
in
order
to
the
restoring
and
establishing
truth
and
order
in
these
disturbed
Churches
:
The
ordinary
Ministers
or
elders
concurr
with
the
Apostles
in
every
step
:
viz
,
In
the
conferrence
&
disquisition
,
the
authoritative
decision
,
the
drawing
forth
of
the
sentence
and
decree
,
the
sending
out
of
the
decreeing
and
censuring
Epistle
,
the
imposeing
of
the
decrie
upon
the
Churches
to
observe
and
keep
the
same
&c.
2.
This
cutts
the
throate
of
that
juridical
forensical
joynt
decision
of
Church
Judicatories
,
which
the
Scriptur
doth
so
clearly
hold
forth
.
Where
is
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
censureing
juridiall
court
,
drawing
sorth
a
joynt
decision
or
censure
?
Wher
is
the
Presbiteries
forensicall
Act
in
ordination
of
Timothie
?
To
what
end
must
the
Corinth
Church
Officers
Meet
together
,
and
authoritatively
and
joyntlie
punish
or
censur
the
incestuous
man
?
Wher
is
that
pleasing
of
the
Apostles
and
elders
as
the
foundation
of
the
Synodical
decree
and
letter
,
together
with
,
it
seemed
good
to
the
HolyGhost
,
and
to
us
,
And
to
us
,
Mett
with
one
accord
.
Wher
is
,
I
say
,
this
joynt
decisive
power
of
Church
Judicatories
,
thus
clearly
held
out
in
the
premised
Scriptures
,
if
the
Act
and
Ecclesiastick
decision
thereof
,
be
soly
the
Prelats
,
sic
●…olo
,
sie
jubeo
,
masked
with
advice
of
Presbyters
,
of
whose
advice
he
may
make
what
use
he
pleases
,
and
with
a
simple
nego
.
make
their
judgment
and
suffrage
evanish
into
smoake
.
3.
This
power
of
the
Prelats
cuts
of
from
Ministers
one
half
of
their
authoritie
and
commission
receaved
in
their
ordination
.
They
are
made
therein
(
as
is
clear
in
Scripture
,
&
our
adversaries
grant
it
)
Rulers
,
Governours
,
Overseers
,
Pastors
&
Stewards
in
the
Church
;
Have
both
the
Shepherds
bagg
&
staff
,
the
key
of
doctrine
and
the
key
of
discipline
intrusted
to
them
.
By
what
warrand
then
must
they
give
up
all
their
power
in
government
&
their
decisive
suffrage
in
Church
Judicatories
,
unto
the
domineering
Prelat
,
and
as
to
spiritual
power
in
Church
Judicarories
,
become
meer
Ciphers
?
They
watch
and
rule
as
they
that
must
give
account
of
all
their
administration
to
Christ
.
Peter
exhorts
the
Elders
suteablie
to
exercise
their
Episcopal
Authority
over
the
flock
,
that
they
may
get
the
Crown
from
the
chief
Shepherd
.
Stewards
(
of
God
especially
)
must
be
faithful
,
and
imploy
well
all
their
Talents
receaved
from
the
great
Master
,
that
they
may
get
his
approbation
and
reward
as
faithful
Servants
.
The
Elders
of
Ephesus
were
obtested
by
Paul
to
take
heed
to
themselves
,
and
to
all
the
flock
over
which
they
were
made
Bishops
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
to
feed
and
rule
the
Church
which
God
hath
purchased
with
his
blood
.
Now
all
thes
exhortations
directed
to
Ministers
,
are
to
no
purpose
,
if
they
have
no
inherent
immediat
Rule
,
essentially
included
in
their
office
,
And
to
be
exercised
accordingly
,
but
must
only
preach
as
a
Diocesian
Prelats
Deputes
,
and
be
in
the
exercise
of
their
ruling
governing
power
,
absolutly
subject
to
him
and
at
his
disposal
.
Finally
,
This
usurped
authoritie
in
the
Prelat
sets
him
above
the
reach
of
all
censure
by
Church
Indicatories
;
So
that
though
Ministers
are
absolutly
and
at
his
beck
,
censurable
by
,
and
subject
to
him
,
both
as
to
their
doctrine
,
conversation
and
discipline
(
and
every
one
of
them
thus
censurable
and
jointly
)
yet
this
hie
Pop
,
who
judges
All
,
will
be
judged
by
none
himself
,
Either
as
to
his
Doctrine
,
Life
or
Government
.
Some
have
said
of
the
Prince
,
that
though
major
singulis
,
yet
he
is
minor
universis
,
less
then
the
whole
body
of
the
people
,
though
greater
then
every
one
aparte
.
But
the
Prelat
exercises
a
greater
principalitie
in
Church
Judicatories
,
&
is
therein
major
universis
,
greater
then
the
whole
meeting
,
so
that
thogh
he
can
stop
the
Votes
and
Censures
of
the
whole
Synod
,
yet
they
cannot
either
by
suffrage
or
censure
in
the
least
put
a
check
to
him
,
in
any
of
His
most
wicked
Acts
or
Antichristian
Exorbitances
.
Now
,
how
contrary
this
is
to
Scriptur
,
any
may
judge
.
The
Prophets
after
their
prophesying
must
be
judged
by
the
rest
,
as
to
their
doctrine
,
1
Cor.
14
:
29
,
Ergo
,
a
fortiori
,
much
more
as
to
their
conversation
&
government
,
are
lyable
to
be
judged
,
and
consequentlie
censured
if
deserving
it
:
For
he
were
a
great
Critick
,
that
would
distinguish
these
,
so
as
those
who
have
power
to
judge
,
have
no
power
to
censure
or
pass
sentence
upon
their
judging
:
And
this
is
founded
upon
a
general
comprehensive
ground
,
viz.
the
Spirits
of
the
Prophets
(
that
is
the
gifts
and
exercises
of
the
Ministery
in
all
Church
Officers
without
exception
)
are
subject
to
the
Prophets
,
viz.
to
their
disquisition
,
and
censure
in
any
peece
of
their
work
or
official
Acts.
Now
unles
our
Prelats
would
deny
themselves
to
be
Prophets
and
Ministers
,
or
the
Presbyters
to
be
Prophets
,
they
must
acknowledge
this
subjection
to
their
censure
enjoyned
in
the
Scripture
premised
,
and
consequently
,
that
their
exeeming
themselves
from
the
same
,
is
an
anti-scriptural
usurpation
.
I
remember
,
while
a
writting
,
that
proposing
once
this
Argument
to
ane
Episcopal
Clergie
man
,
I
enquired
to
what
Church
Judicatorie
in
Scotland
was
Mr
Sharp
subject
,
as
to
either
his
life
or
doctrine
?
He
answered
that
he
was
subject
to
a
general
Counsell
,
and
this
was
very
apposit
and
consequenter
to
their
principles
:
So
that
our
Prelats
(
at
least
the
two
Arch
-
)
are
in
no
fear
,
but
of
a
general
Council
if
the
Court
froune
not
.
In
our
Act
of
Parliament
touching
the
mould
of
our
National
Synod
,
the
Primat
is
the
essential
President
,
&
sine
quo
non
,
and
so
is
sure
enough
,
from
being
censured
there
;
so
are
the
rest
of
the
Prelats
as
to
all
their
Synods
,
according
to
our
Lawes
.
But
what
think
these
exleges
Episcopi
,
or
hie
Court
Prelats
,
of
such
a
humble
Bishop
as
the
Apostle
Paul
,
who
had
hands
laid
upon
him
,
and
was
authoritativelie
sent
out
by
that
Presbitery
of
Prophets
and
teachers
at
Antioch
.
Act.
13.
together
with
Barnabas
,
(
about
ane
eminent
Gospel-Legation
)
and
was
by
the
same
Church
and
Presbytery
sent
(
together
with
Barnabas
and
certain
other
commissioners
of
the
Churches
)
to
that
Synod
at
Jerusalem
,
Act.
15.
Why
did
not
Paul
make
use
of
his
Negative
voice
and
command
them
all
silence
in
this
debate
?
How
comes
it
,
that
his
hie
Bishop
subjects
himself
to
the
authoritative
blessing
and
mission
of
some
pettie
Prophets
and
teachers
.
Ane
amazeing
looking
glass
,
this
is
,
(
no
doubt
)
to
our
aspyreing
Prelats
.
4.
The
holding
of
the
Diocesian
Prelat
,
and
obtruding
him
upon
the
Church
,
as
ane
ordinary
Church
officer
,
distinct
from
,
and
superior
to
Presbiters
,
doth
many
wayes
Impeach
Christs
Kingly
office
as
head
and
law
give●…
of
his
Church
:
whose
faithfulnes
above
that
of
Moses
(
who
ordered
,
according
to
the
Patern
shewed
upon
the
Mount
,
the
least
pine
of
the
Tabernacle
)
must
needs
reach
the
appointment
of
the
officers
,
offices
,
qualifications
,
work
and
gifts
of
these
officers
,
who
are
to
officiat
in
his
house
,
as
our
Confession
of
Faith
and
Catechisim
doe
assert
.
For
according
to
our
Prelatical
Clergie
,
and
according
to
the
Lawes
,
the
Prelat
hath
a
distinct
Work
from
that
of
a
Presbiter
(
viz.
)
to
govern
a
diocess
,
he
hath
the
Actus
primus
of
a
State
ruler
,
to
sitt
in
Council
or
Parliament
.
Nixt
,
he
hath
a
distinct
solemne
Consecration
or
inauguration
to
his
Office
.
And
3.
Must
needs
be
supposed
to
have
likwise
distinct
qualifications
and
Gifts
from
those
of
a
preaching
Presbiter
,
conferred
by
this
solemne
imposition
of
hands
and
blessing
at
his
Consecration
,
wherby
he
must
be
supposed
to
have
a
superior
distinct
mission
,
and
to
be
in
all
the
forementioned
particulars
,
distinct
from
,
and
superior
to
a
Presbiter
.
Now
,
if
non
of
all
these
points
of
his
superioritie
can
be
found
in
Scripture
,
this
Officer
patched
up
thereof
,
must
either
be
unwarrantable
,
or
,
Christ
the
Churches
head
and
lawgiver
,
his
Lawes
and
rules
in
point
of
Church
Government
,
and
in
relation
to
the
duties
,
gifts
,
ordination
,
and
work
of
Church
Officers
,
are
not
full
and
perfect
,
but
mank
and
deficient
as
to
such
ane
eminent
Church
Officer
.
And
where
is
then
the
perfection
of
his
word
and
Testament
,
to
make
not
only
the
ordinarie
Christian
but
even
the
màn
of
God
,
the
Minister
of
God
,
perfect
and
throughly
furnished
to
every
good
work
.
That
non
of
all
the
formentioned
particulars
as
to
this
Officer
distinct
from
and
superior
to
a
Presbiter
,
can
be
found
in
Scripture
,
but
are
contrarie
therunto
.
I
prove
thus
1.
The
Scriptur
mentions
no
name
,
qualification
,
work
,
dutie
or
ordination
of
any
or
dinary
Church
Officer
superior
to
presbiters
,
and
which
are
not
likewayes
appropriat
to
them
,
who
are
called
Rulers
,
Governours
,
Bishops
;
and
both
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
ar
apropriat
to
them
in
a
perfect
paritie
1
Thess.
5
:
12.
with
17.
v.
and
1
Tim.
5
:
17.
Hebr.
13.
v.
7
,
17.
1
Cor.
5
:
13.
1
Tim.
4
:
14.
3
Epist.
Ioh.
9.
v.
—
2.
In
all
the
Holy
Ghost
his
purposed
recitalls
of
ordinarie
Church
officers
,
and
purposed
declaration
of
their
gifts
and
duties
,
ther
is
not
the
least
hint
of
the
premised
ingredients
of
the
office
of
this
supposed
Diocesian
Bishop
,
as
thus
distinct
from
and
Superior
to
Presbiters
,
(
1
Cor.
12
:
28.
Eph.
4
:
11
,
12.
Rom.
12.
7
,
8.
In
these
places
wee
have
besyds
the
Apostles
,
Prophets
&
Evangelists
(
whose
Office
,
as
extraordinaire
,
is
ceased
)
Pastores
,
Elders
,
Deacons
;
But
no
hint
of
the
Office
,
name
,
qualifications
or
Mission
,
of
ane
ordinarie
Church
Officer
Superior
to
the
Pastor
,
is
either
heire
or
in
any
Scripture
else
,
which
notwithstanding
is
express
as
to
the
Office
and
qualifications
even
of
the
Deacon
,
the
lowest
Officer
.
Strange
!
the
server
of
Tables
his
Office
and
ordination
clearlie
set
down
in
Scriptur
:
And
yet
Altum
silentium
,
as
to
either
,
name
,
Office
or
ordination
,
of
the
Diocesian
Bishop
.
If
the
argument
of
our
divines
be
good
from
hence
against
the
Pope
,
because
not
mentioned
in
these
Catalogues
of
Church
Officers
,
Ergo
,
a
pari
,
It
must
hold
good
against
the
Prelat
.
And
as
to
that
,
that
the
Prelat
hath
the
Actus
Signatus
of
a
State
Ruler
,
how
cross
this
is
to
Scripture
,
we
may
after
shew
.
Sure
,
since
Christ
set
all
these
his
Officers
in
the
Church
,
and
commands
them
diligentlie
to
wait
upon
,
and
attend
their
work
and
Ministery
therein
;
He
never
made
or
allowed
them
to
bee
State
Rulers
CHAP.
II.
Some
more
Arguments
against
the
Diecesian
Prelat
.
That
his
office
debases
the
Acts
and
exercise
,
of
the
power
of
order
,
cleared
.
It
maims
and
diversisies
the
Pastoral
office
,
by
anti-scriptural
now
invented
degrees
thereof
.
His
office
,
many
wayes
contrare
to
the
very
nature
of
the
Gospel-Church-Government
.
THe
Diocesian
Bishop
,
his
office
is
in
this
contrare
to
the
Word
of
God
.
V.
In
that
it
Debases
the
highest
Acts
and
exercise
of
the
power
of
order
,
in
a
Gospel
Ministery
.
For
all
do
grant
preaching
of
the
Word
and
the
Administration
of
the
Sacraments
and
Seals
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
to
be
such
:
So
that
he
who
can
do
thes
Acts
,
hath
the
badge
of
the
highest
Ministerial
Authority
as
ane
ordinarie
Church
Officer
,
these
being
among
the
most
emnient
Acts
of
the
Apostles
there
office
and
Authoritie
—
Go
teach
,
baptize
,
&c.
They
must
have
some
to
serve
Tables
that
they
may
give
themselves
continually
to
the
Ministery
of
the
Word
.
Timothy
,
our
prelatical
mens
Supposed-Bishop
,
must
preach
the
Word
,
and
be
instant
in
season
,
out
of
season
,
reprove
,
rebuke
,
exhort
with
all
long
suffering
and
Doctrine
2
Tim.
4
:
1
,
2.
The
great
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
who
had
the
care
of
all
the
Churches
coming
upon
him
,
and
therin
a
great
ruleing
work
,
Yet
pronunces
a
woe
upon
himself
,
if
he
preach
not
the
Gospel
1
Cor.
9
:
28.
—
And
he
tells
us
this
was
a
speciall
trust
committed
to
him
:
In
this
he
admires
the
rich
grace
of
God
that
he
was
putt
into
the
Ministery
,
and
honoured
to
preach
the
unsearchable
riches
of
Christ
.
Peter
,
that
great
Apostle
of
the
circumcision
,
when
by
the
Lord
restored
to
his
office
,
and
encouraged
to
its
exercise
,
by
a
Threefold
renovation
of
his
Mission
;
is
thryce
enjoyned
(
as
the
great
badge
of
his
love
to
his
Master
)
to
feed
his
Lambes
and
Sheep
.
Accordingly
,
the
Scripture
Bishop
must
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Apt
to
teach
;
and
he
that
teacheth
(
by
office
scilicet
)
must
waite
upon
teaching
,
and
the
wise
and
faithful
Steward
appointed
by
the
Lord
to
give
the
children
their
meat
in
dew
Season
,
must
be
found
So
doeing
when
the
Lord
comes
to
reckon
with
him
;
and
not
lay
up
this
noble
Talent
in
a
Napkine
.
To
this
,
the
key
of
diseiplin
is
inferior
and
Subordinat
,
as
themean
to
its
end
.
the
higher
honour
above
ruleing
only
being
allowed
to
the
labourer
in
the
word
&
doctrine
,
1
Tim.
5
:
17.
This
being
clear
,
I
say
the
office
of
the
Diocesian
Bishop
debases
and
tramples
upon
,
these
highe
and
noble
Acts
of
a
Pastor
,
and
consequently
upon
the
premised
Scriptures
asserting
the
same
,
and
that
in
these
wayes
.
I.
In
that
the
quondam
Presbyter
only
,
when
made
a
Prelat
,
leaves
off
,
The
feeding
of
the
flock
,
and
layes
by
the
preaching
talent
,
the
Church
wher
he
did
preach
or
officiat
,
it
may
be
,
shall
never
see
or
hear
him
againe
,
but
is
ipso
facto
,
voyde
to
be
possed
by
another
,
nor
by
his
now-office
is
he
oblidged
to
preach
or
Minister
the
Sacraments
any
more
at
all
,
these
petty
peeces
of
work
being
below
his
new
Lordship
.
Trew
,
he
may
preach
if
he
please
,
and
at
the
Church
wher
he
reseeds
,
but
that
is
per
accidens
ex
abundanti
,
and
out
of
courtesie
:
but
by
his
office
,
Qua
Prelat
,
he
is
bound
to
preach
no
more
to
any
frock
,
nor
is
he
in
the
least
judged
faultie
or
deficient
in
his
Episcopal
office
if
he
be
wholly
silent
.
Nay
,
in
England
preaching
Prelats
have
been
highely
upbraided
and
reproached
by
their
fellowes
,
and
called
preaching
Cox
Combes
.
Wee
all
know
,
what
ane
odd
peece
of
work
Mr
Lightoun's
preaching
was
esteemed
by
the
generalitie
of
the
Prelatick
partie
when
he
turned
Prelat
.
Now
,
let
any
of
commune
Reason
or
ingenuity
judge
,
what
ane
office
that
must
be
,
which
putts
a
Minister
intrusted
with
the
Lords
great
commission
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
under
pretence
of
advancement
to
a
higher
Sphere
in
the
Ministery
,
to
lay
by
this
work
which
is
the
noblest
and
highest
of
the
Ministerial
Authoritie
,
wherin
the
Apostles
themselves
mainely
laboured
and
gloried
,
as
the
most
noble
meane
of
the
conversion
of
Sonles
:
and
consequentlie
of
the
glorie
of
Christ
therin
;
Nay
,
to
lay
by
this
noble
work
under
pretence
of
new
burdene
of
Government
.
Wheras
the
Apostles
who
had
the
wholl
Churches
to
plant
and
Govern
,
most
enixely
plyed
this
work
still
.
If
this
man
become
not
a
dumb
dog
and
a
sloathfull
unprofiteable
servant
,
let
any
judge
.
2.
The
Diocesian
Prelat
debases
and
tramples
upon
this
noble
work
,
in
that
be
makes
it
in
all
the
Pastores
of
the
Dioces
,
to
depend
upon
his
Lordly
disposal
,
and
the
authoritie
thereof
to
be
deryved
from
him
as
the
sole
proper
Pastor
of
all
the
Diocess
,
whose
deputs
the
preachers
are
in
this
work
,
although
himself
is
obleiged
to
feed
no
flock
.
3
He
maks
these
high
and
noble
Acts
of
the
power
of
order
,
[
preaching
and
administration
of
Sacraments
]
a
lower
and
subordinat
work
and
office
,
to
the
work
and
office
of
ruleing
only
,
which
is
his
Characteristick
whereby
he
holds
himself
Superior
to
all
the
preachers
of
the
Diocess
?
whereas
the
Scriptur
doeth
(
as
we
heard
)
appropriat
the
highest
honour
to
the
labourer
in
the
word
and
doctrine
as
the
nobler
employment
and
office
,
above
the
Ruler
only
.
6.
In
this
the
Diocesian
Prelats
office
is
contrare
unto
,
and
reprobat
by
the
Scriptur
,
in
that
by
Apocriphal
,
Antiscriptural
,
new
invented
,
Degrees
and
orders
.
It
diversities
and
cutts
asunder
what
God
hes
made
one
and
the
same
,
I
mean
the
Pastoral
Office
,
and
by
consequence
other
offices
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
as
that
of
Prophets
,
Evangelists
,
Deacons
;
non
of
which
offices
admites
of
Subordinat
Spheeres
and
degrees
,
but
all
the
persons
that
are
Intrusted
with
these
offices
,
are
of
the
same
degree
and
authority
therin
by
the
Word
of
God
.
No
Evangelist
,
Prophet
,
or
Apostle
is
found
of
a
Superior
office
or
order
to
other
Apostles
,
Evangelists
,
&c.
Whence
comes
this
diversity
then
in
the
Pastoral
office
,
that
one
Pastor
must
have
a
Lordly
Dominion
over
some
hundreds
of
his
fellowes
?
If
it
be
said
,
that
the
Episcopal
office
succeeds
that
of
the
Apostles
or
Evangelists
?
besides
that
wee
shall
disprove
this
afterward
,
and
shew
that
these
offices
taken
formaliter
as
superior
to
that
of
the
Pastor
,
are
expyred
,
as
sound
Divines
doe
almost
universally
grant
;
I
answer
that
most
,
if
not
all
Prelatists
ancient
and
modern
,
doe
hold
the
Diocesian
Prelat
to
be
no
officer
Specifially
distinct
from
the
Presbyter
or
Pastor
,
but
only
gradually
distinct
,
as
being
a
Pastor
with
a
more
amply
extended
authority
for
order
of
Government
.
Mr
Burnet
,
in
his
pretended
vindication
of
the
present
Prelacie
,
4t
.
Conference
,
pag.
310
,
311.
tells
us
,
that
he
is
not
clear
anent
the
notion
(
as
he
calls
it
)
of
the
distinct
offices
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
and
akonowledges
the
Presbyter
to
be
of
the
hiest
office
in
the
Church
,
telling
us
that
the
Prelat
is
but
a
different
degree
in
the
same
office
.
Although
in
this
he
and
the
rest
doe
speak
most
inconsequently
,
the
forementioned
ingredients
of
the
Prelatical
function
,
being
such
,
as
doe
certanly
amount
to
make
up
a
new
species
of
ane
office
,
such
as
a
different
work
,
consecration
or
ordination
,
the
actus
primus
of
a
State
Ruler
,
different
qualifications
(
by
consequence
)
above
and
beyond
these
of
a
Presbyter
.
The
diversitie
of
these
distinguishes
the
Scripture
offices
of
Apostles
,
Evangelists
,
&c.
which
Paul
setts
in
several
Classes
,
as
,
first
,
and
second
.
1
Cor.
12
:
28.
Mr
Burnet
his
reason
is
the
same
with
that
of
others
herine
(
viz
)
the
Pastors
authority
to
administer
the
word
&
Sacraments
which
are
the
highest
acts
of
the
power
of
order
.
He
tells
us
[
that
since
the
Sacramental
actions
are
the
highest
of
sacred
performances
:
he
cannot
but
acknowlege
that
such
as
are
impowered
for
them
,
must
be
of
the
hiest
office
,
in
the
Church
]
now
I
say
,
since
they
will
needs
have
the
Diocesian
Bishop
to
be
only
a
different
degree
of
the
Presbyterat
or
Pastoral
office
,
they
cannot
with
any
shaddow
of
reason
make
him
Successor
to
the
Evangelists
or
Apostles
in
their
formal
office
,
which
they
will
not
dare
to
affirm
to
be
only
a
different
degree
of
the
Presbyterat
or
Pastores
office
,
and
will
affirme
it
to
have
been
specifically
distinct
from
the
same
.
The
Ancients
and
Schoolemen
held
that
the
Pastor
in
his
ordination
receaved
the
same
Power
of
Government
that
the
Prelat
hath
,
but
that
the
Prelat
is
the
[
primus
Presbyter
,
]
who
hath
the
raines
of
all
the
exercise
,
in
his
hand
.
But
how
cross
is
this
to
Scripture
,
that
any
Church
officer
hath
a
power
and
authoriritie
which
he
cannot
exercise
?
To
whomsoever
God
hath
given
the
power
,
he
hath
certainlie
commanded
the
exercise
of
it
;
and
particularly
Pastores
or
Presbyters
are
(
as
we
have
heard
)
enixely
commanded
to
exercise
all
their
Pastoral
authority
and
power
,
as
they
shall
answer
to
their
great
Master
.
Besyds
,
if
the
Pastoral
office
,
or
its
official
power
of
order
and
jurisdiction
,
may
be
warrantably
thus
divided
and
cutt
out
in
Shreeds
and
parcells
,
and
divyded
among
different
recipients
,
then
it
were
lawful
to
divyde
preaching
and
administration
of
the
Sacraments
,
so
as
one
Presbyter
(
notwithstanding
of
his
authority
and
mission
,
in
relation
to
both
word
and
Sacraments
,
receaved
in
his
ordination
)
might
have
preaching
only
allowed
to
him
,
but
no
administration
of
Sacraments
:
Another
might
be
allowed
to
administer
Sacraments
,
but
not
to
preach
.
One
Presbyter
upon
the
pretence
of
order
or
union
(
pretences
are
never
wanting
to
humane
inventions
)
might
be
sett
a
part
and
authorised
to
Baptise
all
the
Children
in
a
wholl
Province
,
doing
nothing
else
of
the
Pastoral
Office
,
And
this
power
by
the
same
authority
might
be
taken
from
all
the
Pastoures
of
the
Province
,
Sure
all
would
acknowledge
this
to
be
a
most
wicked
divyding
and
diversifieing
what
God
the
conjoyned
.
And
such
is
this
Prelatical
divyding
of
the
Pastoral
charge
in
relation
to
order
and
jurisdiction
,
or
the
keys
of
Doctrine
&
Government
?
the
power
wherof
,
the
Pastor
receaves
intirely
in
his
ordination
,
as
well
as
the
Authority
of
administrating
Sacraments
.
7.
In
this
the
Diocesian
Bishop
is
contrare
to
Scripture
.
In
that
his
Office
is
in
many
respects
cross
to
the
very
nature
of
the
Gospel-Church
Government
,
and
is
ane
Office
which
the
man
that
exercises
,
cannot
but
in
so
farr
cease
to
be
a
Gospel
Church-ruler
,
Which
I
prove
thus
.
1.
Since
all
authority
in
the
Diocess
,
as
to
either
the
Word
or
Disciplin
,
is
deryved
from
the
Bishop
,
as
its
proper
fountaine
and
subject
,
this
power
of
the
Bishop
is
properlie
and
of
its
own
nature
,
not
a
Gospel
Ministery
,
But
a
dominion
and
principalitie
,
discharged
to
Church
Officers
of
what
ever
sorte
,
whose
authority
is
not
a
despotick
,
nomothetick
,
or
architectonick
power
,
but
a
Ministerial
Stewardship
only
.
Matth.
20
:
v
,
25
,
26.
2
Cor.
1
:
24.
1
Cor.
4
:
D.
1
Pet.
5
:
2
,
3.
3
Epist.
John
.
9.
The
work
of
all
Church
Officers
,
is
called
a
Ministery
,
Pastours
,
Doctores
,
yea
Apostles
,
Evangelists
were
appointed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
the
worke
of
the
Ministery
,
Ephes.
4
:
12.
2
Cor.
4
:
v.
5.
Paul
calls
himself
a
fellow
servant
with
Epaphras
,
Collos.
17.
with
Tichicus
Collos.
4
:
7.
And
calls
Ministers
his
fellow-souldiers
and
fellow-labores
Philip.
4.
3
.
-2
.
25-Rom
.
16
:
3
.
-2
.
The
Bishops
power
inverts
Christs
rule
,
as
to
the
gradation
in
point
of
censures
and
appealls
,
which
is
from
one
one
to
more
,
from
the
lesser
number
to
the
greater
,
from
the
Presbytery
to
the
Synod
,
as
from
the
Presbytery
at
Antioch
,
to
the
Synod
at
Jerusalem
:
Not
to
any
one
Apostle
,
Pop
,
or
Prelat
;
Whereas
the
last
appeal
and
reference
in
this
Diocesian
Mould
,
is
to
the
Bishop
.
Our
Lords
rule
is
this
in
relation
to
the
removeing
of
Scandales
.
First
,
tell
the
offending
Brother
Alone
,
then
take
two
or
three
more
,
then
if
he
be
farder
contumacious
,
tell
the
Church
,
the
greater
embodied
court
or
Judicatorie
,
who
have
the
official
power
of
binding
or
lowseing
.
He
bidds
not
toll
it
,
uni
,
to
one
,
but
unitati
,
a
multitud
gathered
into
one
,
for
so
the
Greek
word
doth
necessarly
Import
,
whereas
in
the
Diocesian
sea
,
the
gradation
is
from
many
to
one
Prelat
,
whose
sole
prerogative
this
highest
censure
,
is
.
And
with
Prelatists
the
rule
runns
thus
,
tell
two
,
or
three
,
lastlie
and
finallie
one
Lord-Bishop
:
Which
is
point
blank
contrare
to
the
Scripture
rule
.
3.
The
Diocesion
Bishops
power
,
and
Ministerial
Pastoral
pretended
duties
,
as
Diocesian
Bishop
are
such
as
falls
within
he
compass
of
no
command
,
and
which
it
is
impossible
to
performe
according
to
Scripture
rules
,
which
I
prove
thus
.
1.
The
Prelat
according
to
their
principles
is
the
proper
Pastor
of
the
whole
Diocess
,
for
he
being
peculiarly
Bishop
of
it
,
and
consecrat
in
order
to
his
Episcopal
inspection
over
the
same
(
for
to
the
participation
of
his
power
&
office
,
denoted
by
this
term
[
Bishop
of
Edinburgh
]
&c.
He
admitts
non
in
the
diocess
,
it
being
the
characteristick
of
his
Superioritie
over
Presbyters
)
&
withall
,
it
including
the
wholl
Ecclesiastick
Authority
both
of
order
and
Jurisdiction
with
in
the
Diocess
;
It
followes
of
necessity
that
he
is
the
sole
and
proper
Pastor
thereof
according
to
this
mould
of
Government
.
Now
it
being
so
,
let
it
be
considered
.
1.
That
the
trew
Scripture
etimon
of
Episcopus
or
Bishop
,
imports
all
the
Pastorall
duties
of
feeding
and
ruling
,
and
layes
a●…e
obligation
upon
the
person
under
this
relation
and
cloathed
with
this
Office
,
to
perform
all
these
duties
accordingly
to
these
to
whom
he
stands
in
that
relation
.
2
That
its
impossible
the
Bishop
can
feed
,
Rule
,
Oversee
,
and
perform
the
Pastoral
duties
unto
,
and
watch
for
the
souls
of
all
that
large
flock
,
in
which
,
some
hundereds
of
painful
▪
Pastores
will
find
their
hands
full
of
work
.
So
that
the
Bishop
assumes
a
charge
,
which
it
is
impossible
he
can
dischag
or
perform
.
3.
The
Scripture
allowes
no
Derivation
or
Deputation
of
the
Pastores
work
and
Office
to
which
he
is
called
of
God
,
unto
other
subserviant
Officers
.
Because
God
intrusts
no
man
with
any
peece
of
Stewardship
in
his
Family
,
but
what
he
must
both
oversie
and
execut
immediatly
by
himself
,
and
is
likewayes
disposed
and
enabled
to
manage
and
overtake
.
God
still
conjoyneing
the
Office
,
gifts
,
and
call
together
,
for
every
peece
of
his
work
:
Which
the
man
that
is
intrusted
with
;
and
called
unto
,
must
himself
immediatly
waite
upon
and
attend
Rom.
12.
7.
and
not
intrust
it
to
others
for
him
.
Hence
4.
By
clear
consequence
,
it
followes
,
that
the
Diocesian
Bishopes
work
qua
talis
,
is
such
,
as
he
can
neither
mannage
nor
hath
warrand
from
the
great
Shepherd
to
exercise
or
assume
.
In
the
4t
.
Place
,
the
present
Diocesian
Bishop
is
a
Person
who
is
authorised
to
sitt
in
Parliament
,
Council
,
and
other
civil
Judicatories
,
as
a
constituent
member
therof
:
For
they
are
restored
to
their
places
in
Parliament
&
civil
pretended
dignities
,
which
places
they
a●…
by
there
Office
bound
to
manage
,
as
civil
Rulers
.
But
so
it
is
that
all
civill
dominion
,
&
Magistraticall
Rule
,
is
expresly
prohibit
to
Church
Rulers
,
so
that
the
Church
Officer
who
is
installed
in
these
Offices
,
falls
from
Heaven
to
Earth
.
The
Princes
of
the
Gentiles
exercise
Dominion
over
them
,
and
they
that
are
great
exercise
authotie
upon
them
,
but
it
shall
not
be
so
among
you
.
Matth.
20
:
25
,
26.
This
charge
our
Lord
gave
to
his
Apostles
and
their
Successors
Pastores
or
Bishops
,
who
are
here
forbidden
all
civill
rule
or
Magistracy
,
the
nature
wherof
is
properly
a
Dominion
,
and
thus
distinct
toto
coelo
from
the
nature
of
Ecclesiastick
Offices
which
is
a
Ministerial
service
or
stewardship
only
.
All
our
divines
impugne
from
this
text
the
popes
civil
Dominion
and
the
amphibius
civily
ruleing
or
domineering
Prelat
falls
under
the
lash
thereof
.
Non
who
goe
Christs
errands
and
his
warrfare
must
be
in●…angled
with
these
things
that
are
temporal
.
The
Minister
must
waite
upon
his
Ministrie
.
So
the
civil
Magistrat
is
Gods
Minister
in
civiles
,
attending
Continually
upon
this
employment
Rom.
13
:
4
,
6.
Now
,
those
being
in
their
nature
so
disparat
employments
,
and
both
requireing
a
constant
waiting
and
attendance
,
he
is
a
strange
man
,
That
can
be
called
and
sufficient
for
both
:
Who
is
sufficient
for
these
things
said
the
great
and
highly
gifted
Paul
,
speaking
of
his
Ministerial
employments
:
Are
our
Prelats
beyond
his
sufficiencie
,
who
can
act
the
Pastor
of
a
wholl
Diocess
and
guide
State
affaires
too
?
Christs
Kingdome
is
not
of
this
World
,
and
so
are
not
its
Officers
,
the
weapons
of
whose
warrfare
must
not
be
carnal
.
Who
made
me
a
judge
,
said
the
great
Shepherd
himself
,
when
desired
but
to
giue
a
deciding
advice
in
a
civil
cause
Luk
,
12
:
14.
Where
is
there
any
thing
like
the
work
or
qualifications
of
the
Magistrat
in
all
the
New
Testament
Rules
and
instructions
anent
the
work
,
Office
and
call
of
Church
Officers
.
CHAP.
III.
The
Diocesian
Bishops
Office
debases
extraoadinarie
Offices
,
in
confounding
them
with
the
ordinary
.
That
Timothy
and
Titus
power
layes
no
foundation
for
Prelacy
,
cleared
at
large
.
The
derivation
of
Prelacie
from
them
,
loaded
with
gross
absurdites
.
VIII
.
THe
Diocesian
Bishops
Office
,
is
in
this
contrare
unto
the
word
,
in
that
It
debases
the
Apostolical
and
Euangelistick
Offices
,
and
confounds
the
ordinarie
&
extraordinarie
functions
&
administrations
,
which
Scripture
,
Reason
,
&
all
sound
Divines
doe
diversifie
&
distinguish
.
The
Prelats
Advocats
,
&
this
new
informer
particularly
,
pleads
for
and
derives
the
Episcopal
preheminence
from
the
office
and
inspection
of
the
Apstles
and
Euangelists
,
whom
they
affirme
to
have
been
properly
&
formally
Bishops
,
in
the
sense
they
take
the
Diocesian
Bishop
,
and
that
the
formal
power
and
offices
,
which
they
exercised
are
to
be
continued
still
in
the
Church
.
That
Timothy
was
formally
constitut
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
Titus
of
Crete
,
Iames
of
Ierusalem
.
And
that
the
Prelats
office
,
is
the
same
,
and
properly
Succeeds
them
,
and
is
as
it
were
,
A
continuation
of
their
office
in
a
formal
sense
.
Timothy's
authority
is
is
one
maine
ground
which
the
Episcopal
men
at
the
Isle
of
Wight
,
and
this
Auther
also
do
plead
to
legittimat
the
Prelats
office
.
This
being
clear
,
I
say
,
this
pretended
Mould
of
the
Diocesian
Bishops
Office
and
Authority
,
is
lyable
to
the
charge
&
censure
of
debasing
these
holy
extraordinarie
functions
,
and
confounding
them
with
the
ordinary
,
which
I
prove
,
thus
.
1.
All
sound
protestant
Divines
do
harmoniously
assert
the
extraordinary
nature
of
the
Apostolick
office
as
such
,
and
likewayes
of
the
Euangelists
,
reckening
the
Apostles
,
Prophets
,
and
Euangelists
as
the
extraordinary
New
Testament
Officers
,
whose
proper
formal
Office
,
died
with
them
,
and
admits
of
no
succession
:
for
thus
they
ordinarily
defyne
the
Apostles
,
that
they
were
Christs
immediatly
called
and
extraornarily
gifted
universal
Ambassadours
,
sent
out
,
to
lay
every
where
the
foundation
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
and
to
plant
the
Gospel
government
therein
:
Particularly
Polanus
in
his
Syntagma
reckens
up
these
as
their
extraordinary
expired
prerogatives
(
to
which
we
will
find
this
Informer
in
parte
give
assent
.
)
1.
Their
immediat
institution
by
Christ
.
2.
Their
immediat
mission
to
teach
,
(
Paul
had
his
from
heaven
.
)
3.
Their
universal
legation
to
found
and
plant
Churches
throw
the
world
.
2
Cor.
11
:
28.
—
4.
It
s
visible
badge
,
(
viz.
)
the
conferring
of
the
Spirit
by
the
laying
on
of
hands
.
5.
Their
extraordinary
authority
beyond
any
of
their
Successors
,
as
being
set
over
the
whole
Church
&c.
Hence
all
the
ingredients
of
their
formal
Office
,
as
such
,
must
needs
be
expired
,
And
no
Church
Officer
can
be
said
to
succeed
them
therein
.
Their
Call
was
immediat
,
sure
,
non
can
succeed
them
in
that
.
Their
special
or
proper
work
,
was
to
plant
Churches
and
the
Gospel-government
in
them
,
and
set
up
their
Officers
,
of
all
which
Churches
they
were
Ministers
in
actu
exercits
,
sure
no
Church
Officer
could
succeed
them
in
this
.
Their
Qualifications
as
such
Ambassadours
,
were
correspondent
to
this
great
work
,
(
viz.
)
their
gifts
of
miracles
,
gifts
of
tongues
,
Prophesie
,
infallibility
in
Doctrin
;
Sure
now
can
pretend
to
succeed
them
in
this
.
Nixt
,
for
the
Euangelists
,
their
Office
was
equally
extraordinary
,
it
consisting
in
a
planetary
motion
,
from
place
to
place
,
to
water
where
the
Apostles
planted
,
to
bring
reports
of
the
Churches
state
to
the
Apostles
,
and
commissions
from
the
Apostles
to
them
.
Their
various
motions
,
pro
re
nata
,
upon
&
down
,
even
after
these
Epistles
(
wherein
they
are
supposed
to
have
receaved
their
Episcopal
charge
)
were
written
to
them
;
and
the
Scriptures
absolut
silence
as
to
their
ever
returning
to
these
Churches
againe
,
besides
the
Apostle
Pauls
shewing
expresly
in
these
Epistles
,
their
occasional
transient
employment
in
this
places
,
and
express
recalling
of
them
therefrom
,
to
the
further
prosecution
of
their
extraordinary
employment
,
and
in
these
very
Epistles
identifying
the
Office
of
the
Bishop
and
Elder
:
All
these
clear
grounds
,
I
say
,
do
evidently
demonstrat
that
the
work
and
office
of
Timothy
and
Titus
as
Euangelists
,
is
expired
,
and
cannot
be
pretended
unto
by
any
ordinary
Church
Officer
,
it
being
an
appendix
as
it
were
of
the
Apostolick
charge
,
and
supposing
its
exercise
and
existance
,
and
the
Churches
then
-
infant
state
and
condition
.
Now
,
to
make
these
high
and
extraordinary
functions
,
ordinary
,
and
thus
confound
the
two
together
,
must
be
a
very
gross
usurpation
.
2.
Hence
it
is
manifest
,
that
the
Episcopal
function
(
as
above
described
in
the
quality
,
and
mould
of
the
Diocesian
Bishop
)
will
never
be
found
in
these
extraordinary
functions
,
either
formaliter
,
or
eminenter
,
and
consequently
it
must
be
a
gross
belying
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
to
pretend
this
in
the
assuming
of
this
usurped
Office
.
First
,
The
Episcopal
Office
will
not
be
found
in
that
of
the
Apostles
or
Euangelists
formaliter
.
For
these
were
universal
unfixed
Officers
,
set
over
no
particular
Church
or
Diocess
:
But
were
pro
re
nata
to
officiat
to
the
whole
Church
as
being
(
the
Apostles
especially
)
Officers
thereof
in
actu
exercito
.
Nixt
,
the
Episcopal
function
is
not
included
in
these
Offices
eminenter
,
or
in
the
ordinary
power
whi●…
the
Apostles
or
Euangelists
exercised
,
or
transmitte
〈◊〉
the
Church
.
And
that
for
these
Reasons
.
1.
Neit●…
the
Apostles
nor
Euangelists
in
respect
of
their
perpet●…
ordinary
Ministerial
authority
transmitted
by
them
in
〈◊〉
Church
,
did
exercise
Superiority
Episcopal
over
other
Ministers
,
but
as
to
the
perpetual
Pastoral
Charge
,
they
held
them
their
equals
,
and
in
the
ordinary
power
of
government
,
as
wee
saw
above
in
the
Apostles
practise
in
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
amongst
Churches
constitut
,
and
farr
less
can
we
suppose
that
the
Euangelists
were
in
such
Churches
to
exercise
any
single
or
Episcopal
preheminence
in
government
.
For
it
were
strange
if
Timothy
who
was
ordained
by
a
Presbytrye
wherein
Paul
himself
was
present
,
should
notwithstanding
usurpe
preheminence
over
a
Presbytery
though
inferior
to
ane
Apostle
.
And
that
whereas
Presbyters
did
concurr
pari
passu
with
a
whole
Presbytery
of
Apostles
in
every
peece
of
a
judicial
Act
and
decree
,
yet
that
ane
Euangelist
inferior
to
any
of
the
Apostles
,
should
take
Episcopal
preheminence
over
a
Presbytery
.
2.
The
Apostles
planted
no
such
ordinary
Officers
in
the
Church
,
as
had
that
Episcopal
Power
,
therefore
the
Episcopal
Power
was
not
transmitted
by
them
in
the
Church
:
And
by
further
consequence
it
is
not
included
in
their
Office
eminenter
.
For
it
is
evident
,
that
in
the
first
plantation
of
the
Churches
they
fixed
Presbyters
,
or
Pastors
,
as
their
immediat
Successor's
in
the
Ministerial
power
,
and
likewise
in
their
last
farewel's
into
Churches
,
they
committed
unto
these
Pastors
the
ordinary
power
of
government
,
without
the
least
hint
of
a
Super-institution
of
any
officer
of
a
higher
order
.
Act.
20
:
28
,
29.
Compared
with
25.
1
Pet.
5
:
2
,
3.
with
2
Pet.
1
:
14
—
3.
It
was
in
respect
of
Paules
ordinary
Ministerial
power
,
and
in
that
Capacitie
,
that
he
had
hands
laid
upon
him
by
that
Presbytety
at
Antioch
,
and
was
sent
out
with
other
commissioners
to
that
Synod
at
Jerusalem
by
them
,
which
looked
like
a
humble
submission
pro
tanto
,
unto
them
,
and
is
far
from
the
Episcopal
preheminence
:
since
the
Prelats
dissoune
all
Subjection
to
the
Prophes
in
greater
or
lesser
assemblies
.
4.
The
Prelats
authority
is
this
,
he
is
upon
the
mater
the
only
proper
Pastor
of
the
Diocess
,
whose
Episcopal
inspection
reaches
Pastores
and
flocks
both
,
as
is
above
cleared
.
He
is
the
fountaine
from
whom
the
power
of
order
and
Jurisdiction
in
the
wholl
Diocess
,
is
deryved
,
and
the
exercise
of
both
depends
upon
his
Lordly
disposal
.
Now
,
this
is
contrare
both
to
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
their
ordinary
and
extraordinary
power
,
contrare
to
its
very
nature
in
universum
,
their
office
being
a
declarative
executive
Ministerie
onlie
:
And
Dominion
or
Lordship
being
discharged
to
all
Apostles
,
and
all
Church
Officers
whatsoever
.
Hence
in
the
3d.
place
,
This
Episcopal
pretence
,
a●…nt
the
derivation
of
their
Lordly
grandour
,
from
the
Apostolick
Office
,
fastens
a
grosse
charge
of
unfaithfulness
upon
them
.
1.
In
assuming
a
power
in
its
nature
distinct
from
what
there
Lord
allowed
and
enjoyned
them
(
viz.
)
a
Lordly
dominion
,
not
a
ministerial
Stewardshipe
&
service
only
,
&
such
a
dominion
as
Princes
of
the
gentiles
exercise
,
even
to
have
the
actus
primus
of
a
civil
Lord-peer
,
yea
Chieff-peer
,
or
Parliament
man
.
2.
In
debaseing
and
Straitening
their
Apostolick
Inspection
,
and
carrying
ane
Office
incompatible
with
it
,
and
thus
unfaithfully
tearing
out
a
parte
of
their
commission
.
For
,
in
becoming
Diocesian
Bishops
,
they
should
be
fixed
to
particular
diocesses
,
and
therin
exercise
ane
ordinary
fixed
poever
,
wheras
their
commission
was
to
exercise
ane
extraordinary
unfixed
ministery
towards
all
the
Churches
,
planted
,
and
to
be
planted
.
3.
In
setting
up
up
no
such
ordinare
officers
to
succeed
them
in
this
so
necessarie
a
work
,
but
committing
the
wholl
governement
to
meer
presbyters
as
is
said
.
4.
In
ommiting
in
all
their
rules
&
prescriptions
anent
Church
government
,
&
the
offices
and
officers
therof
,
the
least
intimation
of
this
officer
,
and
giving
no
rules
for
either
the
qualifications
or
ordination
of
any
higher
officer
then
a
meer
presbyter
,
5.
In
express
dischargeing
of
Lordly
dominion
&
preheminence
among
ordinary
Church
officers
.
Now
,
if
this
be
not
a
debasing
of
,
and
hie
reflection
upon
,
these
eminent
extraordinary
Church
officers
,
both
to
make
them
carry
ane
office
contrare
and
inferior
unto
,
and
inconsistent
with
ther
holy
functions
,
intrusted
to
them
by
the
Lord
,
and
likewayes
in
their
practice
to
contradict
their
doctrin
in
relation
to
Church
government
,
yea
and
in
both
their
Doctrin
and
practice
,
to
contradict
&
crosse
the
Lords
great
commission
and
instructions
,
If
this
be
not
,
I
say
,
a
horrid
reflection
upon
their
faithfullnes
,
Let
any
judge
.
CHAP.
IV.
The
diocesian
Prelats
office
,
taks
away
the
peoples
right
,
to
Call
there
Pastor
.
This
right
proved
from
Scriptur
and
divine
Reason
.
It
excludes
the
office
of
the
Ruleing
elder
.
Some
Cheiff
exceptions
of
the
prelatick
party
to
that
1.
Tim.
5.
17.
Ansuered
.
IN
the
9●…
.
place
.
The
Episcopal
government
is
in
this
contrare
unto
the
word
;
In
that
it
cutts
off
Congtegations
from
all
interest
and
right
,
in
Calling
there
Pastor
.
For
in
this
government
,
the
Ministers
mission
,
Call
,
Ordination
,
and
Relation
to
such
a
people
,
over
whom
he
is
to
officiat
,
flowes
all
from
the
Prelat
.
The
Congregationall
eldership
have
not
the
Least
interestin
it
.
Hence
this
power
of
calling
Pastores
was
ranversed
by
our
Parliament
when
prelacie
was
set
up
,
and
the
old
popish
Custome
of
patronages
was
restored
.
The
Prelat
sends
a
man
to
the
poor
people
as
their
Minister
,
whom
possibly
they
never
sawe
in
the
face
.
Now
,
this
is
contrare
both
to
Scriptur
and
reason
,
contrare
,
to
the
practice
of
the
apostolick
Church
.
For
1.
Even
the
deacons
were
looked
out
,
and
chosen
by
the
people
.
Act.
6.
3.
That
the
Apostles
might
ordaine
and
lay
their
hands
upon
them
,
and
install
them
in
their
office
with
a
publick
blessing
:
And
if
the
people
were
to
have
so
great
ane
Interest
in
choosing
these
men
(
though
even
the
Apostles
,
who
had
infallible
knouledge
of
qualifications
,
were
present
to
ordaine
them
)
that
this
trust
of
disburseing
their
Almes
or
charitie
,
might
be
committed
to
non
but
upon
their
consent
&
choyce
.
Ergo
,
a
fortiori
,
People
have
a
far
greater
Interest
as
to
their
Consent
and
choyce
of
the
man
,
To
whom
they
are
to
Intrust
their
Soules
conduct
unto
another
world
,
which
is
of
infinit
more
worth
then
all
the
Earthes
treasures
,
And
while
the
are
no
such
infalible
discerners
of
fitt
persons
to
officiat
,
as
the
Apostles
were
.
If
the
Apostles
would
not
set
apart
men
for
this
meanest
employment
,
without
the
Peoples-Consent
&
looking
them
out
,
How
absurd
is
it
,
that
the
highest
ordinary
officer
[
the
Pastor
]
should
be
sent
to
officiat
in
that
eminent
office
with
out
ther
knowledge
or
Consent
.
2
Wee
find
the
chooseing
and
sending
out
of
Church
officers
in
this
hie
ministeriall
employment
,
To
have
been
upon
the
peoples
consent
and
choyce
:
for
Act.
14.
The
Elders
or
Ministers
who
were
ordained
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Church
by
Church
,
were
thus
ordained
and
sett
apart
to
their
office
,
Compared
with
Tit.
I.
5.
Berause
(
not
to
stand
here
upon
the
import
of
the
greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
imports
a
hand
suffrage
,
and
consent
of
the
people
,
as
shale
be
made
good
upon
the
Third
Dialogue
and
the
exceptions
of
this
pamphleter
,
upon
that
passage
,
examined
)
this
is
clear
,
that
this
ordination
was
to
be
performed
in
the
Church
,
Ergo
,
of
necessity
,
with
the
peoples
Consent
and
choice
:
And
Nixt
,
If
the
Apostles
would
not
ordaine
the
Deacons
,
but
after
this
manner
,
much
lesse
Ministers
unto
such
a
weighty
employment
,
since
in
ther
faithfullnes
the
people
are
(
as
is
said
)
infinitly
more
concerned
.
Besydes
,
the
very
Intimation
,
and
litte
,
of
the
men
out
of
whom
a
Successor
to
the
Apostleshipe
in
the
place
of
Judas
,
was
by
God
immediatly
to
be
chosen
,
was
with
the
peoples
Consent
,
Therfor
much
more
ought
this
to
be
in
the
ordination
and
admission
of
ane
ordinary
officer
whose
call
is
mediat
and
ordinarie
.
3.
The
Scripture
doeth
clearly
hold
forth
a
congregational
Church
&
juridical
eldership
,
representing
that
Church
.
Which
(
besyes
many
other
reasons
add●…cible
,
and
accordingly
pleaded
by
our
writ●…ers
)
is
evident
in
this
,
That
as
the
Scripture
makes
mention
of
greater
Churches
,
such
as
that
of
Corinth
,
Jerusalem
&c
,
Who
were
certanly
presbyterial
,
because
,
〈◊〉
they
are
found
,
thogh
consisting
of
many
officers
and
Rulers
,
and
of
lesser
Societies
,
yet
to
be
all
poynted
cut
as
one
Church
,
which
must
needs
Import
a
Classicall
or
presbiterial
unitie
of
these
lesseSocieties
.
So
the
Spirit
of
God
doth
also●…all
these
lesser
Societies
Churches
,
in
the
plural
.
Let
the
Woman
beep
Silence
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Churches
1.
Cor.
14.
34.
Which
must
needs
Import
the
Single
Congregations
of
that
one
Church
of
Corinth
.
And
moreover
,
through
thes
Churches
Rulers
,
Elders
,
&
Gouvernours
were
sett
and
established
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Church
by
Church
,
that
is
,
throw
all
particular
Churches
Act.
14.
23.
With
Tit.
I.
5.
For
if
the
Church
is
found
to
have
had
both
ruleing
and
teaching
Elders
,
Rom.
12.
8.
1.
Cor
12.
28.
1.
Tim.
5.
17.
And
upon
the
other
hand
,
if
these
lesser
Societies
are
called
[
Churches
]
It
certanly
followes
that
they
had
ane
eldership
&
rule
in
them
.
If
ane
eldership
,
and
rulers
,
be
allowed
to
rule
and
represent
the
Congregation
in
matters
Ecclesiasticall
,
then
by
necessary
consequence
it
followes
,
that
the
Call
of
the
Pastor
and
Chieff
elder
and
his
choice
,
as
most
suteable
to
their
condition
,
must
fall
within
the
compasse
ofther
Spiritual
authority
.
Finally
,
the
denying
of
this
unto
Congregations
,
&
the
Episcopal
arbitrarie
obtruding
of
Ministers
upon
them
without
their
call
and
consent
,
is
in
two
great
points
,
contrare
unto
divine
Reason
.
1.
Unto
that
spiritual
and
near
relation
,
which
is
betwixt
a
Minister
and
his
flock
,
(
which
we
will
find
this
pamphleter
after
plead
)
which
is
certainly
marriage
like
and
very
straite
.
And
there
being
many
peculiarduties
,
which
they
owe
unto
him
beside
others
Ministers
,
all
flowing
from
this
relation
,
particularly
a
special
reverence
,
obedience
,
and
subjection
;
These
must
certanely
suppose
a
voluntarie
consent
and
call
,
and
cannot
be
bottomed
upon
the
meer
will
and
pleasure
of
another
,
which
cannot
make
up
this
relation
2
,
This
denying
of
the
peoples
right
to
call
their
Pastor
,
is
contrare
unto
that
Iudgment
of
discretion
,
that
spiritual
discerning
,
and
trying
of
the
Spirits
,
which
is
allowed
,
yea
&
enjoyned
to
the
people
of
God
;
If
in
any
thing
a
spiritual
discerning
must
take
place
,
surely
in
this
especially
,
to
whom
a
people
doe
intrust
their
soules
direction
and
guidance
;
If
in
any
thing
a
Christian
must
Act
in
Faith
,
and
not
give
up
his
perswasion
to
ane
implicit
conduct
,
and
thus
become
a
servant
of
men
,
sure
it
must
be
,
in
a
mater
ofso
great
weight
as
this
is
?
If
Christs
sheep
have
this
for
their
Character
,
that
they
knowe
the
voice
of
the
trew
Shepherd
from
the
voice
of
the
hyreling
and
stranger
,
from
whom
they
will
flie
,
Joh.
10
:
4
,
5.
Sure
their
knowlege
and
consent
must
interveen
,
in
order
to
their
acceptance
of
,
and
subjecton
to
their
Shepherd
?
If
they
must
not
belive
every
Spirit
,
buttry
the
Spirits
,
sure
this
caution
and
tryal
must
be
especially
allowed
in
this
case
,
that
they
admitt
not
a
false
Prophet
instead
of
a
trew
?
So
then
the
Episcopal
Government
,
is
in
this
,
as
in
other
pointes
,
chargeable
with
antichristian
and
anti-scriptural
tyrannie
over
Christs
flockes
.
10.
The
Episcopal
Government
is
in
this
contrare
unto
the
Word
of
God
(
viz.
)
In
denying
,
and
cutting
off
from
his
administration
,
and
the
totall
laying
asyde
of
a
singularely
usefull
Church
officer
appointed
by
Christ
in
his
House
(
viz
)
the
ruleing
elder
.
That
Government
which
denies
and
layes
aside
,
any
of
the
great
Master
of
the
vine
yeard
,
his
servants
and
officers
whom
he
hath
authorized
and
appointed
,
must
needs
be
highly
derogatorie
to
his
glory
and
contrare
to
his
word
;
But
such
is
Prelacie
.
The
Prelats
are
like
that
sloathfull
wicked
servant
who
smites
and
beats
away
there
fellow-servants
,
while
they
eat
and
drink
with
the
drunken
.
That
Prelats
disoun
and
exclude
this
officer
,
is
evident
both
from
their
principles
and
practise
.
They
all
deny
the
divine
warrand
of
this
Church
officer
:
And
where
Prelacy
is
established
,
he
is
excluded
from
Presbyteries
and
Synodes
,
and
upon
the
mater
also
,
from
the
congregation
:
For
they
deny
and
exclude
all
decisive
suffrage
there
,
and
take
away
all
Authority
of
congregational
elderships
,
as
we
seen
.
Now
that
this
ruleing
elder
,
distinct
from
both
the
preaching
Presbyter
,
and
Deacon
,
Is
appointed
by
God
,
our
Divines
have
made
good
from
severall
Scriptur
grounds
.
Such
as
1.
From
Rom.
12
:
6
,
7.
Where
among
severall
other
Church
officers
which
the
Apostle
doth
enumerat
,
there
is
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
he
that
ruleth
.
Here
is
ane
ordinary
Ruler
,
distinct
from
all
other
Rulers
,
and
Church
officers
,
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
Rule
and
authoritative
power
.
Againe
,
he
is
ranked
among
ordinarie
Officers
,
and
so
must
needs
be
ane
ordinary
standing
officer
,
yet
stands
distinguished
from
other
ordinary
officers
,
haveing
both
a
distinct
name
from
all
the
rest
,
likewayes
a
distinct
worke
,
as
being
diversified
from
the
teacher
,
the
exhorter
,
and
the
giver
.
And
moreover
,
a
peculiar
direction
,
as
have
likewise
all
the
rest
.
So
that
from
the
circumstances
of
this
place
,
the
divine
right
of
this
officer
,
is
clearly
demonstrate
.
Nixt
,
That
passage
is
pertinently
improven
for
this
purpose
,
1
Cor.
12
:
28.
Where
we
read
of
helps
,
Governments
,
under
distinct
paragraphes
,
clearly
pointing
out
ordinary
Governing
Church
officers
,
distinct
from
the
elders
that
preach
,
and
the
Deacon
,
and
all
other
Church
Governoures
whatsoever
.
They
cannot
be
Governoures
in
the
General
,
for
what
doth
this
among
a
particula
enumeration
of
officers
▪
These
are
distinct
from
helps
,
distinct
from
the
teaching
elder
,
for
he
is
already
mentioned
in
this
same
vers.
So
here
is
a
Rule
,
and
Government
,
distinct
from
all
governoures
either
civil
or
ecclesiastick
,
except
this
ruleing
elder
,
yet
set
by
God
in
the
Church
under
the
new
Testament
.
But
the
third
and
most
pregnant
passage
from
which
our
divines
doe
demonstrat
the
divine
right
of
this
Church
officer
is
that
of
the
1
▪
Tim.
5
:
17.
Let
the
elders
that
rule
well
be
counted
worthy
of
double
honour
,
especially
they
who
labour
in
the
word
and
Doctrine
.
Here
is
a
ruleing
Church
officer
,
distinct
from
the
preaching
elder
:
For
here
is
a
general
,
elders
,
Nixt
,
we
have
two
distinct
branches
of
these
elders
(
viz
)
the
ruleing
elder
,
and
the
elder
that
both
rules
and
laboures
in
the
word
and
Doctrine
,
in
the
word
as
the
Pastor
,
In
the
Doctrine
as
the
teacher
.
Again
they
are
diversified
in
two
distinct
participles
and
epithets
,
[
ruling
]
is
made
the
marke
and
characterick
of
the
one
(
viz
)
Ruling
only
:
And
[
both
Ruleing
and
teaching
]
is
made
the
marke
of
the
other
,
whereby
they
are
distinguished
in
their
nature
and
office
.
But
in
the
3d.
place
,
the
forementioned
distinction
eminently
appears
in
the
discretive
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
especially
]
which
is
set
betwixt
these
two
kynds
of
elders
,
intimating
that
as
there
were
some
of
these
ruling
elders
who
did
labour
in
the
word
and
Doctrin
,
so
there
were
others
who
did
Rule
and
not
labour
in
the
Word
:
Both
were
worthy
of
double
honour
,
but
especially
the
labourer
in
the
word
,
over
and
above
this
ruling
.
And
to
this
purpose
it
is
well
observed
,
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
especially
,
is
allwayes
in
the
new
Testament
made
use
of
to
distinguish
one
thing
from
another
.
As
when
it
is
said
Gal.
6
:
10.
Let
us
doe
good
to
all
men
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
expecially
,
to
these
of
the
houshold
of
faith
,
hereby
distinguishing
soom
that
were
of
the
houshold
of
faith
,
and
some
that
were
not
.
In
which
sense
it
is
also
used
Phil.
4
:
22.
and
1
Tim.
5
:
8
,
This
precept
,
saith
P●…scator
(
Anal
:
in
Locum
)
he
first
illustrats
by
a
distribution
and
comparison
of
things
different
and
unlike
;
for
he
distinguishes
elders
into
those
who
were
sett
over
Ecclesiastick
Disciplin
,
yet
so
asthey
did
not
publickly
teach
,
&
those
who
did
teach
also
:
Wherein
he
clearly
gives
sentence
for
us
against
the
Prelatick
partie
,
in
this
point
.
Wee
may
hence
Collect
,
that
ther
were
two
sortes
of
elders
at
that
time
(
saith
Calvin
,
on
1
Tim.
5
:
17.
)
For
all
were
not
ordained
to
teach
;
for
the
words
doc
manifestly
hold
forth
that
some
had
governed
well
and
faithfully
,
to
whom
notwithstanding
,
the
office
of
teaching
was
not
committed
.
And
trewly
from
among
the
people
their
were
grave
and
good
men
chosen
and
approved
,
who
did
together
with
Pastores
,
by
commune
Councell
&
authority
administer
Church
Government
,
and
were
in
some
sort
,
censors
for
correcting
of
manners
,
which
oustome
Ambrose
compleans
to
have
worme
out
of
use
,
by
the
negligence
,
or
rather
the
pryde
of
teachers
while
they
covet
to
rule
alone
.
The
pregnancy
of
this
Scripture
tramples
into
the
dust
the
pitiful
evasiones
of
all
the
Prelatists
in
denying
the
divine
right
of
this
officer
:
Some
of
which
we
shall
here
take
notice
of
,
and
the
confutation
of
the
same
,
offered
by
our
divines
upon
this
point
.
Some
,
by
Ruleing
well
will
have
living
well
,
to
be
understood
:
But
the
Apostle
is
speaking
of
the
office
of
ruling
in
a
Church
officer
,
ruling
over
others
,
not
of
ruling
over
a
mans
●…eif
in
a
privat
capacitie
.
Neither
is
the
Churches
Honorarium
.
double
honour
,
double
maintinance
,
due
to
living
well
,
as
here
it
is
allowed
to
[
ruling
well
]
And
this
will
say
that
the
Minister
that
preaches
not
,
is
worthy
of
double
honour
for
living
well
,
which
will
make
very
harsh
sense
.
Some
understand
this
ruleing
elder
,
of
the
[
Deacon
,
]
but
the
Deacon
is
no
where
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
elder
,
his
work
being
to
help
,
to
distribut
,
not
to
rule
.
1
Cor.
12
,
28.
Rom.
12
,
8
Some
would
being
in
under
this
[
Ruler
,
]
The
ancient
Superannuat
Bishop
;
But
this
gloss
will
in
honour
preferr
unto
him
,
the
diligent
preaching
Minister
,
which
will
wound
their
cause
to
death
.
Some
,
by
the
[
Ruler
]
will
have
such
understood
as
did
administer
Sacraments
,
but
preached
not
:
But
Paul
knew
non
of
these
non
preaching
or
seldom-preaching
Ministers
,
far
less
would
he
allow
them
a
double
honoure
,
who
rather
deserved
the
contrary
.
Paul
will
have
all
Ministers
apt
to
teach
,
and
able
to
convince
.
Some
by
the
[
ruling
elder
,
]
would
have
Inferior
Magistrats
understood
,
who
were
appointed
for
ending
civil
Striffes
;
but
the
Apostle
is
here
prescrybing
rules
to
Church
office
bearers
,
not
civile
rulers
,
and
teaching
Timothy
how
to
cary
in
the
Church
.
Againe
,
they
had
then
no
Christian
civil
Magistrats
,
as
all
doe
grant
,
and
for
their
going
to
Heathens
to
compose
their
civil
differences
,
Paul
himself
dissallowes
it
1
Cor
6.
Some
againe
will
have
the
laboring
in
the
word
&
doctrine
to
be
nothing
else
but
ane
explanation
of
rulcing
well
;
but
this
inadvertant
gloss
will
set
asyde
My
Lord
Bishop
as
no
good
ruler
.
Againe
,
as
is
said
,
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
,
or
the
word
[
especially
]
is
discriminating
,
and
discretive
,
distinguishing
one
thing
from
another
,
not
explaining
one
thing
by
another
.
If
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
were
thus
sensed
,
what
odd
work
would
it
make
in
other
places
.
1
Tim.
4
:
10.
Who
is
the
Saviour
of
all
men
,
especially
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
of
them
that
believe
.
This
gloss
will
sense
it
thus
,
the
Saviour
of
all
men
greatly
believing
Others
yet
,
by
[
labouring
in
the
word
and
doctrine
]
will
have
a
higher
degree
of
labouring
as
to
diligence
,
understood
,
yet
so
as
both
branches
speak
of
labouring
in
the
word
and
doctrin
;
But
(
as
the
Leyden
Professoures
doe
well
answer
)
this
will
allow
double
honour
to
the
less-labouring
or
lazie
elder
,
who
deserves
rather
a
double
rebuke
,
the
Lord
requiring
the
the
utmost
faithful
diligence
,
of
all
labourers
in
his
vineyarde
.
Besides
that
this
gloss
justles
out
,
and
makes
Superfluous
,
that
clause
of
the
verse
viz
in
the
word
and
doctrine
,
which
according
to
this
exposition
,
should
either
have
been
totally
omitted
,
or
added
unto
both
the
branches
of
this
sentence
.
Some
,
to
escape
the
dint
of
this
text
,
invent
yet
another
Shift
[
all
Sort
of
Rulers
;
whither
civil
,
ecclesiastick
,
or
domestical
,
are
worthy
of
double
honour
;
so
they
sense
the
first
branch
,
and
say
they
,
this
General
proposition
the
Apostle
might
premise
to
enforce
the
honour
he
enjoyns
to
the
labourer
in
the
word
,
&c.
]
But
the
context
fully
rejects
this
gloss
,
since
the
Apostle
speaks
not
generally
of
Rulers
,
but
of
elders
that
rule
well
,
and
of
such
elders
and
rulers
to
all
which
he
allowes
double
honour
.
So
that
this
gloss
will
mak
pitiful
work
,
both
in
allowing
the
Churches
honorarium
,
double
honour
,
or
honourable
maintinance
,
to
domestick
Rulers
;
and
likewayes
will
allow
more
honourable
maintinance
to
Ministers
then
Magistrats
.
Some
woulde
,
by
the
labourer
in
word
and
Doctrine
,
as
distinct
from
the
ruling
elder
,
take
in
transient
visiting
Presbyters
,
distinct
from
fixed
preaches
;
but
where
will
they
shew
us
any
such
who
were
not
Evangelists
?
Wee
find
that
meer
ordinary
Presbyters
,
were
ordained
for
several
cities
and
places
as
there
peculiar
charges
,
whom
they
were
fixedly
to
feed
,
Act.
14
:
23.
Tit.
1
:
5.
Act.
20
:
28.
But
where
find
they
such
Presbyters
as
had
no
fixed
charge
.
Neither
can
Evangelists
be
meaned
(
as
Dr
Burnet
would
gladely
shift
it
in
his
first
Dialogues
)
the
Apostle
all
along
speaking
of
ordinary
preaching
Presbyters
.
These
,
and
several
such
like
exceptions
,
the
evidence
of
this
text
hath
long
since
refuted
;
So
that
we
may
conclude
solidely
from
what
is
said
the
divine
right
of
this
Church
officer
,
and
by
consequence
the
horride
Sacriledge
and
usurpation
of
Prelacie
,
in
robbing
Christs
Church
of
the
same
:
And
likewise
the
Babilonish
confusion
,
which
this
Antichristian
Hierarchie
hath
introduced
into
our
Church
:
both
in
divyding
and
maiming
the
Pastoral
office
,
in
bringing
in
offices
which
the
Great
Shepherd
hath
not
allowed
,
and
in
excluding
and
thursting
our
offices
and
officers
which
the
hath
ordained
;
upon
which
grounds
,
and
upon
all
the
preceeding
,
wee
hope
we
may
now
safely
conclude
the
Diocesian
Prelat
,
existing
among
us
,
to
be
a
plant
which
the
father
never
planted
,
and
consequently
as
a
poisonus
weed
,
to
be
rooted
up
.
CHAP.
V.
That
the
present
Prelacie
is
grosse
Erastianisme
.
Some
Arguments
against
it
,
under
that
notion
.
It
excludes
and
denies
all
Church
Government
in
the
hands
of
Church
officers
,
distinct
from
the
civil
;
contrar
to
the
Churches
priviledge
,
both
under
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
which
is
demonstrat
at
large
.
Is
in
many
points
ane
Incroachment
upon
the
liberties
of
the
Gospel-Church
,
and
upon
Christs
mediatorie
authority
over
the
same
.
HAving
thus
farr
impugned
the
Diocesian
Prelat
,
as
a
pretended
Church
officer
.
Wee
shall
nixt
,
offer
some
Arguments
against
him
in
his
Erastian
Mould
,
as
deriving
all
his
power
from
the
civil
Magistrat
.
Althogh
the
office
of
the
Diocesian
Bishop
were
acknowledged
warrantable
,
yet
this
will
help
nothing
the
Erastian
Prelat
,
these
being
very
distinct
theams
and
questions
.
[
What
is
that
Species
of
Church
Government
,
allowed
and
commanded
in
Scriptnre
]
?
and
[
whither
there
be
any
inherent
Church
Government
,
allowed
her
,
distinct
from
that
of
the
Civil
Magistrat
?
]
and
whither
Church
officers
,
or
the
Civil
Magistrat
,
be
the
proper
Subject
therof
?
that
the
Present
Prelacie
is
gross
Erastianisme
,
is
manifest
;
for
after
all
Church
Judicatories
were
in
Anno
16
62.
discharged
untill
they
were
authorized
by
the
Bishops
nominat
by
his
Majestie
—
the
disposal
of
the
Government
is
declared
to
be
the
Crown-right
,
and
inherent
p●…rpetual
prerogative
:
and
thereupon
the
Bishops
are
restored
,
not
only
to
their
civil
dignities
,
but
to
their
Episcopal
function
,
presidencie
in
the
Church
and
over
all
Church
discipline
,
&c.
And
it
is
expresly
declared
,
that
there
is
no
Church
power
,
jurisdiction
or
Government
,
in
the
Church
office
bearers
or
meetings
,
but
what
depends
upon
,
and
is
subordinat
unto
the
Supremacie
,
and
is
authorized
by
the
Bishops
,
who
are
declared
accountable
to
his
Majestie
for
their
administration
.
In
the
Act
for
the
National
Synod
,
the
constituent
members
thereof
,
the
maters
to
be
treated
of
,
the
authorizing
of
the
constitutions
as
Church
Canons
,
is
soly
in
the
Civil
Magistrat
,
there
work
being
only
to
give
advice
to
him
,
without
any
decisive
inherent
suffrage
.
By
vertew
of
which
Ecclesiastick
Supremacie
,
his
Majesty
puts
excommunication
and
Spiritual
censures
,
and
consequently
the
power
of
the
keys
,
into
the
hands
of
persons
meerly
civil
,
in
the
Act
for
the
high
commission
.
Hence
it
is
aparent
,
that
his
Majesty
as
the
fountaine
of
all
Church
Government
,
impartes
this
Authority
to
such
as
he
pleases
,
and
the
Bishops
are
nothing
else
but
his
Majesties
Commisioners
in
the
exercise
of
that
Ecclesiastick
Power
,
which
is
originally
in
himself
.
Now
,
that
this
Erastian
Prelacie
,
or
Church
Government
,
is
a
stranger
to
the
Scripture
,
is
many
wayes
evident
.
1.
This
Erastian
Prelacie
,
Denyes
all
Church
Government
in
the
hands
of
Church
officers
,
distinct
from
civil
Magistrace
:
which
is
ane
error
fully
confuted
and
largely
bafled
by
all
who
have
written
against
Erastus
and
his
followers
,
and
is
contrare
many
wayes
to
Scripture
.
I.
To
that
distinction
betwixt
the
Ecclesiastick
and
civil
Sanbedrin
under
the
Old
Testameet
,
asserted
and
cleared
by
many
Scripture
Arguments
by
our
divines
,
paraicularly
Mr
Gillespie
in
the
Aarons
rode
.
I.
From
the
institution
of
that
Court
of
elders
,
supposed
in
Exod.
24.
Who
were
not
those
elders
chosen
for
the
government
of
the
Commonwealth
,
Numb
.
11.
For
this
was
done
at
Sinai
shortly
after
they
came
out
of
Egypt
But
on
the
20
day
Of
the
2d
.
Moneth
in
the
2d
.
Year
they
tooke
their
journey
from
Sinai
to
the
●…dernes
of
Paran
Numbr
.
10.
11
,
12.
And
there
pitched
,
when
the
Seventie
elders
were
chosen
to
relieve
Moses
.
They
were
not
the
judges
chosen
by
advyce
of
Iethro
,
for
he
came
not
to
Moses
till
the
end
of
the
first
year
,
or
the
begining
of
the
Second
after
they
came
out
of
Egypt
;
Nor
could
they
be
judges
,
who
judged
befor
he
came
;
for
he
observed
that
the
burdine
lay
upon
Moses
alone
.
So
they
must
needs
have
been
Ecclesiastick
Rulers
under
the
presidencie
of
Aarone
and
Hur.
vers
.
14.
Who
were
called
up
as
the
representatives
of
the
Church
of
Israel
,
after
the
Judicial
lawes
were
given
,
Chap.
22.
23.
In
this
24.
Chapter
there
is
a
transition
to
the
Ceremonial
lawes
,
concerning
the
worship
of
God
,
and
the
Structur
of
the
Tabernacle
.
Deutr.
17.
8
,
9
,
10.
All
grant
there
a
Supream
Court
of
judges
,
therfor
also
the
text
must
be
granted
to
hold
forth
a
Supreme
Ecclesiastick
Court
:
For
it
caryes
the
authority
&
sentence
of
the
priests
,
as
hie
as
the
authority
&
sentence
of
the
judges
,
&
that
in
adisjunctive
way
as
Two
distinct
powers
,
each
binding
respective
in
their
oun
proper
Sphere
.
3.
From
these
judges
&
officers
1.
Chr.
23.
4
,
&
26
:
29.
Supposed
,
&
set
to
their
work
when
the
Levits
were
divyded
to
there
Charge
,
who
were
not
tyed
to
service
&
attendances
in
the
Temple
,
but
to
judge
&
give
sentence
concerning
the
law
&
its
meaning
:
and
this
saith
the
text
,
over
Israel
,
coming
to
them
from
any
of
the
cities
of
the
land
.
4.
From
Jehoshaphats
reformation
.
2.
Chron.
19.
8
,
10
,
11.
Who
restoring
the
government
of
the
Church
,
did
sett
in
Ierusalem
levits
,
priests
,
Chieff
of
the
Fathers
of
Israel
for
the
judgment
of
the
Lord
,
&
for
controversies
Here
is
1.
A
Court
of
priests
&
Levits
with
power
of
Suffrage
&
thus
consisting
of
Ecclesiastick
membres
.
2.
In
Ecclesiastick
matters
,
Maters
of
the
Lord
,
distinct
from
Maters
of
the
King
3.
For
ane
Ecclesiastick
end
(
viz.
)
to
warne
that
they
trespasse
not
,
not
only
against
one
another
,
but
against
the
Lord
.
4.
All
causes
of
their
Brethren
that
dwelt
in
the
Cities
,
were
to
come
to
them
unto
Jerusalem
.
5.
They
have
Ane
Ecclesiastick
Moderator
,
or
president
,
Amariah
the
chieff
priest
,
over
them
in
all
Maters
of
the
Lord
,
●…istinct
(
as
is
said
)
from
Maters
of
the
King
.
These
&
many
such
Arguments
are
made
use
of
by
him
&
others
,
To
clear
this
poynt
of
the
Two
distinct
Sanhedrins
,
which
fully
overthrowes
this
Erastian
Confusion
of
these
two
powers
&
governments
.
2.
This
fountaining
of
all
Church
power
in
the
civil
,
and
denying
of
Church
government
in
the
hands
of
Church
officers
,
distinct
from
the
Civil
government
,
is
Cross
to
that
distinction
of
the
Gospel
Church
her
government
,
from
that
of
the
Civil
power
,
wich
is
clearly
held
out
in
the
new
Testament
.
Wherin
it
is
evident
1.
That
the
visible
Church
is
Christ
the
Mediator
his
visible
kingdome
as
Mediator
.
And
so
its
Officers
,
Lawes
,
&
Censures
falls
with
in
the
compasse
of
his
Mediatorie
appointment
and
inspection
.
Matth.
16.
19.
—
&
28.
29.
Joh.
18.
36.
1.
Cor.
12.
28.
Eph.
4.
11
,
12.
—
2.
That
the
gospel
Church
was
Compleated
in
her
being
&
essence
,
both
as
to
Rulers
&
Ruled
,
Members
&
officers
,
and
in
rules
&
directions
for
the
exercise
of
her
government
accordingly
,
when
no
Magistrat
was
so
much
as
a
member
of
her
.
—
3
That
in
all
the
precepts
anent
the
exercise
of
this
power
,
it
is
enjoyned
to
the
Church
,
&
to
these
Church
officers
,
as
such
,
with
the
same
freedome
&
independancy
upon
the
Civil
power
,
as
at
the
first
,
&
without
the
least
restriction
&
limitation
,
in
case
of
the
Magistrats
becoming
Christian
;
All
the
grounds
made
use
of
in
pressing
the
exercise
of
this
power
,
being
moral
&
perpetual
,
&
respecting
the
Church
her
condition
as
a
Church
,
whither
the
Magistrat
be
friend
or
enemie
.
In
the
2d
.
Place
,
This
Erastian
prelatick
mould
of
government
brings
in
many
grosse
encroachments
upon
the
liberties
of
the
gospell
Church
.
As
1.
Denying
her
liberty
to
exercise
her
power
&
Key
of
Censure
without
the
Magistrat
:
Contrare
to
all
the
New
Testament
instances
of
the
exercise
therof
with
out
him
.
2.
Introduceing
a
dominion
,
&
arbitrary
power
upon
all
her
government
;
Contrare
to
her
liberty
&
the
very
nature
of
her
government
,
which
is
a
Ministerial
Stewardship
,
not
a
dominion
;
for
thus
the
Church
is
the
proper
object
of
the
Magistrats
dominion
that
being
the
Nature
of
his
power
Rom.
13.
And
the
present
prelatick
Church
ounes
the
Supreme
Civil
governoure
as
her
Chieff
Church
officerer
.
—
3.
Giving
to
the
Magistrat
qua
talis
(
for
this
power
in
Church
matters
,
is
by
Prelats
and
their
adherents
aknowledged
to
be
a
perpetual
Croun-right
)
the
proper
&
Sole
decisive
suffrage
in
all
causes
falling
under
Ecclesiastick
cognisance
:
for
Prelatists
onely
meet
to
advise
him
in
there
Suprem
Court
or
national
Synod
,
according
to
the
forementioned
Act.
Now
,
this
Cutts
off
all
Church
judicatories
ther
decisive
suffrage
as
Church
judicatories
,
which
(
as
is
cleared
above
)
they
did
fully
at
first
exercise
of
themselves
,
without
the
Magistrat
.
4.
This
mould
will
make
the
Civil
Magistrat
the
proper
immediat
subject
of
the
Keys
,
and
Impartes
all
Church
government
to
One
,
who
,
as
such
,
is
not
so
much
as
a
Church
member
,
and
impowers
him
to
give
out
this
supposed
fountaine
power
to
no
Church
members
,
or
to
here
enemies
at
his
pleasure
,
As
his
Majesty
gives
to
persons
Civil
the
power
of
excomunication
?
Yea
it
gives
him
a
power
,
by
his
oun
proper
clicite
acts
,
to
dispense
all
her
[
external
government
]
as
the
law
terms
it
,
which
(
if
we
look
upon
it
as
including
all
externall
ordinances
contradistinct
from
the
internal
government
of
the
inward
man
,
&
the
Church
invisible
)
will
necessarely
import
&
include
the
exercise
of
both
the
Keys
,
&
all
the
external
dogmaticke
,
diatactick
,
&
Critick
authority
&
power
,
intrusted
to
the
Church
representative
:
Which
is
a
meer
Civil
papacie
&
the
grossest
of
usurpations
which
the
Church
can
be
exposed
unto
,
as
shall
be
afterward
touched
.
Finally
,
This
will
inferr
,
that
Children
,
Heathens
,
yea
women
,
may
be
chieff
Church
officers
and
heads
of
the
Church
too
,
since
they
may
possesse
the
Crown
of
these
Kingdoms
,
to
which
this
Headship
and
Supremacy
is
annexed
.
But
of
this
also
againe
.
3.
This
Erastian
government
is
a
gross
encroachment
upon
Christs
prerogative
over
his
Church
.
And
that
in
these
wayes
.
1.
In
assumeing
a
power
over
the
Church
which
is
proper
to
Christ
only
,
I
mean
a
Magisterial
,
architectonick
power
.
That
this
is
assumed
by
this
Erastian
mould
of
government
,
is
evident
?
He
who
can
dispose
of
government
,
and
governoures
of
the
Church
arbitrarly
,
and
dispose
of
all
Church
meetings
,
and
Church
maters
,
as
he
pleases
and
thinks
fitt
,
Hath
certanly
this
power
;
but
that
this
Magisterial
,
architectonick
,
power
and
dominion
over
the
Church
,
is
Christs
Sole
prerogative
,
is
abundantly
clear
by
manifold
plaine
,
positive
,
Scripture
assertions
.
To
Christ
is
all
power
given
in
Heaven
and
Earth
,
Matth.
28.
18.
And
he
,
as
Mediator
,
is
given
to
be
head
over
all
things
to
the
Church
,
Ephes.
1.
21
,
22.
To
h●…m
is
all
judgement
(
over
her
)
committed
,
John
.
5.
22.
Hee
it
is
also
who
possesses
these
high
tittles
,
to
be
the
Governoure
(
over
his
Church
)
by
way
of
eminencie
,
Matth.
2.
6.
That
great
shepherd
of
the
sheep
.
Hebr.
13.
20.
the
shepherd
and
Bishop
of
Soules
.
1.
Pet.
2.
25.
Hee
is
that
one
Master
over
all
Church
officers
,
who
are
but
Brethren
,
Matth.
23.
8
,
10.
To
us
there
is
but
One
Lord
Iesus
.
1.
Cor.
8.
6.
Hee
it
is
,
to
whom
onely
the
imperiall
acts
of
power
are
ascribed
:
as
,
the
giving
of
lawes
to
his
Church
,
the
gospel
precepts
are
his
law
.
Gal.
6.
2.
Hee
it
is
who
gave
commandments
to
his
Apostles
,
Act.
1.
2.
there
is
but
one
law
giver
who
can
save
and
destroy
.
Jam.
4.
12.
The
Lord
is
our
judge
,
the
Lord
is
our
lawgiver
or
Statute
maker
,
the
Lord
is
our
King
,
I
say
.
33
22.
He
it
is
who
Constitutes
her
ordinances
,
preaching
of
the
word
Matth.
10.
7.
1.
Cor.
1.
17.
administration
of
the
Sacraments
,
as
of
baptisme
,
John
.
1.
33.
the
Lords
Supper
,
1.
Cor.
11.
20.
dispensing
of
Censures
,
Matth.
16.
29.
Hee
it
is
who
appointes
his
Officers
,
Prophets
,
Pastores
,
Teachers
,
Ephes.
4.
11
,
12.
1.
Cor.
12
,
28.
In
his
name
onely
all
ordinances
are
dispensed
:
Not
in
the
name
of
Magistrats
,
or
of
any
Mortall
.
The
Apostles
spake
and
taught
in
the
name
of
Jesus
.
Act.
4.
17
,
18.
In
his
name
we
are
to
Ask
Joh.
14.
13
,
14.
In
his
name
onely
Ministers
are
to
preach
and
baptize
,
Matth.
28.
18
,
19.
2.
Cor.
5.
20.
In
his
name
onely
they
are
to
Censure
,
to
deliver
to
Satan
.
1
Cor.
5.
4.
In
his
name
only
Church
assemblies
are
to
be
gathered
,
which
seems
the
Smallest
Act.
Matth.
18
,
20.
(
See
jus
divinum
Regim
:
Eccles:
Appollon
:
Revius
.
&c.
—
2.
This
Erastian
government
incroaches
upon
Christs
prerogatives
,
In
taking
and
using
the
Keys
against
Christs
donation
and
authoritie
Christ
is
the
only
Lord
giver
of
both
the
Keys
,
and
all
their
power
.
But
,
in
this
Usurped
power
,
the
Kevs
are
1.
Divyded
,
against
his
prescription
,
who
gave
both
the
Keys
of
Doctrine
and
Discipline
joyntly
to
the
proper
recipients
the●…of
(
viz.
)
Church
officers
.
Matth.
16.
19.
This
Erastian
government
●…ches
away
One
Key
(
viz.
of
government
)
from
such
to
whom
Christ
the
great
Master
of
the
House
,
hath
Intrusted
both
.
Christ
in
this
donation
of
the
Keys
,
making
no
mention
of
the
Civil
Rulers
,
but
only
of
Church
Officers
then
appointed
,
who
were
distinct
from
the
Magistrat
.
Hence
2.
The
Key
of
disciplin
is
taken
and
used
against
his
mynde
,
by
these
to
whom
he
hath
not
Intrusted
it
,
which
is
a
great
encroachement
upon
his
authoritie
.
In
the
3d.
place
,
this
Erastian
government
encroaches
upon
Christs
authoritie
over
his
Church
,
In
superadding
Ane
officer
to
theseChurch
officers
institut
and
appointed
by
him
.
For
in
all
the
Scripture
rolls
of
Christs
Church
officers
,
the
Civil
Rulers
are
not
found
.
Eph.
4.
10
,
11.
1.
Cor.
12.
28.
Rom.
6.
7
,
8.
—
4.
This
encroachment
appeares
in
making
Church
officers
,
as
such
,
imediatly
subject
to
the
Magistrat
in
all
their
Spirituall
administration
,
which
is
a
hie
Censure
of
the
Primitive
exercise
of
this
power
independantly
,
as
we
shal
shew
.
5
▪
In
exeeming
him
from
all
Spiritual
subjection
unto
,
and
censure
by
,
Church
Rulers
.
For
where
,
●…pray
,
shal
we
find
the
Magistrat
excepted
,
and
the
hi●…herCivil
powers
,
if
within
the
Church
,
from
Christs
lawes
and
rules
anent
subjection
to
Church
censures
and
to
his
Spiritual
office
bearers
intrusted
therewith
?
CHAP.
VI.
Erastianism
denyes
the
compleat
constitution
of
the
Apostolick
Church
in
point
of
Government
.
Removes
the
Scriptur
Land-markes
,
set
to
distinguish
the
Civil
and
Ecclesiastick
Powers
,
which
is
cleared
in
several
points
.
It
is
lyable
to
great
absurdities
.
IN
the
4th
place
:
This
Erastian
Government
presumes
to
impeach
the
primitive
Apostolick
Church
,
her
compleat
constitution
and
faithfulness
of
Administration
in
relation
to
Government
,
and
makes
here
to
have
had
but
a
defective
maimed
constitution
and
authority
thereanent
,
while
the
exercise
of
the
civil
power
in
her
,
was
wanting
.
Which
charges
a
gross
deficiency
upon
Christs
prescriptions
in
relation
to
her
Lawes
and
Officers
:
Which
are
found
in
Scripture
,
very
full
,
and
suited
to
her
state
and
condition
in
all
times
until
all
the
Elect
be
made
up
,
and
here
warfare
is
accomplished
;
and
consequently
,
it
impeaches
Christs
saithfulness
and
authority
as
Mediatour
,
whose
proper
work
this
holy
constitution
is
5.
This
Erastian
Prelacy
takes
away
all
the
Scripture
Landmarks
and
Limits
,
which
are
fixed
therien
by
God
,
to
distinguish
the
Civil
and
Ecclesiastick
Powers
and
Governments
,
and
makes
them
every
way
the
same
,
in
all
things
wherein
Scripture
and
Reason
do
distinguish
them
,
both
as
to
their
Nature
and
Acts
,
and
likewayes
as
to
their
Causes
.
1.
As
to
their
Nature
,
this
Erastian
Government
doth
confound
them
.
1.
In
that
it
makes
the
Church
and
Commonwealth
,
the
Political
and
Ecclesiastical
Societies
,
one
and
the
same
,
which
are
formally
distinct
.
It
being
a
visible
profession
that
make
a
Church
member
,
and
outward
habitation
and
subjection
to
the
civil
power
,
that
makes
a
Subject
;
Which
may
be
where
there
is
no
profession
,
and
consequently
no
Church-membership
.
For
in
this
mould
,
the
Kings
Government
Civil
,
is
Church
Government
,
for
it
is
his
Government
as
King
,
in
which
capacity
this
Ecclesiastick
Supremacy
is
his
prerogative
,
and
his
Ecclesiastick
Government
is
also
Civil
Government
,
for
it
is
his
Government
as
the
Supream
Civil
Magistrat
:
And
thus
the
Church
,
respected
by
his
government
,
is
the
Common-wealth
,
&
vice
versa
.
2.
This
confounds
the
Officers
of
Church
and
State
,
which
the
Scriptur
doth
aboundantly
distinguish
.
For
,
as
is
said
,
The
Church
had
all
her
Officers
of
Christs
appointment
,
when
no
Magistrat
was
a
Member
thereof
;
and
on
the
other
hand
,
Common-wealths
had
all
their
civil
Rulers
,
before
they
became
Churches
;
But
in
this
Erastian
Prelacy
,
this
order
is
confounded
,
The
chief
Officers
of
this
Church
are
the
Magistrats
Commissioners
to
Church
and
State
;
whereas
Church
Officers
are
given
by
Christ
as
Mediatour
to
his
Church
as
a
Church
,
1
Cor.
12
:
Ver.
28.
—
3.
The
actings
of
civil
and
Ecclesiastick
authority
are
thus
confounded
,
Spiritual
church
Rulers
Act
onely
in
Spiritual
matters
by
Gods
appointment
,
and
civil
Rulers
there
immediat
proper
Acts
are
only
in
matters
Civil
.
But
here
Church
Officers
are
Parliament
Commissioners
,
and
civil
Rulers
in
the
high
commission
do
excommunicat
.
Againe
in
the
2.
place
:
This
Erastian
Prelacy
confounds
these
two
powers
in
their
causes
,
which
are
wholly
diverse
.
1.
The
efficient
cause
is
diverse
,
God
as
Creator
,
is
Author
of
Magistracy
,
Rom.
13.
But
Christ
as
Mediatour
appoints
Church
Government
,
Matt.
28
:
18.
But
here
,
the
Magistrat
qua
talis
,
is
a
suprem
Church
Ruler
?
And
thus
is
supposed
to
have
his
power
from
Christ
as
Mediator
and
Head
of
his
Church
:
Which
is
ane
opinion
fully
confuted
by
those
who
havewritten
against
Erastus
,
particularly
Mr
Gillespie
in
the
Aarons
Rod.
2.
They
differ
in
the
material
cause
,
the
matter
on
which
the
two
powers
do
act
,
are
diverse
:
Ecclesiastick
power
doth
act
in
the
exercise
of
the
Keys
,
the
administration
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
having
this
for
its
proper
Object
and
matter
.
The
civil
power
consists
in
the
civil
and
secular
Sword
;
the
one
reaches
the
inward
,
the
othere
the
outward
man
.
But
in
this
Erastian
Prelacye
,
the
,
Sword
and
Keys
,
are
made
one
,
promiscuously
used
,
and
put
into
the
same
hands
.
3.
The
two
powers
differ
in
their
formal
cause
:
the
civil
power
is
put
forth
in
political
punishments
,
the
Ecclesiastick
in
spiritual
censures
.
But
here
,
the
same
power
is
the
first
Radix
and
Fountaine
of
Spirituall
Censures
,
and
Civil
punishments
,
and
gives
them
their
formal
essence
and
being
,
as
such
.
Finalie
.
The
proper
immediat
end
of
Civil
power
is
the
Temporal
,
External
,
political
peace
of
the
commonwealth
.
Rom.
13.
1
,
2.
3.
But
the
proper
end
ofEcclesiastick
power
,
Is
the
Churches
Spiriual
good
and
edification
as
such
,
Matth.
18.
15.
1
Cor.
5.
5.
2.
Cor.
10.
8.
and
13.
10.
But
here
,
the
Magistrat
quatalis
,
being
the
Churches
head
,
these
ends
are
Confounded
.
These
and
several
such
like
arguments
are
made
use
of
by
our
writers
against
Erastus
,
which
doe
fully
evince
the
unlawfulnes
of
this
Erastian
prelacie
.
Whosoever
shal
peruse
Apollonius
His
jus
Majest:
Circ:
Sacr:
the
jus
Div
:
regim
:
Eccles:
the
Aarons
rod
,
wallaeus
against
Vtenbog
:
and
such
like
,
will
find
this
abundantly
clear
.
To
sh●…t
up
all
with
One
word
more
.
Ther
are
these
3.
horride
absurdities
,
in
relation
to
Church
government
,
which
the
premised
mould
of
this
Erastian
prelacie
will
necessarly
inferr
.
1.
That
a
man
may
be
borne
,
not
only
a
Church
member
,
but
a
Chief
Church
Ruler
:
Nay
,
that
a
Heathen
,
and
a
man
that
never
professed
the
true
religion
,
but
lives
and
dies
ane
ingraind
enemie
to
it
,
and
so
hath
neither
mater
nor
forme
,
of
Church
membership
,
may
be
a
Chieff
Church
officer
.
For
his
Majesties
present
authoritie
herine
(
acknowledged
by
our
prelats
,
and
which
is
the
Fountaine
of
their
power
)
is
the
proper
Croune
dignitie
of
all
that
ever
shall
possesse
and
wear
it
:
and
so
here
is
a
monstrous
Church
officer
,
who
1.
hath
no
qualifications
of
any
Church
officer
whom
ever
Christ
appointed
.
2.
A
Church
officer
who
is
not
Set
in
the
Church
(
which
is
the
essential
marke
of
all
Church
officers
1.
Cor.
12
28.
)
for
that
supposes
he
must
be
a
Church
member
A
2d
.
absurditie
is
this
,
That
Children
and
women
(
who
may
have
a
lawfull
lineal
right
to
the
Croun
)
may
be
Church
officers
,
Yea
the
Fountaine
of
our
prelats
authority
,
and
of
all
their
Under●…ings
,
and
the
chieff
governoure
of
this
Church
;
and
thus
,
they
who
are
forbidden
so
much
as
to
speak
in
the
Church
,
shall
be
Chieff
Church
Rulers
,
and
likewayes
such
as
have
not
the
use
of
Reason
.
1.
Tim.
3
5.
1.
Cor.
14.
34
,
35.
—
A
3d.
absurditie
is
,
That
the
Church
government
upon
earth
may
be
Monarchical
,
and
that
One
man
may
be
her
Supream
head
,
legislator
,
And
architectonick
Monarch
and
Ruler
,
for
aquatenus
,
ad
omne
,
valet
consequentia
.
Upon
the
same
ground
that
the
Suprem
Civil
Ruler
is
Chieff
head
and
Ruler
over
the
Church
in
his
dominions
,
the
Church
in
all
other
places
,
being
a
body
of
the
same
nature
,
Should
the
Christian
Church
be
contracted
within
his
dominions
,
he
were
her
Supreme
universall
head
?
And
it
were
so
,
if
his
Civil
dominion
should
be
extended
over
all
the
Churches
:
By
this
same
reason
of
his
headship
over
One
,
he
may
be
head
over
all
,
and
exercise
ane
arbitrary
at
least
a
legislative
power
over
all
her
ordinances
and
officers
.
And
if
this
will
not
Clearly
set
the
popes
Treeple
Croun
upon
his
head
,
and
disowne
all
that
ever
the
protestant
Churches
have
writen
and
acted
against
his
blasphemous
Supremacie
,
let
common
discretion
judge
,
Ambrose
(
Epist
:
33.
ad
valentinianum
imperatorem
)
Saith
,
noli
gravare
imperator
,
ut
putes
in
ea
quae
divina
sunt
,
aliquod
imperiale
jus
habere
,
opliticorum
tibi
munerum
jus
concessum
est
,
non
Sacrorum
.
Grieve
not
O
Emperour
,
so
as
to
think
that
you
have
any
Imperial
authority
over
these
things
which
are
divine
,
the
right
or
authority
of
politicall
offices
is
committed
unto
thee
,
but
not
of
Sacred
.
CHAP.
VII
.
The
Informers
deceitfull
shifting
and
obscuring
the
true
State
of
the
Question
anent
Episcopacie
,
and
flinching
from
the
point
debatable
,
discovered
Severall
wayes
.
He
declines
a
direct
pleading
for
prelats
civil
offices
,
Yet
offers
some
arguments
defence
therof
:
Wherin
his
prevarication
,
and
Contradiction
to
himself
,
is
made
appear
.
TO
come
now
to
examine
what
this
new
Dialogist
,
hath
produced
in
defence
of
the
present
prelacie
established
amongst
us
,
And
to
examine
his
answers
to
our
plea
against
it
;
We
shall
not
stand
upon
the
trifling
debate
about
the
personal
good
qualities
of
some
that
have
been
prelats
,
with
which
Hee
prefaces
this
Dialogue
,
it
being
altogether
extrinsick
to
the
Question
anent
the
lawfulnes
of
the
office
it self
,
And
would
be
no
argument
in
our
case
against
him
,
as
this
man
cannot
but
acknowledge
,
else
Hee
must
give
up
the
cause
,
upon
his
concession
of
the
Unquestionable
eminent
pietie
,
and
integritie
,
of
many
burning
and
Shining
lights
,
who
have
been
the
Lords
Constant
witnesses
against
prelacie
.
That
which
is
here
mainely
considerable
,
Is
his
prevarication
in
Stating
the
Question
anent
prelacie
,
(
viz.
)
[
Whither
the
ancient
Bishopes
had
a
Superioritie
over
other
Ministers
]
wherin
he
utterly
●…ches
away
from
the
pointe
debeatable
.
1.
In
making
this
the
State
of
the
Question
[
what
Bishopes
were
in
the
primitive
Church
]
wheras
the
true
State
of
our
Question
,
is
,
whither
the
prelat
now
existent
in
this
Church
,
be
a
Scripture
Bishop
and
consonant
therunto
,
Or
,
ane
officer
appointed
by
Christ
in
his
house
,
Yea
or
not
.
And
not
whither
there
have
been
Bishops
,
or
such
as
we
now
have
,
in
the
ancient
Church
.
The
Question
is
not
of
the
mater
of
fact
,
but
of
the
right
,
yea
and
the
divine
right
of
the
present
prelats
in
relation
to
their
power
.
2.
In
stating
the
difference
betwixt
the
Bishop
he
pleads
for
,
and
the
Pastor
,
Hee
Smoothes
it
over
in
this
general
,
[
whither
there
have
been
such
Bishopes
,
as
have
had
a
Superioritie
over
ordinarie
Ministers
]
but
doth
not
explaine
what
that
Superioritie
is
which
he
pleads
for
,
whither
of
order
or
jurisdiction
,
or
both
;
whither
specificall
,
or
graduall
;
Whither
a
Superiority
of
meer
presidencie
,
or
of
principality
;
The
[
Episcopus
preses
,
and
princeps
]
sharing
in
this
general
name
.
Dolus
latet
in
generalibus
:
Since
there
have
been
various
Superiorities
,
de
facto
,
He
should
have
particularized
that
Superiority
which
He
undertaks
to
defend
.
3.
His
Doubter
suggesting
[
that
they
were
not
Lord
Bishopes
]
He
must
needs
make
him
referr
to
1.
Pet.
5.
3.
Discharging
to
Lord
it
over
Gods
heritage
;
But
how
poor
is
his
evasion
from
and
solution
of
this
difficultie
,
in
starting
this
notion
[
whither
there
have
been
,
De
facto
,
Bishops
with
a
Superioritie
over
Presbiters
,
Or
Bishops
who
had
Civill
dignities
in
ancient
times
?
]
The
pinch
of
this
debate
lying
in
this
,
whither
the
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Or
Lorship
]
discharged
in
that
Scripture
,
will
not
stryke
against
such
a
Superiority
or
dominion
,
whither
in
Ecclesiastick
,
or
Civil
rule
,
as
our
prelats
now
assume
?
and
not
what
sort
of
Superiority
in
Ecclesiastick
,
or
Civill
government
,
prelats
have
formerly
had
.
The
present
prelat
existent
in
Scotland
,
having
such
a
dominion
over
Church
Judicatories
,
and
likwayes
in
Civils
,
as
is
above
exprest
,
and
derving
all
his
power
from
the
Magistrat
in
Ecclesiastick
,
as
well
as
in
Civil
rule
,
He
should
have
Stated
his
Question
thus
distinctly
,
and
then
fenced
for
his
great
Diana
.
But
the
man
probably
found
this
a
taske
which
be
durst
not
undertake
:
which
appears
immediatly
after
,
in
his
declining
the
debate
anent
the
Bishopes
Civil
rule
,
telling
us
,
[
That
he
will
make
it
none
of
his
worke
to
debate
with
us
,
their
acting
in
Civil
affairs
,
Sometimes
]
But
1.
Since
he
undertaks
the
patrocinie
and
defence
of
Episcopacie
now
established
among
us
,
And
in
his
preface
professes
it
his
designe
to
prove
it
lawfull
,
and
therby
to
take
off
one
of
our
arguments
for
withdrawing
from
Conformists
,
And
it
being
likewayes
Certaine
that
the
present
prelats
are
Civil
rulers
.
He
must
either
undertake
this
debate
,
or
acknowledge
them
unlawfull
pro
tanto
at
least
?
And
that
he
proves
but
a
maimed
pleader
for
their
present
office
,
and
falls
short
of
a
great
part
of
his
designe
in
this
pamphlet
.
2.
He
pitifully
Snakes
away
from
this
debate
also
,
in
min●…hing
their
State-medling
,
thus
,
(
viz.
)
Their
acting
in
Civil
affaires
Sometimes
,
which
may
be
said
of
any
man
or
Minister
,
His
rare
transient
,
occasional
,
accidentall
or
privat
actings
,
and
even
in
domestick
affairs
.
But
cannot
this
man
distinguish
betuixt
this
,
and
a
Stated
official
acting
,
〈◊〉
constituent
and
constant
members
of
Civill
judicatories
,
as
prelats
are
according
to
our
lawes
,
and
that
even
ex
natura
officij
as
they
are
prelats
;
Sure
,
he
cannot
distinguish
the
Mountaine
from
the
Molchill
,
that
cannot
see
a
difference
betuixt
these
.
Either
this
Informer
must
account
the
prelats
present
State
actings
lawful
,
or
not
?
If
He
account
them
lawfull
,
then
He
falls
under
a
Three
fold
premunire
in
this
point
.
1.
In
de●…lyning
the
defence
of
one
of
the
prelats
Unquestionable
legal
privileges
(
disouned
by
presbyterians
,
and
by
him
esteemed
lawfull
)
notwithstanding
of
his
undertakeing
to
plead
for
them
.
2.
In
Undertaking
only
tos
plead
for
their
acting
Sometimes
,
which
(
as
I
said
)
i
far
from
the
point
and
matter
of
fact
,
which
he
must
defend
.
3.
In
confessing
at
the
foot
of
the
page
[
That
Church
men
should
not
needlesslie
,
or
of
Choice
,
intangle
themselves
in
these
incumberances
]
wherin
he
palpablie
contradicts
himself
as
to
his
Scope
.
For
doe
not
our
prelats
of
most
free
choice
and
deliberatly
assume
State
Imployments
?
Or
are
their
shoulders
burdened
against
their
will
with
these
State
honoures
?
Besydes
,
He
cites
2.
Tim.
2.
4.
In
acknowledging
this
intanglement
in
wordly
affaires
,
to
be
unlawfull
in
Church
men
;
The
text
sayes
,
no
man
that
warreth
entangleth
himself
in
affaires
of
this
life
.
Now
,
if
this
text
discharge
universally
,
and
absolutly
,
a
Ministers
intanglement
in
wordly
affaires
,
How
comes
he
to
foist
in
his
limitation
of
[
needlesly
,
or
of
Choice
]
where
is
this
limitation
in
the
text
?
If
all
intanglements
or
in
cumberances
,
as
such
,
be
unlawfull
,
as
is
here
expressly
asserted
,
as
being
inconsistant
with
the
nature
and
importance
of
the
Ministers
Spirituall
function
,
which
requires
the
greatest
abstractednes
from
all
worldly
things
,
and
the
mans
constant
waiting
upon
,
and
giving
himself
wholly
unto
the
things
of
God
;
Then
surely
whither
he
intangle
himself
by
choice
,
or
not
,
it
is
still
ane
intanglement
,
and
consequently
sinful
;
his
acting
deliberatly
is
butane
agravation
.
Againe
,
since
He
maks
ane
intanglement
Of
choice
,
to
be
a
needles
intanglement
,
and
consequently
sinful
,
He
must
needs
acknowledge
that
such
is
the
present
prelatick
medling
,
which
,
as
is
said
,
He
cannot
deny
to
be
most
deliberat
and
of
choice
.
But
nixt
,
If
He
account
our
prelats
State-actings
unlawfull
?
Then
1.
Why
doth
He
not
interminis
acknowledge
so
much
,
and
not
lisp
it
half
out
?
2.
Why
doth
He
alleadge
something
from
Scripture
precedents
to
prove
it
warrantable
?
But
Let
us
hear
his
Scripture
arguments
wherby
He
would
prove
this
State
acting
lawfull
.
His
first
Reason
is
[
That
the
jewish
Sanhedrin
made
up
of
the
Sevinty
elders
,
Moses
assistants
in
Civill
government
,
did
consist
partly
of
priests
]
where
1.
Wee
see
He
overstraines
his
point
,
and
overstretches
himself
in
his
pretended
proofe
,
for
the
These
he
undertaks
to
prove
,
is
,
[
That
Church
men
may
act
in
State
matters
,
though
not
of
Choice
,
and
so
that
it
be
Sometimes
only
]
which
he
cannot
but
distinguish
from
a
Constant
official
medling
,
if
he
speak
sense
.
And
to
prove
this
,
He
brings
ane
instance
of
priests
under
the
old
Testament-dispensation
,
their
being
constituent
members
of
a
civil
court
?
Now
,
how
doe
these
quadrat
?
Were
not
these
priests
to
act
deliberatly
and
of
Choice
?
If
this
prove
any
thing
at
all
it
will
prove
that
Ministers
(
as
being
such
members
)
may
deliberatly
and
of
choyce
involve
themselves
in
Civill
affairs
,
which
this
man
holds
to
be
discharged
2.
Tim.
2.
4.
And
so
this
Reason
,
because
proving
too
much
,
and
beyond
his
assertion
,
proves
just
nothing
.
2.
As
we
cleared
above
,
the
difference
betuixt
the
Civil
and
Ecclesiastick
Sanhedrin
,
and
that
those
Sevinty
,
mentioned
in
the
11.
Numbr
.
who
were
chosen
for
the
government
of
the
Commonwealth
,
are
distinct
from
those
mentioned
Exod.
24.
Who
were
Ecclesiastick
and
not
Civil
officers
;
So
it
is
more
then
this
Informer
hath
offered
proof
of
,
that
there
were
priests
in
that
Civil
Court
,
since
as
is
said
,
the
Two
Sanhedrins
Civil
and
Ecclesiastick
,
did
consist
of
distinct
members
,
and
there
was
not
one
Sanhedrin
only
,
as
this
man
seems
to
suppose
.
But
3.
Though
the
concurrence
of
some
preists
in
that
Civill
Court
,
were
granted
,
Our
writers
have
abundantly
cleared
the
inconsequence
of
any
argument
drawn
from
that
instance
as
to
this
point
,
In
that
though
the
Civil
and
Ecclesiastick
Sanhedrin
,
were
distinct
originaly
,
Yet
the
judiciall
Civil
law
being
given
immediatly
by
God
to
the
jewes
,
as
well
as
the
Moral
and
Ceremonial
,
the
priests
by
consequence
,
under
that
dispensation
,
had
a
most
necessary
interest
as
to
its
interpretation
&
decision
in
many
cases
,
for
the
law
was
to
be
sought
at
their
mouth
.
The
difference
of
which
condition
of
the
jewish
,
from
that
of
the
Christian
Church
(
Spread
over
the
world
,
and
in
Countreys
where
are
different
moulds
of
Civil
government
and
lawes
,
and
which
are
not
tyed
to
that
judicial
law
)
doth
cast
the
ballances
and
overthrow
his
argument
.
As
for
that
of
deutr
.
17.
Wee
have
seen
how
it
holds
out
a
Twofold
Sanhedrin
which
had
distinct
members
,
acts
,
and
objects
.
In
a
word
,
if
his
argument
from
this
instance
were
good
(
upon
his
supposition
that
priests
were
members
in
that
Court
)
it
would
prove
that
Christians
could
not
have
a
lawful
civil
Supreme
Judicatorie
,
unles
Ministers
were
constituent
members
thereof
?
And
that
Ministers
were
essentially
&
necessarly
ex
natura
officii
(
as
these
priests
)
constituent
members
of
civil
Judicatories
?
which
is
more
then
he
dare
assert
,
and
the
absurdity
thereof
is
above
cleared
.
His
2d
.
Ground
is
drawn
from
[
the
examples
and
instances
of
Eli
the
Priest
who
judged
Israel
fourty
years
,
and
of
Samuel
the
Prophet
,
who
,
though
lent
to
the
Lord
from
his
birth
,
yet
went
in
circuit
yearly
judging
the
people
]
But
1.
The
force
of
this
reason
leaning
upon
ane
example
meerly
,
of
Church
officers
under
the
old
dispensation
,
and
the
gratis
supposed
imitablenes
thereof
,
it
is
(
like
the
other
argument
)
very
unsound
and
lax
.
He
will
not
dare
to
averr
that
every
deduction
a
facto
ad
jus
,
is
sound
;
All
scripture
examples
,
are
for
our
improvement
,
but
not
for
our
imitation
.
Even
good
and
laudable
Acts
of
the
Saints
,
are
of
this
nature
,
many
of
them
.
Some
were
heroical
,
as
Elias
bringing
fire
from
heaven
,
which
the
Lord
discharged
James
and
John
to
imitat
.
Phinehas
his
Act
,
he
will
say
with
his
Master
the
surveyer
,
was
of
this
nature
.
Some
Acts
did
flow
from
ane
extraordinarie
emergent
of
Providence
,
and
a
call
flowing
therefrom
,
as
Abrahams
attempt
to
offer
his
Son
,
Israels
borrowing
from
the
Egyptians
and
not
paying
.
Some
Acts
had
their
issue
from
a
●…ansient
and
occasional
junctur
,
procuring
a
necessity
pro
tunc
,
as
Pauls
preaching
gratis
,
and
working
with
his
hands
.
Some
acts
were
to
confirme
a
special
extraordinary
call
,
So
our
Lords
fourty
dayes
fast
,
and
that
of
Moses
his
tipe
.
Now
,
to
conclud
from
the
premised
instances
,
the
lawfulness
of
these
Acts
(
viz
)
Sacrificing
Children
,
borrowing
and
not
paying
,
the
popish
quadrantum
&c
,
This
Informer
will
grant
to
be
very
poor
and
childish
Sophristrie
,
yet
such
is
his
reasoning
here
.
2.
Divines
doe
tell
us
that
these
examples
only
are
imitable
,
whose
ground
and
scope
are
of
a
moral
nature
,
which
the
persons
did
,
as
saints
or
Christians
:
such
are
all
examples
of
morall
standing
duties
enjoyned
in
the
commands
.
They
tell
us
.
3.
That
there
are
two
Rules
necessarly
to
be
observed
(
and
which
this
Informer
must
of
necessity
grant
)
as
to
a
conclusion
,
ab
exemplo
ad
factum
,
or
a
facto
ad
jus
,
which
cutts
the
sinnews
of
his
argument
here
.
1.
No
example
which
crosses
a
morall
precept
can
ground
a
Rule
,
for
this
would
make
the
Rule
crosse
it self
.
And
to
bring
this
neer
the
point
in
hand
,
I
will
shew
,
that
this
Informer
fights
against
himself
,
and
must
needs
admitt
this
answer
,
from
the
very
mould
of
his
argument
:
For
he
thinks
to
imforce
the
Instance
from
Samuel
his
civill
actings
,
by
telling
us
that
he
was
lent
to
the
Lord
from
his
mothers
womb
:
Which
will
say
,
according
to
his
pleading
,
That
a
man
though
singularly
devoted
to
God
in
the
sacred
Ministry
,
yet
may
deliberatly
and
of
choice
become
a
civil
judge
,
yea
a
supreme
civil
judge
;
and
then
I
would
know
,
how
he
will
reconcile
this
with
the
great
gospel
precept
2
Tim.
2
:
4.
Which
himself
pleads
as
discharging
deliberat
medling
in
civil
affairs
,
because
the
sacred
Ministery
is
a
warfare
,
or
a
dedication
of
the
Minister
to
the
service
of
Christ
?
And
what
will
he
say
if
one
shall
argue
thus
,
if
a
Minister
,
though
dedicat
to
the
Lord
from
his
mothers
womb
,
may
notwithstanding
become
a
civil
judge
,
then
the
Ministry
its
being
a
warrfare
under
Christ
,
cannot
hinder
a
mans
medling
by
choice
in
civill
affaires
,
which
notwithstanding
he
denyes
:
So
that
either
he
must
disown
this
Instance
,
or
his
sense
of
that
Gospell
precept
.
But
of
this
againe
.
2.
No
examples
of
Acts
done
from
ane
extraordinary
calling
&
gifts
,
are
to
be
imitated
by
such
as
have
neither
the
one
,
nor
the
other
.
Wee
will
find
our
Informer
afterward
grant
this
in
relation
to
the
Apostles
,
&
that
there
are
many
things
depending
upon
special
emergents
that
are
not
imitable
in
them
.
And
if
he
should
deny
this
Rule
,
as
he
will
contradict
himself
,
so
he
will
not
evite
a
great
inconvenience
from
the
fact
of
Phinehas
,
from
Ehud
,
&c.
Incase
some
person
of
a
boistrous
heart
,
and
unruly
hand
,
should
plead
these
instances
to
offer
violence
unto
him
.
Be
side
,
if
this
rule
be
not
admitted
,
he
will
brangle
the
boundarie
and
limits
of
different
ordinary
callings
,
(
and
relations
by
consequence
)
which
the
God
of
order
hath
fixed
.
The
examples
of
Magistratical
or
Ministeriall
duties
,
obliges
not
privat
persons
to
ane
imitation
;
The
Apostolick
Acts
of
working
Miracles
,
giving
the
Spirit
by
laying
one
of
hands
,
universal
unfixed
preaching
(
he
will
grant
)
are
not
imitable
(
as
neither
the
peculiar
duties
of
Relations
among
privat
persons
,
doe
obleige
every
one
)
because
these
extraordinary
gifts
and
callings
are
now
gone
:
And
so
say
I
of
these
examples
of
Eli
,
and
Samuel
,
who
are
by
all
sound
divines
ranked
among
the
judges
whose
call
and
office
is
acknowledged
to
have
been
extraordinary
;
God
keeping
at
that
time
the
regal
rights
in
his
own
hand
.
,
befor
he
set
up
any
fixt
ordinary
Rulers
and
Kings
,
and
creating
,
&
calling
extraordinarly
,
his
owne
deputies
in
the
Government
,
sometimes
out
of
one
tribe
,
and
sometimes
out
of
another
,
whose
authority
died
with
themselves
and
admitted
of
no
succession
.
Wherefore
Gideon
told
the
people
that
God
was
their
King
,
and
refused
that
office
when
offered
;
and
the
peoples
guilt
in
wearing
of
this
holy
immediat
Government
of
God
himself
,
and
desiring
a
King
,
is
aggravated
from
this
,
That
they
had
rejected
God
who
was
their
King
.
So
that
his
argument
from
these
extraordinary
instances
,
is
wholly
inconcludent
;
it
being
from
ane
extraordinary
,
to
ane
ordinary
calling
,
from
ane
extraordinary
factum
,
to
ane
ordinary
jus
;
which
is
consequence
we
will
find
himself
afterward
disown
.
And
if
he
straine
these
instances
,
they
will
prove
too
much
,
(
viz.
)
That
Ministers
may
be
Kings
,
or
supreme
civil
judges
;
which
I
believe
he
will
not
adventure
to
plead
for
,
since
what
ever
thanks
he
may
merite
for
this
from
the
Pope
,
yet
Royalists
will
allow
him
none
.
If
,
in
a
matter
so
plain
and
evident
,
it
were
needfull
to
adduc
testimonies
of
writers
and
commentators
(
as
this
informer
doth
to
no
purpose
)
how
harmonious
would
their
consent
appear
unto
this
truth
.
The
English
Annot:
in
their
preface
upon
the
book
of
judges
,
will
tell
him
that
the
judges
were
not
ordinary
Magistrats
,
but
extraordinarly
called
of
God
in
times
of
great
extremity
&c.
And
in
their
preface
on
the
first
book
of
Samuel
,
they
shew
,
that
it
containes
rhe
History
of
the
two
last
judges
,
Eli
,
and
Samuel
,
and
of
Saul
the
first
King
of
Israel
.
And
upon
that
place
,
Chap.
7
:
15
,
16.
Anent
Samuels
judging
of
Israel
,
notwithstanding
of
his
being
lent
to
the
Lord
from
his
birth
,
1
Chap.
28.
They
will
Inform
this
informer
[
thatas
thiswas
the
jurisdictionof
a
judge
,
whichGod
called
him
unto
all
the
time
of
saul
,
—
so
,
he
was
quo
bound
by
his
Mothers
vow
,
Chap.
1.
Whereby
he
was
devoted
to
the
service
of
the
sanctuary
,
to
continue
his
residence
there
,
both
because
God
had
forsaken
it
for
the
sins
of
the
Priests
,
and
also
,
because
the
Lord
himselfhad
taken
him
off
from
that
levitical
service
,
and
called
him
to
another
imployment
,
namely
,
to
be
a
holy
Prophet
and
a
judge
over
his
people
,
which
places
he
could
not
discharge
,
if
he
had
been
confined
to
a
settled
place
.
]
The
du
ch.
Annot:
in
the
argument
of
the
book
of
judges
,
describe
them
[
to
be
such
persons
,
not
(
who
administred
the
ordinary
function
of
judges
among
the
people
,
as
the
Word
is
other
where
taken
,
but
)
whom
God
now
and
then
as
the
state
of
Israel
required
,
sometimes
out
of
on
tribe
,
sometimes
out
of
another
,
extraordinarly
raised
,
called
,
and
with
his
Spirit
of
wisdome
and
couradge
endewed
&c.
In
the
argument
,
of
the
first
book
of
Samuel
,
they
shew
that
therin
is
described
the
Government
of
Samuel
as
judge
over
Israel
&c
]
So
that
until
our
Informer
shall
instruct
the
Prelats
extraordinary
call
from
God
,
and
also
their
extraordinary
enduements
for
civil
Government
,
these
instances
of
Eli
and
Samuel
,
will
not
[
in
the
Judgment
of
these
divines
]
afford
them
the
least
shaddow
of
warrand
for
there
civil
offices
.
So
this
man
may
be
ashamed
that
he
ever
mentioned
such
an
argument
.
Finally
,
That
Hee
is
in
the
breers
of
a
contradiction
here
,
is
(
as
is
hinted
)
evident
,
in
that
to
prove
that
Church
men
should
not
ofChoice
medle
inCivil
affaires
,
he
gives
this
reason
,
for
,
no
man
that
warreth
intangleth
himself
with
the
affaires
of
this
life
.
2.
Tim.
2.
4.
Now
,
if
this
[
for
]
or
illative
here
,
signifie
any
thing
,
and
be
not
nonsense
,
this
He
must
be
supposed
to
hold
,
that
,
this
text
forbids
Church
men
all
deliberat
medling
in
Civil
affaires
.
But
will
He
dare
to
say
that
Samuel
and
Eli
their
judging
of
Israel
was
not
deliberat
and
of
Choice
,
Ergo
,
It
was
sinfull
by
this
rule
;
Yet
he
pleads
for
its
imitablenes
as
lawfull
;
though
a
deliberat
involving
themselves
in
Civil
government
,
yea
a
Supreme
rule
;
and
thus
holds
it
not
cross
to
this
gospell
precept
.
So
that
to
escape
this
Scylla
or
Charybdis
,
He
hath
no
imaginable
refuge
but
one
;
(
viz.
)
To
assert
with
us
,
their
extraordinarie
Calling
for
what
they
did
,
and
that
singular
old
Testament-dispensation
under
which
they
stood
.
But
then
He
must
quit
his
plea
for
prelats
civil
Imployments
from
this
Instance
,
and
confesse
it
to
be
inconcludent
.
But
for
the
new
Testament
times
,
he
tells
us
.
How
much
Bishops
were
employed
in
Civill
affairs
,
when
Emperours
became
Christian
,
as
Smectymnuus
confesses
.
But
1.
Since
he
pretends
Scripture
Instances
under
the
old
Testament
,
his
new
Testament
Instance
is
very
apochryphal
and
heterogeneus
therunto
,
being
of
Bishops
medling
three
or
four
hundered
years
,
after
the
Canon
of
the
Scripture
was
closed
.
Humano
Capiti
cervicem
pingere
equinam
.
But
his
new
Testament
precept
2.
Tim.
2.
4.
Chased
away
the
Instance
of
Bishops
medling
in
civill
affaires
,
Three
or
four
Hundred
years
forward
.
Nixt
,
I
would
know
whither
our
Informer
holds
these
Bishops
medling
in
Secular
affairs
,
to
be
lawfull
or
unlawfull
?
Iflawfull
,
and
consisting
with
their
Calling
(
which
He
would
seem
to
insinuat
in
telling
us
,
that
Saravia
defends
at
large
,
(
even
simply
and
absolutly
)
Church
mens
medling
in
state
affaires
)
Why
then
doth
he
tell
us
in
the
nixt
page
That
the
fathers
compleaned
of
this
as
aburden
?
Sure
they
were
very
froward
to
fret
under
a
peece
of
lawfull
imployment
.
If
it
was
unlawfull
,
or
a
deliberat
sinfull
intanglement
,
why
obtruds
he
it
upon
us
as
a
regular
precedent
?
And
what
will
Smectymnuus
acknowledgment
of
the
factum
import
,
to
infert
His
,
or
Our
acknowledgment
of
the
jus
.
He
tells
us
likwayes
,
That
ancient
Councells
[
upon
the
ground
mentioned
,
2.
Tim.
2.
4.
of
a
Ministers
sinfull
intanglement
]
discharged
them
to
follow
Militarie
imployments
,
or
to
take
ferms
&c.
Hence
I
inferr
,
then
these
Councels
held
,
that
deliberat
medling
in
state
affaires
,
●…or
worldly
incumberances
,
is
inconsistent
with
a
Ministers
calling
,
and
a
sinfull
intanglement
discharged
in
that
text
;
for
since
they
discharged
Militarie
employments
and
ferms
upon
this
ground
,
they
doe
consequently
discharge
all
such
Intanglement
.
For
,
a
quatenus
,
ad
omne
,
&c.
This
he
cannot
but
grant
.
And
from
hence
I
infer
,
two
things
against
him
.
1.
He
setts
these
Councils
by
the
eares
with
his
Scriptur
instances
.
For
since
they
condemne
these
formentioned
civil
employments
upon
that
ground
,
2
Tim.
2
:
4.
As
a
sinful
intanglement
in
a
Church
officer
3
he
must
either
say
,
that
they
condemned
these
old-Testament
Instances
of
the
Priests
,
of
Samuel
and
Eli
,
as
sinful
:
Or
else
acknowledge
,
that
they
held
them
(
with
us
)
to
be
extraordinary
,
and
no
regular
precedents
.
2.
It
will
hence
follow
,
that
these
Councils
doe
condemne
Saravia
,
who
(
he
tells
us
)
doth
at
some
length
defind
Church
mens
acting
in
State
assaires
.
And
Saravia
condemnes
and
disputs
against
these
Councils
;
and
then
,
it
will
be
a
pussing
problem
to
him
,
to
which
of
them
he
will
adhere
in
this
contest
;
since
he
holds
,
with
these
councels
,
upon
that
ground
,
2
Tim.
2
:
v.
4.
the
unlawfulness
of
Ministers
deliberat
involving
themselves
in
civil
affaires
,
it
seems
be
quites
there
great
Advocat
Saravia
,
and
all
his
pleading
upon
this
point
;
For
he
tells
us
of
no
limitation
in
Saravia
his
pleading
for
Ministers
meddling
in
State
affaires
.
As
for
what
followes
in
this
page
,
he
obscures
and
shifts
the
point
here
inquestion
,
in
saying
,
That
it
is
hard
to
call
it
simply
unlawful
,
and
in
every
case
,
to
medle
in
these
things
.
We
know
there
is
a
lawful
Concional
medling
,
&
also
in
way
of
Ministerial
advice
,
unto
the
Magistrat
in
order
to
the
satisfaction
of
his
conscience
,
the
Ministerial
direction
whereof
is
the
Pastours
work
,
at
whose
mouth
Gods
mynd
must
be
sought
,
and
likewayes
by
way
of
ministerial
testimonie
against
what
is
sinful
in
state
Rulers
,
which
is
all
that
our
principles
do
own
as
to
Ministers
interposing
in
state
affaires
in
our
late
times
;
but
he
that
cannot
distinguish
this
,
from
accnstant
official
medling
as
a
civil
Iudge
,
and
constituent
Member
in
civil
Indicatories
,
is
very
blinde
;
And
as
stupid
that
man
were
,
who
could
not
distinguish
this
from
the
privat
domestick
care
mentioned
,
1
Tim.
5
:
8.
Which
is
a
part
of
that
Eiconomie
founded
uonp
the
Law
of
nature
,
and
competent
to
a
Minister
as
a
Master
of
the
Family
,
who
is
to
govern
and
rule
his
house
under
that
notion
.
Yet
we
must
here
tell
him
,
that
Gods
allowing
the
Minister
his
honorarium
,
or
maintenance
,
is
for
this
very
end
,
that
he
may
not
by
any
overstretch
of
the
domestick
case
,
be
taken
off
from
his
holy
imployment
.
Here
,
we
shall
offer
to
this
Informers
grave
judgment
,
the
Reasons
of
the
Assembly
1638.
Sess
25.
against
the
civil
Offices
of
Ministers
.
[
1.
Christs
notable
example
Luk.
12
:
14.
Refusing
to
deal
in
a
civil
cause
;
Ministers
are
his
Ambassadours
sent
by
him
,
as
he
was
by
the
Father
,
Joh.
20
:
21.
Joh.
8.
He
would
not
sentence
that
woman
who
deserved
death
.
2.
Civil
Rule
is
discharged
to
Apostles
,
Matth.
20
:
v.
25
,
26.
not
only
Supreme
which
is
competent
to
Princes
,
but
subordinat
also
:
Citing
that
passage
of
Bernard
to
Eugenius
,
Lib
2.
Apostolis
interdicitur
dominatus
,
ergo
,
tu
tihi
usurpare
aude
,
aut
dominans
,
Apostolatum
aut
Apostolicus
,
dominatum
Dominion
is
discharged
to
Apostles
,
Go
thou
therefore
and
dare
to
usurp
to
thy self
,
whither
the
Apostleship
,
if
holding
a
civil
dominion
,
or
being
Apostolick
a
civil
dominion
.
Where
theyrefute
the
ordinary
Episcopal
&
Popish
evasion
as
to
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
3.
That
Ministers
having
given
up
their
names
to
this
holy
warfare
,
they
ought
not
to
be
involved
in
things
of
this
life
,
as
the
law
denyes
this
to
souldiers
.
C.
d.
Lib:
2.
T
it
13
,
So
the
Apostolick
law
,
2
Tim.
2
:
04.
This
work
tobe
heavier
then
that
any
man
can
be
sufficient
for
it
alone
2
Cor.
2
:
16.
Hence
Ministers
are
called
watchmen
,
labourers
,
souldiers
,
fishers
,
&c.
4.
The
Apostles
,
for
all
their
extraordinarie
gifts
,
were
not
fit
for
serving
tables
and
preaching
the
word
both
,
Act
6.
although
these
were
both
ecclesiastick
functiones
;
therefore
farr
lesse
can
any
Minister
now
assume
both
ecclesiastick
and
civil
offices
.
Gregorie
the
1.
(
cited
by
Gratianin
Decreto
dist:
89
—
Cap.
Singula
.
)
proves
that
two
ecclesiastick
offices
are
not
to
be
committed
to
one
,
from
that
place
of
the
Apostle
Rom.
12
:
6
:
7.
As
it
is
unbeseeming
that
in
mans
bodie
,
one
member
should
Act
the
part
of
another
.
The
6th
.
of
the
Canons
called
Apostolick
,
appoints
that
the
Bishop
or
Presbyter
assuming
civil
places
,
be
deposed
(
which
will
make
fearfull
Mass●…cre
among
our
Prelats
,
that
day
the
Parliament
rides
)
so
Can.
81
:
and
83.
Cyprian
.
lib:
1
,
Epist.
9.
sayes
,
that
long
before
,
It
was
appointed
in
a
Councel
of
Bishopes
,
that
none
appoint
in
his
Testament
,
one
of
the
Clergie
,
a
Tutor
or
Curator
,
Quando
singuli
divino
sacerdotio
honorati
,
non
nisi
altari
&
sacrificiis
,
precibus
&
orationi
vacare
debent
.
Since
every
one
honoured
with
the
divine
priesthood
,
ought
not
to
attend
but
to
the
Altar
and
Sacrifices
,
to
prayer
and
preaching
,
for
it
s
written
,
no
man
that
warrs
&c.
Clemens
the
1.
(
whom
many
make
Bishop
of
Rome
,
and
out
of
whose
writings
,
the
defect
of
ecclesiastick
history
after
the
Actes
of
the
Apostles
,
they
affirme
,
must
be
made
up
)
in
the
Epistle
to
James
the
brother
of
the
Lord
,
whom
they
make
a
Bishop
,
hath
these
words
,
neque
judicem
▪
aut
cognitorem
secularium
negotiorum
,
te
ordinare
vult
Christus
,
ne
praefocatus
presentibus
hominum
curis
,
non
possis
verbo
Dei
vacare
,
&
secundum
veritatis
regulam
,
secernere
bonos
a
malis
.
impietatis
tibi
crimen
est
,
neglectis
verbi
Dei
studiis
,
sollicitudines
suscipere
seculares
.
That
is
,
neither
will
Christ
ordaine
thee
a
judge
and
arbiter
of
civill
affaires
,
lest
being
involved
in
the
present
cares
of
men
,
thou
be
not
able
to
attend
the
word
of
God
,
and
according
to
the
rule
of
verity
,
to
separat
the
good
from
the
evill
;
It
blotts
thee
with
the
Crime
of
impietie
to
take
up
secular
cares
,
neglecting
the
Studjes
of
the
word
of
God
.
Synesius
,
Bishop
of
Ptolemais
,
cited
by
lipsius
in
politicis
,
said
,
that
it
is
unlawfull
to
joyne
the
Civill
power
with
the
priesthood-nam
hoc
esset
miscere
non
miscenda
,
hoc
est
Sacris
civiliaconfu●…dere
.
For
this
were
to
mix
together
things
which
cannot
be
mixed
,
that
is
,
to
confound
Civill
maters
with
Sacred
.
See
severall
others
cited
by
the
assembly
,
and
recorded
in
the
Historiamotuum
,
pag.
283
,
284.
Where
there
is
ane
Answer
to
the
objection
drawen
from
Augustins
practise
,
and
from
that
of
1.
Cor.
6.
4.
The
informer
comes
nixt
(
page
5.
)
to
his
defence
of
the
Episcopall
office
it self
,
But
still
goes
on
in
the
mist
of
confused
generalls
,
never
condescending
upon
the
nature
,
power
,
and
extent
of
the
diocesian
Bishopes
office
,
as
it
is
now
established
by
law
.
However
,
let
us
remember
that
our
present
prelat
is
,
according
to
our
law
[
Ane
ordinary
Church
officer
,
assuming
the
government
of
some
Hundereds
of
Congregations
,
as
monopolized
in
him
,
and
conveyed
according
to
his
pleasur
,
unto
the
Ministers
therof
;
Having
sole
power
in
ordination
,
and
jurisdiction
,
and
a
negative
voice
in
Church
judicatories
,
&
whose
proper
worke
is
Ruleing
only
,
not
feeding
by
doctrine
]
This
is
the
Bishop
which
all
his
pleading
must
be
commensurat
unto
,
else
He
but
beats
the
Air.
1.
The
Doubter
alleages
[
The
unlawfullnes
of
the
Episcopall
office
for
want
of
ane
expresse
warrand
for
it
in
the
word
]
To
which
He
answers
[
By
granting
that
this
will
prove
it
to
be
not
simply
necessare
,
but
not
unlawfall
,
since
it
may
be
lawfull
and
expedient
as
falling
under
some
generall
;
as
the
command
of
decencie
and
order
,
will
warr
and
a
Moderator
and
Clerke
,
although
this
be
no
where
commanded
.
That
many
learned
men
have
thought
prelacie
lawfull
,
though
not
commanded
,
nor
warranted
by
any
particular
Scripture
precedent
,
nor
yet
prohibited
,
but
left
to
Christian
prudence
at
it
is
found
expedient
and
conduceing
to
the
good
of
the
Church
.
]
To
which
I
answer
.
1.
He
grosly
mistaks
the
Import
of
these
relatives
,
a
command
,
and
the
necessitie
of
a
thing
flowing
therefrom
,
when
restricting
it
to
ane
expresse
warrand
or
command
:
there
being
many
things
necessarie
,
necessitate
precepti
,
which
have
no
expresse
warrand
or
command
.
Divines
doe
tell
us
,
that
Scripture
commands
are
either
immediat
,
or
mediat
;
the
immediat
,
are
either
explicit
,
or
in
expresse
terms
,
enjoyning
a
thing
:
as
[
honour
thy
father
and
thy
mother
]
or
implicit
,
holding
out
,
either
that
which
is
comprehended
in
the
command
,
as
suetable
midses
leading
to
the
dueties
enjoyned
,
or
deduced
by
consequence
from
what
is
expressed
;
As
Ministers
preaching
is
deduced
by
consequence
from
the
command
thereanent
which
the
Apostles
got●…
:
the
Circumstances
of
the
command
pointing
out
this
to
be
a
perpetuall
duetie
of
Church
officers
.
Againe
2.
There
are
divine
commands
which
are
mediat
,
comming
mediatly
from
God
,
but
immediatly
from
men
,
by
a
determination
of
the
generall
divine
principle
,
and
ane
application
therof
to
particulares
:
which
they
illustrat
by
that
passage
where
Paul
sayes
,
to
the
rest
speak
I
,
not
the
Lord
,
applying
Gods
generall
command
anent
divorce
,
to
the
Corinthians
particular
case
.
There
are
likewise
[
mediat
accidental
commands
,
]
deduced
from
Gods
generall
Rule
,
upon
rare
transient
occasiones
,
yet
necessitating
to
such
a
determination
:
So
the
abstaining
from
blood
and
thinges
strangled
,
was
enjoyned
(
Act.
15.
)
to
the
gentiles
,
and
as
necessarie
upon
the
ground
of
Charitie
when
the
use
grew
scandalus
,
although
the
law
hereanent
was
abrogat
,
as
being
originallie
Ceremoniall
.
Hence
we
may
Inferr
,
that
this
Informer
in
denying
the
necessitie
of
what
is
commanded
only
under
some
generall
head
,
Cutts
of
from
the
Categorie
of
things
necessarie
,
all
the
duties
in
the
decalogue
,
which
are
subserviant
to
the
duties
expressly
named
:
and
thus
destroyes
the
Spirituality
and
extent
of
the
law
,
acknowledged
by
all
divines
;
yea
Cuts
off
all
necessarie
Scripture
consequences
,
and
duties
founded
therupon
:
as
Ministers
preaching
the
gospell
,
administring
the
Seales
,
Infant
baptism
,
womens
receaving
the
Sacrament
,
the
Christian
Sabbath
&c.
But
(
to
come
neerer
him
)
in
the
Nixt
place
,
I
suppose
this
man
will
not
deny
,
That
there
are
many
things
sufficiently
discharged
,
and
consequently
unlawfull
by
Scripture
rule
,
because
theyare
not
commanded
either
mediatly
or
immediatly
,
and
that
all
ordinances
of
worship
,
Sacraments
,
and
the
substantialls
of
government
also
,
doe
require
clear
divine
commands
and
institutions
,
by
the
acknowledgement
of
all
protestant
divines
;
So
that
the
not
commanding
of
any
part
or
supposed
ingredient
therof
,
is
a
sufficient
discharge
,
discovering
the
thing
superadded
to
be
sinfull
.
Not
that
which
seems
good
unto
thee
,
shalt
thoudoe
to
the
Lord
thy
God
but
what
He
hath
commanded
,
thou
shalt
add
nothing
thereunto
,
nor
diminish
from
it
.
adde
thou
not
to
his
words
lest
He
reprove
thee
,
and
thou
be
found
a
liar
.
In
vaine
they
doe
worship
me
teaching
for
doctrines
the
commandements
of
men
.
See
,
deut.
4.
2.
prov
:
30.
6.
rev
:
22.
18.
deut:
12.
32.
Isay.
29
:
13.
These
Scriptures
do
clearly
fortifie
this
principle
:
Otherwayes
if
he
deny
this
,
He
will
open
a
door
to
all
popish
superstition
,
yea
&
deny
the
very
definition
of
it
assigned
by
all
sound
divines
,
in
calling
it
,
ane
opposite
extrem
(
in
the
excess
)
to
true
religion
,
adding
to
Gods
worship
beyonde
what
is
commanded
.
Our
Lord
reprehended
the
pharisees
their
washing
of
hands
befor
dinner
(
a
decent
ceremonie
in
it self
)
as
simply
unlawfull
,
when
they
made
it
a
point
of
Religion
,
Because
it
was
beyond
the
command
.
That
text
Isay.
29
:
13.
In
vaine
they
worhsip
me
,
teaching
for
doctrinés
the
commandements
of
men
]
is
applyed
in
this
case
unto
them
.
Our
answer
to
the
Papists
demand
[
Where
finde
we
their
bastardSacraments
,
and
other
Superstitiones
discharged
]
is
,
That
they
are
discharged
as
sinfull
in
Gods
worship
,
because
not
commanded
:
Should
they
rejoyne
with
this
man
,
that
this
will
prove
them
to
be
not
simpy
necessarie
,
but
not
unlawfull
,
upon
the
ground
which
He
alleages
,
let
him
conjectur
what
his
answer
would
be
,
and
correct
himself
.
For
the
substantials
of
government
,
He
cannot
but
grant
that
they
fall
under
the
same
consideration
;
It
being
most
certain
,
and
universally
acknowleged
,
that
the
Scripture
layes
down
rules
as
to
the
excercise
of
both
Keyes
of
Order
and
jurisdiction
,
the
officers
and
censures
of
the
Church
.
Nay
,
himself
asserts
page
.
118.
That
the
substantials
of
government
and
policie
of
the
Church
are
utterly
necessarie
and
unalterable
.
Now
it
being
thus
,
the
Question
is
[
whither
the
diocesian
Bishop
,
or
Episcopal
government
,
be
among
those
things
which
must
either
have
a
clear
Scripture
institution
or
warrand
,
or
else
is
to
be
rejected
as
sinfull
and
unlawfull
]
That
the
diocesian
Bishop
is
such
,
I
prove
it
thus
:
the
Bishop
which
He
pleads
for
,
is
supposed
by
him
to
be
a
Church
officer
distinct
from
,
and
Superior
to
a
Pastour
or
presbyter
,
haveing
a
distinct
worke
,
ordination
,
and
qualifications
;
Therfore
,
say
I
,
Hee
must
either
have
clear
warrand
or
institution
in
the
word
,
or
Hee
is
unlawfull
.
The
consequence
leans
upon
these
clear
Scripture
grounds
.
1.
This
officer
cannot
but
fall
in
among
the
substantials
of
government
,
wherin
the
Scripture
is
full
and
perfect
(
as
himself
acknowleges
)
So
as
to
make
even
the
man
of
God
,
perfect
:
It
is
full
in
setting
down
all
administrations
relating
so
the
Key
of
order
,
as
prayer
and
thanksgiveing
,
1.
Tim.
2.
1
,
2.
1.
Cor.
14.
14
,
15.
Singing
of
Psalmes
,
preaching
of
the
word
,
publick
reading
of
it
,
and
Cathechiseing
,
falls
within
the
compasse
of
Christs
commands
and
regulations
,
Collos.
3.
16.
1.
Cor.
14.
15
,
16.
Ephes.
5.
19.
2.
Cor.
3.
14.
Matth.
28.
19
,
20.
2.
Tim.
4.
2.
Hebr.
6.
1
,
2.
So
doth
the
administration
of
Sacraments
,
Baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
,
Matth.
28.
18
,
19.
1.
Cor.
11.
23.
And
as
these
administrations
of
the
Key
of
Order
,
so
all
the
administrations
relating
to
the
Key
of
jurisdiction
or
discipline
,
falls
under
Christs
clear
institutions
.
Such
as
Ordination
.
Tit.
1.
5.
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
The
dogmatick
power
,
as
to
Ministeriall
judgeing
of
doctrine
.
Act.
15.
The
critick
power
,
as
to
the
publick
rebuke
and
purging
out
of
the
Scandalous
,
and
receaving
of
the
penitent
.
Matth.
18.
15
,
16.
1.
Thess.
5.
14.
Compared
with
Matth.
16.
19.
John
.
20.
21.
So
the
diatactick
power
,
in
relation
to
Ritualls
and
and
alterable
Circumstances
,
is
clearly
asserted
and
rules
laid
downe
anent
its
exercise
1
Cor.
14.
And
as
the
administrations
,
ordinances
,
and
acts
of
Church
government
,
So
the
administratores
,
officers
,
yea
and
Courtes
falls
under
clear
Scripture
warrands
and
institutiones
.
Pastoures
,
Doctores
,
Elders
,
Deacons
,
their
severall
works
,
the
greater
and
lesser
Church
judicatories
,
have
their
clear
warrand
,
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
Matth.
18.
17.
Act.
15.
1.
Cor.
12.
28.
Ephes.
4.
Now
let
this
Informer
shew
me
a
reasone
of
this
distinctnes
,
If
not
to
point
out
all
the
substantialls
of
government
?
and
if
it
be
lawfull
to
add
any
new
officers
,
or
administrations
,
or
ordinances
,
to
these
expressly
warranted
?
He
dare
not
say
but
is
unlawfull
;
therfore
say
I
,
upon
the
same
ground
,
that
hee
shall
acknowledge
this
to
be
unlawfull
,
this
eminent
officer
,
the
Bishop
or
Arch-Bishop
,
must
either
produce
his
warrand
and
institution
,
among
the
forementioned
Rules
,
or
he
must
be
holden
unlawfull
.
2.
The
Scripture
coming
this
length
in
the
forementioned
condescendencie
in
point
of
Church
government
,
as
to
Ordinances
,
Officers
,
Lawes
,
Censures
,
Courtes
&c
,
it
must
needs
amount
to
determin
Some
species
of
government
,
and
presbitery
,
and
Episcopacie
,
being
of
contrary
moulds
,
it
must
needs
appointe
and
authorize
the
One
,
and
discharge
the
other
.
For
all
Church
offices
and
officers
have
a
positive
institution
.
1.
Cor.
12.
28.
God
hath
sett
&c.
Ephes.
4.
11.
God
hath
given
&c.
Rom.
12.
6
,
7.
The
office
not
given
is
not
a
gift
of
grace
.
And
surely
the
command
[
not
to
add
to
the
word
]
includes
a
command
not
to
add
new
spirituall
officers
,
who
must
have
a
new
work
&c.
And
the
Bishops
authority
must
either
be
comprehended
among
the
rules
anent
these
officers
enumerat
,
and
the
exercise
of
their
power
,
or
he
is
an●…
apocriphal
officer
and
unlawfull
:
Or
he
must
say
we
may
add
new
officers
,
and
offices
,
and
institutions
in
poynt
of
government
,
to
these
contained
in
Scripture
;
and
so
our
divines
argument
against
the
pope
,
from
the
Scriptures
silence
anent
him
,
in
its
enumeration
of
officers
,
is
naught
.
3.
Christ
exercising
ane
external
visible
kingdom
over
his
Church
visible
,
and
all
Church
officers
,
and
their
administrations
,
being
in
his
name
and
authoritis
as
is
above
cleared
,
every
Church
officers
mission
and
warrand
must
be
found
in
his
word
,
other
w●…yes
he
runs
unsent
,
and
cannot
expect
his
blessing
;
all
that
come
be
for
him
,
and
anticipat
his
call
,
are
theeves
and
robbers
.
4.
All
Christs
officers
,
and
their
gifts
are
Christs
royall
and
mediatorie
donations
to
his
Church
,
and
by
him
peculiarly
set
and
authorized
therein
.
Ephes.
4.
〈◊〉
,
7
,
8.
&c
,
1.
Cor.
12.
28.
He
,
as
the
great
Master
of
the
house
,
gives
all
his
Stewards
their
Keys
,
their
Orders
;
Now
,
how
Christ
the
king
and
head
of
his
Church
,
his
donation
,
his
commission
,
his
giving
his
Keyes
,
Should
be
instructed
other
wayes
,
then
by
his
clear
warrands
and
institutiones
in
his
word
and
Testament
,
I
would
gladly
learne
of
this
Informer
.
Is
there
any
officer
of
State
,
any
subordinat
Magistrat
allowed
in
a
kingdome
,
which
hath
not
the
clear
warrand
of
the
lawes
?
Surely
not
,
and
so
the
case
is
here
.
Finallie
.
The
ground
and
reasone
which
he
builds
this
shifting
evasion
upon
[
viz.
That
many
things
are
not
otherwayes
commanded
,
then
under
some
generall
:
as
that
all
things
be
done
decently
or
to
edification
,
instancing
in
the
moderator
and
Clerk
of
a
meeting
of
Ministers
]
is
very
poor
:
For
since
the
authority
which
God
gave
Paul
was
to
edification
,
&
all
ordinances
which
have
the
most
clear
institution
,
must
be
thus
qualified
,
and
to
this
end
,
that
which
is
not
Otherwayes
commanded
then
under
this
generall
,
must
needs
be
the
alterable
circumstances
only
,
commone
to
Civill
and
Sacred
actions
,
and
such
as
supposes
the
thing
it self
,
cloathed
with
these
circumstances
,
to
be
[
that
which
is
to
be
done
,
]
and
by
consequence
falling
Hactenus
under
the
Compasse
of
a
command
or
institution
;
for
it
is
these
only
which
are
left
to
the
regulation
of
Christian
prudence
,
according
to
the
generall
rules
of
the
word
.
But
,
as
we
have
above
cleared
,
such
ane
eminent
Church
officer
as
the
Bishop
is
supposed
to
be
,
or
any
Church
officer
,
can
be
no
such
circumstance
,
but
is
such
a
substantiall
point
of
government
as
requires
a
clear
and
positive
warrand
,
or
else
must
be
holden
unlawfull
;
and
this
he
must
acknowledge
or
contradict
himself
,
for
He
dare
not
say
but
that
Church
officers
are
other
wayes
commanded
then
under
this
generall
,
and
himself
alledges
the
prelats
divine
institution
:
&
so
He
can
be
none
of
these
things
which
hath
only
this
generall
warrand
.
Besides
,
I
would
know
,
if
He
will
say
that
this
officer
,
the
prelat
,
must
be
sett
up
and
Act
with
decencie
and
order
;
surely
He
will
not
deny
this
:
If
then
the
prelat
himself
is
but
a
peece
of
[
decentie
,
and
order
]
(
as
being
only
commanded
under
that
notion
,
and
a
species
under
that
generall
)
then
he
sayes
that
[
order
and
decencie
]
must
be
managed
&
cloathed
with
[
order
and
decencie
]
which
will
be
very
hard
to
reconceale
to
sense
;
or
He
must
say
,
that
the
prelat
must
act
with
disorder
and
confusion
,
or
(
to
evit
these
rockes
)
that
the
prelat
must
be
warranted
under
another
notion
then
that
of
a
circumstance
of
meer
order
,
and
so
must
have
a
particular
warrand
.
His
instance
of
the
Moderator
and
Clerk
is
very
foolish
,
the
Clerk
not
being
necessarly
[
a
Church
officer
]
and
the
Moderator
[
no
distinct
Church
officer
]
from
the
rest
of
the
members
,
and
so
is
utterly
Impertinent
to
this
pointe
and
question
,
anent
a
Church
officer
distinct
from
and
Superior
to
a
presbiter
,
whither
he
ought
to
have
a
particular
Scripture
warrand
.
Besides
that
the
same
divine
warrand
that
a
judiciall
procedor
by
disquisition
,
votes
,
and
suffrage
hath
,
and
is
exemplified
in
that
Synod
Act.
15.
(
this
being
the
necessary
frame
of
judicatories
,
as
such
,
and
consequently
of
all
Church
judicatories
)
the
moderator
hath
the
same
foundation
of
his
office
;
but
He
will
never
let
us
see
a
shaddow
of
this
for
the
prelat
.
Now
to
shew
what
good
Harmonie
this
Informer
keeps
in
this
point
with
some
chieff
men
of
his
way
(
&
others
also
)
let
us
hear
what
they
hold
,
Institutum
Apostolorum
de
regimine
Ecclesiastico
—
&
ea
gubernationis
ratio
quae
aetate
Apostolorum
fuit
&c.
—
The
Apostles
appointment
as
to
Church
government
,
and
that
way
and
method
of
government
which
was
in
their
time
,
is
perpetuall
,
and
can
no
more
be
changed
then
the
priesthood
of
Aaron
could
,
saith
Saravia
con
tra
bezam
Whitaker
controv
.
4.
Quest:
1.
Cap.
9.
Tells
us
,
That
the
Church
must
not
be
governed-vt
humano
ingenio
arriserit
,
as
pleases
mens
fancie
,
sed
ut
Christo
Ecclesiae
domino
so
lique
principi
placet
,
But
as
it
pleases
Christ
her
only
head
and
Lord
.
Hence
he
concludes
that
the
forms
which
He
hath
institut
must
be
held
fast
as
the
best
.
Matth.
Sutliv
:
de
Pontif
:
Roman
:
lib.
1
Cap.
1.
Answering
Bellarmins
argument
from
Civil
to
Ecclesiastick
Monarchie
,
tells
him
that-sicut
unus
Ecclesiae
summus
princeps
&c
As
thereis
one
chieff
Prince
of
the
Church
,
so
there
is
one
true
essential
forme
therof
,
differing
from
the
various
moulds
of
commone
wealthes
;
&
that
as
she
hath
but
one
head
,
so
but
one
frame
of
policie
,
which
those
who
resyle
from
Christi
leges
transgrediuntur-they
transgress
the
lawes
of
Christ
,
and
blotts
her
true
government
.
Field
,
of
the
Church
,
lib:
5.
Cap:
45.
Argues
thus
against
the
popes
temporal
power
,
that
among
men
non
hath
power
of
chaingeing
any
thing
but
he
alone
to
whom
in
an
eminent
degree
it
belongs
,
and
from
whom
it
is
originally
derived
;
but
to
govern
the
Church
as
such
is
not
eminently
in
the
Magistrat
.
]
It
is
a
Bad
omen
,
cespitare
in
limine
;
our
informer
we
see
,
in
his
first
answer
to
his
doupter
,
is
so
anhappie
,
as
therin
to
justle
with
soom
chieff
champions
of
his
cause
.
CHAP.
IX
.
The
Informer
undertakes
to
answer
the
Arguments
of
Presbyterians
against
Episcopacy
.
His
answers
to
our
Argumets
from
Matth.
20
:
25
,
26.
and
Petr.
5
:
3.
Examined
at
large
.
The
genuine
strength
and
nerves
of
our
reasoning
upon
these
Texts
,
which
he
dare
not
medle
with
.
His
answers
found
inconsistent
with
themselves
,
the
same
with
Papists
answers
for
the
papacie
,
and
contrare
to
the
sense
of
sound
divines
.
THe
doubter
in
the
nixt
place
[
alleages
Prelacy
to
the
forbidden
,
and
therefore
unlawful
:
bringing
for
proof
Matth.
20
:
25
,
26
,
27
,
28.
And
the
Argument
from
this
text
,
he
makes
his
poor
doubter
slenderly
and
curtly
to
represent
thus
,
That
Christ
forbids
any
of
his
disciples
to
he
greater
then
another
.
This
passage
with
its
parallel
Luk.
22
:
25.
Is
much
scanned
betwixt
the
Papists
and
us
,
in
relation
to
the
popes
Dominion
,
and
as
it
striks
clearly
against
Prelacy
,
so
Papists
and
Prelats
doe
as
clearly
joyne
issue
in
their
answers
.
In
both
passages
it
is
apparent
,
that
upon
occasion
of
a
sinfull
and
ambitious
emulation
àmong
the
Disciples
,
which
of
them
should
be
greatest
,
our
Lord
did
sharpely
reprehend
them
,
dischargeing
them
expresly
the
Lordly
grandour
of
Earthly
Rulers
or
Princes
,
and
to
exercise
Lordsnipe
or
Dominion
over
one
another
,
commending
instead
thereof
,
and
in
opposition
thereto
,
a
humble
Ministerial
service
,
and
spiritual
diligence
in
their
spiritual
stewardship
or
Ministery
,
pressing
both
,
from
his
own
exemplary
humility
in
his
converse
with
them
.
Now
,
our
Argument
against
Prelacy
is
very
strong
from
this
text
,
and
hath
these
Nerves
.
1.
The
Lord
most
expresly
discharges
Superiority
and
inferiority
among
officers
of
the
same
kinde
:
Non
are
greater
then
another
in
their
office
;
no
Apostle
above
another
,
but
a
compleat
parity
in
their
official
power
is
here
holden
out
;
ergo
,
by
necessary
consequence
,
he
commands
a
parity
among
Pastoures
,
and
discharges
superior
and
inferior
degrees
among
them
.
2.
Whatever
priority
of
order
among
officers
of
different
kindes
,
be
allowed
,
yet
he
discharges
Dominion
or
principalitie
in
any
of
them
,
all
masterly
power
,
such
as
is
allowed
in
civil
Government
;
there
being
but
one
Master
or
Lord
over
the
Church
,
and
all
Ministers
being
Brethren
.
This
is
clear
,
in
that
he
mentions
the
civil
Lordshipe
of
Rulers
who
are
called
benefactors
in
exemplyfiing
what
he
discharges
them
,
and
likewayes
in
opposition
therunto
,
commends
a
humble
Ministerial
service
,
not
a
sort
of
warrantable
Dominion
,
as
that
parallel
1
Pet.
5
:
3.
Makes
it
evident
;
So
that
he
gives
two
deadly
blowes
here
to
the
Diocesian
Lord
Prelat
.
1.
In
that
he
makes
himself
a
higher
order
and
degree
of
the
Pastorall
office
,
whereas
the
Lord
discharges
this
among
officers
of
the
same
kinde
.
2.
In
Lording
it
over
his
brethren
(
other
Pastoures
)
both
in
a
pretended
spiritual
capacitie
,
arrogating
to
himself
a
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
and
a
masterly
power
and
principality
over
Church
judicatories
,
(
as
is
cleared
above
)
and
likewayes
in
his
assumeing
the
Earthly
Lordship
,
place
and
grandoure
,
of
civil
Magistrates
,
which
is
here
expresly
discharged
.
This
being
premised
,
let
us
hear
what
this
new
Advocat
sayes
to
this
Text.
1.
He
tels
us
that
[
It
is
a
great
mistake
to
think
,
that
all
superiority
among
Church
men
is
here
forbidden
,
which
he
fortifies
1.
With
this
Reason
,
that
the
twelve
,
though
equall
among
themselves
,
yet
were
superior
to
the
seventy
Disciples
who
were
also
sent
to
preach
,
&
this
He
proves
,
because
Matthias
who
was
chosen
to
succeed
Judas
in
the
Apostleship
,
was
one
of
them
.
]
Ans.
1.
It
is
here
convincingly
apparent
,
that
this
man
shiftes
,
but
dare
not
grapple
with
this
Scripture
,
and
the
argument
drawn
from
it
,
while
he
shuffles
in
this
glosse
and
mistake
(
which
is
his
own
,
not
oures
)
viz
,
that
all
superioritie
is
here
discharged
among
Church
men
,
as
our
inference
or
medium
ágainst
prelacie
from
this
text
,
as
is
evident
from
what
is
said
.
We
grant
with
all
sound
divines
,
that
among
Church
men
or
Church
officers
,
there
are
superior
and
inferior
degrees
.
First
Apostles
,
secondarly
Prophets
&c.
But
we
say
,
that
hereby
superiority
among
these
of
the
same
degree
is
forbidden
,
and
likwayes
principalitie
and
lordship
in
any
of
them
of
whatever
order
or
degree
,
over
another
.
So
that
we
are
not
concerned
to
enquire
,
whither
the
Apostles
were
Superior
to
the
seventy
Disciples
,
or
whither
they
were
sent
to
preach
,
and
not
rather
(
as
some
doe
judge
)
intrusted
with
a
transient
mission
to
prepare
our
Lords
access
to
those
places
whither
he
was
to
come
,
with
out
any
formall
Ministeral
mission
above
ordinarie
Disciples
.
Only
I
must
say
,
his
proofe
of
this
Superiority
of
the
Twelve
above
the
Seventie
,
is
very
odd
(
viz.
)
Matthias
was
chosen
ane
Apostle
,
though
one
of
the
Sevintie
.
Now
,
to
give
Scripture
light
and
proofe
of
this
topick
,
both
branches
of
this
assertion
must
be
proved
from
Scripture
,
not
only
that
Matthias
was
chosen
in
Judas
roome
,
but
also
and
mainely
,
that
he
was
one
of
the
Seventie
,
wherof
the
Scripture
is
utterly
silent
:
and
instead
of
Scripture
proof
of
this
,
wee
must
take
Clemens
and
Dorotheus
,
their
Said
so
,
which
maks
up
a
heterogenious
proofe
,
like
the
feet
and
toes
made
of
iron
and
clay
.
2.
He
tells
us
,
That
ambition
,
and
not
inequality
,
is
here
discharged
.
This
ane
old
shift
of
Bellarm:
and
the
Papists
,
we
say
that
both
ambition
,
the
root
and
principle
of
this
desire
,
and
the
thing
it self
which
was
the
object
of
this
ambitious
desire
(
viz.
)
Dominion
,
Principality
,
and
Lordship
one
over
another
,
is
here
forbidden
:
Subordinata
non
pugnant
,
't
is
strang
sottishnes
in
this
man
to
imagin
,
that
ambition
,
the
inward
principle
of
this
unlawful
primacie
or
inequalitie
,
should
be
forbidden
onely
,
and
not
the
inequalitie
or
primacie
it self
,
the
outward
act
and
accomplishment
of
this
ambition
.
Bellarm:
answer
to
our
divines
argument
against
the
popes
Supremacie
from
the
text
,
is
,
that
dominion
is
no
:
here
discharged
,
but
rather
supposed
,
and
that
it
is
only
such
ane
ambitious
lust
of
overruling
as
is
among
the
Kings
of
the
Gentiles
,
that
is
forbidden
.
Whittaker
(
de
Pontif
:
Cap:
1.
)
Answers
him
,
that
this
dominion
it self
,
not
the
ambitious
affectation
only
,
is
discharged
.
Bernard
writing
to
Eugenius
,
&
expounding
this
passage
,
&
that
of
1.
Pet.
5.
Understands
them
both
as
striking
against
dominion
,
and
enjoyning
a
Ministeriall
care
in
opposition
therunto
,
Dominion
(
saith
hee
)
is
discharged
and
Ministery
is
enjoyned
,
So
at
length
he
concludes
after
severall
things
to
this
purpose
.
Thus
Bernard
clearly
teaches
(
saith
Whittak
:
de
Pontif
:
Quest:
1.
)
that
humilitie
is
not
required
in
dominion
(
as
our
Informer
distinguishes
with
Bellarm:
)
but
dominion
it self
is
discharged
.
But
Bellarmin
admitts
to
play
the
Lords
if
they
be
modest
and
humble
in
their
dominion
.
Christus
de
re
ipsa
&c.
(
saith
Iunius
,
de
pontif
:
lib:
1.
)
Christ
said
of
the
thing
it self
,
they
exercise
dominion
but
he
spake
not
of
the
maner
,
they
exercise
dominion
after
this
or
that
maner
;
they
exercise
dominion
,
saith
he
,
but
not
so
yee
that
is
,
yee
shall
not
exercise
dominion
:
it
is
a
plaine
denyal
of
the
thing
proposed
.
So
we
see
his
shift
here
as
to
prelacie
,
is
the
same
with
that
of
the
Papists
in
defending
the
papacie
.
But
his
Reason
of
this
his
glosse
must
be
considered
,
[
viz.
]
Because
otherwayes
,
our
Lords
argument
taken
from
his
own
example
v.
28.
Would
not
suite
his
purpose
,
since
he
was
in
power
and
authoritie
above
the
Twelve
.
Ans.
(
Not
to
stay
here
to
tell
him
,
that
this
defence
and
gloss
will
equally
serve
the
popes
turne
,
and
bear
the
blow
of
this
text
off
his
head
in
Correspondance
with
Bellarmins
Notion
above
touched
)
Our
Lords
scope
in
proposeing
his
own
example
,
is
to
antidot
their
inward
pride
,
the
root
of
their
desire
of
this
dominion
,
and
powerfully
to
commend
to
them
humility
and
low
lines
,
as
the
most
excellent
remedy
therof
:
And
his
argument
runns
a
fortiori
thus
.
If
I
your
Lord
and
Master
be
as
on
that
serves
,
and
am
such
a
pattern
of
selfdenial
and
humility
among
you
,
much
more
ought
you
to
studie
humility
,
and
to
guard
against
all
usurped
authority
and
dominion
,
over
on
another
,
who
are
fellow
Disciples
,
and
servants
.
So
he
reasoned
Joh
13.
If
I
your
Lord
&
master
have
washed
your
feet
,
you
[
viz
,
much
more
as
being
equalls
]
ought
also
to
wash
one
anothers
feet
;
so
that
which
he
imagines
doth
mak
Christs
argument
not
sute
well
,
maksit
the
more
forcible
&
suite
the
better
.
2.
He
here
contradicts
himself
,
while
making
the
argument
from
Christs
example
,
v.
28.
to
suite
the
discharge
of
ambition
only
,
not
of
inequality
(
the
terms
in
which
he
impertinently
states
the
difference
and
opposition
,
as
to
what
is
discharged
and
not
discharged
)
for
he
grants
there
was
to
be
no
inequalitie
among
the
Apostles
;
and
when
he
thus
limites
his
general
answer
[
that
all
supeiroritie
among
Church
men
is
not
here
discharged
]
he
grants
that
some
superioritie
(
viz
)
among
the
Apostles
themselves
,
was
discharged
,
and
consequently
discharged
upon
this
motive
Christs
own
example
How
then
,
I
pray
,
will
he
make
this
argument
from
Christs
example
,
who
was
in
dominion
and
principality
above
the
Twelve
,
and
their
,
and
all
the
Churches
monarch
and
head
,
suite
his
purpose
of
discharging
Inequality
,
Superioritie
,
or
primacie
among
the
Apostles
?
His
reason
he
explaines
,
thus
further
,
that
taking
Christ
onely
to
speak
against
ambition
,
or
a
sinful
desire
of
superoritie
,
which
was
Diotrephes
fault
,
the
reason
from
his
own
example
suites
well
who
,
though
above
all
,
yet
was
,
a
pattern
to
all
in
humility
.
Ans.
1.
Wee
have
heard
that
Christs
argument
suites
best
in
the
sense
we
have
propounded
,
which
is
the
sense
of
all
sound
divines
.
2.
If
it
was
only
a
sinful
desire
of
a
superioritie
in
it self
lawful
,
such
as
he
sayes
Diotrephes
had
(
how
rationally
we
shall
after
see
)
which
our
Lord
dehorted
from
by
his
own
example
,
then
all
our
divines
have
mist
the
marke
in
pleading
from
this
text
against
the
object
of
this
desire
,
not
the
sinful
maner
of
desiring
only
,
and
the
Papists
gloss
holds
good
against
them
,
viz:
that
Christs
example
will
plead
only
against
ambition
.
3.
Our
Informer
yet
againe
falleth
here
into
a
twosold
contradiction
.
1.
He
makes
the
Superiority
,
the
object
of
this
ambitious
desire
,
to
be
in
it self
lawful
,
and
their
fault
only
to
lie
in
the
ambitious
or
sinful
desire
;
yet
in
answer
to
the
nixt
obiection
he
grants
,
that
Christ
discharged
dominium
civile
&
despoticum
;
Now
,
he
must
either
say
,
that
this
was
the
object
of
their
desire
,
&
consequently
that
it
was
sinful
in
the
object
,
or
else
that
our
Lords
discourse
and
exhortation
was
not
to
the
purpose
;
Againe
,
this
domineum
civile
&
despoticum
,
is
more
then
a
meer
superioritie
.
But
2.
the
superioritie
here
discharged
was
among
the
Apostles
themselves
,
&
this
was
the
object
of
their
desire
;
the
ambitions
question
and
debate
was
,
which
of
them
should
be
greatest
,
and
highest
above
all
the
rest
?
Now
he
grants
that
there
was
to
be
no
superioritie
,
far
less
principality
among
them
;
How
then
can
he
say
that
Christ
discharged
only
ane
ambitious
affectation
of
a
superioritie
in
it self
lawful
;
such
as
Diotrephes
had
,
whom
we
will
find
him
after
assert
to
have
endeavoured
to
put
himself
into
a
lawful
pre-existent
office
.
Surely
if
there
was
to
be
no
inequality
among
them
,
their
desire
of
inequality
was
most
sinful
in
the
object
,
upon
that
very
ground
.
Againe
,
he
grants
that
Christ
speaks
to
the
Twelve
,
and
likwayes
cannot
deny
,
but
clearly
insinuates
a
concession
with
the
text
,
that
the
Apostles
were
striveing
about
inequality
,
which
he
acknowledges
was
unlawful
in
them
,
yet
in
the
second
answer
,
he
will
not
have
this
discharged
;
which
how
inconsistent
it
is
,
let
any
judge
.
Beside
,
since
.
Christ
spoke
this
to
the
twelve
,
among
whom
there
was
to
be
[
no
inequality
in
respect
of
power
]
as
he
sayes
,
&
consequently
discharged
this
,
since
he
is
rebuking
them
for
striving
about
a
primacy
,
the
highest
degree
of
inequality
in
respect
of
power
,
how
absurd
&
nonsensical
is
his
2d
answer
,
which
denies
[
that
Christ
discharged
inequality
;
]
could
Christ
discharge
them
an
inequality
of
the
highest
pitch
,
and
yet
not
discharge
inequality
?
Or
could
[
all
inequality
in
respect
of
power
]
be
unlawful
among
them
,
and
yet
not
be
discharged
when
our
Lord
discharged
[
a
primacy
of
power
?
]
he
will
prove
a
strang
critick
if
he
distinguish
these
.
He
tells
us
lastly
here
that
humility
&
imparity
can
well
consist
.
But
can
humility
,
&
a
forbidden
imparity
consist
?
can
humility
in
a
Churchman
,
&
[
Dominium
civile
and
despoticum
]
consist
?
Both
which
he
acknowledges
were
discharged
to
the
Apostles
here
.
So
he
insinuats
that
their
desired
imparity
,
was
still
lawful
in
it self
,
since
it
may
be
possessed
even
humbly
,
&
thus
heaps
up
inconsistencies
.
He
objects
to
himself
That
Christ
in
denying
to
them
,
the
Dominion
of
the
Princes
of
the
gentiles
,
discharged
all
superiority
among
Church
men
.
To
which
he
answers
That
he
onely
discharges
[
Dominium
civile
,
&
despoticum
]
a
princely
Lordly
power
,
such
as
they
exercise
:
but
the
power
of
the
Church
is
of
another
nature
.
Ans.
1.
[
Not
to
meedle
with
his
makeing
Dominium
civile
,
and
despoticum
,
adequat
termes
,
there
being
a
Dominium
politicum
,
ordinately
contradistinguished
from
despoticum
,
which
is
also
a
Dominium
civile
)
He
grants
here
,
that
it
was
more
then
a
simple
desire
of
a
lawful
superiority
,
which
the
Apostles
were
tainted
with
,
forgeting
what
he
said
immediatly
before
.
Nixt
,
if
Christ
discharged
this
civil
Lordly
power
to
Churchmen
,
he
discharged
them
to
be
Parliaments
Lords
,
and
to
hold
civil
state
offices
,
contrare
to
what
he
pleades
from
the
instances
of
the
Priests
Numb
.
II.
and
from
Eli
&
Samuel
;
and
so
he
must
grant
the
new
Testament
Church
and
its
dispensation
,
to
be
in
this
different
from
the
old
,
since
he
acknowledges
that
Church
power
was
here
allowed
the
Apostles
and
their
successors
,
and
civill
power
discharged
.
Thus
our
Informer
must
grant
,
that
Christ
did
here
rid
marches
betwixt
these
things
which
he
before
confounded
,
and
their
Erastian
Prelacy
confounds
.
Again
,
this
is
the
very
shift
of
Bellarmin
to
save
the
popes
supremacie
:
The
Lord
,
saith
he
,
In
forbidding
them
,
to
rule
as
the
Princes
of
the
Gentiles
,
signified
they
were
to
rule
,
but
not
after
that
manner
[
viz.
]
Ecclesiastically
;
So
he
thinks
it
touches
not
the
popes
Ecclesiastick
supremacy
,
and
the
Informer
in
this
stryks
hands
with
him
.
For
if
our
Lord
discharged
only
here
that
kind
of
Dominion
as
he
sayes
;
But
allowed
a
Church
power
or
dominion
of
another
nature
,
surely
for
anything
that
is
here
discharged
,
ane
Ecclesiastick
pop
or
patriarch
his
mytrestands
sure
,
and
is
never
touched
by
any
prohibition
which
the
Disciples
here
got
,
against
the
sense
and
pleading
of
all
Protestants
.
Moreover
,
will
this
Informer
adventur
to
say
that
the
popes
primacy
,
or
ecclesiastick
Monarchy
,
even
as
abstracted
from
his
civill
Dominion
,
is
not
here
discharged
;
And
if
it
be
[
as
all
our
divines
assert
it
is
]
then
our
Lord
understood
another
sort
of
abuse
of
power
then
invadeing
a
Dominium
civile
,
even
all
despotick
or
Lordly
power
,
whither
civill
,
or
pretended
ecclesiastick
in
Church
officers
.
Besids
,
if
he
discharged
Lordly
power
,
he
discharged
that
which
Peter
discharged
1
Pet.
5.
Even
to
Lord
over
Gods
heritage
.
What
?
will
he
dare
to
say
that
it
is
only
a
civill
Lordship
which
is
there
discharged
&
not
rather
ane
ecclesiastick
dominion
,
Which
bath
Gods
heritage
or
Church
for
its
object
:
And
if
so
,
then
the
Prelats
Dominion
is
expresly
stricken
against
,
since
(
as
we
have
above
cleared
)
his
power
is
a
meer
despotick
Lordship
or
rule
;
For
to
be
the
proper
object
&
fountaine
of
all
ecclesiástick
authority
in
the
Diocess
,
to
have
sole
power
in
ordination
&
jurisdiction
;
the
sole
decisive
suffrage
in
Judicatories
,
is
either
a
despotick
Dominion
and
Lordship
or
it
is
nothing
;
and
if
the
Churches
power
is
of
another
nature
then
this
civill
Dominion
,
as
this
man
tells
us
,
of
what
nature
is
it
?
Only
of
another
nature
,
because
it
touches
spiritual
objects
;
Then
for
any
thing
that
is
here
forbidden
,
a
papall
ecclesiastick
monarchy
is
never
touched
.
Or
is
it
of
another
nature
because
in
it self
Steward-like
and
Ministerial
,
not
despotick
or
Princely
,
like
that
of
the
Magistrat
(
which
is
the
sense
of
all
sound
divines
,
and
must
be
his
too
,
if
he
speak
sense
)
then
who
sees
not
that
the
power
of
the
Prince-or
Lord-Prelat
is
most
formally
discharged
?
It
being
evidently
of
this
nature
.
Yet
againe
,
it
is
in
this
apparent
that
he
shiftes
and
shuffles
the
question
,
and
its
terms
here
,
anent
the
power
of
the
Prelat
and
the
power
discharged
in
this
text
.
For
in
saying
in
the
beginning
of
his
Answer
,
that
Christ
discharges
that
kind
Dominion
of
onely
which
civil
Princes
exercise
,
he
must
needes
be
supposed
to
contradistingush
from
this
,
ane
ecclesiastick
Dominion
which
is
allowed
,
yet
when
he
speaks
of
this
he
alters
the
terms
,
telling
us
[
that
the
Churches
power
is
of
another
nature
]
he
should
have
said
the
Churches
reserved
Dominion
,
if
he
had
spoken
consequently
,
as
that
other
kind
of
Dominion
which
he
allowes
,
and
by
the
consequence
of
his
discourse
,
holds
that
the
Text
will
allow
;
In
a
word
,
that
all
sort
of
[
Dominion
]
whither
pretended
ecclesiastick
,
or
civil
,
is
here
discharged
to
Church
officers
,
and
consequently
his
offering
violence
to
the
Text
,
is
apparent
from
the
context
two
wayes
.
1.
In
that
the
strife
among
the
Apoles
,
flowing
from
this
desire
of
unlawful
greatnes
,
and
which
drew
forth
this
exhortation
and
prohibition
under
debate
,
was
not
about
a
civill
despotick
rule
;
properly
,
or
onely
,
but
anent
a
Lordship
&
chief
rule
in
the
Church
,
and
in
matters
ecclesiastick
,
under
Christ
as
their
head
;
So
that
though
the
Lord
exemplified
the
greatnes
which
he
discharged
them
,
in
that
of
earthly
princes
,
(
there
being
no
other
then
existent
and
apparent
)
yet
it
was
not
this
primarily
,
but
ane
ecclesiastick
Lordship
or
dominion
,
which
he
strycks
against
;
Since
he
is
directing
them
both
negatively
and
positively
anent
the
nature
,
And
exercise
of
their
spiritual
and
ecclesiastick
Authority
and
Rule
.
2.
The
positive
parte
of
his
injunction
touching
a
Ministerial
service
,
or
humble
Ministery
,
excludes
all
sort
of
dominion
in
what
ever
sense
it
can
be
taken
,
and
not
a
civill
dominion
onely
.
Our
Informer
tells
us
,
nixt
.
That
sundrie
interpreters
,
interpret
Christs
words
,
as
discharging
only
Tyranny
,
such
as
earthly
Princes
exercise
.
And
in
this
he
Informers
us
right
;
Onely
he
should
have
been
so
ingenuus
as
to
tell
us
that
they
are
interpreters
beyond
our
line
,
that
is
popish
interpreters
,
for
this
is
directly
Bellarmins
shift
,
to
which
,
since
he
stands
here
upon
the
same
ground
with
him
,
I
shall
return
learned
Whittakers
interpretation
and
answer
,
which
hitherto
I
believe
hath
passed
current
with
all
sound
Protestants
.
Christ
sets
before
them
the
example
of
the
Kings
of
the
Gentiles
,
not
to
the
end
they
may
flie
ambition
on'y
(
as
this
man
shifts
it
)
but
to
let
them
understand
that
they
have
nothing
to
doe
with
a
kingly
rule
.
—
For
(
saith
he
)
though
the
words
translated
[
exercise
dominion
or
authority
]
which
Matthew
maks
use
of
,
doeth
sometimes
signifie
immoderat
dominion
,
yet
Luke
Omitts
the
preposition
in
both
these
Words
:
But
so
it
is
that
the
simple
verb
,
is
attribut
to
these
who
obtaine
power
and
dominion
,
not
to
these
who
insolently
and
tyrannically
overerule
;
for
all
those
who
among
the
gentiles
obtained
principality
did
not
reigne
tyrannically
or
unjustly
,
nay
the
Clemency
of
many
such
,
and
their
justice
is
praised
.
Thus
he
,
de
pontif
:
Quest:
1.
To
which
I
may
add
,
that
our
Lord
speakes
of
such
Princes
as
were
called
Benefactoers
or
gracious
Lords
,
a
very
unsuiteable
designation
for
Tyrannes
.
How
easie
is
it
from
the
Informer
reasoning
here
,
and
with
his
net
to
fish
out
a
papacy
.
That
which
the
Apostles
here
desired
was
in
it self
lawful
,
and
the
fault
was
onely
in
the
ambitious
desire
,
as
it
was
with
diotrephes
who
desired
a
lawful
preexistent
office
:
This
he
clearly
asserts
:
I
subsum
:
But
that
which
they
desired
,
and
were
striving
about
,
was
a
primacie
or
papacie
,
Ergo
that
office
is
lawfull
in
it self
.
The
pope
will
thank
our
Informer
for
this
.
The
nixt
text
objected
by
the
doubter
,
is
that
pregnant
passage
1
Pet.
5
:
3.
Be
not
Lords
over
Gods
heritage
.
And
from
this
he
maks
him
mutter
out
this
slender
argument
,
[
is
not
superiority
among
Church
men
there
clearly
forbidden
.
]
Still
we
see
our
Informer
keeps
him
under
the
covert
of
his
own
groundless
supposition
,
that
we
doe
from
this
and
such
like
texts
Impugne
,
Superiority
among
Church
men
,
as
he
terms
it
,
whereas
wee
allow
(
as
he
cannot
but
know
)
with
all
sound
divines
,
and
scripture
it self
,
superiour
and
inferiour
degrees
among
Church
officers
:
And
he
cannot
shew
that
any
Presbyterian
did
ever
draw
forth
from
this
text
such
ane
insignificant
notion
as
this
against
Prelacy
;
But
hee
behoved
to
make
the
knot
easy
,
since
himself
must
loose
it
.
Our
Argument
from
this
text
,
is
this
,
That
the
Apostle
here
injoyneing
Ministers
their
duty
[
both
negativil
and
positively
,
he
first
dehorts
from
evills
they
are
lyable
unto
,
such
as
heart
reluctancy
at
their
laborius
employment
,
covetusness
and
usurpation
or
Lordship
and
Dominion
,
whither
over
their
fellowes
,
which
Dietrephes
affected
,
or
over
the
people
,
by
taking
ane
arbitrarie
masterly
imperious
way
with
them
,
or
a
way
of
force
and
rigoure
,
as
these
reptehended
Ezek.
34
:
4.
He
nixt
,
positively
exhortes
them
to
lead
or
rule
in
a
holy
exemplarie
,
Shepherd-like
Method
,
expressing
the
word
of
grace
in
their
practise
.
Now
[
I
say
)
from
this
genuine
sense
and
scope
of
the
place
,
wee
argue
against
Prelacie
,
thus
.
1.
The
Apostle
exhorts
these
elders
or
Ministers
as
their
[
fellow-elder
]
supposeing
them
his
immediat
Successors
in
the
highest
Spheere
of
ane
ordinarie
Ministery
,
for
he
supposes
them
to
have
non
higher
over
them
now
when
he
was
shortly
to
put
off
his
Tabernacle
.
2.
He
enjoyns
them
to
feed
and
take
the
oversight
,
or
exercise
Episcopal
authoritie
over
the
flock
,
as
Paul
did
likewayes
the
Presbyters
or
elders
of
Ephesus
,
in
his
last
farewel
.
(
Act.
20.
)
a
scrybing
a
compleat
Episcopal
authoritie
to
them
,
both
as
to
jurisdiction
and
ordination
.
3.
Yet
he
discharges
any
of
them
to
Lord
it
over
Gods
heritage
,
commending
instead
thereof
,
ane
exemplarie
humble
service
or
ministery
,
Hence
wee
inferr
against
the
Diocesian
Prelat
.
1
That
there
is
no
higher
officer
then
a
Presbyter
,
left
by
the
Apostles
as
their
ordinary
Successor
,
since
the
Apostle
as
their
follow
Presbiter
,
exhorts
themas
the
highest
ordinary
officers
,
and
therfor
the
Prelat
,
pretending
to
be
ane
higher
ordinary
officer
,
is
Apocriphal
.
2.
All
Episcopali
authority
is
in
Presbyters
,
both
as
to
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
,
and
they
have
both
name
and
thing
of
a
Scripture
Bishop
,
and
therefore
the
Prelat
,
arrogating
this
name
solely
to
himself
,
&
all
the
Episcopal
power
of
ordinationand
Jurisdiction
as
his
solely
,
and
denying
it
to
Presbyters
,
is
ane
Anti-scripturall
Monster
:
Since
these
Presbyters
had
this
in
a
compleat
parity
3.
Non
of
these
Elders
must
exercise
a
masterly
power
and
dominion
over
the
flocks
,
therefore
the
Lord
Prelats
imperious
Lordly
power
is
palpably
condemned
,
which
he
exercises
over
both
Pastores
and
flocks
.
Now
,
this
being
our
argument
from
this
text
,
let
any
man
judge
of
this
Informer
ingenuity
,
while
representing
it
in
such
a
disguise
,
that
he
may
seem
able
to
grapple
with
it
;
Whereas
we
shall
find
that
his
answers
to
his
Argument
presented
thus
in
its
genuine
strength
,
are
like
the
conflict
betwixt
the
giant
and
pigmee
.
But
what
sayes
he
to
the
Argument
as
in
his
own
mould
.
1.
He
answers
That
superiority
among
Churchmen
is
not
discharged
.
By
[
Churchmen
]
if
he
understand
in
General
,
[
Church
officers
]
(
though
the
terme
be
some
what
odd
)
we
shall
easily
Admitt
that
this
Text
discharges
not
superior
and
inferior
degrees
among
them
,
but
this
will
nothing
help
his
cause
,
as
is
evident
.
If
he
mean
superiority
among
preaching
Presbyters
,
or
Elders
,
we
have
proved
it
to
be
here
discharged
,
since
the
Apostle
attributes
episcopal
Authority
to
these
elders
in
common
,
and
discharges
Lordly
preheminenc
in
any
of
them
.
Well
,
what
is
it
that
our
Informer
will
admitt
to
be
here
discharged
?
domineering
and
Tyranny
,
saith
he
,
which
may
be
the
fault
of
ane
ordinary
Minister
towards
his
flocke
.
This
is
the
old
popish
song
made
new
again
,
to
which
I
repon
two
things
.
1.
The
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
parallel
with
that
of
Matth.
20.
and
Luk.
22.
Where
peter
learned
the
prohibition
,
and
(
as
is
said
)
imports
indeed
Dominion
but
no
Tyrannical
domineering
it
being
made
use
of
by
the
seventy
interpreters
to
express
Dominion
unquestionably
lawful
.
2.
The
positive
parte
of
the
precept
refutes
this
gloss
,
he
sayes
not
,
Not
Tyrannically
domineering
,
but
using
Dominion
moderatly
(
which
ought
to
have
been
the
other
alternative
branch
,
if
this
mans
gloss
were
true
,
and
the
Apostle
had
allowed
a
lawfull
Lordshipe
)
but
He
adds
for
the
other
branch
in
expressing
what
is
injoyned
being
examples
to
the
slock
.
Injoyneing
thus
to
feed
by
example
,
and
a
humble
Ministery
;
And
this
is
opposit
to
all
Dominion
and
Lordship
whatsoever
,
and
doth
not
discriminat
only
one
Dominion
from
another
;
which
is
also
apparent
in
the
alternative
branche
,
and
positive
precept
of
the
above
mentioned
paralel
texts
.
Besides
we
might
here
tell
him
,
That
the
Episcopal
preheminence
,
being
so
many
wayes
cross
to
the
Scripture
rules
in
pointe
of
Government
,
may
be
truely
called
a
most
TyrannicalDomineereing
.
But
the
reasons
of
his
gloss
follows
.
He
tells
us
;
That
this
domineering
and
Tyranny
may
be
the
fault
of
ane
ordinary
Minister
towards
his
flock
,
and
that
the
Apostle
is
not
here
speaking
of
Church
mens
carriage
towards
one
another
,
or
of
their
equality
or
inequality
among
themselves
,
but
of
their
behaviour
towards
the
people
,
who
are
called
the
flock
,
or
Gods
heritage
.
Ans.
This
is
a
strange
reason
,
and
very
hard
to
comprehend
,
only
Tyrannical
domineereing
must
be
understood
because
it
relates
only
to
the
flock
.
Can
there
not
be
a
Tyrannical
domineering
over
the
Clergy
also
?
And
because
the
Apostle
forbids
to
Lord
it
over
the
flock
,
therefore
he
forbids
not
Dominion
over
the
Clergy
;
The
quit
contrare
conclusion
will
better
follow
:
If
the
Apostle
forbids
them
to
Lord
it
over
the
flocks
,
who
were
subject
to
them
as
their
spiritual
guides
,
therefore
,
a
fortiori
,
he
much
more
forbids
them
to
Lord
it
over
their
fellow
Presbyters
,
who
were
their
equalls
in
this
Spiritual
trust
and
Authority
over
the
flocks
;
And
if
it
be
unlawful
to
play
the
Domineering
Prelat
over
one
poor
flock
,
it
must
be
much
more
unlawfull
to
Act
this
Tyranny
over
some
Hundreds
of
both
pastores
and
flocks
.
So
that
Ministers
,
or
(
if
he
will
)
Churchmens
carriage
towards
one
another
,
must
be
here
clearly
pointed
out
by
a
very
necessary
consequence
from
the
less
to
the
greater
,
and
the
equality
of
Ministers
in
their
spiritual
Government
and
Rule
,
by
he
same
topick
strongly
inferred
from
this
place
.
It
strange
that
the
Apostle
should
discharge
to
Lord
it
over
the
flocks
,
and
yet
allow
a
Lordship
over
both
Clergy
and
flocks
.
But
another
wonder
is
,
how
he
comes
to
excludMinisters
from
that
tittle
of
Gods
heritage
,
which
his
party
(
from
whom
our
Informer
here
proves
a
separatist
)
do
often
make
peculiar
unto
[
Church
Rulers
]
one
would
thinke
that
they
should
have
a
special
Interest
and
share
in
that
which
grounds
this
denomination
;
Are
they
not
the
Lords
purchase
,
as
well
as
the
people
Act.
20.
Nay
they
are
in
a
singular
manner
such
,
and
Christs
glorie
;
Are
they
not
such
as
he
will
never
cast
off
and
alienat
Psal.
94
:
14.
They
are
the
starrs
which
Christ
holds
in
his
right
hand
;
nay
,
as
being
singularly
dedicat
to
him
,
they
are
singularly
his
:
as
the
Levits
had
the
Lord
for
their
Inheritance
in
a
speciall
way
;
So
they
were
singularly
his
,
set
aparte
for
him
beyond
all
the
rest
of
the
tribes
.
And
are
not
Ministers
taken
from
among
the
people
for
his
Priests
and
Levits
—
And
called
therefore
men
of
God
,
stewards
of
God
,
Ministers
,
Servants
,
Ambassadoures
of
Christ
,
because
of
their
singular
relation
to
him
:
And
as
this
is
a
strong
disswasive
from
Lording
over
the
people
,
that
they
are
Gods
heritage
,
who
therefore
most
not
be
the
servants
of
me●…
,
So
upon
the
ground
of
Ministers
speciall
interest
in
this
denomination
,
the
Apostles
argument
as
to
them
,
is
the
more
forcible
.
Againe
,
since
he
so
expresly
forbids
any
of
these
Pastoures
to
Lord
it
over
Gods
Heritage
(
enjoyning
them
a
humble
exemplary
Ministery
)
and
far
less
to
exercise
a
Lordly
Rule
over
one
another
,
he
establishes
by
clear
consequence
(
as
I
hinted
)
ane
equality
among
them
,
in
their
pastoral
official
power
and
authority
;
Withall
,
the
Apostle
speaking
to
them
indefinitely
in
this
precept
without
the
least
exception
and
reserve
as
to
any
one
of
them
:
and
making
their
episcopal
inspection
relate
to
the
flock
(
as
this
man
himself
pleads
)
both
these
grounds
hold
out
their
equality
among
themselves
,
and
inferrs
a
discharge
of
inequality
.
This
Informers
likewayes
would
remarke
that
the
Spirit
of
God
here
commands
Presbyters
to
act
the
Bishopes
,
thus
indentifying
the
Bishop
and
Prisbyter
,
but
without
Lording
it
over
Gods
heritage
,
the
prohibition
not
to
Lord
it
,
is
remarkably
joyned
with
the
command
to
Act
the
Bishop
:
And
referring
their
office
to
the
flock
,
he
must
confess
the
Apostle
acknowledged
no
Bishops
whose
inspection
was
over
Pastours
themselves
.
Thus
we
see
hisanswer
to
the
Argument
against
Prelacy
from
this
Text
is
contrare
unto
the
scope
and
sense
of
the
Words
,
yea
and
inconsistent
with
it self
.
CHAP.
X.
The
Informers
answers
to
our
Argument
from
Act.
20.
and
from
Tit.
1
:
5
,
7.
Philip.
1
:
1.
Ephes.
4
:
11.
For
the
identitie
of
[
Bishop
]
&
[
Presbyter
,
]
win
nowed
,
the
insufficiencie
,
and
inconsistencie
thereof
,
together
with
his
begging
of
the
question
,
discovered
;
and
these
texts
at
some
length
improven
against
him
.
THE
Doubter
in
the
nixt
place
objects
[
That
in
the
new
Testament
,
Bishop
and
Presbyter
signifie
one
and
the
same
office
bearer
,
that
in
Act.
20
:
the
elders
in
the
17.
v.
are
called
Bishops
in
the
28.
v.
So
in
Tit.
1
:
5
,
7.
And
therefor
Bishop
and
elder
are
the
same
in
Scriptur
,
and
the
word
elder
signifies
no
more
then
a
Minister
of
a
particular
Congregation
]
Heer
he
touches
a
parte
but
not
the
strength
of
our
argument
from
these
texts
.
We
argue
not
meerly
from
the
Samenes
of
the
Names
,
but
the
identitie
of
all
the
essentiales
of
the
office
,
Duties
,
and
Qualifications
of
the
office
bearer
expressed
by
these
names
,
when
applyed
to
ane
ordinarie
office
bearer
;
Particularly
f.
om
Act.
20.
We
draw
forth
these
weapons
.
1.
The
Apostle
speaking
to
the
elders
,
tells
them
that
the
holy
ghost
had
made
them
[
Bishopes
over
the
flock
,
]
shewing
that
the
Scriptur
Bishop
set
up
by
the
holy
ghost
,
is
the
Minister
or
elder
who
feeds
and
rules
over
the
flock
.
2.
The
Apostle
gives
them
not
only
the
Name
of
Bishop
,
but
also
the
thing
,
commanding
these
elders
or
Ministers
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
takes
in
all
the
power
of
order
and
jurisdiction
,
and
whatever
the
Diocesian
Bishop
may
pretend
unto
.
3.
(
Which
is
very
remarbable
)
he
gives
this
Charge
so
these
elders
befor
Timothy
,
who
was
now
present
with
the
Apostle
,
and
after
the
first
Epistle
was
written
to
him
,
for
it
was
writtin
when
Paul
was
at
Macedonia
,
and
after
this
Paul
haveing
Timothy
with
him
came
to
Miletum
,
and
gave
the
elders
of
Ephesus
this
charge
.
Finallie
.
This
was
Pauls
last
charge
to
them
,
for
they
were
never
to
see
his
face
more
;
So
that
we
have
here
a
pattern
of
the
mould
of
the
Gospel-Church
in
relation
to
Government
as
this
great
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
left
it
,
and
consequentlie
as
all
the
rest
left
it
;
which
is
convinceingly
apparent
by
comparing
this
with
the
parallel
1
Pet.
5.
compared
with
2
Pet.
1
:
14.
Hence
we
exterminat
the
Diocefian
Prelat
thus
.
1.
The
Holy
Ghosts
Bishops
were
Ministers
which
he
set
up
to
feed
and
rule
the
flock
immediatly
.
These
,
and
these
only
,
the
Apostle
and
the
Apostolick
Church
knew
,
therefore
he
dissownes
the
Prelat
,
who
pretends
to
be
set
over
some
hundreds
of
Pastoures
and
flocks
,
and
is
bound
to
feed
no
flocke
himself
.
2.
These
who
watch
over
the
flocks
immediatly
,
and
only
,
have
all
the
Episcopal
power
,
both
the
key
of
doctrine
,
and
Government
committed
to
them
by
the
holy
Ghost
:
Therefore
the
Diocesian
Prelat
,
taking
and
arrogating
to
himself
the
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
and
leaving
Presbyters
nothing
but
the
Doctrinal
key
,
as
his
deputies
,
while
he
himself
preaches
to
no
flock
,
is
ane
Antiscriptural
Sacrilegious
robber
.
3.
The
elders
or
Pastoures
of
Ephesus
got
all
Episcopal
authority
as
to
order
and
jurisdiction
,
committed
to
them
by
Paul
as
the
Holy
ghosts
Bishops
,
&
the
highest
ordinarie
officers
of
that
Church
,
in
the
presence
of
Timothie
,
without
the
least
hint
of
any
interest
that
Timothie
had
in
or
over
them
,
as
their
Bishope
or
Overseer
therein
,
or
the
least
hint
of
any
direction
anent
their
dutie
to
Timothie
as
in
that
Capacitie
,
and
this
after
he
had
gotten
all
his
directions
in
the
1.
Epistle
written
to
him
.
And
therefore
Timothie
was
never
set
up
as
a
Diocesian
Prelat
over
that
Church
(
as
this
Informer
would
perswade
)
and
the
inspection
which
he
is
supposed
to
have
in
that
Epistle
,
was
occasional
,
transient
,
and
extraordinarie
,
and
by
conseguence
layes
no
ground
for
Prelacie
.
Finallie
,
Paules
directions
here
were
his
last
and
farewel
directions
,
therefore
this
Church
was
to
continue
thus
governed
by
these
elders
or
Bishops
in
common
:
and
the
Prelatists
Plea
[
that
the
Apostles
set
up
Presbyters
at
first
,
keeping
the
reyns
of
Government
in
their
own
hands
,
till
towardes
the
end
of
their
life
,
and
then
sett
up
Prelats
over
these
Presbyters
]
is
here
convict
of
falshood
,
since
neither
Paul
,
nor
Peter
,
the
great
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
,
or
the
great
Apostle
of
the
Circumcision
,
doe
in
the
least
hint
any
such
Super-institution
,
but
both
of
them
in
their
last
directions
to
the
Churches
,
commit
the
wholl
power
both
of
order
and
jurisdiction
,
to
the
Pastoures
of
the
flocks
,
in
common
,
as
the
only
Bishops
set
up
by
the
Holy
Ghost
.
From
1
Tim.
1
:
5
,
—
7.
The
great
Argument
is
not
only
from
the
promiscuouse
use
of
the
Name
[
Bishop
]
&
[
Presbyter
]
but
from
the
forme
and
mould
of
the
Apostles
reasoning
;
which
inferres
not
onely
the
identitie
of
names
,
but
of
the
office
also
.
For
the
Apostle
shewing
Titus
how
the
elders
are
to
be
qualified
,
gives
this
reasone
for
a
Bishop
must
he
blameles
.
This
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
causal
For
]
expressing
the
knot
and
connexion
of
the
Apostles
argument
or
reason
,
doth
clearly
Import
that
the
office
,
expressed
by
both
these
words
,
is
one
and
the
same
;
for
there
is
neither
sound
matter
or
forme
,
in
such
reasoning
as
this
[
Presbiters
must
be
so
and
so
qualified
,
because
a
Bishop
,
of
a
Superior
order
and
degree
must
be
so
qualified
]
So
that
from
hence
it
is
evident
that
the
[
elder
]
is
the
[
Bishop
]
,
&
vice
versa
,
and
that
no
higher
Bishopes
were
by
the
Apostles
constitut
in
the
Churches
.
Here
then
,
as
in
the
preceeding
text
,
we
have
not
only
Bishops
and
elders
getting
the
same
designation
by
the
Holyghost
(
who
knew
best
the
nature
of
the
things
themselves
,
and
how
to
express
himself
thereanent
)
but
likewayes
the
same
qualifications
,
work
,
and
office
;
and
so
the
office
is
supposed
to
be
every
way
one
and
the
same
.
Now
let
us
hear
,
what
he
sayes
to
the
argument
.
[
He
grants
that
the
two
words
oftentimes
doe
point
out
one
and
the
same
officer
,
but
denyes
that
the
officer
meaned
by
these
words
,
is
never
understood
above
the
degree
of
ane
ordinarie
Minister
.
Or
that
the
word
[
Presbiter
,
or
elder
]
signifies
only
the
Minister
of
a
single
Congregation
,
&
no
more
.
]
The
insufficiencie
and
prevarication
of
which
answer
euidently
appears
.
For
1.
He
grants
that
these
two
words
Bishop
and
elder
signifies
one
and
the
same
officer
,
oftentimes
,
supposeing
that
sometimes
they
express
diverse
officers
,
but
where
can
he
shew
us
that
the
word
Episcopus
signifies
one
officer
,
and
Preshiter
another
,
when
the
Spirit
of
God
is
pointing
out
therby
the
Churches
standing
Officers
and
Ministers
,
and
not
when
either
the
one
or
the
other
is
in
a
generall
sense
applyed
to
ane
Apostle
.
2.
The
state
of
the
Question
is
[
whither
the
scriptur
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
designe
a
higher
ordinary
officer
then
a
Presbyter
]
And
this
Informer
should
have
adverted
,
that
the
drift
of
the
argument
from
the
texts
mentioned
,
is
to
prove
the
Apostles
promiscuous
use
of
these
words
in
describing
the
office
of
the
highest
ordinary
office
bearers
in
the
Church
.
Moreover
,
the
Diocesian
[
Episcopus
]
is
ane
ordinary
officer
,
haveing
the
inspection
over
some
handereds
of
flocks
,
and
the
sole
power
of
jurisdiction
and
ordination
in
the
diocesse
,
&
is
by
him
held
to
be
ane
officer
of
Gods
appointment
,
&
by
this
designation
of
Bishop
,
as
the
Characteristick
of
his
office
,
is
distinguished
from
Pastoures
or
elders
.
Now
,
if
presbyterians
doe
prove
that
wherever
the
word
Bishop
is
used
to
point
at
ane
ordinary
standing
officer
in
the
Church
,
it
imports
a
pastor
or
presbyter
&
no
higher
officer
,
they
sufficiently
over
throw
the
diocesian
Episcopus
or
Bishop
of
his
mould
,
as
having
no
scripture
warrand
.
And
if
he
grant
that
in
the
forementioned
Scriptures
,
&
other
passages
where
the
word
Bishop
is
used
to
point
at
a
necessarie
standing
Church
officer
,
it
signifieth
no
higher
officer
then
ane
elder
or
ordinarie
Minister
,
he
grants
enough
against
himself
,
&
all
that
the
presbiterians
desire
:
for
there
from
it
followes
necessarly
that
their
diocesian
Episcopus
or
Bishop
contradistinct
from
,
&
superior
to
the
preaching
presbyter
,
is
apochriphal
&
antiscripturall
:
Since
the
preaching
presbyter
&
Bishop
,
are
the
same
ordinarie
highest
officer
in
all
the
Holy
Ghosts
expressions
theranent
.
3.
Whereas
he
denyes
that
we
con
prove
[
That
the
officer
meaned
by
these
words
,
is
never
understood
of
any
above
the
degree
of
ane
ordinary
minister
]
Let
him
add
this
necessary
limitation
[
when
the
words
are
applyed
to
designe
ane
ordinary
standing
officer
(
which
he
must
admit
,
if
he
speak
to
purpose
)
and
the
proofe
is
very
easy
]
since
the
forementioned
Texts
,
and
all
the
parallels
where
elder
or
Bishop
is
thus
used
,
doe
evince
it
.
Again
4.
Since
this
Informer
with
his
followes
have
diversified
the
Bishop
from
the
elder
in
the
manner
above
exprest
,
we
challing
him
as
the
affirmer
,
to
shew
in
all
the
new
Testament
where
the
officer
meaned
by
this
Word
Episcopus
or
Bishop
,
when
pointing
at
ane
ordinary
standing
officer
in
the
Church
,
is
to
be
understood
of
any
above
the
degree
of
a
Presbyter
or
Pastor
of
a
congregation
;
This
lyes
upon
him
to
mak
good
,
else
if
Episcopuss
denotte
only
a
Presbyter
,
sure
the
cause
of
the
Diocesian
Prelat
is
lost
.
He
fortifies
his
answer
with
two
Reasons
.
1.
We
find
the
name
[
elder
]
given
to
the
Apostles
themselves
1
Pet:
5
:
1.
Iohn
.
2.
1.
&
Epist.
3
:
1.
And
if
Apostles
be
called
[
elders
]
why
not
also
[
Bishops
]
.
Ans:
1.
The
pointe
debeateable
is
[
whether
the
word
[
Bishop
]
and
[
elder
]
doe
Import
the
same
,
officer
,
when
applyed
to
a
constant
standing
officer
in
the
Church
.
]
His
Presbyterian
doubter
offers
the
forementioned
Texts
to
prove
this
,
and
he
answers
,
That
one
of
these
names
are
sometimes
attribut
to
ane
extraordinary
officer
whose
formal
office
is
ceased
.
Now
how
impertinent
this
is
to
the
pointe
and
Queston
let
any
judge
?
To
prove
that
Episcopus
or
Bishop
,
imports
ane
ordinary
standing
officer
above
[
a
Presbyter
,
]
and
that
the
Word
Bishop
and
Presbyter
signify
not
the
same
ordinary
officer
,
because
sometimes
the
Word
elder
may
be
applyed
to
ane
Apostle
,
is
a
consequence
,
as
we
use
so
say
,
a
baculo
ad
angulum
,
and
known
to
no
logik
.
2.
We
told
him
already
that
we
prove
enough
against
him
when
we
prove
that
the
Scripture-Episcopus
,
or
Bishop
,
is
never
found
to
Import
any
ordinary
officer
above
the
Presbyter
,
and
that
the
Office
,
Work
,
Qualifications
,
&
Duties
of
these
officers
,
as
ordinary
standing
officers
,
are
one
and
the
same
.
3.
The
Instance
of
the
Apostles
assumeing
the
name
of
elder
,
doth
in
this
further
appear
to
be
ane
impertinent
exception
to
the
Argument
adduced
,
in
that
the
office
of
ane
Apostle
,
is
in
Scripture
both
by
a
proper
name
,
work
,
qualification
,
call
,
&c.
diversified
and
distinguished
from
that
of
ane
ordinary
elder
;
so
that
though
in
a
general
sense
the
Apostles
be
called
elders
,
their
Specifick
difference
from
the
ordinary
elder
is
apparent
:
But
this
Informer
will
never
shew
the
least
vestigies
of
the
Diocesian
Bishops
distinction
from
the
preaching
elder
or
Presbyter
in
any
of
these
respects
?
And
therefore
his
reason
added
here
viz.
The
Bishop
may
be
called
ane
[
elder
]
as
well
as
ane
Apostle
,
and
yet
be
ane
officer
superior
to
him
,
is
a
begging
of
the
Question
,
since
he
cannot
shew
that
there
is
a
higher
ordinary
officer
then
a
Pastor
or
Presbyter
,
appointed
in
the
Word
,
nor
can
he
shew
any
designation
,
qualification
,
work
,
or
ordination
of
his
Diocesian
Bishop
,
as
distinguished
from
the
Presbyter
by
the
Prelatists
;
And
therefore
the
Apostles
being
called
elders
can
no
more
ground
a
distinction
betwixt
the
Bishop
and
the
elder
,
then
betwixt
the
Pastor
and
the
elder
,
whom
he
acknowledges
to
be
one
and
the
same
,
or
betwixt
the
Minister
and
the
elder
.
I
suppose
one
should
alledge
the
Pastor
to
be
a
higher
officer
then
the
preaching
elder
and
Presbyter
,
notwithstanding
that
in
Scripture
their
names
,
and
qualifications
are
one
,
as
of
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
and
should
ground
his
opinion
on
this
Informers
reason
here
,
(
viz.
)
[
that
though
the
two
words
are
promiscuosly
used
often
times
of
the
same
officer
,
yet
the
officer
meaned
by
one
of
these
may
be
somtimes
understood
of
one
above
the
degree
of
ane
ordinary
Minister
]
what
will
he
say
to
his
own
reason
,
pleading
for
this
foolish
distinction
?
Would
he
not
say
that
the
[
Apostle
]
and
[
elder
]
are
elsewhere
clearly
distinguished
on
Scripture
,
not
the
Pastour
and
the
elder
,
which
answer
he
must
here
bestow
upon
himself
.
Sure
this
man
will
not
deny
but
that
the
various
Church
officers
both
ordinary
and
extraordinary
have
their
proper
formall
office
is
deciphered
,
and
distinguished
from
other
offices
and
officers
,
As
Apostles
,
Prophets
,
Evangelists
,
Pastors
:
and
particularly
he
will
not
deny
that
there
is
such
ane
ordinary
Church
officer
as
the
Pastor
or
Presbyter
,
distinguished
by
his
proper
designation
from
others
,
notwithstanding
that
the
Apostles
took
this
name
in
a
general
sense
:
So
that
from
this
it
followes
that
if
the
Bishops
proper
designation
,
work
,
ordination
,
qualifications
,
as
distinct
from
a
Presbyter
,
cannot
be
produced
,
he
must
be
alwayes
understood
in
that
sense
(
viz.
)
ane
ordinary
Pastour
and
no
more
:
And
not
as
the
Apostles
when
termed
elders
,
whose
distinct
Superior
office
,
and
proportioned
designation
,
is
clearly
extant
in
Scripture
.
His
2d
.
Reason
and
exception
to
the
Argument
is
that
with
us
the
word
[
elder
]
signifies
both
the
preaching
,
and
ruling
elder
,
and
that
he
can
,
upon
as
good
,
and
better
ground
say
,
that
it
signifies
the
[
Bishop
]
&
the
[
Minister
]
both
being
elders
,
but
of
different
dogrees
Ans.
1.
When
he
shall
make
as
evident
from
Scripture
,
the
Diocesian
Bishopes
distinction
from
,
and
Superiority
unto
the
Pastor
or
Presbyter-Bishop
or
Minister
of
a
congregation
,
as
we
have
shown
the
superiority
of
the
preaching
elder
,
abov●…●…he
ruleing
elder
,
and
the
distinction
of
the
one
from
the
other
,
then
his
parallel
will
pass
current
,
but
till
then
it
is
a
meer
non-sequitur
.
The
Scripture
clearly
distinguishes
,
as
we
have
seen
,
the
elder
that
rules
only
,
and
the
elder
that
both
laboures
in
the
word
and
doctrine
,
and
rules
also
,
clearlydiversifying
the
offices
,
and
allowing
honour
to
the
one
above
the
other
.
Now
,
let
this
,
or
any
thing
like
this
,
be
shown
as
to
the
Diocesian
Bishop
and
Presbyter-Bishop
;
where
will
this
Informer
point
us
to
such
a
distinction
of
Bishops
,
&
their
office
and
honour
as
there
is
here
of
the
elders
?
Nay
,
since
in
all
directions
as
to
peoples
obedience
to
Pastors
,
their
is
not
the
least
intimation
of
his
supposed
different
degrees
of
pastours
we
strongly
con
-
the
contrare
:
So
that
we
inferr
the
distinction
betwixt
the
preaching
and
ruleing
elder
,
from
the
Scriptures
clear
specifying
of
different
offices
,
Acts
,
and
degrees
of
honour
accordingly
,
among
elders
,
but
the
sucks
out
of
his
fingers
the
different
degrees
of
Pastors
,
and
the
distinction
of
the
Bishop
from
the
Presbyter
without
the
least
Scripture-warrand
.
2.
He
grossly
belies
our
princples
and
the
truth
,
when
he
maks
his
Presbyterian
doubter
alledge
That
the
word
[
elder
]
signifies
no
more
but
[
a
Minister
of
a
particular
congregation
]
which
he
forged
to
bring
in
,
and
give
some
colour
unto
,
this
his
2d
.
Answer
or
reason
.
But
saltem
mendacem
opportet
esse
memorem
.
A
liar
,
they
say
,
should
have
a
good
memory
;
He
be
contradicts
himself
,
while
suggesting
in
the
objection
,
that
we
hold
that
elder
signifies
no
morethen
a
Pastour
,
yet
telling
us
for
his
answer
,
that
we
hold
the
Word
elder
to
signify
,
sometimes
the
preaching
,
sometimes
the
ruleing
elder
.
It
is
enough
for
our
purpose
that
neither
the
word
Bishop
,
nor
Presbyter
,
doe
signify
any
ordinary
standing
Church
officer
higher
then
a
Pastor
or
Minister
of
the
gospel
labouring
in
the
word
&
doctrine
(
whither
indiscriminatim
,
or
in
fixt
particular
congregations
,
in
the
Apostolick
●…s
,
we
need
not
determin
as
to
our
defence
here
)
an●…
untill
he
prove
that
either
of
the
names
doe
signifie
a
higher
ordinary
officer
(
which
will
be
ad
calendas
Graecas
)
the
argument
stands
good
against
him
.
We
may
here
mind
this
Informer
that
hereafter
he
alledges
that
2
Tim.
4.
The
Deaconta
or
Diaconship
is
in
a
general
sense
attribut
to
Timothy
ane
Evangelist
,
yet
he
would
reject
it
as
ane
absurd
inference
to
conclude
from
this
that
there
are
different
degries
of
deacons
allowed
or
appointed
in
Scripture
Which
notwithstanding
is
his
own
consequence
here
,
and
the
strength
of
his
answer
to
the
premised
Argument
.
As
for
what
he
adds
.
That
Bishops
were
afterwards
sometimes
called
Presbyters
of
their
Churches
,
thogh
unquestionably
Bishops
in
his
sense
,
in
rembemberance
of
the
indifferencie
of
the
names
in
the
times
of
the
new
Testament
,
though
they
were
ordinarly
called
Bishops
,
We
say
it
is
certane
that
the
first
supposed
Bishops
,
named
in
the
pretended
Catalogues
from
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
(
of
which
afterward
)
were
meer
Presbyters
;
and
if
they
were
called
Presbyters
in
rememberance
of
the
new
Testament
tymes
,
the
more
guilty
were
they
who
afterward
made
the
word
Bishop
(
contrare
unto
the
new
Testament
times
and
language
)
the
Characteristick
of
ane
office
Superior
to
a
Pastor
or
Presbyter
,
and
the
rather
in
that
whereas
the
word
Presbyter
or
elder
is
severall
times
assumed
by
the
Apostles
in
a
general
sense
,
the
word
Episcopus
or
Bishop
alwayes
denots
ane
ordinary
Pastor
(
if
we
except
that
Episcopatus
in
Act
1.
Which
our
translators
on
the
Margin
renders
office
or
charge
in
a
general
sense
)
so
that
when
Prelats
ambitious
invention
was
upon
the
wheel
,
it
seems
they
should
rather
have
appropriat
to
themselves
the
word
Presbyter
or
elder
,
a
fit
designation
for
Fathers
of
the
Church
,
as
this
man
calls
them
.
The
doubter
,
nixt
offers
ane
Argument
against
prelacie
from
Philip.
1.
[
where
the
Apostle
speaks
of
Bishops
in
the
plural
number
in
that
Church
,
who
were
only
Ministers
,
since
there
could
not
be
many
Bishops
over
Ministers
in
that
●…nChurch
.
]
we
shall
take
up
here
with
this
hint
of
argument
,
only
adding
,
that
by
confession
of
Prelatists
,
there
was
never
in
one
city
more
then
one
Bishop
even
when
the
inhabitants
were
all
professed
Christians
,
much
more
here
where
the
generalitie
of
the
inhabitants
were
Heathens
and
the
Christians
but
a
small
remnant
.
So
that
the
Apostles
saluting
here
the
●…ishops
in
the
plurall
number
.
Bishops
of
that
one
Church
of
Philippi
,
and
contradistinguishing
them
from
the
Deacons
whom
he
immediatly
subjoyns
to
them
,
he
must
needs
be
understood
of
the
Pastoures
,
and
Presbyters
,
as
the
highest
ordinary
officers
of
that
Church
.
To
answer
this
Argument
,
the
Insormer
hathgathered
together
several
scrapes
and
some
very
odd
and
inconsistent
notions
.
1.
He
tells
us
that
Ambrose
takes
these
Bishops
,
not
to
be
the
Bishops
at
Philippi
,
but
certan
Bishops
present
with
Paul
when
he
wrote
,
&
in
whose
name
he
writs
to
the
Philippians
,
joyning
them
with
himself
.
But
this
gloss
,
as
it
is
cross
to
the
current
of
expositores
,
so
to
common
sense
.
Paul
,
who
only
was
the
Spirit
of
Gods
penman
,
joyns
here
Timothie
with
himself
in
the
inscription
,
as
in
severall
other
Epistles
,
and
having
taken
to
himself
,
and
Timothie
,
the
designation
of
Servants
of
Christ
,
he
doth
nixt
after
this
description
of
himself
and
Timothie
,
according
to
his
usual
Methode
,
describe
these
to
whom
he
writes
,
(
viz.
)
[
to
all
the
Saints
in
Christ
Jesus
which
are
at
Philippi
,
with
the
Bishops
and
Deacons
]
viz
,
there
,
at
Philippi
,
not
with
Paul
,
they
being
ranked
among
these
to
whom
he
writes
,
who
are
contradistinguished
from
Paul
and
Timothy
,
the
directors
of
the
Epistle
,
and
supposed
to
be
with
these
saints
at
Philipp
;
Otherwayes
there
is
no
sense
in
the
Text
to
read
it
thus
,
Paul
and
Timothius
,
to
the
saints
at
Philippi
,
with
the
Bishops
with
Paul
.
Had
the
Apostle
joyned
them
with
himself
,
as
he
doth
Timothy
,
in
the
inscription
,
they
would
have
been
mentioned
in
that
branch
of
the
verse
together
with
him
,
and
not
cast
after
the
adress
,
and
the
description
of
these
to
whom
he
writes
.
The
Apostle
in
Gal.
1.
After
he
hath
described
and
asserted
his
Apostolick
authoritie
,
he
nixt
adds
,
and
all
the
brethren
that
are
with
me
,
to
the
Churches
of
Galatia
.
Thus
he
takes
in
many
with
himself
in
this
inscription
,
before
he
describe
these
,
to
whom
the
Epistle
is
addressed
.
And
should
not
these
supposed
eminent
Bishops
,
have
been
after
this
manner
joyned
with
him
;
Besids
,
will
any
say
that
the
Deacons
,
joyned
with
these
Bishops
in
the
period
of
this
verse
,
were
not
at
Philippi
,
or
belonging
to
that
Church
,
but
with
Paul
?
But
they
are
mean
men
,
and
their
credit
needed
not
to
be
saved
by
such
a
conceit
as
this
.
All
the
fear
of
that
Father
was
,
●…east
these
Bishops
at
Philippi
,
be
found
meer
Presbyters
of
that
Church
;
And
how
to
ward
off
this
blow
,
hoc
opus
hic
labor
ese
.
Well
,
what
further
answers
he
?
He
tells
us
nixt
.
That
others
think
they
were
Bishops
of
theChurches
about
,
conveened
at
Philippie
,
which
Paul
knowing
of
,
salutes
them
with
the
Church
:
Since
he
first
salutes
[
the
Saints
]
as
intending
mainely
to
write
to
them
;
and
then
[
the
Bishops
.
]
So
wee
see
the
Prelatists
saile
every
point
of
the
compasse
,
to
save
the
credit
of
these
Bishops
.
If
Bishops
cannot
be
gotten
sett
beside
the
chaire
with
Paul
,
when
addressing
the
Epistle
(
this
gloss
standing
clearely
antipod
to
the
Text
)
the
nixt
shift
is
,
rather
then
these
Bishops
be
degraded
to
meer
Presbyters
,
to
send
for
some
other
Bishops
to
Philippi
at
this
tyme
of
Paules
Writing
,
that
this
casual
Mustere
of
Bishops
of
other
Churches
,
may
warde
off
the
deadly
blow
which
the
cause
will
gett
,
by
seating
all
these
Bishops
at
Philippie
,
as
officers
of
that
Chuch
;
and
to
compass
this
designe
,
they
must
be
but
occasionally
saluted
here
,
and
not
as
fixed
members
or
officers
thereof
;
upon
the
Apostles
Information
(
comeing
to
late
to
his
ears
from
our
Informer
and
his
fellows
)
that
there
were
several
Magnates
there
,
besides
the
ordinary
Presbyters
at
Philippi
.
But
,
which
also
odd
,
they
must
become
so
humble
as
to
fall
behind
the
Saints
,
the
persons
mainely
written
to
.
Had
our
Informer
left
out
this
clause
(
which
notwithstanding
his
answer
did
require
)
Our
Prelats
Parliaments
order
,
Who
are
before
,
because
behind
the
most
,
would
have
saved
their
reputation
still
.
But
many
of
the
Ancients
are
more
ingenuous
.
Thodoret
confesses
that
Presbyters
are
here
understood
,
because
their
could
not
be
many
Bishops
in
one-city
,
on
Philip.
1.
Oecumenius
,
on
Philip.
1.
Tells
us
,
That
we
are
not
so
to
understand
it
as
if
there
were
many
Bishops
in
one
citty
,
but
that
the
Apostle
calls
the
Presbyters
,
Bishops
.
Chrisost.
ibid.
acknowledges
,
That
they
were
Presbyters
who
were
called
thus
,
because
the
names
were
then
common
and
the
Bishop
,
himself
was
called
Deacon
,
and
that
the
distinction
of
names
came
afterward
.
This
conjecture
is
sib
to
that
other
shift
to
take
off
the
strength
of
our
argument
.
from
Act.
20.
viz.
[
That
these
Elders
were
not
Church
Officers
of
Ephesus
onely
,
but
the
Bishops
of
all
Asia
mett
together
at
Ephesus
,
and
sent
for
by
Paul
from
thence
]
least
if
the
Episcopal
authority
be
found
seated
in
these
Elders
of
Ephesus
,
at
Pauls
last
farewel
,
it
breake
the
Diocesian
Prelat
all
in
peeces
.
But
as
it
is
well
replyed
that
since
Paul
sent
to
Ephesus
for
the
Elders
of
the
Church
,
it
is
a
groundless
conjecture
to
call
them
any
other
Elders
then
of
that
Church
to
which
he
sent
,
and
that
there
is
no
hint
in
the
text
of
any
other
Elders
there
at
that
time
So
this
fancie
is
as
fond
when
applyed
to
this
passage
,
and
may
receave
the
same
reply
.
What
shaddow
of
proof
can
be
produced
that
therewere
any
other
Officers
there
at
this
time
then
the
Bishops
or
Ministers
of
this
Church
?
And
what
Logick
,
I
pray
,
or
sense
is
there
in
this
inference
,
that
because
the
Apostle
first
salutes
,
all
the
Saints
or
the
Church
collective
in
bulke
,
and
then
the
Church
Officers
,
Bishops
and
Deacons
,
or
the
Church
representative
in
special
,
that
therefore
he
salutes
these
Church
Officers
as
casually
there
,
and
not
as
Officers
of
that
Church
.
Beside
,
had
the
Apostle
saluted
them
as
casually
present
,
they
would
have
been
saluted
with
every
Saint
in
Christ
,
Chap.
4
:
21.
rather
then
in
the
inscription
.
The
English
Annotations
thus
sense
it
[
That
by
the
Bishops
and
Deacons
,
we
are
to
understand
the
whole
Ministery
at
Philippi
consisting
of
Presbyters
,
to
whom
the
government
of
the
Church
was
committed
,
and
Deacons
,
who
not
only
had
the
care
of
the
poor
,
but
also
assisted
the
Ministers
in
their
Ecclesiastick
function
.
]
But
our
Informer
hath
a
third
Answer
,
wherein
,
He
grants
that
these
Bishops
and
Deacons
were
[
Officers
of
this
Church
]
and
askes
where
were
the
ruling
Elders
]
here
,
and
if
we
say
they
are
included
in
the
word
Bishop
,
then
he
tells
us
that
upon
better
ground
he
can
affirme
,
that
Bishops
here
signifies
both
the
superiour
Bishop
and
the
ordinary
Minister
,
who
may
be
called
Bishop
as
well
as
Epaphroditus
is
called
ane
[
Apostle
.
]
Answ.
1.
Our
Argument
from
this
place
and
such
like
,
beside
the
Scriptures
silence
as
to
the
Diocesian
Bishop
,
is
,
That
the
Scripture
Bishop
doth
therein
stand
so
described
and
qualified
,
that
it
is
impossibe
to
understand
him
of
any
other
officer
then
a
meer
Presbyter
,
which
is
most
manifast
here
,
It
being
impossible
that
a
multiplicity
of
Bishopes
could
be
at
Philippi
,
as
is
universally
acknowledged
.
And
if
he
grant
that
these
Bishops
were
officers
,
of
that
Church
in
Philippi
,
he
must
either
say
they
were
meer
Preebyters
,
which
is
all
wee
seek
,
and
the
yeelding
of
his
cause
,
or
he
must
prove
that
either
here
or
els
where
,
the
word
Episcopus
or
Bishop
designes
the
diocesian
Bishop
,
and
place
a
multiplicity
of
such
Bishops
here
against
the
old
Cannons
,
particularly
that
of
Nice
.
But
2.
As
to
what
he
sayes
of
the
ruleing
elders
,
it
is
utterly
impertinent
and
answered
already
.
We
proved
the
ruling
elders
office
,
as
distinct
from
the
preaching
elder
,
by
clear
Scripture
grounds
,
and
did
shew
that
the
Scripture
points
out
two
sorts
of
elders
,
giving
them
both
this
generall
name
of
elder
,
&
then
distinguishing
them
into
such
as
rule
,
and
such
as
labour
in
the
word
and
doctrine
:
But
this
Informer
will
never
prove
that
[
Episcopus
,
or
Bishop
]
.
designes
two
sorts
of
Pastors
a
higher
and
a
lower
,
or
that
there
is
any
difference
of
degrees
in
the
pastoral
office
:
So
that
he
cannot
include
here
his
Superior
imaginarie
Bishop
of
whose
office
the
Scripture
is
utterly
silent
.
As
we
may
,
the
elder
in
the
Bishop
.
And
till
he
make
the
Diocessian
Prelat
appear
in
Scripture
,
we
must
still
hold
that
when
Ministers
are
called
Bishops
,
they
get
the
proper
specifick
designation
,
and
characteristick
of
their
office
,
&
are
not
called
●…o
in
a
general
figurative
,
sense
or
Catachrestice
,
as
Epaphroditus
is
called
the
Philippians
Apostle
,
or
messenger
.
But
how
?
viz.
their
messenger
sent
to
Paul
,
who
ministered
to
his
wants
.
Phil.
2
:
25.
So
2
Cor.
8.
v.
23.
Titus
and
others
are
called
the
Apostles
and
messengers
of
the
Corinthianes
viz
(
as
it
is
there
inumar
)
in
that
bussines
of
the
collection
for
the
Saincts
at
Jerusalem
,
for
which
end
they
were
sent
to
the
Corinthians
.
So
the
Spirit
of
God
in
Scripture
,
both
in
holding
out
the
distince
office
of
Apostle
properly
so
called
(
for
I
hope
our
Informer
will
not
upon
this
ground
make
different
degrees
of
Apostles
as
he
doth
of
Pastors
)
and
likewayes
in
the
very
manner
of
these
designations
,
and
their
circumstances
,
when
atribut
to
such
inferiour
officers
,
doth
state
the
distinction
betwixt
them
and
ane
Apostle
in
his
proper
acception
,
clearly
holding
out
that
they
had
neither
name
nor
thing
of
the
apostolick
office
properly
so
called
,
but
that
Ministers
are
so
improperly
only
called
Bishops
,
He
will
never
prove
.
But
now
what
is
his
last
shift
?
It
maybe
(
saith
he
)
their
were
no
Bishops
settled
as
yet
at
Philippie
,
&
so
it
may
very
well
be
.
But
our
Informer
here
supposes
two
things
in
Question
which
he
will
prove
ad
calendas
graecas
1.
That
their
were
Bishops
,
superiour
in
office
&
degree
to
Presbyters
,
appointedby
the
Apostles
.
The
first
and
second
Answer
tells
us
of
Bishops
(
he
means
diocesian
Bishops
)
either
with
Paul
when
he
wrot
to
Philippi
—
Or
come
from
their
diocesses
(
forsooth
)
and
present
accidentally
there
:
And
haveing
told
us
that
the
diocesian
Bishops
were
among
the
rest
of
the
Presbyters
Bishops
in
his
third
answer
,
His
last
shift
is
,
that
they
were
not
it
may
be
,
yet
sett
up
at
Philippy
,
But
remark
,
that
as
all
these
proteus
like
shifts
and
answers
contradicts
one
another
,
So
they
all
lean
upon
this
Egyptian
reed
,
that
the
Diocesian
Bishop
is
ane
officer
divinely
appointed
,
and
then
existant
.
Now
,
how
impertinent
dealing
this
is
,
let
any
judge
.
We
prove
from
this
and
many
such
like
texts
,
that
the
scripture
Bishop
is
a
meer
presbyter
,
they
in
all
there
answers
doe
coyne
glosses
of
these
Texts
,
which
doe
suppose
the
Jus
&
existence
,
of
the
diocesian
prelat
,
which
is
the
very
quaesitum
,
&
the
thing
in
Question
.
2.
He
supposes
that
the
Bishop
over
presbyters
(
the
Chimaera
of
his
own
braine
)
though
he
was
not
settled
at
this
tyme
,
yet
was
to
be
Settled
afterward
at
Philippi
.
But
how
proves
he
that
the
Apostle
was
to
setle
after
ward
such
a
prelat
there
?
This
is
another
of
their
shifts
,
that
the
Apostles
first
sett
up
prebyters
,
keeping
still
the
government
of
the
Churches
in
their
oun
hand
,
till
at
last
towards
their
end
they
sett
up
prelats
,
committing
the
government
to
them
.
But
how
doth
he
or
they
prove
this
after-institution
of
the
diocesian
Bishop
?
we
have
already
abundantly
evinced
the
Contrary
,
both
that
the
presbyters
were
the
highest
ordinary
officers
established
by
the
Apostles
,
&
that
without
any
such
fancied
reserve
as
this
is
,
the
wholl
power
both
of
order
&
jurisdiction
was
committed
to
them
,
&
exercised
by
them
,
&
supposed
by
the
Apostles
to
continow
so
in
their
last
farewelles
to
the
Churches
:
and
therfor
may
conclude
that
the
Bishops
of
Philippi
were
meer
presbyters
:
and
that
Paul
acknowledged
,
&
knew
no
other
.
Arnold
:
in
his
Lux
in
Tinebr
.
:
(
on
Act.
20.
17.
He
called
the
elders
,
&c.
represents
the
Orthodox
opinion
,
thus
,
Episcopos
&
Presbyteros
,
&c.
—
That
Bishops
and
Presbyters
are
not
names
of
diverse
gifts
in
the
Church
,
but
of
one
and
the
same
office
,
because
they
who
are
here
called
Presbyters
,
verse
28.
are
called
Bishops
.
The
Papists
object
(
saith
he
as
this
Informer
that
in
these
times
the
names
were
common
,
but
yet
the
[
office
]
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
diverse
.
he
answers
1.
This
is
to
affirme
,
not
to
prove
.
2.
When
offices
are
distinct
,
there
also
the
names
are
diverse
,
3.
there
was
one
office
both
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
viz.
the
office
of
teaching
.
4.
Upon
the
Papists
supposition
there
can
and
ought
to
be
only
one
Bishop
in
one
city
,
but
so
it
is
that
there
were
here
many
,
therefore
[
Bishops
]
signifie
[
Presbyters
.
]
Thus
Arnold
.
classes
our
Informer
among
the
Papists
in
this
point
,
and
represents
our
principles
as
the
Orthodox
principles
of
the
Protestant
Churches
,
and
so
in
several
other
passages
as
we
may
after
shew
.
Chamier
,
(
de
Oecum
:
Pontif
:
lib.
10.
cap.
3.
)
Haveing
represented
the
Papists
glosses
upon
Matth.
20
.
-25
[
the
Kings
of
the
Gentils
]
&c.
the
same
with
our
Informers
,
viz.
That
our
Lord
discharged
only
that
sort
of
Tyrannical
Domination
,
&
haveing
answered
and
confuted
them
,
as
we
heard
Iunius
and
Whittaker
did
before
;
and
haveing
prefixed
to
the
7.
chap.
this
cirle
,
An
jure
divino
&c.
[
Whether
the
Bishop
be
greater
than
the
Presbyter
by
divine
right
]
he
represents
the
affirmative
answer
as
Bellarmins
,
together
with
his
arguments
and
confuts
them
,
and
haveing
proved
Presbyters
power
in
ordination
,
from
[
their
imposeing
of
hands
upon
Timothy
]
,
he
afterward
confuts
the
Papists
,
(
&
this
Informers
)
pretences
for
Prelacy
from
the
Government
of
the
jewish
Church
,
&
the
Apostles
Superiority
to
the
seventy
disciples
:
and
adducing
Bellarmin's
argument
from
this
passage
(
act.
20
:
28.
)
to
prove
that
the
Holy
Ghost
sett
up
Bishops
,
he
answers
thus
-
locus
exactis
alienus
est
,
&c.
—
that
place
of
the
acts
is
impertinently
cited
,
for
from
thence
it
is
evident
that
Bishops
and
Presbyters
are
the
same
,
Witnes
Ierom.
and
others
,
for
they
whom
Luke
before
called
elders
,
or
Presbyters
of
the
Church
,
those
Paul
afterward
affirmes
to
have
been
made
Bishops
by
the
Spirit
,
and
indeed
for
feeding
,
and
(
as
the
latine
Interpreter
)
for
governing
the
Church
.
]
So
we
see
Chamier
:
classeth
also
our
Informer
among
the
Papists
in
those
his
prelatick
principles
and
glosses
upon
those
Scriptures
.
Calvin
upon
Tit.
1
:
7.
Collects
the
identity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
from
the
Apostle's
calling
them
Bishops
,
who
were
before
called
Presbyters
,
and
(
as
we
heard
above
)
reprehends
,
upon
this
ground
,
the
distinction
placed
betwixt
them
,
as
profane
and
anti-scriptural
.
The
same
he
inferrs
upon
Act.
20.
where
the
Presbyters
of
Ephesus
are
called
Bishops
,
makeing
our
Informer's
great
topick
anent
the
calling
of
such
Ministers
Bishops
,
qui
primas
tenebant
in
singulis
civitatibus
,
or
had
a
precedency
in
every
city
,
a
corruption
and
sin
of
those
times
.
The
Dutch
annot
:
on
Act.
20
:
28.
observe
that
those
termed
Bishops
in
this
verse
,
being
called
elders
in
the
17.
verse
[
it
doth
then
appear
that
in
the
Holy
Scripture
there
is
no
difference
made
betwixt
elders
and
Bishops
.
]
referring
us
to
Phil.
1.
1.
verse
,
upon
whch
passage
they
assert
the
same
thing
:
and
especially
from
the
plurality
of
such
Bishops
in
one
and
the
same
Church
,
conclude
this
,
referring
us
to
1
Tim.
3.
1.
verse
.
and
Tit.
1
chap.
5
,
7
,
v.
upon
which
places
they
obserue
,
that
by
Bishops
and
Elders
one
kinde
of
Ministry
is
signified
,
viz.
the
labourers
in
the
word
and
doctrine
,
citeing
1
Tim.
5
:
17.
2
Pet.
5
:
1
,
2.
and
from
the
Apostles
description
of
the
Bishop
in
the
1
Tim.
3.
they
conclude
that
by
Bishop
we
are
to
understand
all
teachers
of
the
Church
without
difference
,
referring
again
to
the
forementioned
places
.
The
english
annot
.
expresse
the
same
sense
of
these
places
under
debate
,
and
upon
Acts
11.
30
,
v.
adduce
both
fathers
and
councells
to
prove
this
point
.
The
Nixt
Scripture
argument
which
the
Doubter
bings
against
prelacie
,
and
the
Last
too
,
is
taken
from
Ephes.
4.
11.
[
where
the
Apostle
reckons
up
Church
officers
,
&
makes
no
mention
of
Bishops
]
.
Our
argument
from
the
Scripture
enumeration
of
Church
officers
here
,
and
in
the
parallels
1.
Cor.
12
:
28.
Rom.
12
:
6
,
7
,
8
,
Is
this
[
That
the
Holy
Ghost
therein
describing
purposly
the
various
kindes
of
Church
officers
,
and
speaking
of
the
office
of
the
pastour
,
makes
no
distinction
of
a
higher
and
lower
pastour
,
nor
gives
the
least
hint
of
either
Name
or
thing
of
a
diocesian
prelat
,
although
both
ordinary
and
extraordinary
officers
,
be
enumerat
,
even
the
ruleing
elder
and
the
deacone
:
from
which
silence
of
the
Scriptur
,
as
to
this
imaginarie
Bishop
,
we
conclud
him
to
be
no
plant
of
the
heavenly
fathers
planting
,
by
the
same
reason
that
our
divines
conclude
the
pope
to
be
such
.
To
this
our
Informer
answers
.
1.
That
it
is
ill
reasoning
,
that
because
such
ane
officer
is
not
in
such
a
particular
place
,
or
,
enumeration
,
that
therefor
he
is
no
where
to
be
found
in
scripture
,
for
how
prove
we
that
the
Apostle
intended
in
that
place
,
a
cempleat
enumeration
Ans:
he
is
guilty
of
a
palpable
forgerie
here
,
whillmaking
his
Doubter
instance
in
this
place
only
,
as
if
we
held
,
that
there
is
here
a
full
enumeration
,
wheras
he
cannot
but
know
that
presbyterians
in
this
argument
against
prelats
,
as
also
protestants
in
opposition
to
the
papacie
,
doe
,
together
with
this
passage
,
joyn
the
parallels
.
1.
Cor.
12
:
28.
Rom.
12
:
16.
In
which
places
collated
,
there
is
found
a
compleat
,
enumeration
of
all
Church
officers
ordinary
,
or
extraordinary
,
and
adiscoverie
of
their
duties
,
and
gifts
who
are
ordinary
officers
,
even
of
the
very
Deacon
.
Lykwayes
,
we
take
in
with
these
Texts
,
the
several
descriptions
of
ordinary
officers
,
and
particularly
of
the
Bishop
,
&
his
gifts
and
duties
,
found
in
any
other
places
of
the
new
Testamament
.
And
since
this
Informer
cannot
deny
the
Apostles
,
or
rather
the
Spirit
of
God
his
intention
of
a
full
enumeration
in
these
places
Collated
(
Such
a
full
Catalogue
of
Church-officers
being
therein
found
)
our
argument
from
the
Scriptures
utter
silence
of
the
Diocesian
prelat
in
all
these
places
,
stands
firme
by
his
own
Confession
,
until
he
shall
disprove
this
silence
and
prove
the
Contrary
.
2.
Wee
might
tell
him
also
,
that
upon
his
own
ground
,
even
the
Silence
of
this
Text
as
to
the
Prelat
,
will
prove
our
point
;
for
it
being
upon
the
one
hand
the
Apostles
scop
to
enumerat
the
most
illustrous
excellent
gifts
and
offices
given
by
Christ
to
the
Church
,
for
her
grouth
and
edification
,
as
his
royal
Mediatorie
Donations
upon
his
ascention
into
heaven
:
and
upon
the
other
hand
,
the
Apostle
descending
as
low
in
his
enumeration
;
as
the
Pastor
,
and
teacher
,
whom
this
man
holds
to
be
officers
inferiour
to
the
Diocesian
Prelat
,
Certainely
upon
both
these
grounds
,
he
would
have
mentioned
him
in
order
to
this
scope
,
had
such
ane
officer
been
allowed
or
apappointed
.
And
as
for
this
Text
,
it
is
enough
if
we
prove
that
the
Apostle
intended
therein
though
not
a
compleat
enumeration
of
all
,
yet
of
the
most
excellent
functions
and
officers
given
by
Christ
to
his
Church
,
amongst
which
the
Diocesian
Bishops
office
hath
the
prime
place
in
this
mans
Judgement
.
How
then
(
I
pray
)
can
he
be
here
ommitted
,
and
ane
inferior
officer
named
,
His
2d
.
Answer
is
.
That
Bishops
are
comprehended
under
[
pastoures
]
and
teachers
Bishops
being
such
though
of
a
Superior
degree
to
ordinary
Pastoures
.
Ans.
first
that
Scripture
Bishops
are
comprehended
under
the
pastor
and
teacher
,
is
certan
,
but
that
the
Diocesian
should
be
so
,
is
Impossible
,
and
by
him
gratis
dictum
.
For.
1.
he
cannot
shew
that
in
these
enumerations
,
the
Superior
officer
gets
the
designation
of
the
inferior
,
now
he
holds
the
Diocesian
Prelat
to
be
ane
office
and
order
Superiour
to
the
Pastor
.
Nixt
this
were
no
proper
enumeration
,
as
he
acknowledges
there
is
here
,
of
distinct
&
officers
offices
,
if
they
had
not
all
there
proper
distinct
names
and
designations
.
And
since
Apostles
,
Evangelists
,
Pastors
,
are
proper
designations
of
distinct
officers
;
and
offices
,
why
ought
not
the
Diocesian
Bishop
to
have
had
his
proper
epithet
,
and
to
have
come
in
between
the
Evangelist
,
and
the
Pastor
,
for
this
was
his
proper
Classe
as
the
higher
Church
officer
.
Againe
,
This
answer
and
shift
is
the
same
with
that
of
the
Papists
to
save
the
pope
,
for
they
answer
our
divines
Argument
from
this
Text
,
that
he
is
included
in
the
office
of
the
Apostle
.
But
as
we
tell
them
that
according
to
there
account
and
Character
of
him
,
he
ought
to
have
had
a
more
peculiar
designation
,
So
we
may
say
to
this
Informer
here
.
Besides
,
may
not
Patriarches
,
and
all
the
rabble
of
the
popes
locusts
have
this
pretended
for
them
,
that
they
are
included
in
some
of
these
officers
?
Sure
we
may
in
Charity
suppose
that
if
a
Papist
were
pleading
thus
,
This
man
would
tell
him
,
that
it
were
no
defence
to
shape
out
officers
of
their
own
devising
,
&
then
alledge
they
are
included
in
some
of
these
scripture
designations
,
which
answer
suites
his
own
case
,
Since
he
cannot
make
it
appear
that
the
Diocesian
Bishop
is
appointed
in
Scripture
,
And
we
have
proved
his
office
to
be
contrary
unto
it
.
Lastly
.
Hetels
us
[
That
if
we
will
have
here
ane
perfect
enumeration
of
all
Church
officers
,
we
must
comprehend
[
ruleing
elders
,
and
deacons
]
in
some
of
these
words
,
and
why
may
not
he
doe
so
with
[
Bishops
.
]
Ans.
1.
We
need
not
,
in
order
to
our
scope
nor
argument
from
this
text
,
alledge
either
a
full
enumeration
of
all
officers
,
or
goe
about
to
includ
[
elder
]
and
[
Deacon
]
under
some
of
these
words
,
It
being
,
enough
if
wee
con
shew
that
the
most
eminent
Church
officers
given
for
the
Churches
edification
,
are
here
enumerat
,
&
that
the
enumeration
comes
the
length
of
ane
officer
inferior
to
the
Prelat
,
in
this
mans
esteem●…
,
down
from
ane
Apostle
;
which
renders
our
Argument
from
this
Text
impregnable
.
2.
If
we
should
include
the
elder
and
Deacon
,
in
one
of
these
words
,
we
should
but
include
therein
inferiour
officers
of
divine
appointment
in
the
designation
of
Superior
,
which
he
will
acknowledge
to
be
no
unusual
thing
in
Scripture
.
But
his
including
the
Diocesian
Bishop
is
both
the
including
of
a
forged
anti
Scriptural
officer
of
his
own
deviseing
:
and
likewayes
,
if
he
includ
him
under
the
Pastor
and
teacher
,
ane
including
and
comprehending
of
a
Superiour
officer
under
the
designation
of
ane
inferiour
,
both
which
differences
doe
cutt
the
sinnewes
of
Reason
and
answer
.
CHAP.
XII
.
The
Informer
offers
Scripture
warrand
for
Bishops
.
His
Argument
from
the
Government
of
the
Church
under
the
old
Testament
,
and
from
the
Apostles
superioritie
to
the
seventie
disciples
,
examined
.
The
first
Argument
concludes
,
a
lawful
subordination
of
Church-offiers
;
in
general
,
but
reaches
no
help
to
the
Diocesian
Erastian
Bishop
.
The
second
beggs
the
question
in
supposing
Prelats
to
succeed
the
Apostles
immediately
,
and
Pastoures
,
the
seventy
disciples
;
and
from
a
Superiority
among
officers
of
different
kindes
groundlesly
concludes
a
superiority
among
officers
of
the
same
kind
.
No
Image
of
our
Prelacy
in
the
Iewish-Church-Government
,
or
in
the
Apostles
superioritie
above
other
Church-officers
.
The
Informer
contradicts
his
fellowpleaders
in
this
cause
and
himself
also
.
THE
Doubter
over
come
by
this
Informers
mighty
Answers
(
forsooth
)
[
Confesseth
Episcopacie
not
to
be
unlawful
,
and
only
pleads
that
it
may
become
inexpedient
,
and
a
better
put
in
its
place
]
Whereupon
he
promises
[
That
if
we
will
not
stand
out
against
light
,
he
will
let
us
see
warrand
in
the
word
for
Bishops
]
and
so
he
may
easily
doe
.
But
the
Bishop
he
must
let
us
see
the
warrand
for
is
the
Diocesian
Erastian
Bishop
,
haveing
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
bound
to
preach
to
no
flock
,
and
deriving
all
his
power
from
the
civil
Magistrat
.
Now
,
when
he
hath
given
us
Scripture
warrand
for
such
ane
ordinary
Church-officer
,
as
is
of
this
mould
under
the
new
Testament
,
erit
mihi
magnus
Apollo
.
Wee
see
he
still
walks
in
darknes
as
to
the
State
of
the
Question
,
and
dare
not
exhibit
to
us
the
mould
of
the
present
Bishop
now
existent
,
when
he
offers
to
produce
Scripture
warrands
for
him
.
His
1.
Warrand
is
;
that
under
the
old
Testament
(
setting
aside
the
hie
Priest
who
was
a
Typ
of
Christ
)
there
was
a
subordination
among
the
rest
of
the
Priests
,
mention
being
made
of
chief
Priests
2
King
19
:
2.
Ezr:
8
:
29.
&c.
Matth.
2
:
3.
Act.
19
:
14.
And
over
these
againe
a
chief
priest
under
the
hiest
preist
,
who
only
was
Typical
,
since
two
hie
priests
are
sometimes
mentioned
,
Luc.
3
:
2
,
So
there
was
a
subordination
among
the
Levites
Exod.
6
:
2.
Numb.
3
:
18
,
19.
with
24.
30.
v.
Neh.
11
:
22.
One
is
set
over
the
Levites
,
called
by
the
Greek
,
Episcopus
,
and
another
over
the
Priests
v
14.
From
all
which
places
he
concluds
,
That
subordination
among
Churchmen
is
no
such
odious
thing
as
some
believe
]
Ansr.
〈◊〉
.
If
this
be
all
the
Conclusion
which
this
man
drawes
out
against
us
from
the
premised
trite
argument
of
Bellarmin
and
others
,
viz.
that
there
is
a
subordination
among
Church
men
,
It
will
never
help
him
,
nor
wound
our
cause
in
the
least
;
for
as
we
grant
without
the
least
preiudice
thereunto
,
that
there
is
a
subordination
,
both
of
Courts
and
Church-officers
under
the
new
Testament
,
Pastours
being
above
ruleing
elders
,
and
they
aboue
Deacons
.
Presbyteries
also
being
above
Kirk
Sessions
,
Synods
above
Presbyteries
,
National
assemblies
above
Synods
,
as
the
jewes
had
there
Supreme
Sanhedrin
,
Exod.
24.
2
Chron
19.
And
also
betwixt
the
Sanhedrin
and
Synagogue
,
a
middle
Ecclesiastick
Court
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Pre●…bytery
Luk.
22
:
66.
Act.
22.
5.
and
also
their
least
Sinagogue-Iudicatorie
,
wherein
was
both
ruleing
,
and
censures
.
Act.
26
:
11.
Compared
with
Act.
9
:
1
,
2.
And
with
Mark
.
5
▪
35
,
36.
Act.
18
:
8.
Answerable
to
our
Kirk
Sessions
.
which
is
largely
demonstrat
by
Mr
Gillespie
,
Aar
.
rod.
lib.
1.
Cap.
3.
pag.
8.
to
38.
As
this
(
I
say
)
is
clear
,
so
it
is
evident
,
that
it
is
much
more
then
a
meer
subordination
of
Courts
or
officers
,
which
he
most
prove
if
he
will
conclude
any
thing
to
purpose
against
us
,
viz
,
The
Prelats
sole
decisive
power
,
and
negative
voice
in
judicatories
,
and
their
deryvation
of
all
their
authority
from
the
Magistrat
as
his
deputs
,
in
their
administration
.
Now
,
from
the
subordination
of
Courts
,
or
officers
,
mentioned
under
the
old
dispensation
,
to
conclude
[
the
lawfulness
of
a
Prelat
(
a
pretended
Minister
of
the
new
Testament
)
his
taking
from
other
Ministers
all
the
power
of
Government
,
contrary
to
our
Lords
express
command
,
his
laying
,
aside
the
preaching
Talent
,
and
giving
up
all
the
ecclesiastick
authority
which
he
pretendes
unto
,
to
one
who
is
not
,
Qua
talis
,
so
much
as
a
Church
member
]
is
a
wide
and
wilde
conclusion
:
yet
that
this
is
the
conclusion
which
he
must
infer
to
prove
his
point
,
is
beyond
all
Question
.
2.
Giveing
,
not
granting
to
him
that
there
was
under
the
old
dispensation
such
a
Hierarchy
as
he
pleades
for
,
and
such
a
difference
of
degrees
among
Church
officers
,
as
he
represents
,
how
will
he
prove
this
consequence
[
that
the
Government
of
the
Church
under
the
New
Testament
must
be
thus
moulded
,
and
have
the
same
degrees
of
Ministers
,
as
the
Jewes
had
of
Priests
and
Levits
]
this
Connexion
he
supposes
here
,
and
offers
afterward
some
smatterings
in
proof
thereof
,
but
with
what
success
we
shall
see
with
in
a
little
.
Will
he
say
that
it
is
lawful
to
bring
into
the
christian
Church
every
point
of
the
jewish
policy
?
Bilson
,
ane
English
Bishop
(
even
in
pleading
for
Prelacie
)
will
give
him
the
lie
if
he
say
so
,
and
shew
him
the
disparitie
betwixt
their
Church
government
and
oures
:
Perp
:
Gov.
Chap.
2.
[
for
the
tribe
of
Levi
(
saith
he
)
was
neither
subjected
to
the
Government
,
of
another
tribe
,
nor
without
manifest
confusion
could
it
want
all
Government
,
wherefore
as
all
the
rest
,
so
this
tribe
also
had
its
proper
Magistrats
,
to
wit
,
it
s
,
Pinces
Elders
,
judges
&c.
—
He
adds
,
that
the
Jewes
Law
contained
in
the
books
of
Moses
,
comprehended
the
mould
of
their
civill
Government
,
and
the
Priests
and
Levits
being
most
skilful
in
this
knowledge
,
we
need
not
wonder
that
they
were
placed
in
the
same
benches
with
the
judges
]
(
this
we
offer
to
our
Informers
observation
,
to
snew
how
this
Bishop
Pulles
his
care
in
argueing
from
the
Priests
sitting
in
civill
courts
numb
.
11
,
To
Justifie
our
Prelats
civill
rule
)
but
now
to
our
purpose
in
relation
to
Church
government
,
he
adds
further
[
that
the
offices
of
the
Sanctuarie
,
and
rites
and
ceremonies
of
the
Sacrifices
,
from
which
all
the
other
tribes
except
the
Levites
were
restrained
,
were
not
of
one
kinde
;
So
that
it
needs
be
no
wonder
that
these
degrees
of
the
administrators
were
distinguished
according
to
the
diversitie
of
offices
and
services
.
But
in
the
Church
of
Christ
,
the
Word
and
Sacraments
concredited
to
all
Ministers
without
distinction
,
as
they
are
of
one
kinde
,
neither
admitts
any
difference
of
administration
,
or
celebration
,
so
neither
doe
they
require
different
degrees
of
Ministers
]
Thus
he
.
Sure
had
our
Informer
listened
unto
this
information
of
this
Father
of
the
Church
(
as
he
speaks
)
he
would
have
spared
this
Argument
as
not
worth
the
repeating
.
The
Ministry
of
the
Levites
who
served
in
the
sojourneing
Tabernacle
,
is
compared
to
warrfare
Numb
.
4.
Because
of
the
Militarie
order
which
the
Priests
and
Levits
observed
in
their
externall
Ministry
.
Where
there
was
one
common
Temple
,
a
common
Ministry
of
the
priesthood
,
a
thousand
administrators
in
every
family
(
the
twenty
four
families
who
served
each
their
week
in
the
Temple
being
called
courses
by
Luke
,
&
stationes
by
the
Talmudists
,
the
term
being
borrowed
from
warrfare
,
as
Scaliger
observes
(
in
Canonibus
isagogicis
)
it
is
no
strange
thing
if
in
this
Ministry
,
and
Priesthood
,
their
were
such
degrees
of
administrators
;
but
the
Prieststood
being
changed
,
there
is
made
of
necessity
a
change
of
the
law
,
saith
the
Apostle
Hebr.
7
:
12.
And
the
policie
suitable
to
the
state
of
that
Church
must
by
necessary
consequence
be
changed
also
.
3.
The
antecedent
of
the
Argument
from
that
policie
,
will
be
a
harder
taske
then
he
imagines
,
and
this
Informer
would
be
quite
out
if
put
to
draw
us
the
Image
and
lineaments
of
our
present
prelacie
in
the
Jewish
Church
Government
.
For
1.
We
cleared
above
that
the
Ecclesiastick
Sanhedrin
was
distinct
from
the
civil
,
and
that
the
priests
had
a
distinct
independent
authority
and
ministery
:
But
the
prelats
derive
all
their
spiritual
authority
from
the
Magistrat
.
2.
He
cannot
shew
that
either
the
Highpriest
,
or
any
inferiour
priests
had
the
sole
decisive
Suffrage
in
their
ecclesiastick
Courts
,
or
such
a
negative
voice
as
the
prelats
exercise
&
assumein
their
pretended
Synods
and
presbyteries
.
The
learned
Iunius
will
informe
our
Informer
(
De
Cler.
Cap.
24
Not
13.
)
That
,
par
consortium
honoris
&
potestatis
fuit
inter
sacerdotes
,
sed
ordine
impari
,
qua
familiarum
,
qua
temperis
respectu
.
Penes
concessum
sacerdotum
ex
lege
fuit
ordinaria
jurisdictio
ecclesiastica
That
is
,
Among
the
priests
there
was
a
like
participation
of
honour
and
power
,
though
in
a
different
order
:
partly
in
respect
of
families
,
and
partly
in
respect
of
times
,
the
ordinarie
ecclesiastick
jurisdiction
belonged
to
the
assemblie
of
the
priests
according
to
the
Law
.
Thus
he
▪
Sure
then
it
belonged
not
to
the
Highpriest
alone
,
farr
less
to
any
inferiour
priests
,
and
therefore
none
of
them
all
had
our
prelats
negative
voice
in
judicatories
,
or
a
sole
decisive
Suffrage
,
so
that
they
were
farr
from
our
prelats
principality
as
to
directive
and
corrective
power
.
And
therefore
though
we
should
grant
that
his
argument
will
hold
as
to
our
being
oblidged
by
the
policie
of
the
Jewes
,
and
to
have
the
government
of
the
Gospel
Church
this
moulded
,
yet
our
present
hierarchie
is
so
different
from
it
,
that
it
will
not
help
his
cause
in
the
least
.
But
the
doubter
objects
[
that
there
ought
not
to
be
such
a
subordination
under
the
new
Testament
.
]
To
which
he
answers
,
[
That
the
Old
Testament-subordination
being
to
maintaine
order
and
unitie
in
the
in
the
Church
,
there
is
the
same
reason
for
it
under
the
new
,
and
stronger
,
because
the
Christian
Church
is
of
larger
extent
then
the
Iewish
,
and
the
danger
of
schismes
,
and
the
necessity
of
preventing
them
,
the
greater
:
And
what
better
way
for
this
then
Gods
way
thus
exemplary
pointed
out
to
us
,
although
the
New
Testament
gave
no
other
ground
,
Gods
own
model
being
best
for
the
Church
.
]
I
answ.
1.
He
must
plead
for
much
more
then
a
meer
subordination
of
Officers
,
if
he
speak
to
the
point
,
as
is
clear
from
that
is
said
.
And
his
Doubter
,
(
if
he
had
dealt
fairely
)
should
have
objected
[
that
the
New
Testament
Church
ought
not
to
have
the
same
mould
of
government
that
the
Jewish
had
,
and
that
there
is
a
vast
disparitie
betwixt
their
prelatick
Erastian
Hierarchie
,
and
the
Jewish
Church-Government
]
Both
which
grounds
doe
break
the
force
of
his
argument
.
But
it
is
good
that
our
Informer
hath
the
doubters
arguments
and
objections
of
his
own
moulding
.
2.
Though
he
know
reason
of
a
subordination
under
the
Old
Testament
(
he
should
have
said
of
that
particular
mould
of
government
which
the
Iewish
Church
had
but
his
general
one
,
to
maintaine
order
and
union
in
Gods
Church
(
he
should
have
said
in
that
Church
,
under
that
special
dispensation
,
)
yet
we
have
showen
him
some
Reasons
of
their
particular
policie
which
doe
not
reach
us
.
And
shall
onely
resume
to
him
that
we
have
neither
.
1.
Such
a
distinction
of
tribes
.
Nor
2.
A
common
Temple
,
and
common
Ministry
in
one
Temple
for
the
universal
,
or
for
any
National
Church
,
as
they
.
Nor
3.
Have
we
such
types
and
shaddowes
,
from
which
(
as
upon
the
former
grounds
)
this
mould
of
government
did
flow
.
Nor
4.
Such
various
sanctuarie
offices
,
and
degrees
,
and
varieties
of
administrations
,
requiring
(
as
Bishop
Bilson
hath
told
him
)
such
varietie
and
different
degrees
of
Administratores
,
the
Word
and
Sacraments
being
concredited
to
all
Ministers
without
distinction
&c.
Besides
,
hath
not
the
Apostle
in
the
forementioned
passage
,
Hebr.
7
:
12.
Given
this
Informer
a
sufficient
Reason
why
wee
are
not
tyed
to
the
same
Policie
,
viz
because
that
the
Priosthood
is
changed
,
(
i.
e.
)
their
particular
frame
of
Church
officers
,
&
that
therefore
there
is
made
a
change
of
the
Law
,
that
is
,
of
the
legal
ordinance
,
both
of
worship
&
Government
.
3.
Darene
say
that
Christs
Church
under
the
New
Testament
,
may
have
every
mould
of
government
which
may
be
in
it self
,
or
in
respect
of
some
circumstances
,
commendable
,
and
subservient
to
these
ends
of
order
and
union
?
Where
is
Christs
faithfulness
as
a
Sone
over
his
own
house
,
beyond
that
of
Moses
?
Where
are
all
the
New
Testament
prescriptions
in
point
of
government
,
Officers
,
Lawes
,
Censures
,
if
the
Church
thereof
like
a
Tabula
rasa
may
have
any
government
introduced
into
it
,
which
may
be
in
its
own
time
and
place
good
,
and
Ministers
framed
according
to
the
Old
Testament
dispensation
?
4.
How
will
our
Informer
extricat
himself
as
to
the
Jewish
High
priest
in
maintaining
this
Answer
to
his
doubter
?
Was
not
his
office
a
special
mean
of
order
and
unitie
in
that
Church
,
and
to
prevent
schisme
▪
s
and
divisions
?
And
is
there
not
the
same
reason
that
the
Christian
Church
should
be
thus
kept
from
that
evil
by
a
supream
Highpriest
or
bishop
?
What
better
way
for
this
,
then
Gods
owne
way
?
And
what
better
pattern
for
modelling
the
New
Testament-Church
in
point
of
her
government
,
then
this
pattern
?
Surely
the
Pope
will
thank
him
for
this
.
I
know
he
sets
aside
(
in
contradiction
to
Saravia
,
as
I
shall
shew
)
the
Highpriest
in
his
argument
,
as
a
Type
of
Christ
,
the
man
forsaw
that
this
would
cast
his
argument
in
to
ane
intire
Popish
mould
;
but
he
is
not
so
forseeing
as
to
prevent
his
being
snared
by
his
own
reason
,
&
caught
in
the
brieres
of
contradictions
.
For
1.
He
dare
not
deny
that
this
Officer
was
a
singular
Mean
of
their
order
and
union
.
Hence
he
must
grant
that
his
answer
to
the
doubters
objection
is
naught
,
and
that
Gods
way
of
preserving
order
and
union
in
the
New
Testament
Church
,
is
different
from
his
way
,
and
the
means
of
preverving
it
under
the
Old
,
and
that
the
Samenes
of
the
end
of
Gods
ordinances
and
institutiones
under
both
dispensations
,
will
not
plead
for
holding
the
same
institutiones
.
Was
not
order
,
union
,
and
the
edification
of
the
Church
,
the
great
end
of
all
the
Mosaical
Ceremonies
and
Pedagogie
.
Were
not
the
Jewes
for
this
great
end
of
order
and
union
to
keep
their
solemne
Feasts
?
To
go
up
to
Jesusalem
solemly
and
joynly
three
tymes
in
the
year
?
To
have
one
common
Temple
,
one
Altar
,
&c.
And
must
therefore
the
Christian
Church
observe
the
same
ordinances
and
institutions
?
2.
How
will
he
prove
that
the
inferiour
Priests
were
not
Types
of
Christ
as
well
as
the
Highpriest
?
Dare
he
say
that
their
praying
for
the
people
,
and
their
sacrificeing
,
were
not
typical
of
Christs
intercession
and
sacrifice
,
as
well
as
the
praying
and
sacrificing
of
the
High
priest
,
though
not
in
the
same
degree
of
eminencie
?
I
grant
that
the
Apostle
(
Heb.
5.
)
speaking
of
the
authority
and
honour
of
Christs
Priesthood
,
presentes
the
legal
type
thus
;
Every
Hiepriest
taken
from
among
men
,
&c.
Yet
if
we
shall
consider
that
Hebr.
10.
discoursing
of
the
efficacie
of
Christs
sacrifice
in
opposition
to
the
legal
,
he
sayes
in
the
11
,
&
12.
Ver.
And
every
Priest
(
simply
,
not
evrie
High-priest
)
standeth
dayely
ministering
&
offering
the
Same
sacrifices
,
which
can
never
take
away
sin
,
but
his
man
after
he
had
offered
one
Sacrifice
for
sins
,
&c.
It
will
be
evident
that
the
inferiour
priests
were
also
Types
of
Christ
.
So
that
he
should
either
have
taken
in
the
High
priest
into
his
argument
,
or
excluded
together
with
him
,
the
inferiour
priestes
upon
the
same
ground
.
For
majus
&
minus
non
variant
speciem
rei
.
If
he
say
that
he
is
not
speaking
of
their
Sacrifices
,
but
of
their
Government
,
which
was
not
typical
.
Answ.
Why
might
he
not
then
have
taken
in
the
High-priest
upon
this
ground
,
since
these
are
as
well
distinguishable
in
him
,
as
in
the
inferiour
Priests
?
So
that
he
might
have
been
excluded
from
having
any
thing
to
do
with
the
Type
in
pointe
of
his
government
as
well
as
they
.
And
for
his
single
eminencie
,
it
drew
along
with
it
those
degrees
of
inferiour
priests
and
Levits
,
(
in
his
principles
)
which
are
mentionedso
that
if
the
one
must
evanish
as
a
Type
,
in
the
same
manner
must
the
other
.
3.
It
will
much
puzele
this
Informer
to
prove
,
that
the
Highe
priest
in
respect
of
his
government
was
a
Type
of
Christ
;
Sure
he
will
find
this
denyed
by
his
fellow
brother
in
the
cause
,
Tilen
in
his
Parenes
:
(
Cap.
2
)
in
summo
Sacerdote
ceu
pontifice
,
non
typi
solum
sed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ratio
conspicua
&
—
[
In
the
highpriest
,
the
type
is
not
only
conspicuous
,
but
the
reason
of
order
,
for
he
bore
not
a
type
or
resemblance
of
Christ
in
resspect
of
the
Kingely
and
judiciary
power
which
Christ
hath
,
who
otherwayes
should
haue
had
the
dignitie
,
both
according
to
the
order
of
Aaron
,
and
the
order
of
Melchisedeck
,
that
is
,
both
of
a
King
and
a
priest
.
]
Iunius
,
a
greater
then
he
,
(
de
Pontif.
lib.
1.
cap.
6.
)
distinguishes
these
in
the
Highpriest
.
—
in
summo
Sacerdote
consideranda
,
non
solummodo
ratio
typi
,
sed
etiam
ordinis
&
politiae
,
—
[
We
must
consider
in
the
High
priest
not
only
the
reason
of
the
type
,
but
like
wayes
of
order
and
policie
,
&c.
]
then
he
addes
the
abovementioned
:
reason
;
So
that
in
this
argument
,
and
his
way
of
pleading
for
prelacie
upon
the
ground
of
the
Jewish
policies
.
He
will
of
necessity
introduce
a
pope
into
the
Christian
Church
:
Which
will
be
convincingly
clear
,
If
we
shal
in
the
4t
.
place
consider
,
that
our
Informer
in
this
argument
hauing
set
aside
the
High
priest
,
as
onely
typical
,
tells
us
of
another
single
Chief
and
High
priest
under
him
,
and
tels
us
in
answer
to
the
premised
objection
,
that
this
method
of
the
Jewish
government
(
with
this
Chief
or
high
priest
;
distinct
from
the
typical
priest
)
is
exemplarlie
pointed
out
to
Christians
as
Gods
patterne
for
moddeling
the
gospel-Church
government
.
So
that
without
all
shaddow
of
evasion
his
argument
pleads
for
a
chief
patriarch
over
the
Christian
Church
,
as
being
a
parte
of
the
Jewish
policie
oblidging
us
,
and
exemplarly
commended
to
us
for
our
imitation
.
Moreover
,
I
would
know
what
he
would
say
,
If
one
should
plead
for
retaining
of
all
the
judicial
lawes
of
the
Jewes
upon
his
two
grounds
.
1.
As
not
being
typical
.
2.
As
being
Gods
excellent
means
for
order
and
union
,
and
commended
exemplarly
unto
Christians
to
the
same
end
,
what
better
patern
for
modelling
our
government
and
lawes
then
this
patern
?
Likewayes
will
he
say
that
every
peece
of
the
Jewish
antiquated
pedagogie
was
properly
typical
:
And
that
we
are
bound
to
reteane
as
of
a
moral
perpetual
nature
whatsoever
thing
in
their
policie
was
not
such
.
Surely
there
were
many
things
depending
upon
the
particular
exigences
,
and
state
of
that
people
,
both
as
a
Church
under
that
old
dispensation
,
and
as
a
Commonwealth
regular
in
its
civil
Lawes
immediatly
by
God
,
which
no
found
divines
doe
call
Typical
,
and
yet
doe
hold
that
they
oblidge
no
Church
or
state
under
the
New
Testament
.
For
a
conclusion
of
this
argument
,
I
shall
tell
this
Informer
that
he
grossly
mistaks
these
Scripture
expressions
(
at
least
in
the
judgment
of
some
learned
)
anent
the
Chief
Priests
2.
King
.
19
:
2.
&c.
When
taking
them
to
denot
different
ecclesiastick
degrees
among
the
priests
in
their
spiritual
function
:
these
chiefness
(
to
speak
so
)
or
principality
among
the
priests
,
being
meaned
of
a
civil
principality
existent
in
that
Tribe
before
the
priesthood
was
therein
established
:
and
that
they
were
called
Chief-priests
,
or
Elders
of
the
priests
,
did
flow
from
this
that
this
Trybe
(
subject
to
the
same
Princes
as
at
the
first
)
was
afterward
set
apart
for
the
priesthood
,
for
Aaron
and
his
Soones
were
chosen
to
be
priests
Exod.
28.
but
the
whole
.
Tribe
was
not
assumed
unto
the
priesthood
before
Numb
.
1.
Yet
in
the
meane
while
the
tribe
of
Levie
(
Exod.
6.
)
had
the
Heads
of
their
families
&
their
Princes
.
The
Scripture
then
speaking
of
the
tribe
of
Levie
as
a
Tribe
simply
,
ascribes
to
it
the
same
policie
with
the
rest
of
the
tribes
,
&
Princes
of
the
several
families
by
the
right
of
primogenitur
:
Thus
both
priests
and
Levits
had
their
chiefe
men
and
presidents
.
But
as
a
Tribe
separat
to
holy
things
,
it
had
its
peculiar
policie
.
One
was
chief
priest
onely
by
Gods
appointment
,
at
whose
hand
all
the
rest
of
the
priests
were
.
1
Chron.
24
:
24.
And
at
the
hands
of
the
priests
were
the
interior
Levites
,
in
their
several
services
.
David
in
distributing
them
in
their
several
Temple
offices
,
did
not
set
the
Princes
over
them
as
such
,
but
onely
having
numbered
them
after
the
Heads
of
their
families
,
and
by
their
lotts
or
Courses
,
did
assigne
to
them
their
service
of
the
Temple
,
upon
Gods
command
by
the
mouth
of
Gad
and
Nathan
,
the
more
to
facilitat
this
Sacerdotal
tribe
,
their
comeing
unto
,
and
returneing
from
the
Temple
.
The
Chief
of
the
families
then
,
are
not
upon
this
ground
Princes
or
Chief
as
to
the
Holy
Ministerie
;
for
there
was
but
one
onely
high
priest
,
all
the
rest
as
well
the
heads
,
as
the
families
themselves
,
were
at
the
hand
of
the
highpriest
in
the
Ministery
of
the
House
of
the
Lord
,
1
Chron.
24
:
19.
Where
the
Chief
or
head
in
matters
sacred
,
had
no
more
power
then
the
wholl
body
.
So
was
it
in
the
distribution
of
the
Levits
into
their
several
classes
by
their
Heads
Chap.
23
:
27
,
that
they
might
beat
the
hands
of
the
Sons
of
Aaron
in
the
Temple
Ministery
.
So
that
none
of
his
citations
doe
amount
to
any
proof
of
his
fancied
degrees
and
subordination
among
either
the
priests
or
Levits
in
their
spiritual
functions
,
or
any
other
waye
then
in
their
civil
capacitie
as
a
Tribe
;
neither
had
the
two
high
priests
(
mentioned
Luc.
3.
)
The
least
warrand
in
Gods
institution
,
but
this
is
acknowledged
to
be
a
corruption
in
their
Government
then
creept
in
among
other
corruptions
:
and
since
he
drawes
his
first
instance
of
the
Levits
subordination
from
Exod
6.
before
that
tribe
was
set
apart
at
all
to
the
Holy
Ministery
,
that
passage
at
least
,
and
(
as
I
said
,
in
the
judgment
of
some
)
its
parallels
also
aftermentioned
by
him
,
doe
speak
of
the
Civil
Government
and
subordi
nation
of
the
Levites
in
that
capacitie
;
and
that
any
of
their
Chief
rulers
are
by
the
Greeks
termed
Episcopus
,
is
a
very
poor
argument
to
conclude
their
Ecclesiastick
rule
,
it
being
notourly
known
that
the
best
Greek
Authores
put
his
designation
upon
Civil
Governoures
.
This
subordination
among
the
Levites
in
Exod.
6
:
15.
is
unquestionably
civil
upon
the
ground
assigned
.
And
numb
.
3.
It
is
evident
that
the
heads
and
princes
of
Families
are
numbered
.
And
accordingly
the
heads
and
Chief
of
the
families
,
1
Chron.
24.
and
in
Neh
:
11
:
14.
He
that
is
set
over
the
priests
,
is
the
son
of
one
of
the
great
men
(
Haggedolim
)
,
or
eminent
in
paris
and
place
as
many
take
it
.
1
Chron.
24
:
4.
before
the
division
and
order
is
set
down
,
it
s
said
,
there
were
more
Chief
men
found
of
the
sones
of
Eleazar
,
then
of
the
sones
of
●…thamar
,
&c.
all
which
doth
much
plead
forthis
assertion
,
but
we
need
not
be
peremptor
in
pressing
this
,
since
the
weight
of
our
answer
lies
not
upon
it
.
Our
Informer
comes
nixt
to
his
New
Testament
proofes
for
Bishops
and
produces
first
,
the
superiority
of
the
twelve
Apostles
above
the
seventy
Disciples
.
Where
1.
Wee
see
,
He
is
still
in
the
clouds
of
a
general
superiority
,
which
is
farr
from
the
Prince-like
Arbitrary
,
and
Erastian
superioritie
of
the
Diocesian
Prelat
now
existent
,
and
whom
he
undertakes
to
plead
for
,
which
this
Informer
(
Had
he
intended
to
have
informed
right
)
should
have
condescended
upon
.
Had
the
Apostles
such
a
superioritie
over
the
seventy
Disciples
?
Were
they
subject
to
the
Apostles
as
their
Rectors
and
judges
?
Did
the
Apostles
(
as
our
Prelats
)
assume
a
Sole
Decisive
,
conclusive
suffrage
,
and
a
negative
voice
over
Church
Judicatories
,
notwithstanding
of
their
extraordinary
and
high
prerogatives
?
Did
we
not
see
the
contrary
exemplified
in
that
meeting
of
Apostles
with
ordinary
Ministers
,
Act.
15
?
Had
the
seventy
onely
a
derived
precarius
Ministry
under
the
twelve
Apostles
,
as
their
Vicars
&
Substitutes
in
their
Ministration
?
Had
they
no
Interest
in
the
Church-Government
but
upon
the
Apostles
meer
pleasure
.
As
Curats
are
now
in
all
these
respects
subject
to
their
Prelats
?
Had
not
the
seventy
their
mission
,
their
institution
,
immediatly
from
Christ
as
well
as
the
Apostles
themselves
?
Were
they
not
consequently
to
exercise
their
Ministery
upon
this
ground
,
without
such
a
servil
dependance
upon
the
twelve
as
Prelats
doe
arrogat
to
themselves
ane
arbitrary
principality
over
Ministers
?
Were
the
twelve
to
rule
only
,
and
to
committ
the
preaching
worke
to
the
seventy
as
their
deputes
,
as
our
Prelats
now
doe
?
Or
were
they
not
rather
to
help
forward
the
great
harvest
,
and
the
work
of
the
Ministery
,
together
with
the
Apostles
themselves
?
So
that
this
Informer
will
never
find
the
least
shaddow
of
ane
Episcopall
superiority
here
.
But
2.
Granting
that
the
Apostles
were
officers
in
asuperiour
degree
to
the
seventy
,
which
is
the
utmost
Conclusion
which
he
can
draw
from
Scripture
,
how
will
this
infer
a
superiority
among
officers
of
the
same
degree
.
We
grant
the
Apostles
were
superior
to
Evangelists
,
they
againe
to
Pastoures
,
Ergo
,
one
Pastour
may
be
a
diocesian
Prelat
over
hunderds
of
other
Pastours
,
is
a
consequence
known
to
no
logick
.
Christ
appointed
both
extraordinary
,
and
ordinarie
officers
in
their
severall
degrees
,
as
Apostles
,
Evangelists
,
Pastours
:
Ergo
,
he
appointed
different
degrees
of
Pastours
,
hath
no
connexion
imaginable
.
3.
Tht
basis
of
his
argument
lyes
in
this
[
that
the
Prelats
are
immediat
successours
of
the
Apostles
in
their
degree
of
superiority
to
the
seventy
Disciples
,
and
Pastours
come
after
the
seventy
in
their
supposed
subjection
,
and
are
not
the
Apostles
immediat
successours
in
the
ordinary
Ministery
]
but
this
,
as
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
quesitum
or
question
,
must
be
proved
,
not
begged
and
supposed
by
him
.
We
did
already
evince
the
contrary
,
viz
,
That
the
Pastour
to
whom
is
committed
the
Ministery
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
and
both
the
keys
,
immediatly
from
the
Apostles
,
are
the
highest
ordinary
officers
,
and
the
Apostles
immediat
successorus
as
to
both
order
and
Jurisdictione
.
But
the
doubter
and
I
object
furder
[
that
the
Apostles
superioritie
over
the
seventie
,
was
extraordinary
,
personall
,
temporarie
,
and
to
cease
with
themselves
.
]
In
answer
to
this
,
He
grants
that
in
some
things
their
priviledges
were
extraordinary
,
and
to
cease
with
themselves
,
such
as
their
immediat
cas.
ling
,
their
sending
to
all
nations
their
infallibility
,
gifts
of
tongues
,
or
whatever
was
necessary
for
the
first
founding
of
the
obristian
Ch●…rch
.
but
in
other
things
wherein
they
were
superior
to
other
Ministers
,
their
power
was
not
extraordinary
and
temporarie
,
but
still
to
be
continued
,
such
as
ordination
of
Ministers
,
and
governeing
them
by
ecclesiastick
authority
;
in
which
power
the
Bishops
succeeds
them
,
who
are
[
the
children
in
stead
of
the
Fathers
]
as
Augustin
applies
that
of
Psal.
45
,
v.
19.
Ans.
1.
Then
it
seems
that
with
him
the
Episcopal
office
properly
succeeds
to
that
of
the
Apostles
,
and
is
a
continuation
of
their
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
over
Pastours
,
which
contradicts
his
second
answer
to
our
Argument
from
Ephes.
4
viz
[
that
Bishops
in
that
place
may
be
comprehended
under
the
the
office
of
Pastours
&
teachers
]
For
here
he
makes
their
office
the
same
with
that
of
the
Apostles
as
importing
ane
authority
in
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
over
Pastors
and
teachers
,
and
so
he
should
have
said
rather
that
it
is
comprehended
under
the
Apostolick
office
2.
He
yet
againe
contradicts
himself
in
this
answer
whill
granting
[
that
whatsoever
was
necessary
for
the
first
planting
of
the
Christian
Church
is
a
priviledge
ceased
with
the
Apostles
]
and
yet
making
their
power
of
ordination
of
Ministers
,
and
in
governing
them
,
to
be
still
necessary
,
he
must
understand
it
as
performed
and
done
by
them
,
since
therein
he
imagins
the
pattern
of
episcopall
power
to
ly
:
For
other
wayes
the
Presbyterians
doe
hold
and
prove
that
ordination
by
the
Presbytery
,
and
Government
by
Presbyters
collegiatly
,
is
still
continued
and
necessarie
;
This
he
will
not
allow
,
and
so
must
understand
it
of
the
manner
wherein
the
Apostles
performed
this
at
first
.
Now
I
say
,
their
Apostolick
power
in
ordination
and
Government
as
exercised
by
them
at
first
,
was
necessarie
for
the
first
founding
of
the
Church
.
For
1.
Their
power
of
ordination
was
of
equal
limits
and
extent
with
their
mission
to
all
nations
—
Goe
disciple
all
nations
,
I
hope
he
will
grant
was
extraordinary
,
as
being
necessary
for
the
first
founding
of
the
churches
,
Ergo
,
say
I.
so
was
their
power
in
ordination
and
Government
of
Ministers
,
since
it
was
of
a
like
nature
,
and
of
the
same
extent
;
for
to
what
ever
nations
they
were
sent
together
a
Church
therein
,
there
they
were
to
ordaine
Ministers
,
&
governe
them
by
ecclesiastick
Discipline
,
which
he
makes
to
be
the
Bishops
office
.
2.
Their
sole
power
in
ordination
and
Government
,
here
supposed
,
by
him
,
did
certainly
presuppose
the
Christian
Church
in
fieri
,
whereof
they
were
to
be
founders
.
First
They
were
,
as
Christs
immediat
extraordinary
Ambassadours
,
to
convert
and
bring
in
Churches
,
then
to
plant
officers
,
&
the
Gospel
Government
in
them
;
Now
,
who
will
say
but
this
power
was
necessary
for
the
first
planting
of
the
Churches
,
and
so
comes
under
the
Character
of
these
things
which
this
man
acknowledges
to
be
expired
:
Surely
where
no
other
officers
were
to
concurre
,
the
Apostles
of
necessity
behooved
to
ordaine
solely
,
and
their
Apostolick
Inspection
over
them
did
necessarly
depend
upon
,
and
flow
from
,
their
Apostolick
extraordinary
mission
and
infalibilitie
,
So
that
this
power
in
so
fare
as
Episcopall
like
,
was
indispensibly
needful
for
the
first
founding
of
the
Churches
and
consequently
must
be
expired
by
his
own
confession
,
the
nature
and
exercise
of
this
power
supposeing
,
and
requiring
their
peculiar
mission
,
infallibilitie
,
and
gifts
of
tongues
,
which
are
acknowledged
by
this
man
to
be
expired
privileges
,
necessary
onely
at
that
time
.
Moreover
,
the
Apostles
power
in
ordination
and
government
did
include
extraordinary
miraculous
rodes
and
censurs
,
&
a
power
in
coerceing
the
rebellious
,
thus
Peter
stroke
Ananias
and
Sapphira
dead
for
their
lying
which
was
a
fearful
Apostolick
Censure
,
put
forth
by
his
Apostolick
authoritie
at
that
time
,
Paul
stroke
Elimas
the
sorcerer
blind
for
withstanding
the
truth
;
besides
,
their
power
in
ordination
at
that
time
,
included
their
miraculous
conferring
of
the
Spirit
by
the
Imposition
of
hands
.
2
Tim.
1
:
6
Act.
19
:
1
,
2
,
6.
Now
,
all
these
Apostolick
priviledges
(
which
this
man
must
needs
acknowledge
upon
his
own
ground
to
be
expired
and
extraordinarie
)
being
necessarily
included
in
,
&
essential
unto
the
Apostolick
power
,
the
nature
and
exercise
thereof
must
be
expired
also
.
Wee
shall
offer
here
to
the
Informer
a
distinction
of
the
learned
Iunius
,
who
in
his
answer
to
Bellarmins
argument
for
the
Apostles
Episcopal
singular
power
,
from
that
word
Shall
I
come
to
you
with
a
rod
,
distinguishes
the
ordinary
and
extraordinary
rod
,
secundum
illam
,
&c.
(
de
Concil.
lib.
2.
Cap.
16.
)
—
that
is
,
according
to
the
commone
ordinary
rode
.
Peter
was
a
fellow
Presbyter
1
Pet.
5.
But
according
to
the
singular
and
extraordinary
,
he
stroke
dead
Ananias
and
Sapphira
.
In
respect
of
this
commonrode
(
saith
he
)
Paul
saith
1
Cor
5.
—
[
You
being
gathered
together
with
my
Spirit
in
the
name
of
our
Lord
Jesus
]
but
as
to
this
singular
one
,
he
saith
[
Shall
I
come
to
you
with
arode
1
Cor
4
,
21
]
this
common
rode
he
denyes
to
have
him
in
the
hand
of
any
one
man
whither
Apostle
or
other
,
or
that
they
had
any
sole
or
singular
preheminence
in
Churches
constitute
.
And
this
cutts
the
winde
pype
of
our
Informers
topick
and
argument
here
for
the
prelats
power
.
Which
leads
to
a
3d.
Answer
.
3
We
proved
already
that
the
Apostles
exercised
no
singular
Episcopal
preheminence
in
Churches
constitut
,
and
what
they
did
in
churches
not
as
yet
constitut
and
infieri
,
is
not
to
the
purpose
by
his
own
confession
,
since
it
falles
in
among
those
things
necessary
for
the
first
planting
of
the
Churches
,
which
priviledges
the
acknowledges
are
gone
,
That
the
Apostles
exercised
no
such
single
preheminence
in
churches
constitut
,
is
abundantly
cleared
in
the
2.
Argument
against
Episcopacie
,
where
we
shewed
that
neither
in
ordination
,
nor
excommunication
,
nor
in
Ministerial
decision
of
controversies
,
the
Apostles
assumed
ane
Episcopal
power
in
Churches
constitut
,
but
had
the
ordinary
Church-officers
Presbyterialy
concurring
with
them
.
Wee
likwayes
proved
in
the
8.
Argument
,
that
the
Episcopal
power
is
neither
formaliter
,
nor
eminenter
,
contained
in
the
Apostles
authority
,
but
is
inconsistent
there
with
,
and
contrary
therunto
,
there
sole
directive
,
corrective
power
over
the
diocess
,
as
being
the
proper
sole
pastoures
thereof
,
their
sole
decisive
suffrage
,
and
Lordly
dominion
over
Church-judicatories
,
besides
their
civil
rule
,
like
that
of
the
princes
of
the
gentiles
;
rendering
our
prelats
power
ex
sua
natura
,
&
in
universum
,
different
from
the
very
nature
of
the
Apostles
authority
,
and
the
authority
of
a
Gospel
Ministery
altogether
:
and
consequently
it
could
not
be
transmitted
by
the
Apostles
,
to
the
Church
,
as
any
peece
of
the
Gospel
Church
Government
;
and
by
further
consequence
they
are
none
of
the
Fathers
or
Children
whom
the
true
church
,
or
the
Apostles
brought
forth
,
but
the
Spritus
brood
of
Satanical
Antichristian
pride
.
As
for
what
he
addes
of
the
Fathers
making
Bishops
Successours
to
the
Apostles
Iunius
will
tell
him
(
De
cler.
cap
14.
Not.
15.
)
That
this
is
not
to
be
understood
of
a
Succession
from
Christs
institutionquia
nunquam
instituit
Christus
ut
Apostolis
secundum
gradum
in
ecclesia
succederetur
,
because
Christ
never
appointed
Successors
to
the
Apostles
in
the
Church
according
to
degree
—
And
that
the
fathers
understood
it
of
a
succession
ex
simili
,
non
ex
pari
,
a
succession
of
similitude
,
not
of
paritie
and
of
a
similitude
secundum
quid
,
or
imaginary
,
according
as
Prelats
were
then
moulded
.
CHAP.
X.
The
Informers
great
argument
for
Prelacy
,
from
the
pretended
Episcopacy
of
Timothy
and
Titus
.
Their
Episcopal
office
disproved
,
from
the
office
of
Evangelist
,
ascribed
expresly
to
the
one
,
and
by
good
consequence
to
the
other
,
from
many
circumstances
of
the
sacred
text
,
and
the
judgement
of
Interpreters
.
The
Informers
pleadings
from
there
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
supposed
in
the
precepts
addressed
to
them
there
anent
;
from
the
necessity
of
this
power
,
the
concernment
of
of
after-ages
therein
,
&c
,
examined
.
The
unsoundenes
and
inconsistency
of
his
arguing
and
answers
upon
this
head
,
several
wayes
discovered
.
THe
Informer
presents
unto
us
Nixt
,
the
pretended
Episcopacy
of
Tymothy
and
Titus
at
Ephesus
and
crete
,
and
the
Douhter
alledging
[
that
Paul
calls
all
the
Miniters
at
Ephesus
and
crete
,
Bishops
,
]
He
rejoynes
That
Tymoth
and
Titus
were
Bishops
as
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Bishop
was
afterward
taken
,
that
is
,
had
a
power
in
ordination
and
Iurisdiction
over
and
above
inferiour
Ministers
.
This
argument
from
the
pretended
Episcopacy
of
Timothy
and
Titus
,
as
also
the
nixt
,
taken
from
the
supposed
Episcopal
power
of
the
seven
Asian
Angels
,
hath
been
so
fully
answered
and
baffled
by
many
,
That
it
is
,
a
wonder
how
he
hath
the
confidence
to
repone
to
us
these
oft
sodden
coleworts
.
We
gave
already
a
hint
in
the
St
A●…gument
;
of
the
acknowledged
extraordinary
function
of
Tymothy
and
Titus
,
which
is
abundantly
cleared
by
many
,
from
their
unfixed
motion
and
officiating
,
their
occasional
transient
imployment
in
these
places
,
Paules
actual
revocation
of
them
both
there
from
,
the
condition
of
these
Churches
,
as
being
but
in
fieri
as
to
their
organick
settlement
and
constitution
:
Particularly
,
that
their
power
in
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
was
not
episcopall
,
I
prove
from
these
grounds
.
1.
In
Churches
already
constitut
,
this
Authority
was
not
solely
resident
in
Tymothy
and
Titus
Falluntur
,
qui
putant
(
saith
Calvin
,
Instit:
lib:
4.
Cap.
3.
)
&c.
that
is
,
they
are
mistaken
who
judge
either
Timothy
at
Ephesus
or
Titus
at
crete
to
have
exercised
any
impite
or
Dominion
to
dispose
of
things
each
at
his
own
pleasure
,
they
were
set
over
the
people
(
no
word
of
their
being
set
over
Ministers
)
to
go
before
them
in
good
and
wholsome
Counsells
in
relation
to
the
placeing
of
Ministers
,
not
that
they
might
doe
as
they
pleased
excluding
others
.
Since
Paul
himself
neither
imposed
hands
nor
did
excommunicat
alone
,
and
since
(
as
I
said
above
)
a
wholl
colledge
or
Presbytery
of
Apostles
acted
nothing
pro
imperio
,
but
in
Churches
constitut
had
elders
going
along
with
them
in
all
that
Sinodal
procedour
Act
15.
Farrless
would
Timothy
and
Titus
assume
this
episcopal
preheminence
,
who
were
inferiour
to
any
of
the
Apostles
,
therefore
their
power
in
this
was
not
episcopall
.
2.
That
authoritie
which
was
intrusted
to
the
elders
and
Ministers
in
commone
,
/
was
not
intrusted
to
any
one
officer
,
such
as
Timothie
;
But
so
it
is
that
after
the
Church
of
Ephesus
was
exedified
and
compleated
in
its
organick
being
,
and
after
Timothy
had
gotten
his
charge
as
to
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
in
Ephesus
,
Paul
committed
the
wholl
episcopal
power
to
the
elders
(
as
is
said
)
before
Timothies
face
in
his
last
farewell
,
Act.
20.
therefore
he
intrusted
him
with
no
episcopall
preheminence
in
or
over
that
Church
when
compleated
in
its
organick
being
.
3.
They
whose
power
stands
so
circumstantiat
as
to
ordination
and
jurisdiction
over
these
Churches
,
that
it
excluds
Episcopale
preheminence
,
properly
and
formally
such
,
their
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
cannot
be
prelatical
,
nor
ground
ane
argument
for
prelacie
:
but
such
is
the
power
of
Timothie
and
Titus
.
For
1.
As
Diocesian
Bishops
they
ought
to
have
been
determinatly
and
designedly
set
and
fixed
there
,
as
the
officers
of
these
Churches
,
but
the
contrary
appears
in
the
text
[
I
befought
the
to
abide
at
Ephesus
]
and
againe
[
I
left
thee
at
Crete
,
and
to
set
in
order
things
that
are
wanting
]
which
words
point
at
ane
occasional
transient
,
employment
there
,
not
a
fixed
instalement
.
2.
In
these
Epistles
they
are
both
Called
back
without
the
least
intimation
of
their
returneing
.
3.
If
their
power
was
Episcopall
and
ordinary
,
then
in
the
apostles
prescriptions
and
rules
anent
their
Successours
,
their
power
and
authority
ought
to
have
been
described
,
and
rules
given
touching
the
gifts
,
Call
,
ordination
&c.
of
the
diocesian
Bishop
,
but
the
Apostle
prescribes
no
rules
for
any
officer
higher
then
a
Pastour
,
&
supposes
still
that
he
is
the
highest
ordinary
officer
,
in
all
his
directions
as
to
Church
government
.
4.
Add
to
this
,
That
Paul
never
calls
Timothy
,
or
Titus
,
Bishops
,
though
frequently
making
mention
of
them
,
but
Ministers
,
Souldiers
of
Christ
,
workmen
,
the
Churches
messengers
&c.
1.
Tim.
4.
6.
2.
Tim.
2.
3.
and
15.
2.
Cor.
8.
Supposing
them
his
attendants
in
his
Apostolick
function
;
Their
accompanying
Paul
in
his
Travells
is
largely
described
by
the
divines
at
the
I
le
of
wight
.
1.
Timothy
is
found
at
Berea
with
Paul
,
Act.
17.
14.
then
at
Athens
15.
Thence
Paul
sends
him
to
Thessalonica
1.
Thess.
3.
1.
Then
,
hav●…ig
been
at
Macedonia
with
Paul
,
he
came
to
him
to
Corinth
Act.
18.
5.
Then
he
is
with
him
at
Ephesus
,
and
thence
sent
into
Macedonia
Act.
19.
22.
Whither
Paul
,
went
after
him
,
and
was
by
him
accompanied
into
Asia
Act.
20.
4.
He
is
with
him
at
Troas
5.
v.
and
at
Miletum
17.
v.
where
Paul
gave
the
elders
his
last
charge
as
the
Bishopes
of
that
Church
.
And
after
this
,
he
is
found
either
in
journeys
,
or
absent
from
Ephesus
.
Forafter
he
is
found
a
prisoner
with
Paul
at
Rome
,
being
mentioned
as
his
companion
in
these
epistles
written
while
Paul
was
at
Rome
;
as
that
to
the
philippians
,
Philip.
1.
to
philemon
.
1.
1.
and
to
the
colloss
.
1.
2.
and
he
is
never
found
againe
at
Ephesus
,
&
neer
the
end
of
the
Apostles
pilgrimage
,
he
is
sent
for
to
Rome
.
So
Titus
is
found
at
Ierusalem
,
befor
he
came
to
Crete
,
Gal.
1.
2.
thence
is
sent
for
to
Nicopolis
,
Tit.
3.
12.
then
to
Corinth
,
then
he
is
expected
at
Troas
2.
Cor.
2.
12.
and
meets
with
Paul
in
Macedonia
.
2.
Cor.
7.
6.
whence
he
is
sent
againe
to
Corinth
2.
Cor.
8.
6.
&
after
this
,
neer
the
time
of
paules
death
,
is
found
at
Rome
,
from
whence
he
went
not
to
Crete
,
but
unto
Dalmatia
,
2.
Tim.
4.
10.
And
after
this
is
not
heard
of
in
Scripture
.
So
that
from
their
various
journeys
,
the
order
of
them
,
the
time
spent
in
them
,
the
nature
of
their
employment
,
which
was
to
be
the
Apostles
Copartners
in
their
Apostolick
function
,
and
negotiat
the
affaires
of
the
Churches
where
the
Apostles
traveled
,
and
the
Sciptures
silence
touching
their
being
Beshops
of
any
one
Church
,
These
divines
conclude
that
they
could
not
be
diocesian
Bishops
.
Others
doe
remarke
severale
other
pregnant
Circumstances
in
the
sacred
text
,
specially
relating
to
Timothy
which
doe
evince
him
to
be
neither
Bishop
at
all
,
nor
particularly
at
Ephesus
in
the
prelatical
sense
.
As
1.
That
paul
stirres
him
up
to
diligence
upon
this
motive
,
that
thus
he
shall
be
agood
minister
of
Christ
,
not
a
Bishop
of
Christ
,
1.
Tim.
4.
6.
He
was
therefore
a
Minister
Bishop
,
but
nothing
else
.
2.
That
when
Paul
wrote
this
first
epistle
to
him
,
he
was
but
newly
entered
into
the
ministery
.
1.
Tim.
1.
3.
with
Act.
16.
1.
2.
3.
&c.
And
Paul
will
not
have
a
Novice
to
be
a
Bishop
.
3.
He
is
commandes
to
intreat
elders
as
Fathers
.
4.
To
Honour
them
doubly
that
rule
well
,
therefore
he
was
not
to
be
a
Father
over
these
elders
5.
That
he
had
his
gift
by
the
laying
one
of
the
hands
of
the
presbysery
,
which
could
not
be
ane
episcopall
function
.
6.
That
Paul
appointes
him
to
reside
there
only
untill
his
owne
return
from
Macedonia
,
to
instruct
the
people
for
someshorte
time
until
he
came
to
him
againe
1.
Tim.
3.
14.
15.
—
7.
That
assoone
as
Paul
came
from
Macedonia
to
Ephesus
,
he
sent
Timothie
into
Achaia
,
himself
staying
at
Ephesus
and
Asia
for
a
season
.
Act.
19.
22.
to
40.
v.
and
from
thence
he
returned
to
Macedonia
,
and
through
it
unto
Asia
,
accompanied
with
Timothy
and
others
,
after
which
we
never
read
that
he
returned
to
Ephesus
.
8.
That
Timothie
was
sent
to
many
churches
to
confirme
and
strengthen
them
,
as
,
to
Macedonia
Act.
19.
22.
To
Thessalonica
.
1.
Thess.
1.
2.
3.
To
philippi
.
chap.
2.
19.
20.
but
never
to
Ephesus
after
his
first
departure
.
9.
That
though
he
is
joyned
with
Paul
in
the
Inscription
of
some
Epistles
.
Collos.
1.
philip.
1.
and
frequent
mention
is
made
of
him
in
the
epistles
to
severall
Churches
,
1.
Cor.
4.
17.
Philip.
2.
19.
20.
1.
Thess.
3.
2.
6.
Hebr.
13.
23.
Yet
there
is
[
altum
silentium
]
of
him
in
the
Epistles
to
the
Ephesians
,
his
own
supposed
diocess
.
10.
That
Paul
laid
hands
upon
the
disciples
who
were
ordained
in
that
church
after
his
supposed
episcopacie
.
That
as
Timothie
was
sent
to
confirme
.
Instruct
and
Comfort
other
Churches
,
as
Philippi
,
Troas
.
So
Paul
writes
to
him
.
2
Tim.
4.
12.
that
Tychicus
was
for
this
same
end
.
sent
to
Ephesus
:
and
that
he
wrote
the
Epistle
of
Paul
to
the
Ephesians
from
Rome
,
whom
the
Apostle
(
chap.
6.
21.
v.
of
the
Epistle
directed
to
that
church
)
sent
to
them
as
a
faith
full
Minister
,
who
therefore
lookes
liker
their
Bishop
then
Timothie
.
That
the
same
is
supposable
of
Titus
is
also
apparent
,
both
in
that
he
is
called
(
as
Timothy
)
,
not
Bishop
,
but
Pauls
fellow
helper
,
and
that
concerning
the
Corinthians
,
not
the
Cretians
,
and
likewayes
in
that
he
is
imployed
to
the
church
in
corinth
,
after
he
was
left
by
Paul
at
crete
,
as
his
fellow
helper
in
that
church
,
2.
Cor.
2.
13.
and
was
fixed
to
no
one
place
of
residence
.
That
being
charged
to
come
to
Paul
at
Nicopolis
,
his
stay
is
found
very
short
at
Crete
,
so
that
after
half
a
years
residence
there
he
was
sent
to
Corinth
and
Dalmatia
&c.
But
the
Doubter
acknowledging
[
Timothy
and
Titus
,
their
power
over
Ministers
at
Ephesus
and
crete
,
since
they
are
taught
how
to
ordaine
them
,
what
qualifications
are
requisite
,
how
to
proceed
in
their
tryalls
and
censures
,
alledges
that
this
they
had
,
as
evangelists
&
companiones
to
the
Apostles
in
their
laboures
and
as
appointed
to
settle
and
water
these
Churches
which
they
had
planted
.
]
In
what
respect
these
things
are
attribute
to
these
Church
officers
,
will
be
after
examined
,
when
we
shall
consider
how
our
informer
pleads
for
their
episcopall
power
upon
these
grounds
.
But
to
this
exception
of
the
Doubter
,
he
answers
That
this
supposes
them
to
be
extraordinarie
officers
,
whose
office
was
not
to
continue
in
the
Church
.
And
the
Doubter
affirmeing
this
.
[
Because
Timothy
is
called
ane
Evangelist
2.
Tim.
4.
5.
and
that
therefore
he
could
not
be
a
Bishop
]
To
this
our
Informer
Rejoynes
That
in
a
large
sense
,
he
was
ane
Evangelist
or
a
preacher
of
the
gospell
,
but
that
he
was
ane
Evangelist
in
astrict
sense
,
can
no
mor
be
proved
from
that
scripture
;
then
that
he
was
a
deacon
:
Because
the
Apostle
in
that
same
place
sayes
,
fulfill
thy
deaconship
,
as
the
Greek
signifies
.
Or
that
Philip
was
ane
extraordinary
evangelist
,
because
he
is
called
ane
evangelist
Act.
2.
8.
for
he
was
a
deacon
Act.
6.
and
Act.
8.
5.
did
preach
the
gospell
,
but
was
not
therefore
one
of
these
extraordinary
evangelists
whose
office
was
to
cease
in
the
Church
.
And
Finallie
,
He
tells
us
that
ordination
and
jurisdiction
is
properly
no
worke
of
ane
Evangelist
but
rather
preaching
and
spreading
the
gospell
]
Ans.
1.
This
man
casts
up
but
a
mist
of
Insignificant
words
in
this
distinction
,
whereby
he
endeavoures
to
elude
so
clear
a
scripture
.
Timothies
Evangelistick
office
,
wee
see
,
is
a
gripping
argument
which
our
Informer
would
faine
Elude
,
but
with
what
success
shall
presently
appear
.
He
grantes
he
was
ane
Evangelist
in
a
large
sense
or
a
preacher
,
but
not
in
the
strict
sense
,
but
what
that
strict
sense
is
,
in
which
he
denyes
Timothy
to
be
ane
Evangelist
,
he
doth
not
clear
,
and
so
his
strict
sense
is
left
without
sense
,
and
his
distinction
must
flie
with
one
wing
.
He
knew
that
his
assigneing
ane
explication
of
his
strict
sense
,
would
have
so
palpably
included
Timothy
,
that
his
evasion
would
be
presently
shut
up
:
therefore
he
left
the
other
branch
of
his
distinction
,
a
meer
mute
under
the
clouds
,
and
gives
us
a
distinction
which
stands
upon
one
leg
.
2.
If
he
will
take
Eusebius
sense
(
Hist.
lib.
3.
cap.
33.
o●…
37.
with
some
)
he
will
tell
him
[
that
this
title
is
taken
but
two
wayes
,
either
for
such
as
wrote
the
Gospel
,
(
in
which
sence
we
grant
that
none
of
them
were
Evangelists
,
or
such
as
taught
the
Gospel
,
and
these
againe
were
either
such
as
had
ordinary
places
or
gifts
,
or
whose
places
and
giftes
were
extraordinary
,
that
is
,
who
were
not
settled
upon
any
one
charge
,
but
were
Apostolorum
vice
,
having
a
vicarius
care
of
all
the
Churches
,
as
the
Apostles
had
the
principal
care
.
]
The
Evangelists
(
as
Ambrose
phrases
it
)
did
Evangelizar
sine
Cathedra
,
or
preached
without
a
fixed
charge
.
Here
,
by
the
way
I
cannot
but
admire
the
inconsistant
subtilty
(
may
I
call
it
so
)
of
Saravia
(
de
divers
.
grand
.
minist.
cap.
6.
)
who
,
in
answer
to
Beza
,
pleading
[
that
the
appellation
of
Evangelist
is
given
not
to
every
on
who
preached
,
but
to
the
Apostles
temporary
coadjutors
in
watring
the
Churches
,
not
yet
fully
constitut
&c.
]
tells
him
that
Apostolus
nunquam
Timotheum
—
Euangelistae
nomine
compellat
.
That
the
Apostle
no
where
puts
the
Title
of
Evangelist
upon
Timothy
,
and
that
this
title
was
given
to
none
but
Philip.
Yet
immediatly
addes-Evangelistae
nomen
non
nego
Timotheo
,
quem
Paulus
Evangelistae
●…pus
sacere
jubet
,
I
deny
not
the
name
of
Evangelist
to
Timothy
,
whom
the
Apostle
bides
,
do
the
work
of
ane
Evangelist
.
If
he
deny
not
this
name
to
him
and
the
thing
therein
imported
,
how
can
he
quanel
the
Apostles
not
putting
this
title
upon
him
,
or
deny
him
the
title
,
and
the
peculiar
office
therein
imported
.
Calvin
takes
the
word
hereto
Import
that
special
extraordinary
office
mentioned
.
Ephes.
4.
Now
that
Timothy
was
such
ane
Evangelist
,
is
already
fully
proved
and
by
consequence
that
the
objection
stands
untouched
and
unanswered
by
him
.
viz.
That
he
was
ane
unfixed
extraordinarie
officer
,
and
not
to
continue
,
and
therefore
any
authority
which
he
is
supposed
to
have
over
this
Church
,
layes
no
foundation
of
Prelacie
.
For
he
sayes
nothing
to
this
consequence
,
but
admitts
it
upon
the
supposition
that
Timothy
was
ane
Evangelist
in
a
strict
sense
,
and
ane
extraordinary
officer
.
Cartwright
answering
the
Rhemises
upon
this
place
,
takes
it
in
the
strict
sense
mentioned
,
telling
the
Jesuites
that
Paules
calling
Timothy
once
ane
Evangelist
,
hath
more
pith
in
it
then
all
denominations
of
Pishop
that
others
can
give
him
.
3.
The
Informers
reason
of
denying
the
special
office
of
Evangelist
to
be
here
imported
,
viz
That
he
might
be
as
well
called
a
Deacon
,
as
being
enjoyned
to
fulfull
his
Miuistery
or
Deaconship
in
the
Greek
,
is
very
poor
.
For
1.
It
being
clear
that
the
Scripture
holdes
out
such
ane
office
as
that
of
Evangelist
,
specifically
distinct
fromother
offices
.
Ephes.
4.
(
as
this
man
acknowledges
)
and
it
being
equally
certain
that
this
or
any
other
office
and
relation
hath
a
work
and
dutie
proper
andpeculiar
therunto
and
likewayes
that
the
office
layes
ane
obligation
upon
the
person
who
carryes
it
,
to
perform
the
duties
thereof
.
And
Finallie
.
Jt
being
evidently
the
Apostles
Scope
,
from
the
consideration
of
the
office
,
to
exhort
to
the
duties
suitable
thereunto
,
its
destrable
by
its
own
light
that
Timothy
is
here
stirred
up
to
the
duties
of
that
peculiar
station
&
office
which
we
have
proved
he
sustained
;
&
thereforit
cannot
be
understood
of
a
general
Ministery
or
service
.
Will
any
doubt
what
the
sense
of
such
phrases
is
,
[
do
thework
of
a
parent
]
[
do
the
work
of
a
Master
]
[
do
the
work
of
a
Pastour
]
who
knowes
what
the
office
and
relation
of
a
parent
,
master
,
and
Minister
is
,
and
that
this
phrase
importes
,
this
precept
enjoynes
the
duties
proper
to
such
relations
and
offices
.
So
the
case
is
here
,
which
none
will
doubt
of
but
this
Informer
who
starts
needles
doubts
,
when
he
cannot
answer
his
presbyterian
Doubter
.
2.
The
Deacons
office
haveing
in
Scripture
its
limites
drawn
,
the
circumstances
of
the
place
where
the
word
Diaconia
stands
,
discovers
when
we
are
to
take
it
in
a
generall
sense
,
and
when
this
inferiour
officer
is
pointed
out
.
So
it
were
absurd
when
Archippus
is
bidden
fullfill
his
Ministery
,
or
when
the
Apostle
calls
himself
a
Minister
,
to
imagine
that
the
proper
formall
office
of
Deacon
is
ascribed
to
the
one
or
the
other
:
But
the
service
there
meaned
is
ane
Apostolicall
and
Pastorall
service
,
not
the
service
of
Tables
.
Now
,
fulfill
,
or
make
full
proofe
of
thy
Ministery
(
as
our
Translatores
doe
weill
render
it
,
giveing
the
deacon
a
peculiar
Inglish
terme
according
to
the
greek
sound
of
the
word
to
avoide
confusion
)
is
exigeticall
▪
the
Ministery
he
is
to
fulfill
,
is
his
Evangelistick
Ministery
,
the
latter
expounds
the
former
,
so
that
in
the
very
phrase
it self
,
the
evangelistick
office
is
asserted
and
the
deaconship
denyed
.
The
phrafe
of
Evangelist
,
&
especially
the
workof
ane
Evangelist
,
determins
his
peculiar
office
;
there
being
no
other
Evangelists
in
the
scripture
sense
,
but
either
those
that
wrote
or
published
the
gospell
in
that
extraordinary
way
,
and
Timothy
being
clearly
one
of
such
,
it
must
needs
import
the
Evangelist
in
a
peculiar
sense
,
and
is
distinct
from
the
generall
phrase
of
Ministery
in
the
latter
branch
of
the
words
,
which
stands
limited
and
restricted
by
the
first
part
as
Isaid
.
Again
,
since
he
includes
in
the
generall
terme
[
Episeopus
]
his
diocesian
Bishop
,
as
distinct
from
a
presbyter
,
in
philip.
1.
and
Act.
20.
Wee
may
with
farr
better
evidence
take
in
the
peculiar
evangelist
here
,
the
office
properly
taken
,
being
both
a
scripture
office
,
and
likewayes
so
clearly
applicable
to
the
person
to
whom
this
precept
is
given
,
non
of
which
he
can
say
in
his
case
.
Moreover
,
I
wonder
whither
he
would
admitt
this
his
gloss
,
if
this
phrase
were
directed
to
a
Pastour
as
it
is
here
to
Timothy
[
doe
the
worke
of
a
Pastour
,
make
full
proofe
of
thy
Ministery
]
would
he
think
this
a
good
argument
or
reason
to
deny
him
to
be
a
Pastour
,
because
the
latter
branch
of
the
sentence
expresses
a
deaconship
?
Sure
he
would
not
:
or
had
the
Apostie
expressed
the
first
branch
of
the
precept
thus
,
doe
the
worke
of
a
●…ishop
,
would
he
have
taken
this
answer
from
us
,
that
Timothy
might
be
as
well
proved
a
deacon
from
that
place
?
Sure
,
he
would
here
tel
us
that
th●…
fi●…
r●…trictive
phrase
,
determines
the
subsequent
generall
one
,
and
that
different
offices
may
well
share
in
generall
names
.
3.
The
phrase
of
doeing
the
worke
of
ane
Evangelist
,
if
we
compare
scripture
with
it self
,
will
appear
upon
Two
grounds
to
import
a
peculiar
Evangelist
.
1.
Such
a
sense
must
needs
be
admitted
in
paralleel
phrases
where
the
Syntax
and
construction
is
like
●…o
this
,
As
[
the
signes
of
ane
Apostle
]
2
Cor.
12
:
12.
[
commands
of
Apostles
]
2
Pet.
3
:
2
[
foundation
of
Apostles
]
Ephes
2
20.
who
will
deny
but
that
the
word
Apostle
is
here
peculiarly
designeing
the
office
,
&
why
not
also
[
the
workeof
aneEvangelist
]
especially
it
being
his
scope
to
stirr
up
Timothy
to
diligence
from
the
consideration
of
the
office
,
and
others
to
the
greater
reverence
of
him
.
2
The
terme
of
Evangilist
occuring
only
thrice
in
the
new
Testament
(
viz
)
Act.
21.
8
Ephes
4.
11.
and
in
this
place
under
debate
:
since
the
first
Two
places
,
doe
●…yond
all
question
speak
o●…
the
Evangelist
in
a
strict
and
proper
sense
,
h●…
(
I
pray
)
&
why
doth
it
change
its
signification
here
?
Extraordinary
functions
communicats
with
inferiour
offices
in
the
general
names
,
as
when
the
Apostles
are
called
pres
byters
in
a
general
designatione
,
but
extraordinary
names
are
not
made
use
of
to
point
at
ordinary
functions
,
at
least
when
the
office
is
so
distinctly
pointed
at
as
in
this
place
4.
He
stumbleth
yet
againe
here
into
a
materiall
contradiction
,
whil
telling
us
,
That
Timothy
was
ane
evangelist
in
a
large
sense
,
that
is
,
One
who
proached
the
Gospel
,
which
he
contradistinguishes
from
ane
Evangelist
in
a
strict
sense
,
denying
Timothy
to
be
such
,
and
that
strictly
termed
Evangelist
had
it
for
his
work
to
preach
and
spread
the
Gospell
,
as
he
seems
to
insinuat
in
the
close
of
his
answer
,
if
at
least
he
mean
it
of
his
strictly
called
evangelist
(
for
his
way
of
expressing
it
is
very
indistinct
.
)
But
however
he
will
not
say
that
Timothy
was
no
otherwayes
ane
Evangelist
then
in
the
sense
wherein
any
ordinary
Minister
is
such
.
And
if
he
understand
him
to
be
ane
Evangelist
as
haveing
a
more
large
unfixed
or
universal
office
of
preaching
the
gospel
with
extraordinary
gifts
,
and
as
coajutor
of
the
Apostles
,
as
Hooker
himself
,
together
with
Eusebius
do
take
it
,
as
being
thus
contradistinct
from
writers
of
the
Gospel
,
how
comes
he
onely
to
acknowle●…
h●…
ane
Evangelist
in
a
general
sense
,
as
a
preacher
of
the
Gospel
simply
?
I
would
know
what
this
Informer
calls
ane
Evangelist
in
a
strict
sense
,
sure
he
will
not
say
that
it
is
meerly
preaching
the
Gospel
which
makes
up
this
office
,
for
that
he
makes
the
large
sense
;
is
it
preaching
and
spreading
the
gospell
with
extraordinary
gifts
ad
unfixedly
?
(
as
he
seems
to
insinuat
by
making
this
the
proper
worke
of
ane
Evangelist
)
then
surely
he
will
not
deny
but
this
was
Timothy's
worke
,
and
so
he
must
be
ane
Evangelist
in
the
strict
sense
,
against
what
he
first
asserts
.
He
acknowledges
the
ordinary
Evangelists
or
preachers
,
were
to
preach
and
spread
the
Gospell
within
their
Sphere
,
and
so
the
strict
Evangelist
must
be
distinguished
from
them
by
unfixed
preaching
and
spreading
the
Gospell
:
which
(
besides
what
is
mentioned
)
will
bring
a
new
inconvenienc
upon
our
Informer
and
dash
him
against
his
principle
of
fixing
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
.
Yet
againe
,
though
Philip
preached
the
Gospell
upon
the
dispersion
and
spread
it
unfixedly
,
yet
he
denyes
him
to
be
one
of
these
extraordinary
Evangelists
whose
office
was
to
cease
:
So
that
he
doth
(
as
to
this
)
distinguish
preaching
and
spreading
the
Gospell
from
the
proper
worke
and
characteristick
of
the
Evangelist
strictly
taken
Thus
it
is
hard
to
know
what
he
calls
ane
Evangelist
or
how
he
understands
it
:
For
neither
will
he
admitt
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
to
be
ane
ingredient
in
this
office
,
and
thus
it
is
neither
fixed
nor
unfixed
preaching
or
government
either
,
that
with
him
will
make
up
this
office
properly
taken
,
if
we
consider
the
whole
structure
of
his
reasoning
.
5.
As
for
what
he
sayes
of
philip
,
That
it
will
not
follow
,
he
was
ane
extraordinary
Evangelist
,
though
termed
ane
Evangelist
,
since
he
was
a
Deacon
.
I
answer
,
that
Philip
was
not
ane
Evangelist
properly
so
called
,
is
by
him
poorly
and
gratis
asserted
,
and
worse
proved
;
Learned
Calvin
upon
the
place
tells
us
That
his
Deaconship
was
a
temporal
and
transient
function
,
then
expired
,
because
otherwayes
it
had
no
been
free
to
him
to
leave
Jerusalem
and
go
to
cesaria
;
And
that
he
is
not
here
proposed
as
a
voluntar
deserter
of
his
office
,
but
as
one
who
had
a
more
excellent
office
intrusted
to
him
,
Which
two
grounds
will
put
faire
to
prove
that
he
was
not
a
deacon
still
.
Then
he
adds
[
Evangilistae
meo
judiciointer
Apostolos
&
doctores
medii
erant
,
munus
enim
obibant
Apostolis
proximum
ut
passim
Evangelium
praedicarent
,
nec
praeficerentur
certae
Stationi
—
That
is
,
Evangelists
were
sett
in
the
middle
betwixt
Apostles
and
Doctours
,
had
ane
office
nixt
to
that
of
the
Apostles
and
Doctours
,
had
ane
office
nixt
to
that
of
the
Apostles
,
that
they
might
every
where
preach
the
gospell
and
were
not
fixed
to
any
Station
.
He
gives
this
reason
of
his
description
of
the
Evangelist
,
Because
,
(
Ephes.
4.
)
the
Apostle
describing
the
order
of
the
Church
doth
in
such
manner
substitut
them
to
Apostles
,
as
he
shews
that
they
had
a
more
inlarged
office
of
teaching
intrusted
to
them
then
to
Pastours
whose
worke
was
tyed
to
certain
places
.
Hence
he
concludes
that
Philips
deaconship
at
Jerusalem
,
was
onely
temporall
.
And
for
some
time
there
exercised
by
him
,
and
that
he
was
afterby
the
Church
assumed
to
be
ane
Evangelist
.
In
which
words
wee
see
.
1.
He
doth
upon
weightie
grounds
prove
him
to
have
been
no
Deacon
at
that
time
wherein
he
is
called
ane
Evangelist
.
2.
That
he
was
ane
Evangilist
in
the
strict
and
proper
sense
as
it
is
taken
.
Eph.
4.
—
3.
That
Evangelists
are
officers
above
ordinarie
teachers
or
pastours
,
and
in
this
distinct
from
them
(
in
the
judgement
of
this
great
divine
)
that
they
were
fixed
to
no
certan
charge
,
as
they
,
but
as
being
nixt
Apostles
had
ane
indefinit
unfixed
Ministery
;
all
which
is
cross
to
this
mans
blunt
confused
discourse
of
this
mater
,
and
cutts
the
sinews
of
Timothy's
supposed
Episcopacy
.
Lastlie
,
Where
he
affirms
that
ordination
and
jurisdiction
were
no
proper
worke
of
ane
Evangelist
,
but
preaching
and
spreading
the
Gospell
.
1.
I
urge
him
thus
,
if
preaching
and
spreading
the
gospel
was
the
characteristick
of
the
Evangelist
(
He
must
mean
it
in
a
more
extensive
way
then
ordinary
Pastours
if
he
speak
sense
)
then
sure
he
cannot
deny
but
that
Timothy
thus
preached
and
spread
the
gospel
as
the
Apostles
Coajutor
in
many
Churches
,
as
is
cleared
above
.
Whence
it
followes
by
his
own
Confession
.
1.
That
Timothy's
office
was
extraordinary
and
is
ceased
,
for
he
affirmes
that
the
office
of
ane
Evangelist
whom
he
calls
extraordinary
was
to
cease
in
the
Church
.
2.
That
he
had
no
Episcopall
authority
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
He
being
ane
Evangelist
in
a
sense
beyond
any
ordinary
preacher
,
and
upon
the
other
hand
ordination
and
jurisdiction
by
his
confession
,
not
being
his
proper
worke
who
is
ane
Evangilist
.
So
that
Pauls
calling
him
ane
Evangelist
must
lay
him
by
from
being
a
Prelat
,
and
consequently
all
the
Informers
pleading
from
his
supposed
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
in
the
1.
Epistle
written
to
him
,
is
frivolous
and
vaine
.
For
in
his
sense
he
could
not
Act
both
the
worke
of
evangelist
and
Prelat
,
these
being
according
to
his
pleading
,
inconsistent
.
But
nixt
,
the
wonder
is
,
how
this
man
comes
to
divide
[
preaching
and
spreading
of
the
gospell
]
from
[
the
power
of
ordination
jurisdiction
]
since
he
cannot
but
acknowledge
that
the
Apostles
did
both
these
,
and
affirms
that
their
office
was
episcopal
,
as
we
heard
above
.
And
after
he
will
tell
us
that
Catalogues
of
Bishops
are
drawen
from
the
Apostles
,
and
by
Ierom
,
from
marke
the
Evangelist
who
was
Bishop
of
Alexandria
.
Then
it
seems
this
power
in
ordination
(
wherein
,
with
him
the
Chief
part
of
my
Lord
Bishops
office
lyes
)
was
very
well
consistent
with
both
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
their
unfixed
inlarged
preaching
and
spreading
of
the
gospell
;
The
Apostles
unfixed
preaching
&
spreading
of
the
gospell
,
sure
he
will
not
deny
:
nor
can
he
deny
to
marke
,
the
Evangelists
office
in
the
strictest
sense
he
can
imagine
:
so
that
both
are
with
him
compatible
.
Thus
we
see
in
withstanding
the
truth
,
hee
is
still
in
the
briers
of
Contradictiones
.
The
Doubter
excepts
aganist
his
reason
[
That
philip
might
be
both
a
deacon
and
Evangilist
]
To
which
he
answers
[
That
by
the
same
Reason
Timothie
and
Titus
might
be
both
Bishops
and
Evangelists
]
I
answer
1.
We
have
showen
already
,
That
philip
ceased
to
be
a
deacon
at
Jerusalem
when
he
became
ane
Evangelist
.
2.
Supposing
he
were
yet
the
Informers
answer
and
parallel
,
is
naught
.
For
1.
Philipes
becoming
ane
Evangelist
was
ane
advancement
to
a
higher
office
,
holding
still
ane
inferiour
,
which
is
eminenter
included
in
it
,
as
he
will
grant
,
but
making
ane
Evangelist
a
Bishop
is
a
degrading
of
a
high
extraordinary
superiour
officer
,
to
ane
ordinary
inferiour
.
2.
As
ane
Evangilist
properly
so
called
,
his
work
was
to
preach
and
spread
the
gospel
unfixedly
,
as
a
Bishop
,
his
work
he
will
say
,
was
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
which
Two
we
heard
him
affirme
to
be
incompatible
.
Besides
,
in
separating
the
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
from
the
Evangelistick
office
,
he
is
contradicted
by
Saravia
,
who
in
many
places
mantaines
the
contrary
(
degrad
:
cap.
1.
—
and
Cap.
16.
and
cap.
23
)
And
here
I
shall
shew
our
Informer
how
he
hath
run
cross
to
his
great
Master
in
his
glosses
upon
several
of
these
Texts
under
debate
,
that
it
may
appear
,
what
babellike
builders
our
prelates
Advocates
are
.
Upon
that
passage
(
Matth.
20
)
I
finde
he
is
a
little
more
ingenuous
then
this
is
Disciple
,
and
plainely
speakes
out
what
he
but
mutters
(
exam:
tract
:
de
episc
:
tripl
:
quest:
1.
pag:
70.
after
he
hath
repeated
that
Text
with
its
parallel
in
Luke
,
he
adds
.
Ex
his
verbis
quaero
num
cuiquam
sano
videri
possit
D.
Iesum
sustulisse
aut
prohibuisse
primatum
aut
principatum
?
&
non
potius
docuisse
quid
eum
deceat
,
qui
in
Ecclesia
primus
&
princeps
futurus
erat
&c
that
is
,
From
these
Wordes
I
demand
whither
any
that
is
sound
can
judge
,
that
the
Lord
Iesus
did
take
away
primaci
and
principality
,
and
did
not
rather
teach
what
becomes
him
,
who
was
to
be
first
and
Prince
in
the
Church
—
and
thereafter
he
tells
us
that
Christ
by
his
own
example
did
shew
what
sort
of
primaci
it
is
that
the
allowes
in
his
Church
,
so
that
he
doth
in
downright
express
terms
plead
for
a
supreme
patriarch
or
pope
representing
Christs
pritcipality
over
the
Church
,
&
what
harmony
this
keeps
with
the
judgment
of
protestant
divines
upon
that
passage
,
any
may
judge
.
The
Informers
holdes
That
there
was
to
be
no
inequality
of
power
among
the
12
Apostles
(
although
he
is
not
consistent
with
himself
in
this
,
as
is
already
observed
)
but
Saravia
runs
so
far
cross
to
him
in
this
assertion
that
he
mantaines
a
primaci
of
power
among
them
.
That
the
Bishops
,
saluted
with
the
deacons
,
(
Phil:
1.
)
were
meer
Presbyters
,
he
is
forced
to
acknowledge
,
and
so
condemnes
our
Informers
shifts
,
about
Extraneus
Bishops
accidently
there
,
or
with
the
Apostle
himself
,
or
that
the
Diocesian
is
included
in
the
word
[
Bishop
]
—
in
epistola
ad
Philippenses
salutem
dicit
Episcopis
&
diaconis
,
unde
quemadmodum
intelligitur
Philippensium
ecclesiam
habuisse
Presbyteros
&
diac●…nos
&c.
(
de
Grad
:
Cap:
8.
)
In
the
Epistle
to
the
Philippians
Paul
salutes
the
Bishops
and
deacones
,
hence
as
we
are
given
to
understand
,
that
the
Church
of
the
Philippians
had
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
&c.
Again
,
the
Informer
layes
aside
the
Highpreist
,
as
a
type
of
Christ
,
when
he
pleads
for
prelacie
from
the
Jewish
Church-government
.
But
in
this
Saravia
gives
him
the
lie
for
t
.
He
holds
the
inferiour
priests
to
have
been
in
there
administration
types
of
Christ
as
well
as
the
high
priest
.
And
2.
That
the
Government
,
whether
of
the
inferiour
or
high
priests
,
is
not
abolished
as
typical
(
de
honor
:
praes:
&
prysb
:
deb
:
cap
:
10
,
&
de
Divers
:
grad
Miniser
:
cap
14.
)
Besides
,
the
Informer
holds
that
that
place
2
Tim.
2
:
4.
Commandes
Churchmen
to
be
as
Abstract
as
possible
from
publik
civil
imployments
,
and
not
intangle
themselves
therein
.
But
Saravia
adstricts
the
affairs
of
this
life
spoken
of
in
that
Scripture
,
unto
the
endeavours
which
belonges
to
the
nourishment
and
mantainance
of
this
life
,
and
holds
that
it
doth
not
at
all
speak
of
nor
discharge
Churchmens
holding
of
publick
state
imployments
under
Princes
.
He
minces
not
the
matter
as
this
man
.
Vitae
negotia
(
saith
he
]
sunt
ea
quibus
,
quae
ad
hujus
vitae
victum
pertinent
,
comparantur
,
non
quae
sunt
principis
aut
civitatis
publica
.
And
[
de
●…on
:
praesul
.
&
Presbit
:
deb
:
]
he
praefixes
this
title
unto
:
Cap:
26.
As
that
which
he
undertakes
to
prove
—
Idem
Homo
tanquam
episcopus
curam
ecclesiae
Domino
Iesu
,
&
fidem
ac
obsequium
regi
tanquam
ipsius
beneficiarius
reddere
potest
.
That
the
same
man
may
perform
his
duety
to
Christ
as
a
Bishop
,
and
attend
the
Church
,
and
also
render
faith
and
obedience
to
the
King
as
his
vassal
&c.
The
doubter
nixt
excepts
to
better
purpose
That
they
could
not
be
Bishops
,
because
they
were
not
settled
at
these
places
,
especially
Timothy
,
had
he
been
Bishop
at
Ephesus
,
he
had
been
fixed
to
his
charge
,
but
he
was
left
only
there
upon
occasional
imployment
,
and
for
a
season
,
1
Tim.
1
:
3.
To
this
he
answers
1.
That
they
were
rare
and
singular
persons
usefull
for
the
Apostle
at
that
time
,
and
therefore
it
is
no
wonder
that
they
were
called
from
their
particular
charge
when
the
Churches
good
required
it
.
Philip.
2
:
19
,
20
2
Cor.
8
:
23.
As
with
us
a
Minister
may
be
called
from
his
charge
for
a
season
when
the
good
of
the
Church
else
where
requires
it
.
To
which
I
rejoyne
1.
This
answer
supposes
the
thing
in
Question
(
viz
)
[
That
Timothie
and
Titus
were
once
fixed
as
Bishops
in
these
Churches
]
But
the
ground
of
the
exception
is
,
That
because
their
occasionall
transient
Imployment
in
these
places
,
is
so
clear
&
expresse
,
therefor
they
were
never
fixed
to
these
Churches
as
their
particular
charge
,
but
had
it
for
their
charge
to
water
all
the
Churches
which
the
Apostles
planted
,
and
attend
their
planetarie
motion
from
Church
to
Church
.
So
that
they
cannot
be
in
their
worke
and
duty
paralleled
to
a
Pastours
transient
Imployment
from
his
particular
charge
for
the
Churches
greater
good
,
whose
fixed
charge
is
supposed
.
But
we
have
proved
that
Timothie
and
Titus
their
ordinarie
Imployment
was
this
transient
and
unfixed
Ministery
:
which
is
clearly
holden
out
in
scriptur
both
befor
and
after
their
officiating
in
these
Churches
.
2
,
It
is
also
cleared
above
,
that
as
the
scripture
is
utterly
silent
of
their
return
to
these
Churches
againe
,
after
Pauls
recaling
them
from
the
same
,
and
after
their
transient
Imployment
therein
:
So
we
have
made
it
likewayes
appear
,
that
they
did
officiat
thereafter
in
many
other
Churches
,
performing
to
them
the
same
duties
of
Evangelists
as
in
Ephesus
and
crete
.
And
that
in
Ephesus
,
elders
were
called
Bishops
,
and
had
the
whole
Episcopal
charge
before
Timothie
,
committed
to
them
in
paules
last
farewell
.
In
a
word
,
it
can
never
be
made
good
that
any
who
were
fixed
to
particular
charges
,
did
so
travell
up
and
down
as
these
Evangilists
are
proved
to
have
done
.
Againe
he
t●…lls
us
That
Gerard
thinks
they
were
first
Evangelists
,
then
made
Bishops
by
Paul
at
Ephesus
and
Crete
.
Ans.
If
he
think
so
too
,
he
must
quite
all
his
plea
for
their
Episcopacie
from
these
Epistles
:
for
Paul
calls
Timothy
to
doe
the
worke
of
ane
Evangelist
here
,
and
Titus
worke
was
the
same
:
And
he
must
understand
this
in
the
strict
sense
(
if
he
offet
Gerards
exception
to
any
purpose
)
which
,
according
to
him
,
secludes
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
.
So
that
a
worke
and
office
being
enjoyned
Timothy
in
this
Epistle
,
which
hath
nothing
to
doe
with
ordination
and
iurisdiction
,
he
was
not
yet
made
a
Bishop
,
and
if
not
yet
,
it
will
be
hard
to
find
out
his
commission
and
patent
afterward
in
scripture
,
since
he
was
in
perpetual
evangilistick
Imployments
,
and
sure
if
Paul
ever
designed
him
Bishop
over
Ephesus
,
he
would
not
have
called
the
elders
of
Ephesus
,
Bishopes
,
befor
Timothy
in
his
last
farewell
.
We
heard
Saravia
plead
that
Paul
intitles
not
Timothy
an
Evangelist
[
non
compellat
nomine
Evangelistae
]
how
did
he
not
see
that
[
that
Paul
,
numquam
compellat
nomine
episcopi
,
never
puts
upon
Timothy
or
Titus
,
the
title
or
name
of
a
Bishope
,
neither
in
the
inscriptiones
of
the
Epistles
writen
to
them
,
nor
in
any
place
of
these
Epistles
,
or
else
where
in
scripture
,
nor
injoynes
any
of
them
to
do
the
work
of
Bishop
.
As
he
injoynes
one
of
them
expresly
to
do
the
work
of
ane
Evangelist
.
And
since
the
Apostle
,
disertis
verbis
,
in
〈◊〉
these
elders
of
Ephesus
,
Bishops
,
and
(
to
use
Saravia's
phrase
)
compellat
nomine
Episcoporum
,
and
that
with
the
signal
emphasis
,
of
being
made
Bishops
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
his
reason
from
epi●…hets
and
compellations
,
will
the
more
strongely
evinc
them
to
be
such
.
2.
This
is
a
great
degrading
of
ane
Evangelist
,
and
derogatorie
to
his
high
function
,
to
make
him
a
Bishop
.
The
Councel
of
Chaldecon
judges
it
sacrilegious
to
degrade
a
Bishop
to
a
Presbyter
,
such
must
he
acknowledge
this
degrading
to
be
,
and
therefore
that
being
once
Evangelists
,
of
necessity
they
behoved
to
continue
so
.
Next
,
the
Doubter
objects
,
what
we
have
been
saying
,
that
Paul
gave
to
the
elders
of
Ephesus
the
Charge
,
not
to
Timothy
,
which
he
would
not
have
done
,
had
he
been
Bishop
,
since
it
is
probable
he
was
present
at
this
time
,
for
v.
4.
He
was
in
Pauls
companie
.
Here
he
gingerly
nibbles
at
this
Argument
least
it
prick
him
,
omitting
these
pregnant
circumstances
of
the
context
.
1.
That
this
was
Pauls
last
and
farewell
exhortation
.
2.
That
he
not
only
gives
these
elders
the
Charge
over
that
Church
before
Timothy
,
and
not
to
him
,
but
also
the
wholl
Episcopal
charge
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
feed
and
rule
as
the
Holy
Ghosts
Bishops
set
over
the
same
,
which
comprehends
both
ordination
and
jurisdiction
.
But
what
sayes
he
to
this
Argument
.
1
:
It
may
be
he
was
not
●…et
settled
Bishop
as
Gerard
thinks
.
But
sure
he
had
all
the
〈◊〉
as
Bishop
which
the
first
Epistle
afoords
him
,
from
which
this
man
derives
his
Episcopacy
,
and
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
:
and
if
,
for
all
these
,
●…ur
Informer
will
grant
that
he
might
have
been
not
●…s
yet
Bishop
,
but
ane
Evangelist
.
Then
1.
he
must
acknowledge
that
all
his
pleading
for
his
Episcopac
in
the
nixt
pages
,
from
the
power
he
is
supposed
〈◊〉
have
in
the
first
epistle
,
is
but
a
beating
of
the
aire
an
impertinent
,
since
it
might
be
Antecedaneous
to
h●…
Episcopacie
:
and
by
the
Informers
confession
,
he
mig●…
have
had
yet
no
more
Episcopal
relation
to
the
Church
,
then
any
who
was
never
Bishop
there
.
Henc●…
2.
Not
being
yet
Bishop
,
but
ane
Evangelist
still
,
(
a●…
Gerard
takes
him
)
in
a
traveling
posture
up
and
down
with
the
Apostle
(
as
also
Bishop
Hall
,
Downam
and
Hooker
acknowledge
him
)
I
wonder
how
this
man
wil
sustean
his
denyal
,
that
he
was
ane
Evangelist
in
the
proper
and
strict
sense
,
such
as
his
was
.
Sure
,
if
this
his
supposition
,
or
[
may
be
]
will
hold
good
,
timothies
office
,
as
suc●…
ane
Evangelist
,
was
to
cease
in
the
Church
,
as
he
expresseth
it
,
and
Pauls
bidding
him
doe
the
work
of
ane
Evangelist
sufficiently
Unbishops
him
at
least
pro
tunc
,
which
notwithstanding
we
heard
him
deny
.
2.
He
tell
us
]
that
Irenaeus
who
lived
not
long
after
the
Apostles
thinks
there
were
Asian
Bishops
mingled
with
the
elders
of
Ephesus
,
and
with
Timothie
their
Bishop
to
whom
in
common
Paul
made
that
exhortation
comprehending
the
[
Bishops
]
under
the
name
of
[
elders
]
as
Apostles
were
sometymes
called
]
Ans.
We
may
be
much
in
love
with
this
scripture
in
the
present
debate
,
since
it
forces
adversaries
upon
such
simple
incoherent
shifts
.
First
,
it
may
be
he
was
not
yet
made
Bishop
—
then
least
that
concession
prove
too
gripping
,
there
must
be
other
Bishops
of
Asia
,
minglcd
with
these
elders
,
and
Timothie
of
necessitie
must
be
now
▪
Bishop
,
or
hardly
well
after
,
and
their
own
Bishop
and
the
extraneous
ones
,
must
be
all
shuffled
up
unde
the
name
of
elders
,
and
exhorted
in
common
,
a
he
shifts
the
argument
from
Philip.
1.
But
th●…
text
it self
sufficiently
discovers
the
folly
of
this
poo●…
shift
.
For
1.
Paul
called
the
elders
from
Ephesus
,
an●…
the
elders
of
the
Church
there
,
not
imaginary
elders
or
Bishops
from
other
places
.
2.
He
sent
for
the
elders
of
the
Church
,
in
the
singular
number
,
not
of
the
Churches
,
and
so
all
he
sent
for
had
a
particular
relation
to
that
Church
,
for
had
there
been
elders
of
other
Churches
there
,
It
would
have
been
expressed
elders
of
the
Churches
:
If
other
elders
or
Bishops
of
Asia
had
been
there
,
they
would
have
receaved
the
Scripture
denomination
of
provincial
Churches
,
which
are
expressed
in
the
plural
.
So
we
read
of
Churches
of
Asia
,
Revel.
1
:
II.
Churches
of
Iudea
Gal.
1
:
22.
Next
,
This
answer
still
supposes
[
The
existence
of
the
diocesian
Bishop
over
Presbyters
at
that
time
]
which
is
a
poor
begging
of
the
question
.
Wee
prove
from
this
and
such
like
texts
,
that
the
Bishops
of
Asia
,
and
Ephesus
were
meer
Pastours
,
who
had
in
Common
the
Epicopal
charge
over
the
Church
,
and
that
the
Holy
Ghost
set
up
these
,
and
none
else
.
Infine
,
This
is
but
a
meer
shift
in
the
Iudgment
of
Chrysostom
,
Hierom
,
Theodoret
,
and
the
Current
of
Interpreters
,
who
take
these
elders
for
meer
Presbyters
,
and
is
contrare
to
the
Syriack
translation
,
which
reads
it
,
Presbyteros
ecclesiae
Ephesinae
.
So
the
Concilium
Aquisgravense
.
But
now
comes
his
proofe
of
Timothie
,
and
Titus
,
their
Episcopacie
from
these
Epistles
.
His
first
Reason
in
general
,
is
That
in
these
Epistles
more
fully
then
any
where
else
in
the
new
Testament
,
Paul
gives
direction
to
Timothie
and
Titus
how
to
carry
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
which
Two
comprehends
the
Episcopall
office
.
Ans.
1.
With
him
there
is
a
possibilitie
,
or
may
be
,
that
forall
these
directions
,
Timothy
and
Titus
were
evangelists
still
,
and
not
yet
Bishops
;
and
so
these
directions
might
be
given
to
them
as
extraordinary
officers
,
who
,
according
to
him
,
were
to
cease
,
and
consequently
though
comprehensive
of
the
Episcopal
office
,
yet
the
office
might
cease
with
their
persons
as
exercised
in
that
manner
,
and
the
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
be
deryved
to
different
recipients
,
to
be
exercised
in
another
maner
,
(
viz
)
by
presbyters
in
common
.
2.
By
what
consequence
will
he
infer
ane
Episcopall
authority
and
inspection
,
from
the
Apostles
prescribing
rules
to
them
anent
ordination
and
jurisdiction
?
May
not
all
Ministers
be
herin
directed
,
as
well
as
Timothy
and
Titus
?
or
will
his
giving
directions
to
them
in
this
poynt
infer
their
sole
and
singular
authority
therein
?
Surely
not
at
all
in
Churches
constitute
:
and
as
for
what
they
did
in
the
frameing
and
constitution
of
Churches
yet
in
fieri
,
as
to
their
organick
being
,
is
not
to
the
purpose
.
3.
We
did
shew
above
that
the
prelats
power
,
and
their
way
as
to
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
is
in
its
very
nature
,
different
from
that
which
either
Apostle
or
Evangilist
exercised
,
as
being
a
dominion
and
arbitrary
power
,
yea
including
in
it
a
civil
dominion
,
and
derived
from
the
civil
Magistrat
.
None
of
which
can
be
said
of
any
authority
which
Timothy
and
Titus
are
here
supposed
to
have
:
In
a
word
,
as
it
is
clear
that
the
elders
of
Ephesus
,
at
Paul's
last
farewell
,
were
intrusted
with
the
whole
power
of
ordination
,
and
jurisdiction
,
and
as
the
Episcopi
were
commanded
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
feed
and
rule
with
out
any
respect
to
Timothy
:
which
clearly
demonstrats
that
he
(
and
consequenly
Titus
)
had
no
Episcopal
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
over
these
Churches
,
established
in
their
persons
,
by
any
prescriptions
here
delivered
;
So
it
is
as
evident
that
the
same
prescriptions
might
be
delivered
to
any
Moderator
of
a
Synod
,
or
vnto
a
transiently
visiting
Minister
,
though
even
in
relation
to
a
province
,
which
being
necessarly
to
be
understod
Salvo
jure
Ecclesiae
,
would
import
no
Episcopall
or
sole
authority
,
and
thus
the
case
is
here
.
But
what
were
these
directions
importing
this
power
?
He
instances
1.
[
In
the
qualifications
which
they
must
require
in
such
as
were
to
be
ordained-not
suddenly
to
lay
on
hands
,
which
respects
ordination
,
next
,
the
rules
anent
government
,
how
to
rebuke
offenders
,
not
to
receave
ane
accusation
,
but
before
two
or
three
witnesses
,
how
to
deal
with
heretikes
,
&c.
Ans.
1.
These
Apostolik
directions
in
point
of
Government
,
are
good
&
excellent
,
but
how
doth
he
prove
that
the
adressing
of
these
directions
,
to
Timothie
,
will
infer
his
Sole
and
single
authority
in
all
these
,
so
as
to
seclude
Presbyters
from
their
share
therein
?
And
if
he
prove
not
this
,
it
will
say
nothing
to
evince
ane
Episcopal
authority
.
What
if
such
directions
were
adressed
to
a
Moderator
?
would
that
infer
his
Authoritie
over
the
Synod
?
Nay
,
since
a
Presbytry
laid
on
hand
's
upon
Timothy
himself
,
Since
the
Presbyters
of
this
Church
of
Ephesus
,
had
the
Episcopal
power
in
Common
,
committed
to
them
as
the
Holy
Ghosts
Bishops
,
Since
the
Corinth-Presbytery
did
excommunicat
the
incestuous
,
we
may
clearly
infer
,
that
these
directions
,
though
immediatly
addressed
to
Timothy
,
yet
belonged
to
Presbyters
of
that
and
Other
Churches
,
as
well
as
him
.
2.
Supposing
that
this
adress
will
give
him
a
speciall
Interest
herein
,
yet
how
will
the
Informer
prove
that
it
respects
Timothy
any
other
way
,
and
in
any
other
Capacity
,
then
of
ane
Euangelist
,
which
he
sayes
it
might
be
,
he
yet
was
,
and
not
a
Bishop
?
He
dissallowes
not
of
Gerards
opinion
,
who
sayes
,
that
he
was
not
yet
made
Bishop
;
Now
,
if
these
Rules
were
to
be
observed
by
him
,
and
this
his
supposed
singular
Authority
exercised
[
as
ane
Evangelist
,
whose
office
was
to
cease
,
]
It
will
plead
nothing
for
the
Episcopal
power
.
Surely
upon
our
supposition
,
that
he
was
a
fellow-helper
and
assistant
of
Paul
,
in
his
Apostolik
function
,
and
had
a
transient
occasional
Imployment
here
,
as
is
clearely
held
out
in
the
Text
,
these
rules
are
very
suitable
unto
him
in
that
capacity
.
Besids
,
these
Directions
are
for
instruction
of
every
man
of
God
,
or
Minister
,
in
point
of
Church-Government
2.
Tim.
3
:
16.
1
Tim.
4.
6
:
But
doth
not
give
them
Episopal
power
.
Or
will
he
say
that
every
man
hath
the
formal
office
,
or
place
,
in
the
nature
whereof
he
is
instructed
?
The
dedication
of
a
book
to
a
man
anent
rules
of
kingly
Government
will
not
make
the
man
,
or
suppose
him
,
either
King
or
Governour
.
In
the
3d.
place
.
As
to
these
Directions
themselves
,
particularly
as
to
Timothies
direction
,
as
to
laying
on
of
hands
,
't
is
Answered
,
that
laying
on
of
hands
in
ordination
,
is
found
in
Scripture
a
Presbyterial
Acte
competent
to
meer
Presbyters
,
which
(
as
I
said
)
they
exercised
upon
Timothy
himself
,
though
Paul
was
present
,
1
Tim
4
:
14.
2
Tim.
1.
5.
And
therefor
Timothy
could
have
no
single
,
or
Episcopal
authority
therein
in
Churches
Constitute
So
that
the
precept
directs
Presbyters
as
well
as
him
in
that
point
.
Nay
,
this
addressed
direction
mainly
respected
them
,
as
the
proper
subject
of
this
power
,
and
the
Presbytery
received
their
lesson
here
(
not
to
lay
on
hands
suddenly
)
rather
then
Timothy
.
Nixt
,
As
for
his
Authority
and
directions
anent
rebuking
and
Censures
.
I
answ.
That
neither
can
this
be
Timothy's
sole
prerogative
,
for
either
it
is
meaned
of
a
Privat
rebuke
,
and
this
every
Christian
hath
authority
in
:
Thou
shalt
in
any
wise
rebuke
thy
neighbour
,
and
not
suffer
sin
upon
him
.
Levit.
19
:
17.
Prov.
9
:
8.
Or
of
a
ministerial
rebuke
:
and
this
is
competent
to
every
Minister
of
the
word
,
Isa.
58
:
1.
2
Tim.
41
,
2.
Ti●…
.
1
:
13.
2
;
Sam.
12
:
8.
And
besides
,
Institutions
and
reproofs
of
Church
officers
,
will
not
prove
a
fixed
Episcopal
power
.
Prophets
rebuked
,
but
had
no
jurisdiction
over
Priests
,
nor
Paul
over
Peter
,
though
he
reproved
him
.
As
for
that
which
he
particularly
mentions
about
receiving
ane
accusation
against
ane
Elder
,
It
is
answered
.
That
this
also
belongs
to
the
official
juridical
power
of
Elders
,
since
Ruling
&
Government
attribute
to
them
in
Scripture
,
doth
necessarily
import
ane
authority
to
receive
accusations
,
and
correct
delinquents
by
reproofs
and
censures
,
Matth.
8
:
16.
17.
There
is
ane
accusation
to
be
delated
ecclesiae
,
to
the
Church
,
or
the
juridical
Court
,
not
to
one
Prelat
,
as
is
above
cleared
;
and
therefore
the
direction
anent
the
receiving
of
the
accusation
,
respects
them
who
were
to
judge
upon
it
,
and
not
the
Prelat
.
Compare
this
with
1
Cor.
5
:
4
,
5.
The
Presbyters
must
meet
together
to
rebuke
the
Incestuous
there
and
they
that
are
Spiritual
must
restore
the
delinquent
,
Gal.
6
:
1.
The
Church
officers
,
or
Ministers
of
Thessalonica
must
note
and
admonish
authoritatively
the
disobedient
Brother
,
2
Thess.
3
:
14
,
15.
To
which
I
may
add
,
that
as
upon
the
one
hand
Timothy
is
forbidden
to
rebuke
ane
elder
,
and
positively
enjoyned
[
doubly
to
honour
them
,
when
faithful
]
So
,
the
receiving
ane
accusation
,
is
no
more
then
that
which
every
privat
Christian
and
Minister
is
capable
of
,
even
against
the
superiour
,
whither
in
state
,
or
age
,
in
relation
to
admonition
,
Counsel
or
Comfort
accordingly
.
Levit.
19
:
17.
Gal.
6
:
1
,
2
Joh.
10
,
11.
None
in
whatever
capacity
are
exeemed
from
this
precept
,
not
to
receive
accusations
lightly
.
Hence
the
4th
.
Council
of
Carthage
(
cited
by
Blond
.
Apol.
Sect.
4
)
enacted
That
no
Bishop
should
hear
ane
accusation
without
the
Clergie
,
and
that
without
their
assent
,
the
sentence
should
be
voyd
.
where
was
the
negative
voyce
here
.
Whittaker
,
thus
answers
the
Popish
pleading
upon
this
text
,
and
our
Informers
too
(
controv
.
4.
Quest.
1.
Cap.
2.
)
That
Timothy
is
commanded
not
rashly
to
receive
ane
accusation
,
proves
not
that
he
had
dominion
over
Elders
,
which
according
to
the
Apostles
minde
is
to
bring
a
crime
to
the
Church
,
to
bring
the
guilty
into
judgement
,
openly
to
reprove
,
which
not
only
superiors
may
doe
,
but
also
equals
and
inferiors
.
In
the
Roman
Republick
,
the
Kings
did
not
only
judge
the
people
,
but
also
the
Senators
and
patricii
;
and
certainly
it
seems
not
that
Timothy
had
such
a
●…sistory
and
Court
as
was
afterward
appointed
to
Bishops
in
the
Church
,
what
this
authority
was
may
be
understood
by
that
which
followes
,
[
those
that
sin
rebuke
before
all
]
,
which
equals
also
may
doe
.
Thus
bishops
heretofore
,
if
any
elder
or
Bishop
had
ane
ill
report
,
referred
it
to
the
eeclesiastick
Senat
or
,
Synod
,
and
condemned
him
if
he
seemed
worthy
,
by
a
publick
judgement
,
that
is
,
did
either
suspend
,
excommunicat
,
or
remove
him
,
the
Bishop
condemneing
nocent
elders
or
deacons
,
not
by
his
authority
alone
,
but
with
the
judgment
of
the
Church
and
clergie
—
&
in
case
of
appeals
,
even
to
the
Metropolitan
he
could
doe
nothing
without
the
Synod
&
what
they
did
was
ratified
.
The
same
is
the
answer
of
Bucer
de
vt
&
usu
,
Sacr.
Minister
:
Willet
.
Sinops
.
Papis
Contr.
5
,
Ques
.
3
▪
part
3
,
In
the
appeudix
Eucer
.
de
Gub.
pag.
300.
to
398.
The
Informer
tells
us
in
the
next
place
that
these
directions
concern
after
,
ages
and
are
of
ordinary
use
:
and
therefore
they
cannot
be
extraordinary
officers
in
these
Acts
—
that
in
calling
Timothy
and
Titus
,
extraordinary
officers
in
these
Acts
,
we
lead
the
way
to
their
errour
,
who
call
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
extraordinary
.
Answ.
As
we
have
proved
,
that
none
of
these
directions
will
infer
in
Timothy
ane
Episcopal
Power
properly
such
,
but
that
any
power
he
had
above
Presbyters
;
was
by
his
special
Evangelistick
Legation
,
so
the
concernment
of
after
ages
in
these
directions
,
and
their
being
of
constant
use
,
is
a
pitiful
argument
to
prove
the
continuanc
of
the
power
in
that
manner
.
Are
not
all
the
old
Testament
precepts
anent
the
antiquated
ceremonies
,
all
the
acts
&
directions
given
to
extraordinary
officers
,
both
under
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
of
perpetual
use
in
after
ages
?
But
are
they
therefore
to
be
imitated
and
retained
?
What
will
he
say
to
the
Papists
,
pleading
for
the
anoin●…
of
the
sick
upon
the
Apostle
James
his
precept
[
let
the
elders
anoint
the
sicke
with
oile
,
and
pary
]
this
is
ane
Act
enjoyned
to
ordinary
officers
,
viz
,
to
elders
,
and
joyned
with
with
prayer
,
a
constant
standing
dutie
:
and
he
will
not
say
that
this
Apostolick
precept
is
to
be
ex
punged
as
useles
.
What
?
must
we
therefore
retean
anointing
?
would
he
not
in
this
case
distinguish
betwixt
that
which
is
a
constant
dutie
,
and
a
temporarie
concomitant
and
appendix
.
Acted
not
the
Apostles
extraordinarely
in
their
very
preaching
,
both
as
to
its
extent
,
its
confirmation
by
miracles
,
their
gifts
of
tongues
,
and
are
not
the
Acts
of
preaching
and
baptizing
of
constant
use
in
the
Church
?
Must
not
this
Informer
grant
that
these
Apostolick
Acts
of
preaaching
and
baptizing
are
perpetual
,
though
the
mould
and
maner
is
extraordinary
and
gone
,
in
so
far
as
their
extraordinary
Apostolick
power
interposed
therein
.
Thus
the
Acts
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
are
moral
,
but
the
modusrei
,
is
extraordinary
,
in
so
farr
as
their
Evangelistik
authority
,
and
special
legation
,
interposed
therein
.
He
must
either
acquiesc
in
this
,
and
acknowledge
this
his
argueing
Sophistick
and
pueril
,
or
he
will
contradict
what
he
said
before
,
anent
the
Apostles
extraordinary
Priviledges
,
which
are
gone
with
them
,
viz
,
infaillibilitie
,
their
immediat
call
,
sending
to
all
nations
,
and
what
else
was
necessary
for
the
first
founding
of
the
Church
.
Now
,
is
not
that
which
was
thus
necessary
,
of
perpetual
use
?
Are
we
not
built
upon
the
foundation
of
the
Apostles
and
Prophets
?
Are
not
the
ordinances
and
Ministery
receaved
from
them
,
of
perpetuall
use
?
And
their
most
extraordinary
Acts
,
if
we
mean
it
of
improvement
.
Nay
,
did
not
the
new-Testament
Church
receave
the
Law
of
God
,
and
ordinances
from
the
Jewes
?
Must
we
therefore
Judaize
?
2.
How
will
he
prove
that
the
asserting
,
that
any
officer
hath
ane
extraordinary
authority
conversant
about
such
ane
Act
,
will
give
ground
to
say
,
that
the
Act
it self
,
is
extraordinary
,
or
the
ordinance
touched
by
that
Act
,
expyred
?
Will
his
asserting
,
that
the
Apostles
exercised
ane
extraordinary
authority
which
is
now
ceased
,
in
their
preaching
unfixedly
,
by
ane
immediat
call
,
and
confirming
their
doctrine
with
miracles
,
and
strange
tongues
,
give
ground
to
conclude
that
the
ordinances
of
preaching
and
baptizing
are
expired
also
?
I
trow
he
will
not
grant
this
.
How
then
will
our
asserting
,
that
Timothy
and
Titus
put
forth
ane
extraordinary
Evangelistick
authority
in
ordination
,
and
jurisdiction
infer
,
that
the
Acts
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
or
these
ordinances
themselves
,
are
expired
?
can
he
not
distinguish
betwixt
the
power
it self
,
and
the
different
subject
,
and
manner
of
its
exercise
,
ordinary
or
extraordinary
?
can
he
not
see
in
Scripture
ane
extraordinary
power
derived
,
and
cut
out
in
a
succession
of
different
and
ordinary
channels
,
and
diverslie
exercised
?
Sayes
he
not
that
the
Apostles
had
ane
extraordinary
power
,
of
both
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
and
both
the
keyes
.
But
I
trow
he
asserts
that
,
there
are
different
recipients
,
who
bring
down
ane
ordinary
power
by
succession
.
Some
(
Prelats
forsooth
)
have
the
key
of
Governmant
,
others
(
viz
,
)
Presbyters
,
have
preaching
for
their
work
,
but
no
rule
properly
.
And
sayes
he
not
that
the
extensive
authority
,
in
which
the
Apostles
exercised
their
Ministry
,
is
gone
,
and
a
limited
ordinary
Ministry
derived
from
them
.
If
the
extraordinary
Mission
of
twelve
Apostles
,
hath
derived
from
it
a
Ministery
and
ecclesiastick
authority
spread
throw
all
Church-officers
in
the
world
,
who
succeed
them
not
into
the
same
office
,
let
this
Informer
shew
me
,
why
may
not
Timothies
Evangelistick
extraordinary
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
be
deryved
by
,
and
seatted
,
in
a
Presbytery
,
though
the
Evangelistick
Office
is
extraordinary
,
and
(
as
such
)
not
succeeded
unto
.
The
service
,
and
worke
of
teaching
,
and
governing
to
continue
in
all
times
,
doth
not
render
the
Apostolick
mission
or
commission
,
ordinarie
,
nor
infer
their
being
succeded
in
idem
officium
,
&
eundem
gradum
,
the
ordinary
power
being
institut
and
settled
in
the
hands
of
ordinary
officers
,
by
a
new
warrand
and
commission
,
according
to
the
Scripture
rules
of
ordination
.
The
office
of
Moses
was
not
rendered
ordinary
,
because
many
works
of
Government
exercised
by
him
,
were
recommitted
to
the
Elders
of
Israel
;
and
so
the
case
is
here
.
The
Evangelists
extraordinary
office
and
commission
(
necessary
,
as
that
of
the
Apostles
,
for
the
first
founding
of
the
Churches
,
and
watering
and
building
them
up
in
their
organick
being
,
&
for
settling
all
their
ordinary
officers
)
is
changed
into
the
Presbytery
their
ordinary
Collegiat
power
of
ordination
&
jurisdiction
;
which
we
find
was
in
the
Apostolick
Churches
exercised
,
and
even
in
this
of
Ephesus
.
His
2d
Reason
to
prove
them
Bishops
,
is
,
Because
their
commission
at
Ephesus
&
Crete
,
was
n●…t
voyded
upon
the
first
settling
of
Ministers
in
those
places
,
therefore
their
office
was
to
be
constant
,
since
if
meerly
as
Evangelists
they
were
to
settle
a
Church
there
,
then
they
were
to
give
place
to
the
Presbytery
when
some
Ministers
were
ordained
:
but
they
did
not
so
:
—
●…itus
needed
not
ordain
Elders
in
every
city
,
if
some
few
ordained
might
ordain
the
rest
.
Ans.
1.
This
is
a
poor
argument
,
and
hath
no
twist
of
a
connexion
[
their
commission
at
these
places
was
not
voyded
upon
the
first
settleing
of
Ministers
,
]
ergo
,
[
they
were
not
extraordinary
officers
,
but
had
a
standing
Episcopacie
there
]
which
is
a
meer
rope
of
sand
.
The
Apostles
office
and
commission
was
not
voyded
over
all
Churches
when
settled
,
Ergo
,
they
had
no
extraordinary
inspection
,
office
,
or
commission
,
towards
all
these
Churches
.
What
consequence
is
here
?
So
may
it
be
said
of
these
Vicarious
Apostles
,
their
commission
to
these
or
other
Churches
could
not
be
voided
or
expired
,
though
they
were
never
so
much
settled
,
but
they
were
prore
nata
to
visite
and
water
all
the
Churches
,
and
bring
Apostolick
instructions
to
them
,
and
reports
from
them
anent
their
case
.
We
have
proved
that
Timothie
and
Titus
exercised
their
extraordinary
office
,
and
commission
,
towards
many
other
Churches
,
after
their
return
from
these
of
Ephesus
,
&
Crete
,
so
that
their
commission
towards
these
or
other
Churches
,
could
be
no
more
voided
whil
the
Apostles
Imployed
them
therin
,
then
their
office
.
Besid
,
this
Informer
should
advert
,
that
Timothy
is
left
To
charge
some
that
they
teach
no
other
doctrine
which
was
a
commission
beyond
the
meer
settling
of
Ministers
,
and
supposing
some
already
settled
.
2.
Will
he
say
that
Timothy
and
Titus
were
ordinary
standing
officers
or
Bishops
,
over
these
severall
Churches
,
where
they
might
reside
some
time
,
and
have
Imployment
therin
,
even
after
they
had
officers
of
their
own
?
did
they
not
visite
and
water
many
other
Churches
,
were
they
therefore
their
Bishops
?
if
so
he
must
quickly
transport
them
to
be
Bishops
of
other
Churches
,
after
they
were
Bishops
here
:
&
exalt
them
to
metropolitan's
as
some
of
the
ancients
make
them
.
3.
Their
Evangelistik
inspection
,
direction
,
and
assistence
,
even
after
some
ordinary
officers
were
settled
,
could
no
more
prejudge
the
ordinary
power
and
authority
of
these
officers
,
then
the
Apostles
extraordinary
inspection
,
and
infallible
universal
directive
power
,
could
prejudge
the
Churches
ordinary
authority
,
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
.
The
Apostles
power
(
which
could
not
be
voyded
,
nor
expyre
,
whil
they
were
alive
)
being
Cumulative
unto
,
but
not
privative
of
,
the
Churches
ordinary
power
,
so
it
is
here
.
I
would
ask
our
Informer
,
was
Pauls
apostolick
commission
to
Crete
and
Ephesus
,
voyded
,
after
Bishops
were
set
up
there
?
Nay
,
he
will
not
say
it
.
But
did
this
Null
the
Episcopall
power
of
Timothy
and
Titus
,
over
these
Churches
?
I
trow
not
.
Well
,
no
more
could
Timothys
extraordinary
inspection
make
voyd
the
ordinary
power
of
presbyters
.
4.
We
told
him
already
that
how
long
soever
Timothy
and
Titus
were
resident
there
,
they
were
to
doe
nothing
pro
imperio
,
and
were
not
to
lord
it
over
the
presbyters
.
5.
Although
elders
once
ordained
,
have
power
to
ordaine
others
,
yet
the
bene
esse
,
did
call
for
the
Inspection
and
direction
of
such
highely
gifted
and
extraordinary
officers
herein
,
as
these
were
.
And
Moreover
,
in
that
Infant-state
of
the
Church
,
Apostolick
precepts
and
rules
in
reference
to
Church
government
,
and
the
exercise
of
both
the
keyes
,
were
to
be
delivered
by
these
extraordinary
officers
,
&
consequently
might
call
for
,
&
protract
their
continuanc
therein
,
even
after
ordinary
officers
were
ordained
.
Infine
.
He
cannot
deny
but
that
the
Apostle
recalled
both
Timothy
and
Titus
from
these
places
,
to
the
further
prosecution
of
their
employment
in
other
Churches
,
and
that
their
transient
imployment
therein
is
held
out
,
after
their
return
from
Ephesus
and
Cret
;
as
likwayes
their
occasionall
employment
in
both
these
places
,
which
will
in
so
farr
voyd
their
commission
in
relation
to
them
,
as
clearly
to
refu●…
the
supposed
episcopal
ordinary
charge
which
he
alledges
they
exercised
.
Next
,
from
the
Authores
of
jus
divinum
Minist:
evangel
:
[
concluding
against
the
peoples
power
of
ordination
,
upon
Timothy
and
Titus
being
left
at
these
places
to
ordaine
elders
]
The
Informer
inferrs
against
them
thus
,
why
was
Timothy
or
Titus
left
to
ordaine
elders
,
after
some
were
ordained
by
Paul
,
If
Ministers
so
ordained
could
ordaine
the
rest
?
and
after
some
were
ardained
by
Timothy
and
Titus
,
they
were
left
still
upon
that
imployment
.
I
answer
,
his
inference
touches
not
these
Reverend
authors
in
the
least
.
The
ordaineing
of
elders
in
relation
to
the
beue
esse
,
even
after
some
elders
were
there
,
and
the
furder
directing
and
compleating
of
these
Churches
in
their
members
and
officers
,
did
require
ane
Evangelistick
inspection
,
though
the
ordinarie
power
of
ordaineing
,
remained
with
the
ordinary
elders
and
Church
officers
,
as
the
scripture
doth
clearly
hold
out
.
Paul
haveing
after
committed
to
the
elders
of
this
Church
of
Ephesus
the
whol
power
of
government
.
But
the
scripture
gives
not
the
least
hint
of
the
peoples
power
to
ordaine
,
but
attributs
this
still
to
Church
officers
as
proper
to
them
.
So
that
this
Inference
stands
good
in
the
generall
[
though
some
were
converted
to
Christianity
there
,
yet
they
could
not
ordaine
officers
,
but
Church
officers
were
sent
upon
that
Imployment
]
ergo
.
Church
officers
must
ordaine
,
and
not
the
people
:
but
the
speciall
inference
will
not
hold
,
ergo
,
Biohops
must
only
ordaine
for
the
reasons
already
given
,
no
more
then
from
Paules
ordaining
the
first
elders
,
it
will
follow
[
ergo
Paul
,
or
ane
Apostle
only
,
must
ordaine
]
which
is
a
Consequence
our
Informer
dare
not
admitt
,
else
he
will
contradict
himself
.
It
is
a
good
consequence
[
Paul
,
a
Church
officer
,
preached
and
baptized
]
ergo
[
none
but
Church
officers
must
preach
and
baptize
]
but
[
ergo
,
none
but
ane
Apostle
must
preach
and
baptize
]
is
bad
logick
.
So
his
inference
is
neither
logicall
nor
theological
.
His
3d.
Reason
to
prove
Timothy
a
Bishop
,
is
taken
from
Pauls
solemne
Charge
1.
Tim.
6.
13.
to
keep
.
what
he
had
commanded
him
,
till
the
appearing
of
Iesus
Christ
.
That
presbyterians
(
particularly
,
jus
divinum
Minist.
pag.
74.
)
hold
these
Directions
to
be
for
all
ages
of
the
Church
,
making
them
paralleel
with
Matth.
28.
20.
anent
Christs
promised
presence
to
the
end
and
1
:
Tim.
5.
7
,
21.
Anent
Pauls
Charge
to
observe
these
things
.
Whence
he
concludes
that
they
were
to
have
successors
in
their
office
,
and
were
not
extraordinary
officers
,
since
these
divines
say
,
page
160.
[
That
Apostolick
examples
in
things
necessary
for
the
good
of
the
Church
,
and
which
cary
a
perpetuall
equiry
and
reason
in
them
,
have
the
force
of
a
rule
]
and
the
Apostles
setting
Timothy
and
Titus
,
over
these
Churches
,
is
ane
example
Apostolick
for
the
good
of
the
Church
,
and
hath
a
perpetuall
reason
and
equitie
in
it
.
Ans.
1.
Wee
have
made
it
appear
that
no
directions
given
to
Timothy
will
amount
to
demonstrat
any
episcopall
dominion
over
this
Church
,
and
that
he
had
no
sole
or
arbitrary
power
either
in
ordination
or
jurisdiction
,
&
consequently
that
the
charge
of
[
keeping
that
which
was
commanded
him
]
will
Import
&
inferr
no
keeping
of
ane
Episcopall
charge
.
2.
Wee
have
also
shewed
what
a
bad
consequence
it
is
,
to
argue
from
the
perpetual
use
of
precepts
or
directions
,
given
to
extraordinary
officers
,
in
relation
to
extraordinary
acts
,
towards
the
Churches
imitating
of
these
acts
,
and
retaineing
these
expired
functions
,
which
is
palpably
a
non-sequitur
,
as
this
man
can
not
deny
,
else
he
will
swallow
horrid
absurdities
.
Every
thing
which
is
for
our
constant
use
and
Improvement
,
is
not
likwayes
for
our
Imitation
.
Againe
,
3.
I
would
ask
this
Informer
,
if
the
Command
1.
Tim.
6.
13.
joyned
with
the
promise
Matth.
28.
20.
Will
not
reach
and
include
every
peece
of
the
Apostolik
and
evangelistik
office
?
Sure
he
cannot
deny
this
,
and
yet
he
acknowledges
there
were
severall
peeces
of
their
work
temporary
and
expyred
.
Will
he
dare
to
say
that
what
the
apostle
commanded
Timothy
in
this
Epistle
,
was
confined
within
Ephesus
,
or
reached
him
only
as
oversieing
that
Church
,
and
not
in
relation
to
his
Evangilistick
office
throw
all
the
Churches
?
and
that
the
promise
Matth.
28.
did
not
reach
the
most
extraordinary
Apostolick
Acts
;
So
that
himself
must
distinguish
(
unless
he
be
inconsistent
with
himself
)
betwixt
what
is
moral
,
and
extraordinary
,
in
this
command
and
charge
,
and
accordingly
reached
by
the
promise
.
4.
His
citation
from
the
Ius
divin
.
Minist
:
&c
Cuts
the
throate
of
his
cause
:
for
argueing
thus
against
privat
persons
intrudeing
into
the
ministry
[
That
the
scripture
layes
down
rules
for
calling
men
to
that
office
]
they
instance
in
the
qualifications
of
the
person
,
Citeing
1.
Tim.
3.
2
,
3.
anent
the
properties
of
the
scripture
Bishop
or
presbyter
.
Then
they
add
[
That
the
Scripture
directs
as
to
the
maner
of
his
calling
,
viz
,
who
are
to
ordaine
,
how
hee
is
to
be
ordained
,
citeing
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
viz
,
that
the
presbytery
is
to
ordaine
,
and
ordaine
by
the
laying
on
of
hands
—
adding
,
that
these
directions
are
for
all
ages
,
and
citeing
.
●…1
Tim.
6
:
13
,
14.
]
Now
,
if
these
perpetuall
directions
for
all
ages
,
be
touching
no
other
Bishops
but
these
in
1
Tim.
3
:
1.
And
anent
ordination
by
the
hands
of
the
Presbytery
,
surely
those
are
Presbyterial
not
Episcopal
directions
,
and
doe
palpably
exclude
Timothy●…s
standing
Episcopacy
;
So
that
he
did
not
well
to
raise
this
Ghost
.
Next
,
ane
Apostolical
example
for
the
good
of
the
Church
,
is
not
that
which
they
hold
to
have
the
force
of
a
rule
,
as
the
Informer
belies
them
but
ane
example
in
things
necessary
for
the
good
of
the
Church
.
And
as
this
,
so
the
next
citation
out
of
that
book
,
burnes
his
fingers
.
For
the
authores
having
cited
.
2.
Tim.
2
:
2
,
In
order
to
their
scope
of
pleading
for
ordination
as
a
perpetuall
standing
ordinance
,
Timothy
being
in
that
place
enjoyned
to
commit
those
things
which
he
had
heard
from
Paul
,
to
faithfull
men
who
shall
be
able
to
teach
o●…hers
.
They
infer
.
1.
A
necessity
of
setting
apart
some
to
be
teachers
in
Christs
Church
.
2.
The
qualifications
of
such
,
viz
,
they
must
be
faithfull
men
,
and
able
to
teach
.
3.
That
Timothy
is
enjoyned
to
committ
what
he
had
heard
to
faithful
men
,
which
they
understand
of
ordination
of
ministers
,
that
there
might
be
a
perpetuall
succession
of
teachers
.
And
comparing
it
with
the
former
citation
,
it
appears
that
they
hold
these
precepts
to
import
the
deryvation
of
the
ordinary
power
of
teaching
and
Government
to
ordinary
Ministers
.
And
when
the
Anti-Ministeriall
party
object
[
that
these
are
but
examples
,
which
doe
not
amount
to
make
up
a
rule
]
they
give
.
this
answer
[
that
Apostolick
examples
in
things
necessary
for
the
Church
,
and
which
have
a
perpetuall
reason
and
equity
in
them
,
have
the
force
of
a
rule
]
now
,
this
example
is
anent
the
committing
of
ane
ordinary
power
of
ordination
,
and
jurisdiction
,
to
faithfull
Ministers
and
teachers
,
which
quit
justles
out
the
prelatical
power
.
For
since
they
hold
Timothy's
singular
way
in
this
,
as
ane
Evangelist
,
was
to
cease
(
which
they
must
needs
doe
upon
the
forementioned
ground
,
the
Presbyterial
,
and
the
singular
power
being
inconsistent
in
the
same
subject
)
they
must
needs
place
this
Evangelistick
power
among
these
examples
which
doe
not
obleidge
,
and
it
is
ordination
it self
,
and
its
continuance
in
this
manner
by
ordinary
teachers
which
they
expresly
plead
for
,
as
the
Apostolick
example
,
which
hath
a
perpetual
reason
and
equity
,
and
the
force
of
a
rule
;
not
Timothies
singular
power
herin
which
they
hold
to
be
expired
.
So
that
the
Informers
assumption
viz
;
That
Timothies
Evangelistick
Inspection
by
the
Apostles
apointment
over
this
Church
,
as
also
that
of
Titus
,
is
such
ane
exemple
,
as
hath
a
perpetuall
reason
and
equity
in
it
.
He
might
have
found
to
be
rejected
by
these
divines
(
had
he
read
that
peece
attentivly
)
as
no
way
following
from
(
yea
contrare
unto
)
their
assertion
and
it
is
still
left
at
h●…s
door
to
prove
and
make
good
.
His
Last
Reason
,
to
prove
the
Episcopacy
of
Timothy
and
T●…us
,
is
taken
from
Testimonies
.
That
Polycrates
and
Eusebius
affirme
Timothy
to
have
been
Bishop
of
Ephesus
.
—
That
Leontius
Bish:
os
Magnesià
in
the
generall
Council
of
Calcedem
Act
11.
points
out
a
Series
of
Tuentie
Seven
Bishops
in
Ephesus
,
from
Timothy
&c
:
Ans:
Since
the
scriptures
doe
clearly
hold
out
his
extraordinary
Evangilist●…k
function
,
and
there
is
nothing
therein
which
can
in
the
least
infer
his
having
ane
ordinary
episcopall
power
,
The
Informers
pleading
upon
this
head
being
found
frivolous
and
leaning
upon
that
known
fallacy
viz
,
to
argue
from
[
The
singularity
of
ane
extraordinary
officer
]
to
the
[
Singularity
of
ane
ordinary
perpetuall
officer
]
in
Church
government
which
will
as
well
set
up
(
upon
the
ground
of
the
Apostles
universall
inspection
)
patriarchs
,
or
popes
as
prelats
:
Surely
the
improper
styles
and
designations
which
the
Ancients
put
upon
Timothy
or
Titus
,
who
spoke
in
the
language
of
their
owne
times
,
is
a
very
insignificant
proof
to
Counter
ballance
Scripture
light
in
this
mater
.
Tertullians
saying
(
cited
by
park
,
l
2.
C
,
7.
)
is
here
remarkable
,
Si
constat
id
verius
quod
prius
id
prius
quod
ab
initio
id
ab
initio
quod
ab
Apostolis
&c
:
that
is
truest
which
is
first
that
is
first
which
is
from
the
beginning
,
that
is
from
the
beginning
which
is
from
the
Apostles
.
Their
opinions
who
call
them
Bishops
,
are
for
most
part
borrowed
from
Eusebius
,
of
whose
hallucinations
Scaliger
gives
large
prooses
,
and
yet
all
that
he
sayes
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
It
is
reported
;
and
this
report
he
had
from
a
fabulus
Clemens
.
The
ancients
likewayes
call
the
Apostles
themselves
Bishops
,
peter
of
Rome
,
James
of
Jerusalem
.
Yea
Theodoret
Calls
Timothy
and
Titus
Apostles
of
Asia
and
crete
,
which
the
Informer
will
not
justifie
.
Yea
some
call
them
Motropolitanes
,
Arch
Bishops
,
patriarchs
,
and
this
because
(
saith
Walo
Messalinus
)
they
did
these
Acts
which
afterward
by
human
Custome
,
were
appropriat
to
Bishops
,
which
(
saith
he
)
they
did
as
Evangelists
,
as
one
of
them
is
expressly
called
.
As
for
jerom
,
it
is
certain
that
he
both
mantaines
and
proves
the
Bishop
and
elder
to
be
one
in
Scripture
,
when
disputing
that
point
in
his
Commentar
upon
Titus
:
and
therefore
when
at
any
time
he
gives
these
evangelists
such
appellations
he
doth
it
allusively
,
and
improperly
,
according
to
the
degenerat
custome
of
his
time
.
As
for
the
Catalogues
of
Bishops
,
from
Scriptur
times
,
they
are
found
to
terminat
upon
Apostles
or
Evangelists
,
as
that
of
Ierusalem
,
comes
up
to
Iames
the
Apostle
:
that
of
Antioch
,
to
peter
:
So
that
of
Rome
,
to
peter
,
and
Paul
:
that
of
Alexandria
,
unto
mark
&c
:
Now
,
they
were
not
ordinary
officers
,
nor
succeeded
in
eundum
gradum
.
And
besid
,
there
are
ecclesiastick
customes
traced
up
by
some
to
the
Apostolick
tymes
,
which
not
with
standing
are
acknowledged
not
to
be
of
divine
oppointment
.
Some
first
Bishops
were
but
primi
presbiteri
(
as
we
shall
after
shew
)
How
lost
they
the
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
which
their
first
founders
had
,
in
so
short
a
time
?
This
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
(
which
our
prelats
now
acclaime
,
and
this
man
pleads
for
)
will
not
be
found
till
Three
hundred
years
after
Christ
,
if
at
all
then
.
The
gross
mistak
of
many
ancients
in
their
constituting
of
Bishops
,
appears
in
this
instance
.
That
many
fathers
affirm
peter
to
have
been
Bishop
of
Rome
,
and
to
have
continued
Bishop
there
for
many
years
.
Yet
Marsilius
patavinus
pars
:
2.
c
:
16.
Carolus
Molinaeus
,
Scen
:
Consult
:
franc
:
contr:
abusus
&c
:
Paparum
)
proves
by
scripture
and
reason
that
peter
was
never
at
Rome
.
In
a
word
,
the
ancients
call
them
●…shops
,
as
likwayes
Apostles
such
,
not
properly
(
saith
Bucer
.
de
Gub
:
Eccles:
p.
432.
So
fox
,
Act
mon
:
p.
11465
)
but
in
a
large
or
general
appellation
,
because
they
first
preached
the
gospel
to
these
Churches
—
and
to
this
end
,
To
prove
a
perpetuall
succession
of
sound
preachers
,
and
sound
doctrine
,
in
those
particular
Churches
from
the
Apostles
tyme
to
their
own
;
nameing
the
eminentest
Ministers
for
parts
and
gifts
,
the
Bishops
of
these
Churches
:
which
Method
&
scope
of
Catalogues
,
appears
by
Irenaeus
,
Tertullian
,
cited
by
Mi●…prin
.
(
un
Bish:
of
Tim:
and
Tit:
p.
34.
)
The
Doubter
objects
against
Timothies
Episc.
That
he
was
ordained
by
the
layingon
of
the
hands
of
the
presbytery
1.
Tim
4.
14.
and
therefore
could
not
be
a
Bishop
,
Since
a
Presbytery
which
is
a
company
of
Ministers
,
cannot
make
a
Bishop
.
To
this
the
Informer
returns
,
1.
That
Calvin
thinks
that
by
presbytery
is
meaned
the
office
.
I
answer
,
Suppose
Calvin
think
so
what
will
that
say
to
the
argument
it self
?
Againe
Calvine
upon
the
place
,
doth
not
wholly
dissoun
the
ordinary
comment
,
which
takes
the
presbytery
for
a
company
of
elders
,
but
thinks
it
may
well
sustean
Presbiterium
qui
hio
(
saith
he
)
Collectivum
nomen
esse
putant
,
pro
collegio
presbiterorum
positum
,
recte
Sentiunt
meo
judicio
.
Such
as
esteem
the
presbitery
here
to
be
a
collective
word
put
for
the
assembly
of
elders
,
doe
rightly
judge
in
my
judgement
.
Besids
that
the
greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Presbyterie
,
especially
as
it
stands
here
constructed
,
cannot
in
any
tollerable
sense
import
the
office
,
for
the
office
hath
no
hands
to
lay
on
.
2
The
Informer
flies
to
his
old
shift
of
sh●…uding
the
diocesian
Bishops
under
the
lapp
of
these
presbyters
,
which
he
tells
us
we
need
not
think
strange
of
since
he
hath
shewed
that
the
[
Apostles
]
are
called
elders
or
[
presbyters
.
]
Ans.
Wee
have
already
disproved
what
he
alledges
from
the
Apostles
being
called
elders
(
in
agenerall
sense
)
here
,
as
befor
,
he
but
begges
the
Question
in
supposing
his
imaginary
different
degrees
of
preaching
presbyters
or
Pastours
to
be
at
this
tyme
existent
,
which
(
untill
he
make
it
appear
from
Scripture
)
is
as
easily
denyed
by
us
,
as
affirmed
by
him
.
What
a
pitiful
cause
must
that
be
which
needs
the
support
of
such
vaine
shifts
?
In
phil:
1.
and
Act.
20.
Bishops
(
diocesian
Bishops
)
must
be
set
up
among
the
presbyters
.
So
here
they
must
be
brought
into
this
presbytery
,
whereas
the
very
Question
is
anent
the
being
and
existence
of
any
such
Bishops
at
all
at
this
tyme.
Next
,
If
hi-man
were
posed
upon
it
,
why
he
maks
the
presbyters
here
to
be
of
his
imagined
hiest
class
of
diocesian
Bishops
,
and
not
also
in
all
plac●…s
where
they
are
mentioned
,
as
Dr.
Hamon
doth
:
And
how
it
comes
that
there
were
so
many
Bishops
so
early
here
befor
Ephesus
,
Crete
,
and
other
Churches
had
even
his
inferiour
elders
or
ordinary
Ministers
?
He
could
give
no
answer
but
what
would
render
him
rediculous
,
in
his
running
the
Circlestick
,
and
begging
the
Question
.
Besides
Timothy
was
yet
no
Bishop
,
for
he
was
advanced
to
this
office
when
set
over
Ephesus
in
the
Informers
judgement
:
and
he
was
now
only
(
with
him
)
a
sort
of
unfixed
preacher
of
the
gospell
,
or
ane
Evangelist
in
his
large
sense
.
And
Hooker
sayes
the
Evangelists
were
presbyters
of
prime
sufficiency
assumed
by
the
Apostles
to
attend
them
.
This
resolver
will
have
him
to
be
no
other
wayes
ane
Evangelist
,
then
Philip
,
who
,
he
supposes
,
was
still
a
deacon
when
so
termed
.
Thus
it
evidently
appears
that
Timothy
,
according
to
him
,
and
upon
the
sequel
of
that
answer
,
receaved
at
the
utmost
but
a
meer
presbyterat
in
his
ordination
;
and
then
I
wonder
what
needs
a
number
of
Bishops
be
mustered
together
for
ordaining
him
?
Might
not
Paul
and
the
Inferiour
presbyters
ordaine
such
ane
one
?
Thus
we
see
he
is
still
inconsistent
what
himself
in
all
his
shifts
.
But
he
hath
a
3d.
Answer
taken
from
the
laying
on
of
pauls
hands
,
mentioned
2.
Tim.
1.
6
which
(
he
sayes
)
gave
the
substance
of
the
ordination
,
although
the
presbyters
might
share
in
the
Ceremonial
pare
of
is
.
Ans:
1.
If
it
were
denyed
that
the
Apostle
2.
Tim.
1.
6
affirmes
That
Timothy
was
ordained
by
the
laying
one
of
his
hands
since
hementiones
onely
[
the
gift
conferred
by
the
laying
on
of
his
handes
which
]
Paul
might
confer
upon
him
antecedaniously
to
his
ordination
,
since
he
laid
on
hands
in
order
to
gifts
of
the
Spirit
abstracting
from
ordination
as
other
Apostles
did
Act.
8.
17.
And
also
because
the
different
maner
of
expression
in
2.
T●…m
.
1.
6.
and
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
viz
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
one
place
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
other
,
diversifies
the
conferring
of
gifts
,
and
the
ordination
,
or
at
least
wil
plead
that
Pauls
laying
on
of
hands
was
in
order
to
the
Conferring
of
the
gifts
,
and
not
necessarie
for
the
ordination
it self
,
which
he
receaved
intirely
by
the
laying
on
of
the
presbyteryes
hands
,
even
supposeing
that
they
were
both
contemporarie
;
If
I
say
,
Some
presbyterian
Doubter
should
suggest
these
difficulties
to
our
Informer
,
he
would
be
puzled
to
come
liquide
off
with
this
his
answer
.
Surely
[
the
Charisma
]
the
gift
,
is
a
differing
thing
from
the
office
.
And
the
Apostles
laying
on
of
hands
as
ane
Apostle
,
being
in
a
speciall
way
in
order
to
the
end
mentioned
thouh
contemporarie
with
the
presbytryes
action
,
yet
mig●…t
be
temporary
and
expired
.
2.
What
Calls
he
the
cemonial
part
(
distinguished
from
that
substantial
pat
of
his
ordination
,
which
Paul
gave
)
which
he
admitts
the
presbyters
unto
,
if
we
will
.
Nay
Sir
,
we
will
not
;
't
is
known
your
party
are
much
in
love
with
ceremonies
,
and
we
quite
them
unto
you
,
where
they
want
substance
.
Was
it
the
Ceremonial
part
to
lay
on
hands
?
Then
I
would
propose
to
our
Informer
.
1.
That
since
this
was
neither
in
order
to
the
gifts
,
which
Paul
gave
,
nor
any
part
of
the
sacred
authority
and
mission
as
a
Church
officer
,
which
Paul
only
gave
according
to
him
,
what
signified
their
laying
on
of
handes
at
all
?
Was
it
only
to
signifie
their
consent
?
Where
can
he
shew
in
all
the
scriptures
,
where
laying
on
of
hands
is
mentioned
,
that
it
Imports
onely
consent
,
and
not
authoritie
?
this
Ceremonie
,
borrowed
from
the
old
Testament
,
doth
alwayes
present
a
badge
of
ane
Authoritative
blessing
,
flowing
from
Prophets
,
Patriarchs
and
others
,
to
which
though
there
were
many
assenters
,
yet
none
of
these
assenters
laid
on
hands
.
Next
,
since
this
Ceremonie
was
used
by
our
Lord
,
towards
his
Apostles
,
and
thereafter
by
them
,
and
particularly
in
this
work
:
&
withall
,
since
it
must
needs
Import
here
a
solemne
blessing
of
,
a
setting
apart
unto
God
,
and
sending
out
into
his
vineyeard
,
the
person
thus
ordained
(
not
to
debate
whither
this
Ceremonie
be
of
the
essence
of
ordination
,
as
some
judge
,
yea
or
not
)
let
our
Informer
shew
me
,
why
it
may
not
,
upon
all
these
grounds
be
looked
upon
as
a
badge
of
Ministerial
authority
,
and
supposing
this
authority
inherent
in
the
presbyters
.
I
would
ask
him
,
3.
Since
Paul
commended
the
whol
official
power
of
ordination
&
jurisdiction
,
to
the
presbyters
,
Act.
20.
&
Peter
.
1.
Epist.
5.
Ch:
Imputs
ane
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
actuall
exercise
of
Episcopall
authority
,
to
the
elders
,
who
were
(
as
himself
acknowledges
)
set
over
the
flocks
onely
,
and
so
none
of
his
imaginary
Prelat
elders
?
With
what
sense
or
reason
,
can
he
or
anyelse
say
that
they
could
not
share
in
the
substantials
of
ordination
.
many
no
doubt
concurred
with
the
publick
blessing
at
Timothies
ordination
:
for
I
suppose
it
was
done
in
the
view
and
presen
ce
of
the
assembly
,
But
did
any
of
them
lay
on
hands
?
Besyds
,
we
might
here
tell
him
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
presbytery
,
doth
alwayes
Import
a
juridicall
authoritative
Court
,
so
the
word
is
taken
Luk.
22.
66.
and
Act.
22.
5.
As
likewayes
the
word
[
presbyter
.
]
Imports
ane
officer
cloathed
with
authority
,
so
that
this
Court
of
elders
,
must
needs
have
ane
interest
in
much
more
then
the
rituales
of
ordination
.
His
Last
Exception
,
is
,
That
upon
our
supposition
,
That
Timothy
was
ane
extraordinary
officer
and
Evangelist
,
he
could
not
be
ordained
by
ordinary
inferiour
officers
or
Ministers
.
Ans.
1.
As
some
say
of
the
Prince
,
that
though
Major
Singulis
,
greater
then
every
single
person
,
yet
he
is
,
Minor
universis
,
lesse
then
the
whol
body
,
so
it
may
be
said
,
that
though
Timothy
,
as
ane
Evangelist
,
were
superiour
to
any
meer
elder
;
yet
ane
eldership
,
the
juridical
Court
,
the
Church
representative
,
might
be
above
him
;
if
at
least
such
a
superiority
was
here
necessary
;
else
let
him
say
,
whither
the
Prophets
at
Antioch
,
were
in
Capacity
to
Impose
hands
upon
Paul
,
and
Barnabas
,
and
send
them
out
upon
a
gospel
legation
.
Himself
is
bound
to
answer
this
,
whither
these
Inferiour
officers
,
in
that
act
,
were
greater
then
he
,
yea
or
not
,
and
how
these
ordinary
officers
and
teachers
could
authoritatively
bless
,
and
lay
hands
upon
ane
Apostle
.
And
when
he
hath
cleared
this
,
he
will
easily
exped
our
difficulty
in
this
point
.
2.
Though
it
were
granted
,
that
a
presbytery
,
consisting
of
meer
ordinary
officers
,
could
not
ordain
ane
Evangelist
,
yet
I
hope
he
will
grant
,
that
a
presbytery
,
where
such
a
one
as
paul
was
,
might
doe
it
,
who
as
ane
Apostle
,
might
ordaine
alone
.
If
he
say
,
what
is
then
become
of
our
presbyterial
ordination
,
which
we
draw
from
this
text
?
I
answer
,
it
is
much
confirmed
,
but
not
weakened
by
what
is
said
,
for
if
the
Apostle
Paul
took
along
in
this
high
Act
[
the
ordination
even
of
ane
Evangelist
]
the
authoritative
concurrenc
of
a
Presbytery
,
therefore
much
more
doth
this
power
of
ordination
belong
to
the
Presbytery
now
,
in
relation
to
ordinary
Church
officers
or
fellow
Presbyters
,
when
the
office
of
Apostles
and
Evangelists
is
ceased
.
3.
If
the
ground
and
topick
of
our
Informer's
argument
[
They
who
ordaine
must
be
greater
then
he
who
is
ordained
]
were
denied
,
he
would
be
more
puzeled
to
make
it
good
,
then
he
Imagines
.
Because
1.
The
blessing
in
ordination
being
only
ministerial
and
instrumental
by
way
of
service
but
not
by
ane
original
primative
authority
(
as
a
learned
man
distinguishes
here
)
God
and
Christ
alone
ordaining
thus
,
whose
servants
and
Ministers
,
both
the
ordained
and
ordainers
are
.
Ephes.
4
:
11
,
12.
1
Cor.
12.
28.
Matth.
9
:
37
,
38.
2
Cor
4
:
5.
1
Cor.
3
:
5.
21
,
22.
Act.
13
:
1
,
6.
The
ordination
will
no
more
infer
a
superiority
over
the
ordained
,
then
peoples
blessing
of
God
will
make
them
greater
then
Hee
,
Jacobes
blessing
of
Pharaoh
,
will
make
him
greater
then
Pharaoh
,
the
peoples
blessing
of
Solomon
,
greater
then
Solomon
.
The
Kings
Acturney
(
saith
he
)
who
drawes
the
noble-man
or
officer
of
state
,
His
patent
and
commission
,
is
not
greater
then
hee
,
But
the
King
who
is
the
original
of
temporall
honour
.
So
Ministers
in
this
work
doe
only
draw
out
the
Kings
patent
and
apply
it
,
but
Christ
only
is
the
original
proper
ordainer
.
As
for
that
text
,
Hebr.
7
:
7.
He
sayes
i●…
is
meaned
of
Christ
himself
who
by
Melchisedeck
his
type
,
blessed
Abraham
by
his
own
inherent
authority
and
power
.
2.
Admitting
that
the
ordainers
,
behoved
to
be
greater
then
the
ordained
before
the
ordination
is
execut
,
yet
it
will
not
necessarly
follow
,
that
they
must
be
still
greater
after
the
ordination
is
past
&
finished
,
the
very
end
of
it
being
to
conferr
upon
the
ordained
a
like
Ministery
with
that
which
themselves
have
.
Hee
instances
Matthias
and
Paul
,
who
were
inferiour
to
the
Apostles
,
before
they
were
called
and
ordained
:
But
being
called
,
they
became
equal
with
other
Apostles
in
Apostolick
power
,
dignity
,
degree
,
&c.
Wee
might
exemplitie
this
in
other
instances
,
(
if
intending
to
Press
it
)
As
the
armie
Creats
the
Emperor
,
which
of
the
two
is
greater
?
Three
Bishops
creat
a
Metropolitan
,
the
Council
of
Cardinals
a
pope
&c.
But
enough
is
said
to
rectifie
our
Informer's
thoughts
of
Timothy
and
Titus
and
so
we
proceed
unto
h●…s
next
Argument
.
CHAP.
XI
.
The
Informers
pleadings
for
Prelacy
from
the
seven
Asian
Angels
,
discussed
.
That
the
stile
of
Prophetick
writinges
,
and
of
this
book
,
doe
strongely
conclud
a
collective
sence
of
the
term
Angel
,
fully
proved
.
The
admitting
the
Angel
to
be
a
single
person
,
will
not
help
the
Informer
.
his
reasonings
from
the
pretended
Catalogues
of
succeeding
Bishopes
in
these
Churches
,
frivolous
and
vain
,
as
also
his
new
Argument
taken
from
[
diotrephes's
love
of
preeminence
,
]
wherein
he
imbraces
Bellarmins
evasiones
,
and
offers
violence
to
this
,
and
parallel
Texts
.
OUR
Informers
next
great
Argument
for
Prelacy
,
is
taken
from
the
seven
Asian
Angels
Revel.
23.
Whom
he
holds
to
be
Diocesian
Bishops
:
Because
though
there
were
many
Ministers
at
Ephesus
Act.
20.
Yet
when
that
Church
long
after
this
is
written
to
;
and
when
increased
there
is
but
one
Angel
addressed
,
and
commended
,
or
blamed
,
according
to
what
was
well
,
or
amisse
in
the
Church
:
And
in
all
the
rest
whatever
is
commended
or
discommended
,
is
directed
to
one
Angel
,
who
by
his
place
and
authority
,
was
mainely
concerned
therein
.
Ans:
This
man
,
if
he
had
been
so
ingenuous
and
seen
in
this
debate
,
as
he
would
appear
,
might
have
found
all
this
,
and
much
more
then
he
hath
offered
,
fully
removed
and
answered
by
many
Godly
learned
.
But
they
must
still
tell
over
and
over
,
their
old
baffled
arguments
,
to
which
satisfying
answers
have
bein
often
returned
.
But
to
the
point
,
the
weaknes
of
this
proofe
;
is
many
wayes
evident
.
1.
It
is
grounded
upon
a
Misterious
Metaphorick
terme
of
Angel
,
and
starrs
;
Revel:
1
:
20.
the
mistery
of
the
Sevenstarrs
,
so
must
the
expression
of
Angel
,
be
likwayes
a
part
of
this
mistery
.
The
Maxim
is
known
,
●…heologia
Symbolica
non
est
argumentativa
.
Far
less
can
this
be
rationally
opposed
unto
so
many
pregnant
clear
scriptures
,
as
are
produced
for
Presbyterian
Government
.
Besides
that
,
the
word
[
Bishop
]
is
no
where
in
Johns
writings
,
made
use
of
;
who
calls
himself
a
Presbyter
,
and
never
mentions
superiority
of
one
Presbyter
over
another
,
but
in
condemneing
Diotrephes
.
He
calls
Christ
the
word
,
and
the
Sabbath
,
the
Lords
day
;
these
are
expressions
not
found
before
in
Scripture
;
Surely
he
should
have
made
mention
of
a
new
office
,
as
well
as
of
a
new
phrase
,
had
any
such
thing
as
a
Bishop
,
been
allowed
by
him
.
Besides
,
the
Metaphorical
terms
of
Starrs
,
or
Angels
,
doe
import
the
qualities
of
light
,
heavenlines
of
frame
&c
:
which
are
proper
and
suiteble
to
all
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
:
and
therefore
they
cannot
ground
the
peculiar
preheminence
of
a
Bishop
over
many
Ministers
.
2.
The
great
topick
of
his
argument
is
[
that
one
is
named
,
though
many
are
spoken
to
,
and
where
many
Presbyters
are
supposed
to
be
,
as
at
Ephesus
,
who
threfore
must
needs
be
a
Bishop
.
]
but
this
ground
will
not
hold
good
.
Because
,
1.
This
is
no
more
then
what
is
suitable
unto
the
stile
of
this
book
,
which
is
by
mistick
visional
representations
,
to
include
many
individuals
as
one
singular
:
So
all
the
individuals
of
the
Church
,
both
members
and
officers
,
are
represented
by
one
candlestick
:
and
why
not
also
all
the
Ministers
,
by
one
angel
,
which
is
a
terme
that
of
it self
,
and
in
this
place
,
imports
no
jurisdiction
properly
,
but
is
immediatly
referred
to
the
qualities
of
Ministers
,
above
expressed
.
2.
This
is
also
suitable
to
the
stile
of
this
book
,
as
it
is
epistolar
,
the
addresse
may
be
to
one
,
but
it
will
give
no
Authority
to
that
one
,
over
the
rest
,
no
more
then
ane
addresse
from
the
King
,
to
a
speaker
of
the
Parliament
,
will
give
to
that
person
,
jurisdiction
and
authority
over
them
?
Or
then
our
Lords
saying
to
Peter
only
expressly
,
not
to
the
rest
of
his
fellow
disciples
,
I
will
give
unto
thee
the
keyes
&c.
Will
conclude
that
he
was
Prince
or
primat
over
the
Apostles
,
and
that
they
had
not
equal
authority
with
him
,
in
the
use
of
the
keyes
.
Our
Informer
and
his
fellows
here
,
doe
justifie
the
Papists
pleading
for
the
Pope
.
3.
This
is
suitable
unto
Scripture
prophetick
writings
,
and
to
this
book
,
as
such
,
to
represent
many
individuals
by
one
singular
,
The
four
beasts
,
and
twentie
four
Elders
,
are
not
four
individuall
persons
,
or
twentie
four
single
Elders
.
The
singular
names
of
Woman
,
Beast
,
Whoor
,
Dragon
,
signifie
a
collection
of
many
individuales
.
So
the
one
Spirit
of
God
is
called
the
seven
Spirits
,
in
the
1
Chap:
With
reference
to
his
manifold
operations
.
Dan.
8
:
20.
One
Ram
signifies
many
Kings
of
the
Medes
and
Persians
.
He
that
will
not
hearken
to
the
Priest
.
Deutr.
17
:
12.
That
is
,
the
Priests
,
in
the
plurall
.
So
the
Priests
lips
should
keep
knowledge
and
the
Law
is
to
be
sought
at
his
mouth
Mal.
2
:
7.
That
is
the
Priests
.
Blessed
is
that
servant
,
whom
his
Lord
&c.
that
is
,
those
servants
.
Particularly
,
as
to
this
term
Angel
,
It
is
said
Psal.
34.
That
the
Angel
of
the
Lord
encamps
about
the
Godly
,
that
is
,
many
Angels
.
4.
It
is
suitable
to
Scripture
,
and
to
this
book
,
To
represent
ane
indefinet
number
,
by
a
definit
.
Thus
all
Judas
Adversaries
are
represented
by
the
four
ho●…es
,
Zachr
.
1
:
18.
All
the
Godly
,
and
the
ungodly
,
are
represented
by
the
five
wise
,
and
the
five
foolish
Virgines
Matth.
25.
and
in
the
8.
Chap
of
this
book
,
The
Seven
Angels
standing
befor
God
,
represent
all
the
Angels
.
Fo●…
in
the
7
Chap:
Mention
is
made
of
all
the
Angels
who
doe
thus
stand
.
So
we
are
to
understand
with
the
same
indefinitnes
ofttimes
the
Septenary
number
,
as
the
Seven
pillars
which
wisdom
hewes
out
Prov.
2.
The
seven
Pastours
or
shepherds
Mic.
5.
The
Seven
eyes
Zachr
,
3.
And
in
this
very
book
the
Seven
condlesticks
,
Lamps
,
and
vials
,
Revel
,
4
:
5
,
15
—
5.
As
wee
find
the
scripture
,
and
this
same
Apostle
first
naming
a
multitud
,
and
then
contracting
it
into
a
singular
,
as
2
Joh.
2.
many
deceavers
are
come
into
the
world
—
then
—
this
is
a
deceaver
and
ane
Antichrist
.
And
sometimes
the
individual
in
one
sentence
;
turned
into
a
multitud
:
as
1.
Tim.
2
:
15
Shee
shall
be
saved
,
that
is
,
the
woman
bearing
Children
—
if
they
abide
in
faith
and
Charity
that
is
such
women
in
General
,
as
Beza
tells
us
all
writers
doe
take
it
:
So
it
is
as
certain
that
this
single
Angel
is
turned
into
many
in
one
and
the
same
Epistle
in
this
book
,
and
spoken
to
in
the
plural
,
as
when
it
is
said
Revel.
2.
24.
to
you
and
to
the
rest
in
Thyatira
.
and
in
Revel.
2
:
10.
we
find
John
changing
in
one
sentence
,
the
singular
Angel
into
a
multitude
:
fear
none
of
these
things
which
thow
shal
suffer
,
Behold
the
devil
shal
cast
some
of
you
into
prison
that
yee
may
be
tryed
&c.
as
in
2
●…oh.
2
:
He
changes
many
into
One
.
Finaly
,
Wee
have
proved
that
the
Scripture
allowes
of
no
Angels
Standing-Church
officers
or
Bishops
above
the
Pastours
or
Presbyters
,
who
have
in
Scripture
the
whol
Episcopall
power
given
them
.
So
that
whatever
this
Informer
shall
produce
as
the
Characteristick
of
this
Angel
,
we
find
it
applicable
to
Presbyters
.
1.
Is
it
the
work
of
this
Angel
to
preach
and
baptize
?
This
Commission
he
will
grant
belongs
to
all
Pastours
.
2.
Is
it
the
power
of
ordination
?
The
Scripture
shewes
us
that
this
is
Seated
in
a
Presbytery
.
1.
Tim.
4
:
14.
with
Act.
22
:
5.
Luk.
22
:
66.
Matth.
18
:
17.
Or
,
3.
Is
it
the
ruling
Governeing
power
?
Surely
all
Ministers
are
such
Angels
,
All
that
watch
for
the
peoples
soules
have
a
joynt
rule
over
them
,
Hebr.
13.
17.
And
therefor
none
can
challenge
it
solely
to
himself
.
In
the
Church
of
Thessalonica
the
laboures
in
the
word
and
doctrine
,
joytlie
and
indiscriminatim
fed
,
joyntlie
censured
and
admonished
,
and
were
joyntly
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Rulers
,
to
whom
consequently
the
people
were
indiscriminatim
(
or
with
out
any
difference
of
one
of
them
from
another
)
to
submitt
themselves
,
1
Thess.
5.
12.
There
was
therefore
no
sole
Angel
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
ruler
,
but
this
Prostasia
or
ruleing
power
was
in
many
.
So
was
it
with
the
Church
of
Ephesus
Act.
20.
So
with
these
elders
or
Bishops
1.
Pet
5.
And
we
offer
to
this
,
or
any
mans
serious
thoughts
,
whither
it
be
suiteable
to
divine
rules
,
to
cross
so
many
clear
Scriptures
upon
the
ground
of
a
metaphorial
mistick
expression
:
and
to
expone
them
in
that
sense
,
rather
then
to
explaine
the
Metaphor
and
mistick
expression
by
plaine
Scriptures
.
And
whi●…her
it
be
not
more
suiteable
to
understand
the
Angel
of
Ephesus
,
of
the
Ministers
:
to
whom
in
a
plaine
Scripture
,
the
whole
Government
is
found
intrusted
,
rather
then
to
expound
that
plaine
text
,
(
Act.
20
)
by
a
Metaphor
,
and
contrary
to
that
plain
text
,
to
set
up
one
Angel
or
Diocesian
Bishop
over
that
Church
,
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
.
But
the
Doubter
objects
what
have
been
saying
,
viz
,
That
the
Angel
is
to
be
taken
collectively
,
and
not
for
one
single
person
,
but
for
all
the
Ministers
.
To
which
(
in
a
peece
of
petulant
folly
)
he
Answers
That
he
hath
oft
wondered
at
this
reply
,
that
it
seems
this
Scripture
pinches
us
sore
,
when
we
flie
to
such
a
shift
—
That
Scultetus
,
a
learned
Protestant
,
affirms
that
the
most
learned
interpreters
understand
the
Angel
thus
,
and
that
without
offering
violence
to
the
Text
,
it
cannot
be
otherwayes
understood
.
Ans.
1.
We
hope
is
evident
from
what
is
said
that
the
most
native
scriptural
acception
is
to
take
the
Angel
collectively
.
To
which
we
may
adde
,
that
although
the
Lord
Jesus
(
the
best
interpreter
of
these
Angels
)
doth
expound
the
Seven
candlsticks
,
to
be
the
Seven
Churches
,
yet
in
expounding
the
Seven
Starrs
,
he
losses
the
number
of
Seven
,
and
calls
them
not
the
Seven
Angels
(
as
he
should
have
done
according
to
this
mans
meaning
)
but
indefinitly
the
Angels
of
the
Seven
Churches
;
from
which
it
is
convincingly
apparent
that
though
there
were
Seven
Churches
written
unto
,
yet
there
were
not
Seven
diocesian
Bishops
,
according
to
the
number
of
the
Seven
Angels
:
but
that
all
the
Ministers
or
Angels
are
thus
collectively
understood
.
And
wheras
this
man
professes
(
in
the
deept
of
his
witt
for
sooth
)
to
wonder
at
this
answer
and
taks
it
to
be
a
shift
.
He
should
wonder
at
Augustin
(
Homil.
21.
upon
this
booke
,
)
who
thus
taks
it
,
expounding
the
Angel
of
Thyatira
,
the
proepositi
ecclesiarum
,
the
governoures
of
the
Churches
.
He
should
wonder
at
Aretas
,
lib.
1.
Cap:
1
,
2
,
9
,
10.
Wonder
at
Primasius
in
Apoc:
C
:
2.
At
Ambrosius
,
Anbertus
,
To
:
1
,
6
p
:
1.
Anselm
,
Pererius
,
Victorinus
,
Tirinus
,
Haymo
,
Beda
,
perkings
,
Fox
,
in
his
Meditationes
upon
the
Revel.
p
:
7
,
8
,
9
,
17.
who
cites
also
many
Interpreters
thus
expounding
him
.
Yea
more
,
he
wonders
at
King
james
and
the
Episcopal
clergie
in
England
,
under
and
by
whom
,
in
the
contents
annexed
to
the
Bibles
of
the
last
translation
,
the
contents
in
the
2.
chap
:
are
represented
[
what
is
to
be
written
to
the
Angels
,
that
is
,
to
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
Smyrna
&c
]
Its
pitie
they
had
not
this
grave
dictator
to
correct
their
mistake
,
and
to
present
them
with
his
new
spectacles
,
to
discover
therewith
,
the
Bishop
in
these
Epistles
.
He
should
have
wondered
at
Pilkington
Bishop
of
Durham
(
in
his
exposition
upon
Hag
:
Chap.
1
:
v.
13.
)
who
expoundes
the
Angel
thus
collectivly
.
See
Gers.
Buc.
de
Gub.
Eccl.
p.
1.
205
,
393
,
408
,
419
,
422
,
433.
Now
,
what
pinched
all
these
Authors
to
embrace
this
Silleptick
exposition
of
the
Angel
?
As
for
Scultetus
,
although
a
Protestant
,
yet
he
is
a
high
Prelatist
,
and
a
partial
witnes
in
this
point
,
&
cannot
conterballance
these
Authores
mentioned
.
But
next
,
what
wil
our
Informer
gain
though
it
were
yeelded
that
this
Angel
is
ane
individual
or
single
person
?
Some
learned
men
doe
so
take
it
,
as
Beza
,
and
Reynolds
,
who
notwithstanding
were
far
from
thinking
him
a
Prelat
.
Because
I.
He
may
be
the
Angelus
Preses
,
or
the
moderatour
Angel
,
not
the
Angelus
Princeps
,
or
Lord
Angel
,
yea
,
and
the
Preses
and
Moderator
for
the
time
,
as
a
speaker
in
the
Parliament
.
Ephesus
had
many
elders
.
(
Act
20
:
27.
1
Tim.
5
:
17.
)
of
equal
authority
,
who
were
made
Bishops
,
and
they
are
spoken
to
in
the
plural
,
though
the
Angel
is
named
in
the
singular
number
.
2.
This
Angel
is
said
to
have
no
jurisdiction
and
superiority
over
the
rest
of
the
Ministers
.
And
we
challeng
our
Informer
to
shew
where
this
Angel
is
spoken
unto
,
with
reference
to
Ministers
,
as
subject
unto
him
,
which
notwithstanding
is
his
supposition
,
&
petitio
principii
,
all
along
in
this
Argument
.
3.
The
Parochial
,
and
Diocesian
division
of
Churches
,
were
long
after
this
and
not
until
260.
Years
after
Christ
.
4.
Nothing
is
required
of
this
Angel
,
but
that
which
is
the
common
duty
of
all
Ministers
.
Finally
,
Suppose
it
were
granted
to
him
,
that
a
superiority
were
imported
in
nameing
this
Angel
,
It
may
be
a
Superiority
of
Order
,
Dignity
,
or
Gifts
,
not
of
power
and
Jurisdiction
But
the
Dcubter
Object
's
[
That
(
Revel.
2
24.
)
Christ
by
Iohn
speakes
to
the
Angel
in
the
plural
[
or
You
'
]
and
that
therefore
he
means
all
the
Minist●…rs
.
]
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
To
this
he
answers
That
Beza
by
this
phrase
understands
the
president
and
the
company
of
Ministers
with
the
rest
of
the
people
,
tabing
the
Angel
still
for
a
single
person
,
and
h●…lds
that
more
then
the
Angel
are
spoken
unto
.
He
tells
us
,
that
the
words
are
ane
Apostrophe
,
wherein
the
speaker
amplifies
his
speech
,
turning
it
to
some
others
then
those
who
are
first
spoken
unto
.
Ans.
1.
We
have
already
shown
that
this
,
and
the
other
parallel
phrase
mentioned
,
doe
strongely
plead
for
the
Angels
being
understood
Collectivly
:
since
the
Lord
makes
a
Plural
of
the
singular
Angel
,
as
1
Tim.
2.
15.
Shee
shall
be
saved
if
they
continue
&c.
especially
the
above
evinced
equal
power
,
and
authority
,
of
the
Angels
or
Presbyters
,
who
where
in
these
Churches
,
being
pondered
.
Besids
,
how
doth
this
remove
the
objection
,
that
Beza
understands
it
some
other
wayes
then
collectively
,
what
sayes
that
to
the
reason
and
argument
it self
?
But
2.
If
Beza
understand
by
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
yow
,
the
moderator
or
president
Angel
with
the
rest
of
the
Ministers
,
wherein
(
I
pray
)
is
our
argument
infringed
?
viz
,
That
this
Angel
is
not
a
Diocesian
Prelat
,
since
other
Ministers
are
taken
in
with
him
here
as
of
equall
authority
in
this
compellation
.
In
Beza's
sense
this
is
no
other
language
then
what
might
have
been
said
or
writen
to
a
presbyterian
Synod
with
its
Moderator
all
being
equally
concerned
therein
,
and
supposed
equaly
Angels
in
this
Church
.
And
if
this
Cutt
not
the
sinnews
of
this
mans
designe
and
argument
here
,
let
any
judge
.
3.
Non
can
rationally
call
it
a
turneing
of
the
speech
to
any
other
then
such
as
were
first
speken
to
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
But
to
yow
I
Say
is
a
continuanc
of
the
speech
to
the
same
persons
,
with
ane
exegitick
explication
of
the
[
Angel
]
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
[
yow
,
]
especially
since
they
are
distinguished
from
[
the
rest
]
or
the
ordinary
Presessores
,
by
the
Copulative
,
and.
In
our
ordinary
language
,
we
usually
reinforce
our
speech
to
the
same
persons
,
and
to
the
same
purpose
,
with
ane
emphatick
[
I
say
]
as
it
is
here
.
Some
Prelatists
have
a
Knack
(
which
I
wonder
our
Informer
stumbled
not
upon
)
in
alledging
that
some
copies
leave
out
the
Conjunction
—
Reading
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
,
to
yow
,
the
rest
in
Thyatira
;
making
the
terme
[
yow
,
]
all
onewith
[
the
rest
in
Thyatira
.
]
but
the
plaine
reading
of
the
23.
v.
confutes
this
.
But
that
which
the
Informer
thinkes
should
put
it
out
of
question
wich
us
,
That
these
Angels
were
Diocesian
Bishops
,
[
Is
the
Testimonies
of
the
Ancients
,
who
came
immediatly
after
them
,
and
condescend
upon
some
of
their
names
.
Then
he
repeats
to
us
againe
the
storie
of
Polycrates
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
borne
neer
the
Apostles
times
,
who
,
numbers
Se●…n
of
his
Predecessours
before
him
and
tels
us
That
Leontius
Bishop
of
Magnesia
,
Numbers
Tuenty
seven
Bishops
of
Ephesus
from
Timothy
.
That
these
Seven
Bishops
of
Asia
are
at
the
Council
of
Neice
designed
by
their
styles
Ephesus
,
Smyrna
,
&c.
That
Eusebius
,
Tertullian
,
Irenaeus
assert
that
Iohn
made
Policarp
Bishop
of
Smyrna
.
That
he
is
thought
to
be
the
Angel
to
whom
John
wrote
.
That
Ignatius
writes
to
him
as
such
,
&c.
These
he
thinkes
as
acomment
upon
this
and
such
like
scriptures
,
should
convince
us
.
]
Ans.
1.
He
forgot
one
maine
point
of
this
argument
from
Antiquity
;
before
it
convince
us
,
he
must
condescend
upon
the
mould
,
and
power
,
of
the
Bishops
which
these
Ancienas
speakes
of
;
he
holds
that
the
word
[
Bishop
]
is
variously
taken
in
Scripture
,
and
why
not
also
by
the
ancients
?
But
if
he
had
offered
us
Testimonys
speaking
of
sole
power
of
these
Bishops
in
ordination
and
Iurisdiction
,
leaving
nothing
to
Presbyters
but
the
key
of
doctrine
,
of
Bishops
with
a
negative
voice
in
judicatories
,
haveing
sole
Dominion
over
a
diocess
,
the
only
proper
Pastoures
thereof
;
and
Prelats
of
Erastus
his
Cutt
,
Then
I
should
confess
there
were
early
such
Bishops
as
he
pleads
for
:
and
we
should
acknowledge
their
power
to
be
a
commentary
upon
the
Scriptures
he
pleads
from
;
But
with
this
proviso
,
that
he
could
quiparat
them
with
their
first
progenitours
,
and
shew
us
these
priviledges
in
the
scripture-Escutciones
of
their
founders
.
But
till
then
,
I
thinke
our
conviction
must
be
suspended
.
That
Presbyters
have
the
key
of
Doctrine
,
he
will
not
deny
,
That
they
have
the
power
of
ordination
,
and
jurisdiction
,
and
that
key
likewayes
entrusted
to
them
,
hath
been
proved
from
Scripture
.
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
Luk.
22.
66.
Act.
20
:
28.
1.
Pet.
5
:
2
,
1.
Cor
5.
5.
Now
let
him
say
,
did
these
first
succeeding
Bishops
(
in
their
supposed
diocesses
)
alwayes
take
this
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
from
the
first
Scripture
Bishops
,
and
stood
invested
therwith
in
after
tymes
?
How
then
comes
jerom
to
say
[
That
even
in
his
time
]
elders
were
subject
to
the
Bishop
only
by
Custome
,
not
by
Dispensation
from
the
Lord.
(
In
his
Coment
:
on
Tit:
)
and
,
(
on
Isa.
3.
)
That
they
had
even
in
his
time
,
a
caetus
presbiterorum
,
a
meeting
or
Court
of
Presbyters
,
and
ane
Apostolick
senat
.
]
How
comes
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Presbytery
to
be
mentioned
,
Councancyr
.
Can.
18.
How
comes
Ambrose
,
(
a
father
of
the
Church
)
upon
Ephes.
4.
to
assert
[
That
after
the
Church
was
enlarged
.
,
Cepit
alio
ordine
Gubernari
.
It
began
to
be
governed
after
another
maner
then
at
first
,
—
and
that
non
per
omnia
conveniunt
,
&c.
That
the
Government
then
in
the
Church
,
was
not
every
way
suitable
to
the
Apostles
appointment
]
me
thinkes
these
assertions
might
convince
the
Informer
of
the
folly
of
this
argument
.
But
2.
What
if
some
of
these
first
successours
,
be
found
but
meer
Constant
moderators
?
What
is
then
become
of
his
Series
of
a
Succession
of
Diocesian
Bishops
from
Timothy
;
and
Titus
,
and
the
Asian
Angels
?
saith
not
jerom
(
ad
Evagrium
)
Alexandriae
Presbyteri
unum
ex
se
electum
in
excelsiori
gradu
Collocatum
Episcopum
nominabant
,
&c
That
the
Bishop
at
Alexandria
was
only
a
Presbyter
Chosen
to
preside
.
&c.
Ambrose
sayes
that
this
distinction
betaixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
;
cam
in
by
Couns●…l
(
Cubi
prius
)
therefor
he
holds
it
was
not
derived
from
divine
〈◊〉
,
(
and
therein
gives
the
lie
to
our
Informer
:
)
for
that
he
sayes
was
different
from
their
present
custome
.
Augustin
(
Epist
:
10.
)
sayes
(
with
jerom
)
that
by
Custome
of
the
Church
,
Episcopatus
,
was
;
Major
presbyterio
,
the
Episcopacy
was
greater
then
the
presbyterat
.
How
comes
●…irmilianus
(
apud
Cypr.
ep:
78.
)
to
assert
that
the
presbyters
,
possident
ordinandi
potestatem
,
posseses
the
power
of
ordination
,
and
these
presbyters
he
calls
praepositi
,
the
presidents
or
rulers
.
Ierom
sayes
,
quid
facit
excepta
ordinatione
Episcopus
quod
nonfacit
presbiter
.
what
does
the
Bishop
except
ordination
,
which
the
presbyter
doth
not
,
—
yet
even
in
this
,
presbyters
then
concurred
with
them
,
and
shared
in
that
power
.
Saith
not
Chrisost:
upon
1.
Tim:
inter
Episcopum
et
presbyterum
,
interest
ferme
nihil-between
the
Bishop
and
presbyter
,
there
is
almost
no
difference
.
As
for
his
lines
of
Succession
,
they
will
say
nothing
untill
he
prove
these
Bishops
to
be
Episcopos
principes
,
Prince-or
Lord
Bishops
,
and
nor
Episcopos
presides
or
Moderator
Bishops
,
which
will
be
a
hard
task
,
since
he
must
answer
Blondel
,
who
largely
proves
,
that
before
the
year
140
▪
there
was
not
a
Bishop
over
presbyters
,
even
the
Constant
president
,
far
from
the
power
of
the
present
dioces●…an
.
Policarp
himself
,
his
supposed
Bishop
of
Smyrna
,
makes
but
Two
orders
of
Ministery
,
Bishops
and
〈◊〉
,
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Philippians
.
Dr.
Reynolds
in
his
conference
with
Hart
,
proves
that
the
first
Bishop
who
came
in
after
the
Apostles
,
was
nothing
but
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Moderator
of
the
presbytery
.
In
a
word
,
as
many
learned
men
doe
prove
the
discrepancy
of
the
ancients
among
themselves
,
and
their
variety
of
names
,
and
speech
in
relation
to
these
first
supposed
Bishops
,
and
that
several
authores
are
Spurius
and
counterfit
who
are
Brought
in
to
give
Testimony
in
this
point
.
So
it
is
certain
that
this
man
and
his
fellowes
in
pleading
thus
for
Timothies
Episcopacy
,
doe
put
the
blott
of
dread
full
Apostacy
upon
him
,
in
making
him
fall
(
as
the
Angel
of
Ephesus
is
charged
)
from
his
first
love
;
so
that
,
if
they
will
not
runn
on
this
inconvenience
,
and
stage
this
eminent
Saint
for
such
ane
Apostat
,
contrary
to
the
Scripture
account
of
him
,
they
must
wholly
quit
this
plea.
As
for
what
he
adds
[
of
Several
writers
acknowledging
the
Angel
a
Single
person
]
we
have
shown
how
vaine
a
reason
this
is
,
to
prove
his
point
.
But
the
Doubter
objects
to
some
purpose
[
that
Beza
and
others
might
take
the
Angel
to
be
but
Moderator
.
]
To
this
he
answers
[
that
the
Angel
must
needs
be
a
Bishop
,
because
he
is
cheifely
commended
or
discomended
,
as
haveing
a
cheif
hand
in
what
was
right
,
or
amiss
,
in
these
Churches
.
That
the
power
found
in
Timothy
and
Titus
,
proves
it
was
so
with
these
Angels
.
—
That
Beza
sayes
these
Angels
power
was
more
eminent
then
the
rest
of
their
fellowes
.
]
Ans.
1.
As
for
Beza
,
its
true
he
expones
[
the
Angel
]
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
[
to
the
president
]
—
but
adds
—
[
Sed
hinc
statui
episcopalis
ille
gradus
&c
:
—
that
is
,
But
that
Episcopal
degree
,
which
was
after
ward
by
human
invention
brought
into
the
Church
of
God
,
nether
certainly
can
nor
ought
to
be
hence
concluded
,
nay
not
so
much
as
the
office
of
a
perpetual
president
,
should
be
of
necessity
,
as
the
thence
ariseing
oligarchical
tyrranny
;
(
let
our
Informer
marke
this
)
whose
head
is
the
Antichristian
beast
now
at
length
with
the
most
certan
ruine
,
not
of
the
Church
only
,
but
of
the
world
also
,
maks
manifest
.
And
this
also
is
all
which
Dr.
Reynolds
acknowledges
.
Now
I
think
he
will
find
no
advantage
nor
credit
here
to
his
Diocesian
Bishop
,
since
Beza
maks
him
but
a
human
invention
,
yea
and
the
poysonous
egg
out
of
which
Antichrist
was
hatched
.
2
As
for
his
Reason
[
That
this
[
Angel
]
is
chefly
reproved
or
commended
,
as
haveing
the
Chief
hand
,
in
what
was
right
or
amisse
.
]
He
must
prove
,
(
before
this
Reason
wil
pass
current
)
that
one
single
person
is
Chiefly
reproved
or
commended
,
and
likewayes
that
his
having
the
commendation
,
or
reproofe
adressed
to
him
,
will
evince
a
Chief
authority
,
or
Chief
hand
,
(
as
he
calls
it
)
in
government
.
Wee
told
him
that
in
Beza's
,
and
Dr.
Reynolds
judgment
,
the
[
Angel
]
is
only
the
preses
Mor●…derator
receaving
the
Epistle
or
address
.
Now
,
will
ane
Epistle
containing
commendations
or
reproofes
of
a
Synod
,
and
addressed
to
the
Moderator
,
make
him
Chief
as
to
what
is
commended
,
or
taxed
,
in
all
that
Synodall
assembly
or
Church
?
Surely
not
at
all
.
The
Moderator
may
be
a
man
as
little
concerned
therein
,
and
possibly
less
,
then
any
of
the
meeting
:
Or
will
the
Kings
Message
or
Charge
to
a
parliament
,
adressed
to
the
speaker
,
containing
reproofes
and
commendationes
of
that
great
body
and
assembly
,
fix
the
guilt
or
commendation
principally
upon
the
speaker
,
or
president
?
He
will
not
say
it
.
As
for
Timothy
and
Titus
,
we
have
proved
that
they
had
no
such
power
,
as
he
pretends
,
and
that
their
inspection
was
extraordinary
and
Evangelistick
,
which
cannot
with
any
shew
of
reason
be
said
of
these
Seven
Angels
.
As
for
Beza
[
his
acknowledgment
of
a
more
eminent
Authority
in
government
,
which
these
single
persons
had
]
this
man
cannot
with
any
shew
of
reason
alledge
Beza
to
understand
thereby
any
other
thing
beyond
the
eminency
of
his
Episcopus
divinus
,
which
with
Beza
is
the
Pastour
,
among
whom
jure
divino
,
he
will
not
a●…mit
so
much
as
a
perpetual
president
,
far
less
a
Bishop
:
for
the
perpetual
president
or
Moderator
,
is
with
Beza
,
the
Episcopus
humanus
,
which
he
distinginshes
from
the
divine
,
or
scripture
Bishop
;
and
the
diocesian
prelat
(
pleaded
for
by
this
Informer
)
who
hath
the
Chief
,
and
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
is
the
Satanical
Bishop
.
(
In
his
Treatise
de
triplici
Episcopatu
;
)
So
that
Beza
cannot
Imput
to
these
single
persons
any
authority
over
their
brethren
,
or
ascribe
to
them
any
other
eminency
,
then
what
the
eminency
of
a
Moderatorship
will
give
,
If
Beza
doe
not
compare
them
with
the
Elders
of
the
Inferior
sort
,
who
rule
only
,
as
some
would
readily
admit
,
who
take
these
Churches
to
be
Congregational
.
As
for
Mede
,
it
is
no
great
matter
whither
he
take
the
Angels
Collectivly
,
or
for
Single
persons
,
if
he
Imput
not
to
these
Asian
Angels
ane
Episcopal
Authority
,
which
this
Informer
proves
not
,
in
telling
us
,
[
Tha●…
the
Tuentie
four
Angels
about
the
Thron
,
doe
with
him
,
represent
the
Bishops
]
unless
he
can
shew
that
he
means
his
Diocesian
Bishops
:
for
he
may
mean
the
Bishops
indefinitely
,
according
to
the
genuine
scripture
acceptation
.
He
holds
there
are
Seven
Bishops
of
Asia
here
only
written
unto
,
where
are
the
Tuentie
four
Bishops
,
if
Mr
Mede
take
them
in
his
sense
?
As
for
Mr.
Brightman
,
his
exponeing
ordinarly
the
Angel
,
of
a
single
person
,
as
the
Informer
alleadges
.
Let
us
hear
Brightman
himself
.
[
To
the
Angel
&c.
]
The
Epistles
are
intituled
(
saith
he
)
one
by
one
,
to
the
Pastours
,
Becaus
the
safety
of
the
Congregation
depends
upon
the
soundnes
of
the
Pastours
:
for
there
was
not
one
Angel
alone
at
Ephesus
,
but
many
,
Neither
yet
any
prince
among
these
,
as
is
manifast
by
Paul
,
who
to
Miletum
sent
for
the
Elders
or
Bishops
of
Ephesus
,
—
adding
,
that
nothing
is
spoken
of
their
obedience
to
any
one
Chief
Bishop
—
That
a
Prince
hood
came
after
the
Apostles
,
and
was
not
yet
borne
,
save
only
that
Diotrephes
gave
some
shew
of
it
.
hence
he
concluds
thus
[
therefore
under
the
name
of
one
Angel
,
the
Epistle
is
written
to
the
whol
order
of
Pastours
&c
:
]
And
by
this
account
of
Brightmans
acce●…tation
of
the
word
Angel
,
Let
any
judge
of
our
Informers
fidelity
.
But
now
comes
his
last
Argument
for
Episcopacy
(
which
surprises
not
only
his
Doubter
,
but
I
believe
,
Most
,
if
not
all
else
,
who
have
seen
it
)
taken
from
[
Diotrephes
his
loveing
to
have
the
preeminence
,
3.
Joh.
9.
who
(
he
sayes
)
ambitiously
loved
to
be
first
,
and
to
have
the
Chief
place
:
and
that
this
ambition
only
John
speaks
against
,
—
he
adds
,
that
ane
office
may
be
good
and
lawfull
,
though
ane
ambitions
seeking
of
it
,
be
sinfull
.
—
That
Beza
renders
it
,
qui
primatum
ambit
—
that
our
Inference
of
the
unlawfulnes
of
the
office
he
aimed
at
,
will
not
follow
from
his
seeking
of
this
chief
place
,
but
rather
that
their
was
such
ane
office
at
this
time
in
the
Church
,
and
now
void
,
into
which
he
meaned
to
put
himself
,
or
had
already
done
so
,
out
of
ane
ambitious
desire
to
be
great
,
which
was
a
sinful
end
:
that
,
he
looked
after
himself
,
not
the
good
of
the
Church
.
]
Ans.
't
is
long
since
we
had
this
answer
,
and
gloss
from
Romanists
,
though
not
as
ane
argument
.
Wee
see
popri
and
prelacy
in
despight
of
all
con●…radiction
will
strick
hands
.
When
Luk.
22.
Touching
our
Lords
forbidding
a
Dominion
,
or
primacy
among
his
Disciples
,
is
objected
to
Bellarmin
,
he
resolves
it
just
as
this
resolver
.
viz.
That
the
Lord
rather
institut
and
established
a
primacy
in
the
Church
,
then
removed
it
:
And
commanded
his
vicar
to
preside
,
but
not
as
the
Heathen
,
who
seek
themselves
,
and
their
own
glory
and
commodity
.
de
Pontif
,
Ques
.
1.
Chap.
3.
Sect.
3.
)
Yee
shall
not
rule
as
the
Princes
of
the
Gentiles
(
saith
he
,
)
Imports
,
that
he
admitts
one
to
preside
but
not
after
that
manner
.
He
presses
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
signifies
a
Prince
or
Captaine
(
just
as
this
man
doth
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
loving
of
preeminence
)
to
shew
that
such
a
Prince
or
primat
was
designed
,
de
Pontif.
Lib:
1.
Ch.
9.
Thus
the
Papists
glosse
generally
the
Text
under
debate
.
Tilen
[
in
his
Not.
67.
]
answering
him
[
That
if
it
were
so
,
then
Christ
rather
inflamed
then
quenched
their
ambitious
thoughts
,
which
they
●…hil
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
loving
preeminence
,
intertained
]
makes
this
sin
of
diotrephes
the
same
with
theires
which
the
Lord
reprehended
,
viz.
A
sinful
desire
of
ane
unlawfull
forbidden
primacy
.
Adding
,
[
That
the
Lord
said
not
,
he
who
by
my
appointment
shall
be
Chief●…
,
but
he
who
from
his
sinfull
desire
would
be
Chieff
.
Bellarmin
and
the
Papists
fine
notions
,
and
old
exploded
evasions
,
we
see
stands
these
men
in
much
stead
:
And
doe
furnish
usefull
materials
to
dress
up
Prelatick
pamphlets
.
But
what
will
this
man
say
?
Will
he
indeed
owne
this
popish
Argument
and
answer
upon
Luk
22.
Which
the
topick
of
his
argument
here
will
necessarly
inferr
?
Was
their
a
lawfull
primacy
supposed
among
the
Apostles
,
&
the
ambitious
desire
only
forbidden
?
Bellarmin
presses
that
ane
exorbitant
dominion
or
tyrannicall
only
was
forbidden
since
the
Princes
of
the
Gentiles
are
mentioned
(
which
this
man
also
taks
hold
of
)
which
seems
to
put
a
restricton
upon
that
prohibition
,
but
there
is
no
such
restriction
in
this
place
under
debate
:
So
that
he
is
cut
off
from
Bellarmins
evasion
.
We
heard
before
he
admitted
a
lawfull
Church
Dominion
as
not
discharged
in
Luk.
22.
And
here
he
admitts
a
lawfull
primacy
over
this
Church
,
and
in
his
pretended
antiquity
we
will
find
him
not
to
di●…owne
a
Chief
patriarch
if
not
directly
to
plead
for
him
;
And
then
I
see
not
why
he
may
not
take
in
the
High
Priest
into
his
old
Testament
Argument
,
in
relation
to
a
morall
standing
primacy
in
Church-Government
,
and
merite
a
co●…l
in
some
Popish
order
●…r
it
be
long
.
Now
it
is
evident
that
the
Apostle
simply
dissounes
this
lover
of
preeminence
,
and
censures
him
upon
the
account
of
the
preeminence
he
desired
.
And
the
Informer
himself
(
though
,
as
I
observed
before
,
he
is
not
one
with
himself
in
it
)
acknowledges
that
the
Lord
discharged
all
inequality
,
and
especially
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
primat
,
among
the
Apoles
;
and
therefore
,
why
his
scoler
John
censured
not
likewayes
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
primacy
-
affecting
Minister
;
seeking
the
same
principality
over
his
Brethren
or
fellow
Ministers
,
which
our
Lord
discharged
among
the
Disciples
,
will
puzell
him
to
shew
the
disparity
.
Surely
,
when
our
Lord
said
,
[
It
shall
not
be
so
among
you
,
]
and
when
he
discharged
a
protos
or
Chief
among
the
Disciples
,
recomending
to
the
desirer
of
this
to
be
their
servant
over
whom
this
was
affected
,
he
spoke
to
them
as
Ministers
,
and
in
that
capacitie
:
and
therefore
discharges
this
among
all
Ministers
.
For
aquatenus
ad
omne
—
I
wonder
if
this
man
will
say
that
if
any
of
the
Seventy
Disciples
had
affected
to
be
a
protos
over
the
rest
,
our
Lord
would
not
have
given
them
the
same
injunction
.
Or
if
he
will
say
that
they
did
not
hold
themselves
concerned
in
the
same
rule
,
and
the
prohibition
which
the
Disciples
here
got
.
Surely
he
cannot
deny
this
,
and
therfore
it
is
Certan
that
John
discharhes
the
very
protos
or
prostacy
self
for
what
reason
will
it
:
he
invent
wherefor
a
preeminence
or
primacy
should
be
disgarged
to
the
Apostles
,
and
allowed
among
the
Seventy
(
who
he
thinks
represents
the
Pastours
)
or
any
Inferiour
order
of
Church
officers
?
Besides
,
what
was
it
which
Peter
discharged
to
these
Bishops
1
Pet.
5.
Was
it
not
a
preeminence
,
or
masterly
primacy
,
and
to
be
a
protos
?
learned
he
not
this
prohibition
of
his
Lord
?
and
will
it
not
be
a
Critical
distinction
to
distinguish
lordship
from
preeminence
?
Now
the
first
we
find
universally
discharged
to
Pastours
,
even
over
the
flock●…
,
as
this
man
acknowledges
,
and
therefore
why
this
preeminence
,
is
not
likwise
in
it self
and
simply
stricken
against
,
will
be
Impossible
to
shew
the
disparity
.
I
must
presume
that
the
Apostle
understood
the
sence
of
this
prohibition
of
his
Lord
,
much
better
then
our
Informer
:
and
we
see
he
applyes
to
inferiour
Pastours
and
Bishops
,
that
which
was
discharged
to
himself
,
and
the
rest
of
his
fellow
disciples
.
And
,
(
as
I
said
befor
)
if
none
of
these
scripture-Bishops
were
to
lord
it
over
the
flock
,
farr
less
over
their
fellowes
.
So
that
to
be
a
protos
or
Chief
over
them
,
was
inhibit
,
as
by
the
lord
befor
,
so
by
the
Apostle
here
,
and
consequently
this
lover
of
preeminence
is
simply
condemned
.
The
Inglish
Annot
:
make
the
two
places
of
Peter
&
John
,
parallel
,
&
the
same
evill
to
be
discharged
in
both
.
So
doe
the
dutch
annot
expressing
that
which
diotrephes
sought
,
in
the
Apostle
Peters
terms
,
of
lording
it
over
his
brethren
.
Now
I
hope
he
will
not
say
,
that
when
Peter
discharges
Ministers
to
be
lords
over
Gods
Heritage
,
he
discharged
only
ane
ambitious
affectation
and
Supposed
a
la●…ll
Lordship
over
the
flock●…
,
abstracting
from
this
ambitious
affectation
.
Surely
then
this
Prohibition
of
the
Apostle
Iohn
,
where
Diotrephes
is
supposed
to
be
practising
,
what
is
by
Peter
discharged
,
can
admit
of
no
such
evasion
either
;
unless
he
would
make
these
Apostles
to
interfer
together
in
this
matter
:
for
it
were
strange
clashing
of
weapones
,
and
contradiction
of
the
tongues
and
pens
of
these
Apostles
,
if
Peter
should
discharge
all
Lording
even
over
the
flocks
,
in
any
Pastour
,
and
yet
Iohn
should
allow
unto
a
Pastour
,
a
preeminence
,
and
primacy
,
both
over
the
flocks
,
and
his
fellow
Ministers
and
labourers
with
him
in
the
Lords
vineyeard
.
Infine
,
If
to
be
a
primat
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
a
lawfull
office
,
to
be
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
lover
of
it
(
which
is
all
that
the
word
will
Import
)
could
deserve
no
censure
.
The
Informer
knowes
who
said
[
He
that
desires
the
office
of
a
Bishop
,
desires
a
good
work
]
but
our
Lord
who
spoke
this
by
the
pen
of
Paul
,
said
also
himself
immediatly
to
the
Apostles
,
&
by
the
Apostle
Iohn
in
this
place
,
he
that
desires
to
be
a
protos
or
Chief
,
must
quite
that
desire
.
Hence
these
are
different
objects
of
desire
,
to
be
a
scripture
Bishop
,
and
a
protos
or
primat
.
To
affect
the
office
of
a
scriptur
Bishop
,
and
a
primacy
,
are
Antipods
:
so
that
it
was
not
a
lawfull
,
nor
consequently
praeexistent
office
in
the
Church
,
allowed
by
Iohn
,
which
this
man
desired
,
and
therefore
he
is
simply
condemned
by
the
Apostle
,
both
as
to
the
desire
it self
,
and
the
object
of
it
.
Hee
who
thus
affects
to
be
first
,
deserves
to
be
called
least
in
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
and
who
thus
exalt
themselves
,
shall
be
abased
.
To
all
which
I
might
add
,
that
diotrephes
Imperious
lordly
carriage
in
casting
out
and
censureing
,
and
not
admitting
into
this
Church
,
such
as
the
Apostle
appointed
to
be
therein
receaved
,
is
a
lively
effigies
of
an●…
Episcopal
primacy
or
preeminence
,
and
of
that
arbitrary
prelacy
,
that
sole
power
in
ordination
and
censures
,
which
this
Informer
pleads
for
.
Against
which
disorderlines
of
this
early
primat
,
the
Apostles
threatning
of
his
holy
censure
,
is
a
thunder-clapp
which
may
terrifie
all
who
carry
this
usurped
office
:
and
may
make
his
Supposed
Angels
or
Prelats
,
for
this
their
aspyreing
,
fear
the
stroake
and
punishment
of
those
Angels
,
who
keeped
not
their
first
estate
,
but
left
their
own
habitation
.
I
shall
dimiss
the
Informers
last
argument
,
with
one
remarke
further
,
which
is
this
,
if
the
affecting
to
be
a
protos
or
Chief
,
tainted
the
Apostles
themselves
,
while
the
Christian
Church
was
in
its
first
Infancy
,
if
in
Pauls
time
the
mistery
of
Iniquity
,
and
of
propry
,
was
working
(
the
monstrous
embrio
of
a
papacy
,
and
consequently
of
a
Prelacy
)
If
peter
found
it
needfull
to
disscharge
Covetousnes
and
lordship
,
to
ministers
,
If
the
holy
Apostle
John
was
contradicted
and
counteracted
by
ane
aspiring
primat
,
Surely
we
need
not
wonder
at
that
universal
Change
of
the
Apostolick
Holy
,
humble
Church
Disciplin
and
parity
among
Ministers
,
which
overspread
the
Christian
Church
not
long
therafter
.
And
to
our
prelatists
ordinary
question
[
When
began
the
Change
of
preshyterian
parity
among
Ministes
]
?
Wee
may
answer
,
That
the
bitter
●…ootes
of
a
Primacy
or
prelacy
,
were
sprouting
in
the
Apostles
times
;
and
therefore
it
is
no
strange
thing
that
this
destroying
weed
grew
up
so
quickly
thereafter
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
evill
one
,
did
quickly
sow
his
Cocle
among
the
wheat
,
and
blew
up
this
fire
of
ambition
,
primacy
pride
and
(
his
own
proper
sin
)
till
it
came
to
the
flam
,
first
of
a
human
proftasie
,
then
of
a
Hierarchy
,
and
unto
the
Culmen
or
tope
,
of
a
chief
universal
primacy
at
last
.
For
that
which
he
adds
of
Blondel
his
granting
[
That
diotrephes
sought
to
be
first
Presbyter
,
&
such
a
president
as
had
authority
over
the
rest
.
]
Surely
none
who
ha●…e
read
Blondel
can
but
acknowledge
,
that
he
distinguishes
all
along
the
Presbyters
set
over
others
from
the
Episcopus
divine
jure
institutus
,
So
in
his
1
,
2
,
3.
and
4t
.
Arguments
,
page
.
190
:
191
,
192
,
193
&c.
So
that
he
maks
the
very
constant
fixed
president
(
much
more
such
a
president
or
primat
as
diotrephes
affected
to
be
)
distinct
from
the
Divinely
appointed
Bishop
;
And
therefore
whatever
he
might
suppose
to
be
creeping
in
at
that
tyme
,
he
must
needs
,
upon
this
ground
,
interpret
it
to
be
a
recesse
from
the
divine
appointment
,
and
in
so
far
a
Corruption
.
As
for
what
our
Informer
repeats
here
againe
ad
nauseam
[
That
Bishops
were
immediatly
the
Church
before
all
the
Apostles
were
gone
and
imediatly
after
,
which
is
a
commentary
upon
Timothy
,
and
Titus
,
and
the
Asian
Angels
,
and
Diotrephes
.
]
I
answer
,
I
beleive
indeed
,
as
to
his
last
instance
,
that
there
were
Diotrephesies
,
earely
enugh
,
and
Beza's
Episcopus
humanus
or
fixed
president
,
but
that
there
was
either
in
the
Apostles
time
,
or
ane
hundered
years
,
and
more
afterward
(
I
speak
far
within
compass
)
his
Diocesian
Prelat
,
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
in
a
Diocess
,
he
will
assoone
joyn
the
poles
together
,
as
prove
it
by
any
faithful
and
authentick
Testimony
.
CHAP.
XII
.
The
Informers
appeal
to
antiquity
in
the
point
of
Episcopacy
.
That
antiquity
is
at
most
,
testis
facti
,
but
not
judex
veri
,
may
witness
matter
of
fact
,
but
is
no
judge
of
what
is
right
therein
,
proved
from
the
Testimony
of
Scripture
,
and
the
fathers
.
The
Informer's
reasoning
on
this
head
,
reduced
to
a
formal
Syllogisme
and
discussed
.
That
in
the
first
purest
age
the
Church
was
governd
by
Presbyters
withtout
Bishopes
,
proved
by
Testimonys
of
the
fathers
,
particularly
of
Ierome
.
His
Testimony
at
Large
vindicated
from
the
exceptiones
of
the
Informer
.
OUr
Informer
hath
by
this
time
got
out
of
the
straites
of
his
Scripture
Arguments
for
prelacy
,
and
his
pretended
replyes
to
Scripture
arguments
against
them
.
Wherin
we
have
seen
how
pittifully
he
lies
been
Bruillied
in
his
endeavours
to
put
the
fairding
of
some
Scripture
Characters
upon
this
Monster
,
The
Diocesian
Prelat
!
Now
he
wil
lanch
out
in
to
the
vast
Ocean
of
Antiquity
wherein
he
supposes
(
and
not
altogother
amisse
)
that
this
Leviathan
can
swim
much
better
.
And
therefore
he
fills
up
the
Third
part
of
the
pamplet
,
with
a
tedious
legend
of
human
Testimonyes
in
relation
to
Bishops
.
But
in
this
his
argueing
from
antiquity
,
he
playes
the
same
petty
Sophister
as
in
his
pretended
Scripture
proofes
.
For
he
is
still
pleading
for
a
versatil
Chimaera
of
his
own
braine
,
and
dare
not
state
the
Question
,
as
to
the
Prelat
now
existent
in
his
Diocesian
and
erastian
mould
,
like
to
whom
if
he
will
shew
me
but
one
Prelat
among
all
his
ragged
Testimonies
,
I
will
yeeld
the
Cause
to
him
.
So
that
we
are
not
concened
in
his
Testimonies
,
They
being
all
Mute
or
Ambiguous
as
to
our
debate
.
Wee
shall
therefore
proceed
to
Consider
the
substantials
of
his
Argument
on
this
head
,
and
add
some
Chapters
which
will
be
found
abundantly
to
cutt
the
sinne●…es
of
his
reasoning
from
pretended
Testimonies
of
the
Fathers
,
and
vindicat
our
Cause
even
in
point
of
Antiquity
.
〈◊〉
I
Suppose
this
man
(
if
he
will
not
renounce
his
protestant
profession
)
cannot
but
grant
,
that
it
is
not
Antiquity
as
he
call
it
,
or
human
Testimonies
,
but
the
Scriptures
of
truth
,
which
most
judge
in
this
debate
.
So
that
I
hop
I
may
suppose
that
he
lookes
upon
his
Antiquitity
as
ane
accessorie
appendix
onely
to
his
Scripture
arguments
,
and
that
the
Scripture
is
not
for
him
,
but
against
him
,
I
hope
it
is
conuincingly
apparent
from
that
is
said
above
;
we
must
to
the
law
and
the
Testimony
in
this
and
all
other
points
of
faith
.
Antiquity
without
the
first
Scripture
antiquity
,
deserves
not
the
name
.
Id
adulterum
quod
posterius
,
id
verum
quod
pri
nium
,
said
Tertullian
.
That
is
adulterat
which
is
Last
,
and
trere
which
is
first
.
I
am
the
way
,
the
truth
and
the
Life
,
said
Christ
,
but
not
I
am
Custome
And
Cyprian
tells
us
,
that
Consuetudo
sins
veritate
est
vetusias
erroris
;
Antiquity
without
truth
,
is
but
a
mouldy
error
.
Our
Lord
himself
rejected
this
argument
[
it
was
said
of
old
]
and
apposes
unto
it
[
but
I
say
]
Well
may
we
then
oppose
the
Scripture
sayings
to
our
Informer's
[
it
was
said
of
old
]
and
by
our
Lords
warrand
,
reject
his
pretences
from
Antiquity
,
to
warrand
any
thing
which
the
word
condemnes
:
and
for
this
we
have
good
warrand
of
antiquity
it self
:
for
the
fathers
universaly
doe
hold
that
onelie
the
Scriptures
must
judge
in
points
of
faith
.
Sunt
libri
Dominici
quorum
authoritati
utrique
consentimus
,
utrique
credimus
(
there
being
in
them
all
things
to
be
believed
and
practised
)
utrique
servimus
,
ibi
quaeramus
ecclesiam
,
ibi
discutiamus
causam
nostram
,
is
great
Augustins
advice
.
The
books
of
the
Lord
are
they
to
whose
Authority
we
both
consent
,
which
we
both
beleive
,
To
which
we
both
submit
,
There
let
us
seek
the
Church
,
There
let
us
discusse
our
Cause
.
Jerom
on
Chap.
23
of
Matth.
tells
us
quod
de
scripturis
authoritatem
non
habet
,
eaedem
facilitate
contemnitur
qua
probatur
.
That
which
derives
not
its
authority
from
Scripture
,
the
contemneing
of
it
is
as
ready
as
the
proof
is
offered
,
and
(
on
the
1.
)
Chap.
of
Hag
Quae
absque
athoritate
&
Testimoniis
scripturarum
quasi
traditione
Apostolica
sponte
reperiunt
atque
confingunt
,
percutit
Gladius
Dei
Such
things
as
men
of
there
own
accord
find
out
&
forge
upon
pretence
of
Apostolick
tradition
with
out
the
authority
and
Testimonies
of
Scriptures
,
the
sword
of
God
strikes
throw
the
same
.
Besides
this
discovers
the
plea
from
Antiquity
to
be
very
Impertiment
in
this
debate
:
Because
the
Question
betwixt
us
is
not
defacto
,
but
de
jure
,
not
what
sort
of
Bishops
have
been
as
to
matter
of
fact
,
introduced
into
the
Church
of
old
,
or
of
late
,
but
by
what
warrand
and
right
they
have
possessed
their
places
?
We
alledge
and
prove
that
the
present
Prelat
now
existent
stands
condemned
by
Christ
,
the
great
lawgiver
,
his
rules
in
point
of
Church
Government
,
set
down
in
his
Testament
.
Now
,
to
answer
this
Charge
with
humane
Testimonies
,
as
to
Custom
or
practise
of
the
Church
,
(
even
granting
that
his
Testimonies
did
prove
the
matter
of
fact
,
viz
,
That
our
present
Prelat
is
exemplified
in
the
ancient
Bishops
)
what
is
it
but
to
oppose
,
humane
corruption
to
Gods
ordinance
,
The
practise
of
men
to
Gods
rule
,
and
mens
Testimonies
who
are
liars
,
to
the
divine
Oracles
of
the
God
of
truth
.
This
man
thinkes
it
a
Herculean
argument
,
when
he
drawes
his
human
Testimonies
,
as
to
prelacy
neer
the
Apostles
time
(
as
if
he
had
travelled
to
Hercules
pillars
)
and
wonders
how
we
can
suppose
,
that
the
Church
could
so
soon
alter
the
divine
institutions
.
But
I
pray
,
how
long
was
it
after
Gods
Holy
law
was
proclaimed
from
heaven
,
by
his
own
terrible
voice
,
that
the
wholl
Church
of
Israel
,
together
with
Aaron
himself
,
set
up
and
worshiped
the
golden
Calf
,
contrary
unto
the
very
express
letter
of
the
Second
command
?
Now
,
suppose
that
idolatry
several
hundered
years
afterward
had
pleaded
this
Antiquity
,
or
ancient
Custome
of
the
Church
of
Israel
,
(
after
frequently
imitated
,
and
which
had
its
plausible
pretexts
of
intention
to
worship
God
,
for
the
seasi
was
proclaimed
to
Iehova
,
and
to
have
a
visible
signe
of
his
presence
)
Wil
the
Informer
say
,
that
this
had
been
a
good
argument
to
warrand
the
breach
of
the
Second
command
,
though
this
Practise
was
but
fourty
dayes
younger
then
the
promulgation
if
self
.
So
the
case
is
here
,
Though
he
could
shew
us
human
clear
Testimonies
,
nay
more
,
even
Scripture
Testimonies
,
as
to
the
factum
,
that
the
diocesian
;
yea
,
and
Erastian
Prelat
,
had
been
existent
and
set
up
in
some
Churches
in
the
Apostles
own
time
;
yet
if
we
can
from
our
Lord
,
and
his
Apostles
doctrine
,
and
practise
,
prove
this
officer
to
be
a
plant
not
of
a
divine
plantation
,
and
contrary
to
the
divine
institutiones
,
He
must
needs
grant
(
that
though
esteemed
golden
)
it
ought
to
be
Nehushtan
,
rejected
and
pluckt
up
by
the
roots
.
The
Papists
,
who
hold
the
Scriptures
to
be
but
a
half-rule
,
made
up
by
traditions
,
yet
will
not
dare
to
own
(
professedly
at
least
)
any
principle
,
or
practise
,
condemned
in
the
Word
.
suppose
he
could
bring
thousands
of
Testimonies
from
ancient
writers
,
touching
his
Prelat
he
pleads
for
;
they
are
but
h●…man
Testimonies
,
and
therefore
cannot
beget
a
divine
faith
,
which
is
founded
upon
the
word
only
.
Surge
veritas
ipsa
Scripturas
tuas
inter
retare
,
quam
c●…nsuetudo
non
nooit
▪
nam
si
nosset
non-esset
,
saith
Tertullian
.
Arise
o
!
truth
it self
,
and
expone
they
Scriptures
,
which
custome
hath
not
known
,
for
had
it
known
them
,
it
had
not
been
.
The
Informer's
Testimonies
may
induce
to
believe
that
there
were
Bishops
in
the
Church
;
but
whither
the
office
which
these
Bishops
are
supposed
to
hold
,
be
of
God
,
yea
or
not
;
this
queston
must
be
brought
to
a
higher
tribunall
;
and
Gods
Oracles
must
determine
therein
,
before
the
Conscience
can
be
satisfied
,
as
to
the
owning
of
such
a
Church
officer
:
And
if
God
dissowne
him
,
I
may
be
ane
Athanasius
contra
orbem
,
in
withstanding
him
,
It
being
still
certain
that
these
human
witnesses
are
testesfacti
at
most
,
but
not
judices
veri
&
recti
,
Attesters
of
matters
of
fact
,
but
not
judges
of
what
is
right
and
equal
therein
.
Thus
we
have
seen
,
that
though
all
our
Informers
pleading
from
antiquity
,
were
granted
,
his
cause
,
profliga
by
Scripture
weapons
lyes
grovelling
in
the
dust
.
wheras
he
alleadges
[
Testimonies
as
to
the
existence
of
Prelats
in
the
Christian
Church
,
neer
the
Apostles
times
,
or
contemporary
with
them
,
&
that
Catalogues
of
a
Succession
of
Prelats
,
down
from
Apostles
and
Evangilists
,
have
been
keept
in
Churches
,
which
he
thinkes
speakes
convincingly
for
the
Episcopacy
of
Timothie
,
and
Titus
&c.
I
Ans.
Although
this
be
the
very
Marrow
and
strength
of
all
his
argument
from
Antiquity
,
yet
when
tryed
,
it
will
be
found
many
wayes
defective
,
and
unsound
.
For
clearing
whereof
I
shall
offer
some
things
,
both
to
the
Major
,
and
assumtion
of
this
argument
,
which
will
be
found
quite
to
breake
the
force
of
al
his
pretences
this
way
.
For
thus
the
argument
must
run
.
If
Diocesian
Bishops
,
by
the
Testimonies
of
the
ancient
fathers
,
did
exist
in
the
primitive
times
,
and
Catalogues
of
them
are
drawn
by
these
ancients
,
from
Apostles
,
and
Euangilists
,
then
I
must
believe
these
Bishops
to
be
of
divine
institution
:
but
thus
it
is
by
the
Testimony
of
the
ancient
fathers
:
Ergo
,
I
must
believe
Diocesian
Bishopes
to
be
of
divine
institution
.
Now
this
being
the
argument
in
its
genuine
strength
,
this
pitifull
pleader
offers
not
a
jott
in
proofe
of
the
major
proposition
,
whose
connexion
he
cannot
but
know
,
the
we
all
deny
.
All
that
he
offers
is
in
proofe
of
the
assumption
,
which
is
also
denved
,
&
will
be
found
very
maimed
.
I.
To
the
Major
,
I
say
,
that
it
is
of
very
dangerous
consequence
,
to
make
that
which
men
call
antiquity
,
or
[
ancient
custome
,
]
the
infallible
rule
,
and
commentary
,
as
to
the
nature
and
office
,
of
Church
officers
,
mentioned
in
Scriptur
.
Because
1.
If
mens
practise
must
be
the
key
and
comment
in
this
case
,
so
as
we
must
not
contradict
or
counteract
it
,
then
why
may
not
also
human
practise
,
and
profession
of
succeding
ages
,
determine
as
to
every
Scripture
truth
,
and
duty
therein
held
out
?
2.
This
were
to
set
up
a
higher
rule
,
and
tribunal
,
then
the
Scriptures
,
and
to
make
our
faith
to
stand
in
mans
wisdome
,
not
in
Gods
,
and
to
make
the
Scriptures
of
a
privat
interpretation
,
as
if
the
Prophecy
had
come
by
the
will
of
man
.
For
if
I
must
believe
no
otherwayes
anent
the
Scriptures
relating
to
the
offices
of
Timothy
,
and
Titus
,
then
according
to
the
practise
of
supposed
Bishops
,
their
successores
,
and
that
they
held
no
other
offices
,
but
such
as
these
supposed
successores
are
said
to
have
had
,
then
the
Custome
and
practise
of
fallible
men
,
becomes
to
me
,
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
ratio
a
priori
,
and
the
chief
ground
,
why
I
believe
these
Scriptures
to
have
such
a
sense
and
no
other
;
and
so
I
give
men
a
dominion
over
my
faith
,
and
my
faith
herein
resolves
ultimatly
into
a
human
practise
,
and
Testimony
of
fallible
men
,
which
is
a
principle
no
protestant
will
allow
.
Next
,
as
to
the
asumption
of
the
argument
,
I
would
demand
of
this
informer
,
how
I
must
be
infallibly
assured
anent
this
universal
judgment
and
practise
of
the
ancient
Church
,
and
of
this
true
succession
;
and
how
he
will
instruct
the
universal
harmonius
judgement
of
all
the
ancient
Fathers
in
this
great
point
,
(
viz.
)
[
That
such
prelates
as
we
have
now
,
were
the
first
recipients
of
the
ordinary
power
of
government
,
from
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
,
as
their
only
immediat
&
ordinary
successors
.
]
The
topick
of
our
Informers
argument
doth
suppose
the
certanty
of
this
mater
of
fact
.
But
to
clear
this
will
be
found
a
hard
peece
of
work
.
Because
1.
It
is
certan
that
many
of
the
ancients
wrote
nothing
;
many
of
their
writings
are
lost
;
many
writings
going
under
their
name
are
counterfit
,
&
most
especially
to
this
debate
.
It
were
possibly
none
of
the
hardest
Tasks
to
discover
some
writings
here
cited
;
to
be
meer
countersites
.
How
shall
I
know
,
that
the
Testimonies
of
those
who
have
written
,
are
not
contradicted
in
this
point
,
by
such
men
of
their
times
,
who
either
have
not
written
,
or
whose
writings
are
perished
?
2.
There
are
many
things
,
which
the
Ancients
speak
of
as
derived
from
the
Apostles
,
and
have
had
ane
universal
consent
(
as
farr
as
the
knowledge
thereof
hath
come
to
us
)
which
are
acknowledged
to
be
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
and
the
Apostolick
doctrine
;
as
,
the
error
anent
the
vision
of
God
,
[
that
the
Saincts
sie
not
his
face
till
the
last
day
.
]
the
error
of
[
free
will
,
]
which
until
Augustin
opposed
it
was
universally
receaved
▪
the
[
Millenary
error
,
]
anent
Christs
personall
reigne
upon
the
Earth
a
Thousand
years
;
called
by
Lactantius
,
[
the
doctrine
of
the
holy
prophets
,
and
christian
wisdome
,
which
christians
follow
.
]
Iustin
Martyr
,
holds
them
to
be
no
christians
that
dissown
this
▪
and
this
is
owned
as
ane
Apostolick
tradition
.
So
[
childrens
partaking
of
the
Lords
supper
;
]
and
[
the
necessity
of
baptisme
]
was
by
Augustin
and
others
owned
as
such
a
tradition
(
lib:
1.
de
pecc
:
mer.
)
Basil
names
four
Apostolick
traditions
,
signeing
with
the
cross
;
praying
to
the
east
;
anointeing
with
oyle
;
praying
in
the
standing
postur
from
Easter
to
whitsuntyd
.
See
the
Appendix
to
jus
divinum
minise
.
Evan
(
prop.
2.
)
The
informer
and
his
fellowes
,
make
a
great
bustle
anent
the
condemneing
of
Aerius
,
for
holding
that
Bishops
and
presbyters
are
all
one
.
But
Beza
could
have
informed
him
,
de
grad:
(
346.
)
that
Epiphanius
(
Haeres
:
75
)
imputs
to
him
,
as
great
heresies
,
these
Tenets
,
1.
That
he
held
it
unlawfull
to
offer
and
pray
for
the
dead
.
2.
That
he
held
that
Saincts
departed
were
not
to
be
invocat.
3.
That
there
were
not
fixed
fast
dayes
to
be
keept
.
4.
That
the
jewish
pascal
was
not
to
be
observed
,
because
ourpassover
is
already
offered
.
Now
,
if
our
Informer
condemne
him
for
these
also
,
we
weed
care
the
lesse
for
his
condemning
him
in
the
point
of
prelacy
.
3.
It
is
certain
,
that
the
account
of
the
first
times
immediatly
after
the
Apostles
,
is
,
as
to
mater
of
fact
,
very
dark
&
uncertain
,
&
consequently
a
very
slippery
rule
.
Hegesi
pus
(
apud
Euseb:
lib:
3.
Cap:
28.
)
tells
us
,
[
that
immediatly
after
the
Apostolick
age
was
gone
,
tunc
impii
erroris
conspiratio
,
per
seductionem
eorum
qui
alienam
doctrinam
trad
▪
ant
,
initium
caepit
—
Then
the
conspiracy
of
wicked
error
,
but
the
seducings
of
those
who
delivered
another
doctrine
,
took
its
begining
.
Eusebius
himself
the
prime
writer
,
(
from
whom
in
a
manner
is
the
wholl
of
all
that
is
delivered
anent
Church
Government
and
Bishops
,
and
who
presents
these
fragmens
of
writers
out
of
which
our
episcopal
men
ga●…her
up
their
proofes
)
in
the
proem
of
his
History
acknowledges
that
he
is
in
that
worke
entered
into
a
dark
desert
,
therein
he
hath
no
footsteps
of
any
goeing
before
him
,
but
only
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Some
litle
occasions
,
or
some
pitty
narations
,
which
every
one
in
their
own
time
hath
left
and
delivered
.
let
any
read
haumer
(
ane
Inglish
Bishop
)
,
his
translation
of
Eusebius
,
wherein
this
will
be
found
very
clear
.
Scalliger
(
prolegom
in
Chron.
Euseb.
)
Saith
,
Intervallum
illud
ab
ultimo
capite
actorum
&c.
the
nterval
from
he
last
chotter
of
the
Acts
of
the
Apostles
,
until
the
midst
of
the
reigne
of
Trajan
,
in
which
tract
,
Quadratus
and
a
Ignatius
flourished
(
let
our
informer
observe
this
as
to
Ignatius
)
may
be
truly
called
with
varr●…
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
obscur
,
wherin
nothinthat
is
certan
,
hath
come
to
our
hand
concerning
the
affairs
of
Christians
,
except
some
very
few
things
,
which
the
enemies
of
godlines
carches
up
by
the
way
,
such
as
Suetonius
,
Cornelius
Tacitus
,
Plenius
Cecilianus
,
which
gap
that
Eusebius
might
fill
up
,
he
drew
some
things
without
discretion
and
choise
out
of
the
upotiposes
or
exemples
of
I
know
not
what
Clement
(
for
he
is
not
that
learned
Clement
who
wrote
the
Stromata●…●…nd
out
of
the
fyve
books
of
hegesippus
a
writer
no
better
.
Tilen
himself
(
a
great
pleader
for
the
Episcopal
cause
)
yet
tells
us
(
Contr:
3
:
l.
2
:
c.
2
:
Not.
39.
and
c.
3.
Note
.
6
)
That
,
the
history
of
these
first
times
hath
great
blacks
and
gapes
,
which
the
Spurius
Clements
and
other
writers
of
the
same
stamp
,
filled
up
with
petty
fables
drawen
from
their
own
braine
.
—
That
from
the
end
of
the
acts
of
the
Apostles
,
until
Traian's
times
,
thereis
almost
nothing
extant
which
is
certain
:
hence
(
he
saith
)
occasion
was
taken
by
men
of
bad
dispositions
to
make
hold
to
faine
anything
,
whom
even
the
Apostles
times
wanted
not
.
Not
to
insist
upon
the
many
things
written
and
observed
of
Eusebius
,
which
may
invalidat
the
credit
of
his
history
,
and
his
many
gross
errors
therein
,
and
in
other
poynts
,
observed
by
Scalliger
and
others
.
How
fabulous
is
that
history
of
Christes
Epistle
to
Agbarus
,
rejected
even
by
pope
Gelasius
in
a
Councel
of
Seventy
Bishops
at
room
.
That
which
Philo
the
jew
wrote
of
the
Essae
Ans
,
a
Sect
among
the
jewes
,
Eusebius
affirms
that
he
wrot
it
of
Christian
mmks
,
which
Scalliger
shewes
to
be
false
out
of
Philo
himself
(
in
elencho
tribaeresii
.
)
He
proves
peters
crucifixion
at
Rome
by
a
tomb
proofe
:
—
In
the
computation
of
times
,
Scalliger
observes
his
gross
errors
.
Nay
,
which
is
more
considerable
,
he
discovers
gross
ignorance
of
Scripture
,
in
saying
that
the
Cephas
reprehended
by
Paul
,
was
not
the
Apostle
peter
,
but
another
of
the
number
of
the
Seventy
disciples
.
Besyds
,
many
things
in
his
personall
cariage
and
qualities
,
which
may
weaken
the
Credit
of
his
History
,
as
his
presideing
in
the
councel
of
Tyre
against
Athanasius
,
and
standing
upon
the
Arrians
side
.
Scalliger
(
in
his
Thesaurus
temporum
.
Animad:
p
:
268
)
Setts
down
the
testimonies
of
the
Ancients
concerning
his
errors
&
Arrianisme
,
wherein
some
affirme
that
he
died
.
When
he
wrote
the
history
he
was
ane
Arian
.
Moreover
,
Admitt
his
Testimony
were
abeve
all
exception
,
yet
that
his
history
hath
been
corrupted
by
some
ignorant
impostor
,
is
demonstrated
from
this
by
Didocl
:
(
cap.
4.
p.
119
)
[
that
he
maks
mention
of
Sozomen
,
who
was
born
ane
hundred
years
therafter
.
]
Lastly
,
As
to
the
Catalogues
of
Bishopes
,
which
our
Informer
,
and
his
masters
befor
him
,
exhibit
to
us
from
the
Apostolick
times
,
he
might
have
found
them
aboundantly
invalidat
by
many
of
the
learned
,
whose
judgement
and
Testimonys
are
collected
by
Didocl
:
(
cap
:
4
p.
121
:
122
,
123
,
124
,
&c.
)
Which
we
may
well
challeng
this
man
to
answer
.
Therefore
we
shall
dismiss
it
with
these
observes
.
1.
That
Tertullian
,
Irenaeus
,
and
others
,
who
make
use
of
this
Argument
of
Succession
,
against
hereticks
,
designe
only
to
shew
a
derivation
of
true
doctrine
from
the
Apostles
against
them
,
and
that
the
Church
had
the
Traduoes
Apostolici
Seminis
,
a
derivation
of
the
Apostles
Doctrine
,
but
never
meaned
it
of
a
Succession
of
men
of
the
same
office
every
way
.
Tertullian
saith
,
[
Arise
o
truth
and
expone
they
Scriptures
&c.
]
Iren●…us
in
his
time
,
speaking
of
this
Succession
from
the
Apostles
,
&
pressing
adherence
to
the
truth
which
they
delivered
,
makes
mention
of
Presbyters
[
opportet
adhaerere
iis
&c
:
We
must
adhere
to
them
who
keeps
the
Apostles
doctrine
,
and
with
the
order
of
[
presbitery
]
mentain
the
word
.
And
again
,
therefore
we
must
obey
these
[
presbiters
]
who
are
in
the
Church
,
who
have
their
Succession
from
the
Apostles
,
as
we
have
showen
.
Then
he
adds
qui
cum
Episcopatus
Successione
,
charisma
veritatis
certum
,
Secundum
placitum
patris
acceperunt
.
That
is
,
who
with
the
Succession
of
Episcopacy
,
have
receaved
from
the
father
the
sure
gift
of
truth
.
]
thus
he
,
(
l.
4.
c.
44.
)
And
because
this
Informer
singes
their
old
song
who
before
him
,
will
still
Shuffle
in
Bishops
,
when
the
Ancients
speak
of
Presbyters
.
Let
him
remarke
what
he
sayes
(
lib:
3.
cap.
2.
)
Speaking
of
the
contumacy
of
the
adversaries
of
truth
[
quum
autem
ad
eam
iterim
traditionem
,
quae
est
ab
Apostolis
,
quae
per
Successiones
presbyterorum
in
Ecclesiis
custoditur
,
provocamus
eos
&c
:
—
But
when
wee
apeall
them
again
to
that
tradition
,
which
from
the
Apostles
,
is
preserved
by
Succession
of
Presbyters
in
the
Churches
—
They
will
alledge
that
they
are
more
wise
then
the
Apostles
themselves
or
these
Presbyters
]
dare
this
man
say
,
that
Irenaeus
meaned
that
it
was
only
a
Succession
of
Bishops
in
these
Churches
who
keep
that
Apostolick
truth
.
That
Presbyters
are
successoures
of
Apostles
properly
and
immediatly
in
the
power
of
the
keyes
,
is
evident
by
a
full
Testimony
of
ancient
fathers
.
●…gnatius
(
about
whom
our
Informer
makes
a
great
bustle
in
several
places
of
his
Pamplet
)
in
the
Epistle
ad
Trallianos
,
calles
the
caetum
Presbyterorum
,
the
Assembly
of
Presbyters
,
Con●…unctionem
Apostolerum
Christi
,
a
meeting
of
Apostles
of
Christ
.
●…rinaus
,
(
lib:
4.
Cap.
43
)
holds
Presbyteros
in
Ecclesia
ab
Apostolis
successionem
habere
,
that
Presbyters
in
the
Church
have
there
succession
from
the
Apostles
.
Cyprian
(
lib.
4.
epistol.
9.
)
asserts
,
omnes
praepositos
vicaria
ordinatione
Apostolis
succedere
,
that
all
overseers
(
so
he
calls
Presbyters
)
succeeds
the
Apostles
by
a
vicarious
ordination
.
Ierome
,
on
2.
Chap.
of
mica
,
(
cited
by
Cratian
in
decretis
distinct
5.
cap
)
speaking
of
himself
a
Presbyter
,
saith
si
in
Apostolorum
loco
simus
,
non
solum
sermonem
eorum
imitemur
&c.
If
we
be
in
the
Apostles
place
,
let
us
not
onely
imitat
there
doctrine
,
but
also
their
conversation
.
Augustin
(
serm:
36.
to
the
fratres
in
Eremo
)
and
these
too
Pre●…byters
,
call
them
sal
terrae
,
Apostolorum
successores
,
the
salt
of
the
earth
and
the
Apostles
successours
.
2.
As
it
is
certan
,
that
these
Catalogue-drawers
,
did
not
understand
veri
nominis
ep●…copos
,
or
diocesian
Bishops
properly
suoh
,
thogh
speaking
after
the
manner
of
their
times
they
gave
them
all
one
name
:
So
it
is
equally
certain
,
that
the
Testimoyns
out
of
which
these
Catalogues
are
patch●…d
up
,
are
most
inconsistent
and
contradictory
to
one
another
(
as
the
divines
at
the
ile
of
Wight
,
and
many
learned
men
have
made
appear
)
and
still
the
nearer
the
Apostles
times
,
the
Catalogues
are
the
more
darke
and
various
.
They
make
Peter
Bishops
of
Rome
(
a
fable
contradicted
by
many
of
the
learned
&
proved
to
be
such
)
but
whither
Clemens
was
first
or
Third
,
and
who
or
in
that
order
next
after
Succeed
them
,
whither
Linus
,
or
Anacletus
is
never
yet
cleared
,
Some
make
Titus
Bishop
of
Crete
,
some
Archbishop
.
Some
Bishop
of
Dalmatia
.
Timothy
and
John
are
made
by
many
Bishops
at
the
same
time
.
Some
say
Policarp
was
first
Bishop
of
Smyrna
.
Some
make
him
succeed
one
Bucolus
.
some
make
Aristo
first
.
Some
give
Alexandria
one
Bishop
,
some
tuo
at
once
.
See
appendix
to
jus
.
divin
.
min.
Evangel.
And
wheras
our
Informer
replyes
[
that
notwithstanding
of
this
,
yet
all
agree
that
a
Succession
of
Bishops
was
,
and
that
these
different
relations
cannot
impeach
the
certainty
of
the
Succession
it self
,
no
more
then
difference
about
the
Succession
of
princes
will
invalidat
the
certainty
of
the
History
]
I
answer
,
if
he
could
prove
that
they
understood
Bishops
properly
so
called
,
or
his
diocesians
in
all
these
Catalogues
of
Succession
,
this
evasion
might
have
some
Shew
of
truth
,
but
it
is
certain
that
they
did
not
.
Patres
cum
Iacobum
Episcopum
vocant
&c.
the
Fathers
,
saith
Whittak
.
(
de
pontif
.
quest:
2.
c.
15
se
:
2.
When
they
call
James
Bishop
or
Peter
,
take
not
the
name
of
Bishop
properly
,
but
they
call
them
Bishops
of
these
Churches
,
wherein
they
stayed
for
some
time
—
and
againe
—
[
if
spoken
of
a
Bishop
properly
,
its
absurd
to
say
the
Apostles
were
Bishopes
,
fore
he
that
is
properly
a
Bishop
cannot
be
ane
Apostle
,
Because
the
Bishop
is
set
only
over
one
Church
,
but
the
Apostles
were
founders
and
overseers
of
many
Churches
]
.
After
he
tells
us
,
that
non
procul
distat
ab
insania
&c.
it
differs
little
from
madnes
to
say
that
Peter
or
any
other
Apostles
were
Bishopes
.
And
to
this
purpose
he
speaks
afterwards
at
large
(
Q
:
3.
c
:
3.
Sect:
9.
[
proveing
this
from
the
unfixed
extraordinary
nature
of
their
message
or
mission
,
who
were
to
follow
the
Spirits
conduct
towards
all
places
whither
they
were
called
.
Which
argument
reaches
evangelists
upon
the
same
ground
.
So
that
Whitaker
will
send
our
Informer
to
Bedlam
,
if
he
mend
not
this
information
,
and
revocke
not
this
principle
anent
the
Episcopacy
of
Apostles
and
Evangelists
,
and
the
Succession
of
Bishops
from
them
.
The
learned
Iunius
also
(
Contr:
3.
lib:
1.
cap.
23.
not.
3.
)
mantaines
ane
aequivocall
acceptation
of
the
word
[
Bishop
]
in
this
matter
,
so
that
his
paralleel
holds
not
,
as
to
a
difference
about
the
Succession
of
Kings
,
when
a
Monarchy
all
a●…e
Supposed
such
,
but
here
the
difference
and
equivocation
is
,
as
to
the
authority
of
these
Succeeding
Bishops
.
When
he
shall
read
Scallig
.
(
Animadvers
:
277.
)
The
Informer
may
possibly
suspect
Hegesippus
his
naration
anent
James
;
yet
jerom
and
Eusebius
depend
upon
him
.
Scalliger
holds
Clemens
Romanus
to
be
no
better
.
likwayes
jerom
(
:
Catol
:
Scrip
:
)
is
a
Counterfit
,
not
the
true
jerom
,
since
he
mentions
pope
hilary
,
who
lived
long
after
jerom
was
in
his
grave
.
And
wheras
the
Informer
maks
a
great
outcry
of
jerom
[
that
jerom
begins
at
the
Evangelist
Mark
,
in
the
Alexandrian
Catalogue
,
which
our
w●…itters
leave
out
in
their
citations
]
its
easily
answered
that
it
needs
not
be
putt
in
,
since
the
Author
,
sayes
[
A
marko
,
from
,
or
after
him
,
the
Presbyters
choosed
▪
out
one
whom
they
made
president
]
wherein
it
s
evident
,
that
he
speaks
of
this
custom
,
after
Mark
and
excluding
him
,
who
was
ane
Evangelist
before
,
and
needed
not
be
set
up
by
the
Presbiters
.
And
surely
if
the
first
Bishop
was
ane
Evangelist
,
the
rest
were
very
heterogenious
to
their
first
pattern
.
Besides
,
in
that
jerom
sayes
Presbitiri
a
marco
unum
[
ex
se
]
electum
,
&c.
Hee
clerly
insinuats
that
it
was
the
Presbyters
thereafter
,
no
Mark
that
it
,
for
if
by
Marks
Apointment
these
Bishops
wereset
up
,
he
could
not
attribute
it
to
the
Presbyters
etion
▪
Should
one
say
,
in
Scotia
,
a
regimine
presbit
:
Anno.
62.
Episcopi
introducti
,
Ergo
,
ab
isto
regimine
introducti
,
were
●…t
not
a
bad
consequence
.
Here
I
will
offer
to
him
the
remarke
of
a
learned
author
(
Repl
:
to
Dun
:
143.
)
anent
the
Circle
,
which
he
and
his
fellowes
doe
ryde
in
this
argument
.
Timothy
and
Titus
&c.
had
ane
Episcopal
authority
,
why
?
because
their
authority
was
not
Evangelistick
.
Why
so
?
because
it
was
not
to
die
with
them
,
why
that
?
Because
it
was
ordinary
and
perpetually
necessary
.
And
how
is
that
proved
?
Because
,
if
the
Apostles
being
alive
,
they
behooved
to
instruct
Timothy
and
Titus
with
Episcopal
authority
,
much
more
being
dead
,
this
was
necessary
to
the
Churches
.
But
when
it
is
inquired
,
how
this
Episcopal
authority
is
proved
,
it
is
fairely
assumed
againe
,
as
if
it
were
granted
,
[
that
the
Apostles
made
them
Bishops
of
Ephesus
and
Crete
.
]
So
the
last
medium
is
still
that
which
is
in
Question
.
Let
him
ponder
also
what
Didocl
:
(
p.
125.
and
139
▪
)
hath
produced
,
anent
the
confusion
and
contradictions
in
this
Alexandrian
Succession
.
Tilen
himself
(
de
pontif
:
l.
1.
c
:
24.
not
:
1.
)
acknowledges
that
[
De
Alexandrinae
Ecclesiae
primordijs
,
nihil
ex
Scriptura
,
im●…ne
ex
patribus
quidem
,
qui
ante
Synodum
nicenum
floruerunt
,
quicquam
certi
demonstrari
potest
,
That
nothing
certanly
can
be
made
appear
concerning
the
beginings
of
the
Church
of
Alexandria
from
Scriptur
,
no
not
from
the
Fathers
who
florished
before
the
council
of
Nice
.
Baronius
(
Anno.
44.
11
:
42.
)
saith
cum
Apostolorum
nomine
tam
facta
quam
scripta
reperiantur
esse
suppositia
,
&c.
—
Since
there
are
suppositious
both
words
and
Acts
under
the
Apostles
name
,
&
since
what
is
related
by
true
writers
,
remaines
not
incorrupt
,
it
may
make
one
dispair
to
reach
that
is
true
and
cer●…in
.
So
much
is
the
great
popish
historian
forced
to
confess
.
The
Informer
should
likewise
have
done
well
to
have
put
into
the
mouth
of
his
doubter
,
Joseph
Scalliger
,
his
grave
difficulty
about
the
succession
of
the
Bishops
of
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
.
(
Related
by
Didocl
.
Cap:
4
:
p.
123.
)
Wherin
he
proves
Eusebius
relation
to
be
contrary
to
our
Lords
prophecy
anent
the
destruction
of
Jerusalem
,
and
to
Josephus
his
History
.
To
this
I
add
,
that
he
will
find
many
learned
men
doe
hold
,
that
the
first
successors
after
the
Apostles
in
these
supposed
Catalogues
,
were
meer
Presbyters
,
[
who
according
as
they
were
more
eminent
in
the
Churches
,
and
consequently
their
memories
referved
therein
,
whose
Natales
(
as
Iunius
speaks
)
that
is
their
dayes
of
banishment
,
martyrdome
,
or
death
were
keept
in
the
Churches
records
;
accordingly
they
were
cull'd
out
by
the
Fathers
to
fill
up
these
Catalogues
,
though
they
were
contemporary
,
&
those
they
named
[
Bishops
]
,
in
conformity
to
their
own
times
.
For
this
I
recomend
Franciscus
Iunius
his
learned
discourse
to
this
purpose
Cont.
3
:
l.
2
:
c.
5.
not.
18
▪
—
[
errori
causam
prebuit
,
&c
,
the
cause
of
the
error
(
he
means
in
those
contradictory
confused
Catalogues
of
Bishops
)
was
that
there
were
many
Bishops
or
Presbyters
at
once
appoyinted
by
be
Apostles
in
the
Churches
&c.
]
It
s
then
evident
(
which
is
the
Collection
of
Diocl.
upon
what
is
premised
)
1.
That
the
Ancientes
without
examination
having
from
their
progenitors
receaved
many
fabulous
stories
,
delivered
to
the
posterity
such
thinges
as
can
neither
be
reconciled
to
Scripture
,
nor
with
themselves
.
2.
That
they
might
fill
up
their
Tables
of
Bishops
,
and
conforme
the
first
ages
to
their
own
,
they
culld
out
the
most
famous
Minister
for
zeal
,
piety
&c
and
put
them
into
their
Catalogués
.
3.
Whom
they
thus
put
in
,
they
called
them
[
Bishopes
]
in
conformity
to
their
own
times
,
though
they
were
[
meer
Presbyters
.
]
For
(
as
we
saw
upon
Phil.
1.
)
himself
acknowledges
,
that
the
Fathers
used
the
names
indifferently
.
So
by
this
time
wee
suppose
it
is
convinceingly
evident
,
that
ou●…
Informers
great
argument
from
his
Testimonies
is
lost
.
There
is
a
great
consent
of
the
learned
in
this
that
for
the
first
purest
age
,
the
Church
was
governed
by
Presbyters
.
without
Bishopsblondel
(
Apol:
Sect:
3
:
p
:
3
:
14.
3
:
5
—
p.
308
:
378.
)
Shewes
the
consent
of
the
learned
heerin
.
For
this
Church
of
Scotland
,
we
have
the
Testimony
of
Ioanes
Major
(
de
Cest.
Scot
:
l.
2.
)
of
Fordon
(
Scoto-chronicon
,
lib.
3.
Shap.
8.
)
likwise
of
Blond
.
(
Sect.
3.
)
All
shewing
,
that
this
nation
(
haveing
imbraced
the
Christian
faith
Anno.
79.
)
till
the
year
430.
(
When
the
pope
sent
Palladius
as
our
first
Bishop
,
)
was
governed
only
by
Presbyters
with
out
Bishopes
;
so
that
we
had
our
union
to
the
see
of
Rome
together
with
Prelacy
.
Clemens
,
of
the
first
century
,
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Philippians
,
maks
but
two
orders
of
Ministery
,
Bishops
and
deacons
,
these
only
he
sayes
the
Apostle
set
up
to
propogat
the
ordinances
to
believers
.
And
this
to
be
a
remedy
to
end
all
contests
about
Episcopacy
.
(
page
.
57.
&c.
)
The
same
we
heard
of
policarp
(
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Philippianes
)
we
heard
of
Augustins
Testimony
(
Epist.
19.
to
Jerom.
)
Dr.
Reynolds
(
in
his
Epist.
to
Sr
Francis
Knolls
)
cites
Chrysostom
,
Ierom
,
Ambrose
,
Augustin
,
Theodoret
,
and
many
others
ancient
and
modern
,
to
prove
,
that
in
Scripture
,
Bishop
and
Presbyter
are
all
one
.
Jeroms
Testimony
upon
Titus
,
is
famous
for
this
point
,
who
assertes
,
and
proves
at
large
;
from
Philip.
1.
Act.
20.
Hebr.
13
:
17.
1
Pet.
5.
That
by
Gods
appointment
,
and
in
first
Apostolick
times
&
afterward
,
the
government
was
by
Presbyters
,
communi
concilio
Presbyterorum
,
[
by
the
common
councel
of
Presbyters
.
]
that
by
divine
appointment
,
Bishops
&
Presbyters
are
one
,
that
the
difference
betwixt
them
had
no
better
ground
then
contudo
or
Custom
.
That
divisions
by
Satans
instinct
occasioned
the
difference
afterward
made
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
.
That
their
equality
was
not
his
privat
Judgement
,
but
a
Scripture
truth
.
The
same
he
hath
in
his
Epistle
to
Evagrius
.
But
now
let
us
hear
what
ou●…
Informer
hath
Scraped
together
from
his
masters
,
Saravia
,
Dounam
,
Tilen
,
&c.
To
infringe
this
Testimony
.
1.
He
●…ayes
[
That
Ierom
speaks
onely
of
the
first
gospel
times
,
when
mentioning
the
identity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
when
the
Apostles
did
by
their
own
presence
&
industry
Supply
the
rowme
of
Bishops
,
but
as
they
began
to
fail
by
death
,
or
their
bussines
called
them
elswhere
and
upon
the
Churches
inlargement
,
&
the
Schisme
that
arose
upon
the
Presbyters
equality
,
Bishops
were
set
up
over
Presbyters
.
This
he
proves
,
because
,
jerom
sayes
,
that
from
Mark
the
Evangelist
.
The
Presbyters
choosed
out
one
,
and
called
him
Bishop
,
even
to
the
Bishops
heraclius
and
Dionisius
,
but
Mark
died
before
Peter
and
Paul
.
Then
he
compleans
of
Smectimmuus
as
dealling
defectively
in
leaving
out
this
in
their
Citation
—
And
of
Mr.
Durham
(
on
the
Revel.
pa●…
225.
and
thatMr
.
Durham
takes
no
notice
of
jeroms
similitud
in
speaking
of
this
Election
of
Presbyters
in
relation
to
their
Bishop
,
viz
,
As
the
army
doth
choose
the
Emperor
]
Thus
far
we
have
our
Informers
first
great
defence
,
Which
brings
to
minde
a
remarkable
saying
of
Marcus
.
Anton.
De
Dom.
De
repub
Eccl.
lib.
2.
cap.
3.
Numb
.
46.
Sunt
qui
Hieronimum
in
rectam
sententiam
vel
invitum
velint
trahere
ille
tamen
dum
consuetudini
Sole
ecclaesiasticae
,
ecclaesiaeque
humano
decreto
tribuit
quod
ab
Apostolis
jure
divino
,
est
factitatum
,
aliquantum
certe
deflexit
—
neque
in
hoc
aut
excusari
potest
,
aut
in
alium
contrarium
sensum
trahi
verba
ejus
,
neque
aliam
Sententiam
neque
defensionen
neque
excusationem
,
admittentia
sunt
haec
in
Epist.
ad
Titum
:
&c
Some
would
(
he
saith
)
draw
jerom
to
a
contrary
minde
against
his
will
,
but
whil
he
doth
ascribe
only
to
Ecclesiastick
Custome
,
and
the
Churches
human
deccree
,
what
was
done
by
divine
right
,
he
went
out
of
the
way
,
and
in
this
he
cannot
be
excused
,
nor
can
his
words
admitt
of
any
other
sense
,
or
meaneing
.
So
much
was
this
mans
ingenuity
beyond
that
of
our
Informer
.
But
to
the
point
,
I
Ans.
1.
Wee
have
nothing
here
but
the
old
Song
,
which
hath
been
answered
by
many
.
Iunius
[
decler
:
c.
15.
Not.
16.
]
tells
him
[
That
tria
distinguit
tempora
Hieronimus
.
Primum
,
quo
Ecclesiae
communi
presbyterorum
concilio
gubernabantur
.
Secundum
,
quo
studia
in
religione
facta
sunt
,
ac
dictum
est
in
populis
,
ac
non
corinthisolum
&c
:
nam
quum
primum
illa
corinthi
dicerentur
,
adhuc
communi
presbyterorum
concilio
ecclesiae
gubernabantur
,
ut
patet
ex
icor
.
5.
&
2.
cor.
1.
tertium
demum
quo
unus
de
presbyteris
electus
caeteris
fuit
superpositus
.
Atque
haec
singula
tempora
suam
,
ut
cum
vulgo
loquar
,
latitudinem
habuerunt
.
Ierom
distinguishes
,
Three
periods
of
time
.
1.
When
the
Church
was
governed
by
the
Common
Council
of
presbyters
.
The
2d
.
Wherin
there
were
divisions
in
religion
,
and
it
was
said
among
the
people
,
not
at
Corinth
onely
;
I
am
of
Paul
&c
:
for
when
these
things
were
said
at
Corinth
,
the
Church
(
saith
he
)
was
as
yet
governed
with
the
Common
Council
of
presbyters
,
as
it
appears
1.
Cor.
5.
and
2
Cor.
1.
The
3d.
and
last
,
wherin
one
chosen
out
from
among
the
presbyters
,
was
set
over
the
rest
.
And
every
one
of
these
times
(
saith
he
)
that
I
may
speak
with
the
vulgar
hade
their
own
latitud
.
here
in
this
one
judicious
account
of
this
learned
author
,
our
Informer
might
have
seen
his
error
,
and
the
violence
which
he
offers
to
jerome
words
for
jerom
drawes
his
proofes
for
the
first
period
from
many
texts
of
Scripture
,
from
Phil.
1.
Act
20.
&c
when
Paul
took
his
last
farewell
of
that
Church
,
never
to
see
their
faces
more
.
Yea
he
drawes
his
proofes
from
John
the
Surviver
of
all
the
Apostles
,
for
the
identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
and
in
relation
to
the
Churches
being
governed
by
their
Common
Councill
.
And
as
to
the
choise
of
the
constant
president
he
addes
quod
autem
postea
unus
electus
,
that
their
was
one
afterward
chosen
to
preside
,
for
the
remedie
of
Schism
&c
,
and
to
be
Episcopus
preses
,
this
period
he
fixes
after
Iohns
time
,
and
so
after
all
the
Apostles
.
2.
Wheras
the
Inform●…r
(
following
Downam
defens
.
lib.
4.
cap
:
3.
Sect:
10.
)
alledges
That
the
Presbyters
in
jeromes
senc
did
in
the
beginning
of
the
gospel
govern
the
Churches
[
Modo
privato
]
,
in
a
privat
way
&
[
in
foro
conscientiae
]
feeding
with
the
word
and
Sacrament
;
the
Apostles
themselves
,
by
th●…r
own
presenc
supplying
the
roume
of
Bishops
;
and
that
thereafter
Bishops
were
set
up
by
them
to
prevent
schism
among
Presbyters
.
I
answer
.
He
will
assoone
squize
water
from
a
flint
,
as
this
meaneing
out
of
jeroms
words
.
Fori
jerom
speaks
of
a
frame
of
government
,
yea
a
divine
frame
,
which
postea
and
Paulatim
,
afterward
and
by
degrees
,
came
to
be
altered
and
changed
:
but
this
privat
government
of
Presbyters
in
foro
interno
,
was
never
changed
2.
jerom
in
speaking
of
that
government
which
was
afterward
changed
,
and
by
degrees
,
proves
its
divine
right
from
many
scriptures
as
a
Disp●…sitio
divina
,
or
a
divine
appointment
.
Now
I
beseech
him
,
did
the
Apostles
first
practise
a
divine
f●…ame
of
Government
,
and
then
changed
it
into
a
human
custome
?
(
which
is
the
Character
that
jerom
puts
upon
the
Episcopacy
which
afterward
came
in
.
)
will
any
of
common
sense
or
discretion
,
say
so
?
Far
less
so
learned
a
man
as
Ierome
was
.
3.
If
the
Apostles
themselves
did
supply
the
roum
of
Bishops
,
before
the
change
which
Jerome
speaks
of
,
then
Ierome
could
not
say
of
that
period
of
time
before
the
change
,
that
,
communi
consilio
Presbyterorum
ecclesiae
gubernabantur
,
the
Churches
were
governed
by
the
common
Council
of
Presbyters
,
but
according
to
this
gloss
of
his
words
,
before
the
change
,
the
Government
was
episcopall
.
But
so
it
is
,
that
jerom
sayes
,
idem
episcopus
&
Presbyter
,
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
are
one
and
the
same
,
by
divine
right
,
and
that
before
the
change
which
came
in
by
a
human
custome
(
which
he
distinguishes
from
that
dispositio
divin●…
or
divine
frame
,
which
first
took
place
)
the
Presbyters
Governed
theChurches
by
common
Counsel
,
according
to
divine
appoiniment
.
4.
If
the
Apostles
upon
their
with
drawing
,
or
the
increase
of
Churches
,
set
up
Prelats
,
let
the
Informer
shew
me
why
and
how
Ierom
could
draw
his
proof
for
the
identy
,
of
Bishopes
and
Presbyters
,
from
Act.
20.
Where
Paul
was
taking
his
last
farewell
of
the
Churches
?
was
he
to
supply
the
roume
of
a
Bishop
by
his
presence
with
them
,
when
never
to
see
their
faces
more
?
how
could
Ierome
plead
for
the
divine
right
of
,
Presbyters
Episcopal
,
Scriptural
,
GospelGovernment
,
from
Paules
calling
them
Bishops
at
his
last
farewell
,
and
committing
the
whollGovernment
to
them
,
if
this
had
been
his
meaning
?
Besides
,
were
not
the
Churches
increased
a●…
this
time
?
why
then
were
no●…
Bishops
set
up
,
since
this
man
holds
the
increase
of
Churches
to
have
grounded
such
a
necessity
of
Prelacy
?
Nay
,
since
Jerom
drawes
his
proofes
against
the
Prelats
divine
right
,
from
the
1
Pet.
5
,
And
from
John
,
could
he
suppose
that
this
was
but
the
beginning
,
while
the
Apostles
had
the
power
still
in
their
own
hand
?
Againe
,
our
Informer
would
doe
well
to
resolve
this
doubt
,
how
Jerom
could
call
a
Government
which
he
asserts
to
be
brought
in
by
the
Apostles
according
to
Gods
appointment
,
a
human
custome
opposite
to
the
Lords
appointment
?
Or
how
could
this
answer
Jeroms
scope
,
[
to
prove
Presbyters
to
be
one
with
Bishops
]
to
say
that
the
Apostles
first
governend
them
,
episcopally
themselves
,
and
then
set
up
Bishops
over
them
?
And
how
will
he
make
this
corres●…ond
with
what
Jerom
sayes
as
to
the
originall
of
this
change
viz.
the
studia
in
religione
,
or
factions
in
Religion
?
Will
the
Informer
say
(
which
is
his
own
argument
afterward
)
that
the
Apostles
immediat
episcopall
Government
,
had
influenc
upon
this
Schism
?
Was
not
likwayes
the
Schism
at
Corinth
,
(
from
which
this
man
drawes
the
change
in
Jeroms
sense
)
long
before
severall
of
Jeroms
proofes
from
1
Pet.
5
Act.
20
And
from
John
,
for
the
divine
warrand
of
this
common
Government
of
Presbyters
?
And
was
this
the
change
which
Ierom
speaks
of
,
as
toto
orbe
decretum
,
&
postea
,
or
a
change
afterward
through
the
World
?
Appage
inneptias
.
3.
As
for
what
he
adds
,
That
Ierom
drawes
the
Alexandrian
Episcopacy
from
Marke
,
which
he
compleans
that
Mr.
Durhame
and
Smectimmuus
take
no
notice
of
.
Ans.
Wee
have
showen
already
,
that
it
is
not
worth
the
noticeing
in
this
matter
,
and
any
notice
can
be
taken
of
it
,
makes
rather
against
him
,
then
for
him
for
if
Marke
was
ane
Evangelist
in
the
strict
sense
,
as
Ierom
calls
him
,
he
doeth
(
as
chamier
answers
Bellarmin
in
this
point
)
cut
him
of
from
the
Series
of
Bishops
properly
so
called
.
The
Informer
must
grant
this
,
or
contradict
what
he
said
before
of
the
inconsistency
of
these
offices
in
a
strict
senc
,
in
on
and
the
same
person
;
for
he
said
nothing
against
this
consequenc
,
Timothie
is
called
ane
Evangilist
in
astrict
sense
,
ergo
He
could
not
be
a
Bishop
.
Now
I
say
Ierom
calls
Marke
ane
Evangilist
,
for
he
tells
us
that
a
Marco
evangelista
from
Marks
the
Evangilist
,
the
Presbyters
at
Alexandria
set
up
one
to
preside
.
Ergo
he
speaks
exclusively
,
and
cannot
put
Mark
among
the
series
of
them
,
for
Mark
was
ane
officer
of
a
higher
nature
.
Moreover
,
the
Informer
tells
us
,
that
Mark
died
before
Peter
and
Paul
;
hence
I
infer
against
him
,
ergo
,
Ierom
could
not
reckon
Mark
among
these
Bishops
of
Alexandria
:
for
Ierom
drawes
his
proofes
for
the
Presbyters
divin
right
of
governing
in
Common
,
from
Act.
20.
phil.
1.
1.
Pet.
5.
And
from
Iohn
the
last
of
the
Apostles
,
and
maks
this
divine
Presbyterial
government
run
along
all
the
Apostles
time
,
and
tells
us
that
the
Bishops
who
were
set
up
,
came
in
by
custome
,
and
afterward
,
and
by
degrees
when
it
was
toto
orbe
decretum
,
decreed
through
the
world
;
to
put
the
power
upon
one
;
ergo
these
Bishops
of
Alexandria
behooved
to
be
sett
up
long
after
Mark
was
in
his
grave
,
according
to
jeroms
calculation
.
And
wheras
he
compleans
that
Mr
Durhame
leaves
out
that
Clause
[
Where
jerom
maks
use
of
a
simile
anent
the
armies
choosing
ane
Emperor
—
That
he
may
make
the
Bishops
power
when
brought
in
,
as
little
as
can
be
.
]
It
s
answered
,
that
passage
will
as
little
help
him
as
the
other
,
for
jeromes
scope
is
,
to
shew
That
the
Bishops
first
rise
and
power
over
Presbyters
,
was
by
their
own
free
election
,
not
by
divine
disposition
,
as
the
Army
chooses
the
Generall
.
Now
no
simile
must
be
strained
and
hold
in
every
poynt
,
else
it
were
not
a
simile
.
Scripturparables
themselves
mast
not
be
strained
beyond
the
scop
.
And
besides
,
jerome
cannot
be
supposed
to
give
at
that
time
,
even
de
sacto
,
far
less
jure
divino
,
an
Imperial
or
Lordly
power
to
these
Presbyters
thus
chosen
out
by
their
brethren
,
and
made
Bishops
over
them
,
unless
he
would
Cross
his
own
doctrine
,
since
he
maks
this
choic
and
Election
of
the
Episcopus●…reses
,
to
be
the
hum●…n
Custome
,
posterior
unto
,
and
different
from
the
divine
appointment
of
governing
in
a
parity
,
which
first
took
place
.
Likewayes
jerom
sayes
in
his
own
time
quid
facit
excepta
ordinatione
Episcopus
,
quod
non
facit
Presbyter
.
What
doth
the
Bishop
except
ordination
which
the
Presbyters
doth
not
.
So
that
they
had
not
then
arrived
at
any
imperiall
power
.
And
because
this
man
tells
us
even
ad
nauseam
of
this
passage
,
a
Marko
Evangilista
.
I
will
turn
here
the
weapons
point
upon
him
,
and
demand
,
Since
Ierome
make
these
Alexandrian
Bishops
from
Mark
,
to
have
been
sett
up
by
Presbyters
free
election
,
how
comes
the
Prelats
he
pleads
for
,
to
be
Elected
and
set
up
at
Court
,
while
the
poor
Creatures
,
the
Curats
,
over
whom
they
are
set
,
to
play
the
little
emperoures
,
have
no
more
Interest
as
to
their
choice
and
Election
,
then
the
silliest
Monck
in
choosing
the
pope
I
add
here
,
that
this
supposition
of
his
[
that
Ierom
holds
the
Apostles
to
have
supplied
the
Bishops
rowme
for
a
time
,
though
no
fixed
ordinary
Bishops
,
untill
the
Churches
growth
,
and
their
necessary
absence
,
did
necessitat
to
set
them
up
for
preventing
schism
,
]
will
Crosse
what
himself
and
Downam
also
doe
plead
,
defens
.
l.
4.
c.
5.
Sect.
3.
(
If
at
least
they
will
not
make
Ierome
oddly
to
contradict
himself
,
viz.
)
that
Ierom
[
in
Catal.
Scrip.
Eccles
]
.
holds
that
Iames
immediatly
after
the
Lords
suffering
,
was
Constitut
Bishop
of
Ierusalem
.
Besids
that
neither
of
them
will
prove
that
to
be
the
true
jerom.
But
now
the
Informer
will
resolve
the
great
doubt
against
what
he
hath
said
,
viz.
That
Ierome
proves
from
Scriptur
,
Bishop
and
Presbyter
to
be
all
one
and
that
schismes
by
Satans
instinct
,
gave
occasion
to
change
the
government
from
the
Common
Council
of
Presbyters
,
to
another
mould
of
setting
up
one
over
the
rest
,
to
whom
the
whole
Care
should
belong
&c.
To
which
he
answers
,
that
Ierom
speaks
of
the
power
which
Bishops
in
his
time
had
come
unto
beyond
what
the
first
Bishops
had
,
viz.
That
at
the
first
Presbyters
had
a
hand
in
government
,
but
after
,
omnis
Ecclesiae
cura
ad
unum
de
lata
,
that
is
,
the
wholl
care
was
put
upon
the
Bishop
.
But
if
we
take
Ierom
to
speak
of
the
first
introduction
of
Bishops
,
then
he
must
be
understood
as
speaking
of
the
Apostles
own
times
.
Ans.
1.
Upon
this
ground
the
Informer
must
grant
,
that
in
Ieroms
sense
,
Bishops
who
only
in
ordination
,
were
superior
to
Presbyters
,
had
a
greater
power
then
the
Bishops
first
set
up
by
the
Apostles
;
which
will
clearly
exclud
his
diocesian
Prelats
,
who
have
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
as
no
divine
Bishops
.
And
Next
,
it
will
follow
that
the
ishopes
set
up
a
Marco
,
or
after
Mark
,
were
meer
presidents
,
or
Moderators
;
since
they
were
less
in
power
then
these
Bishops
,
who
onely
in
ordination
,
differed
from
Presbyters
.
So
we
see
the
rebound
of
this
answer
will
strik
his
cause
dead
.
And
he
must
feel
another
rebound
of
his
own
blow
,
as
to
his
Complaint
of
our
leaving
out
what
maks
against
us
in
Ieroms
words
.
For
I
ask
why
he
lea●…es
out
here
Ieroms
scripture
proofes
,
evincing
that
Bishops
&
Presbyters
are
one
jure
divino
?
Why
leaves
he
out
Ieroms
Collection
upon
all
these
scriptures
(
which
runes
along
the
through
Apostolick
age
)
viz.
That
the
Bishops
are
more
by
Custom
,
then
by
any
true
dispensation
from
the
Lord
set
over
Presbyters
?
for
although
he
after
bringes
in
this
as
ane
objection
,
yet
it
ought
to
have
been
set
downe
here
,
as
the
main
conclusion
of
Ieromes
arguing
:
and
his
testimony
is
very
blunt
without
it
.
Again
,
how
comes
he
thus
to
disguise
what
Ierome
sayes
of
Presbyters
governeing
[
Communi
Councilio
]
,
or
by
common
Councill
,
as
if
it
Imported
no
more
,
then
haveing
a
hand
in
government
,
which
he
maks
Compatible
with
prelacy
,
wheras
Ierom
maks
it
distinct
from
,
and
anterior
unto
,
even
the
first
human
prostasy
.
Beside
,
their
governeing
,
Communi
Concilio
,
Imports
particularly
,
their
joynt
decisive
suffrage
in
government
;
which
he
doth
but
meanly
express
by
their
governing
in
Common
.
2.
What
a
rediculous
conceit
is
this
That
Ierom
speaks
of
the
power
of
Bishops
in
his
time
,
beyond
the
first
Bishops
Ierom
speaking
of
Presbyters
expressly
,
as
contradistinct
from
Bishops
,
and
of
the
Presbiters
existent
in
the
Apostolick
Churches
,
while
the
Apostles
were
alive
,
as
himself
just
now
explained
i●…
,
in
saying
[
that
the
Apostles
by
their
presenc
and
industry
supplied
the
want
of
Bishops
over
these
Presbyters
.
]
So
that
he
compares
not
the
Bishops
in
his
time
,
with
the
first
Bishops
who
came
in
by
Custome
,
but
these
human
Bishops
who
thus
came
in
,
with
the
first
scripture
Bishops
.
we
know
not
wher
to
find
this
versatil
proteus
in
his
answers
here
,
and
may
truely
alleadge
,
that
this
Testimony
pinches
him
and
his
fellowes
.
Next
,
will
he
stand
to
this
exposition
of
Ieroms
words
,
which
he
here
offers
,
viz
,
[
That
the
first
Bishops
admitted
Presbyters
to
governe
with
them
,
and
the
after
Bishops
in
Ieroms
time
,
governed
alone
.
]
Then
he
must
grant
,
that
the
first
and
second
Bishops
,
were
of
very
different
cutts
;
and
so
he
breaks
his
Argument
from
the
Catalogues
,
all
in
peeces
;
and
must
grant
that
the
word
episcopus
,
or
Bishop
,
is
variously
used
by
the
ancients
,
And
that
our
present
Lord-prelats
can
receave
no
Pratrociny
from
Bishops
of
the
first
ages
,
wherein
Presbyters
governed
by
common
Council
,
and
had
a
decisive
sufferage
in
Government
,
whereas
the
Prelats
now
are
beyond
what
their
predecessors
had
come
unto
,
even
in
Ieroms
time
:
For
then
except
ordination
,
the
Bishop
did
nothing
,
beyond
what
the
Presbyter
might
doe
,
whereas
our
present
Prelats
are
sole
both
in
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
,
and
assume
a
negative
voice
in
Church
Judicatories
,
Yea
a
decisive
suffrage
in
Parliament
:
which
he
dare
not
say
that
any
of
these
Bishops
did
ever
pretend
unto
.
Well
,
But
if
we
shall
say
that
Ierom
speaks
of
the
first
introduction
of
Bishops
into
the
Church
,
then
(
he
tells
us
)
Ierom
must
understand
it
of
the
Apostles
times
.
What
means
he
by
the
first
introduction
of
Bishops
?
Can
he
give
the
least
shaddow
of
reason
for
it
,
that
Ierom
speakes
of
any
other
introduction
then
that
introduction
of
human
custom
,
which
he
distinguishes
from
the
divine
appointment
of
Presbyterian
paritie
?
But
how
proves
he
[
That
Ierom
maks
Bishopes
to
have
been
introduced
in
the
times
of
the
Apostles
]
(
yet
I
must
tell
him
by
the
way
,
that
introduceing
them
in
the
times
of
the
Apostles
,
is
one
thing
,
&
by
the
Apostles
,
is
anotherthing
.
Diotrephes
sought
his
primacy
in
Iohns
time
,
but
was
disowned
by
him
therin
.
So
that
if
we
can
prove
that
what
jerom
cites
for
the
parity
of
Bishops
&
Presbyters
jure
divino
,
will
conclud
the
point
,
these
Bishops
are
in
themselves
,
&
in
jeroms
judgement
,
condemned
by
the
Apostles
.
)
his
1.
Reason
is
[
That
jerom
makes
the
thing
,
which
gave
occasion
to
this
Introducing
of
Bishops
,
to
be
the
peoples
saying
Iam
of
Paul
and
I
of
Apollo
,
and
this
was
the
Schism
spoken
of
I
Cor.
I.
]
But
this
notion
of
Saravia
,
and
others
,
he
might
have
found
long
since
answered
.
Ieromes
scop
is
evidently
,
to
prove
that
by
Scripture
warrand
,
Bishop
and
Presbyter
are
all
one
,
wich
he
clears
by
many
Scripture
Testimonyes
,
even
to
Iohns
time
;
and
therefore
he
could
not
be
so
brutish
,
as
to
make
this
Schism
at
Corinth
,
the
occasion
of
the
Change
,
so
long
before
Johns
Testimony
,
yea
before
Paules
farewell
Sermon
to
the
Elders
of
Ephesus
,
from
which
he
drawes
another
of
his
proofes
.
But
he
speakes
of
a
human
Custom
comeing
in
Paulatim
,
postea
,
peece
and
peece
and
by
degres
,
long
after
these
times
:
and
but
alludes
unto
that
Division
I
Cor.
I.
Expressing
it
in
the
Apostles
words
,
not
of
their
times
;
for
the
Apostles
never
appointed
this
prelatik
excrescent
power
of
Bishops
over
Presbyters
as
a
remedy
of
Schisme
,
among
all
their
prescriptions
of
the
Cure
of
this
evill
.
Rom.
16.
7.
I
Cor.
3
:
3.
11
,
18.
Moreover
famous
whietaker
will
tell
him
,
that
this
remedie
is
worse
then
the
disease
.
The
mistery
of
iniquity
was
then
working
;
the
Apostles
therefore
would
not
lay
a
step
under
Anti-Christs
foot
,
to
get
in
to
his
Chair
.
Besides
;
these
factions
in
religion
were
not
at
Corinth
onlie
.
Iunius
(
de
cler
.
Cap.
15.
not
16.
)
will
Informe
him
that
[
jerom
asserts
not
,
that
it
was
said
at
Corinth
,
I
am
of
Paul
,
&c.
But
among
the
people
,
&c.
malum
non
Corinthi
solum
,
&c.
It
was
a
Publick
evill
—
Paul
himself
prescrybed
no
such
remedy
(
saith
he
)
unto
the
Corinthians
.
—
and
afterward
[
Not.
17.
]
Jerom
saith
,
after
it
was
said
among
the
people
,
he
saith
not
that
this
human
Prostasia
,
began
at
that
tyme
,
viz
,
of
the
schism
,
but
after
that
time
.
Compare
it
with
Wittaker
,
(
de
pont.
Q.
1.
c.
3.
Sect
▪
29.
[
he
saith
not
,
it
was
decreed
by
the
Apostles
,
that
one
Presbyter
should
be
set
over
the
rest
,
this
he
sayes
,
was
by
the
Churches
Castome
;
not
the
Apostles
decree
—
Then
he
adds
(
Ierom
,
viz
,
)
Let
the
Bishops
know
,
that
it
is
rather
by
Custome
,
then
the
divine
appointment
,
that
they
are
set
over
Presbyters
.
Had
the
Apostles
changed
the
first
order
,
and
set
Bishops
over
Presbyters
,
and
forbidden
the
Churches
to
be
governed
by
the
Cammon
▪
Council
of
Presbyters
,
truly
that
had
been
the
Lords
appointment
,
because
proceeding
from
the
Apostles
of
Christ
,
unless
we
will
ascrib
to
Custom
,
not
to
divine
appointment
,
what
they
decreed
.
But
the
Apostles
being
alive
,
there
was
nothing
changed
in
that
order
,
for
this
Epistle
was
written
when
Paul
was
in
Mac
donia
,
&c.
]
Let
our
Informer
read
this
learned
author
,
who
at
large
will
cure
his
error
in
this
poynt
,
if
it
be
not
incurable
.
Wheras
he
adds
[
That
Ierom●…
comment
upon
Tit.
I.
Imports
only
his
opinion
,
anent
the
Community
of
names
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
not
of
their
office
at
that
time
]
I
beseech
him
what
will
this
say
to
Ieromes
scope
,
which
is
to
prove
Presbyters
superiority
to
Deacons
?
for
the
deacons
name
was
in
a
generall
sense
,
attribut
both
to
Apostles
,
and
to
the
Evangelist
Timothey
,
as
himself
pleads
.
Besides
,
what
signifies
Ieroms
in
ferenc
from
all
his
Citations
,
viz
,
[
That
Bishops
had
not
their
superiority
over
Presbiters
,
by
divine
appointment
]
If
only
a
communitie
of
names
,
was
his
proofe
from
these
texts
.
The
Informers
2
Reason
,
to
prove
that
Ierom
makes
Bishops
,
to
be
introduced
in
the
times
of
the
Apostles
,
is
[
That
had
the
decree
wich
Ierome
speaks
of
,
been
after
the
Apostles
,
it
would
have
been
extant
in
antiquity
,
where
,
and
in
what
Council
,
it
took
place
,
but
this
is
not
found
.
Ans
Ierome
by
,
toto
orbe
decretum
,
or
prospiciente
concilio
,
cannot
mean
any
formal
Council
,
either
in
the
Apostles
times
,
or
afterward
.
But
the
meaning
is
,
that
when
through
the
world
,
it
was
said
among
the
people
,
I
am
of
Paul
,
&c.
It
was
decreed
among
the
people
,
or
in
,
and
among
particular
Churches
,
through
the
whole
word
,
that
is
,
distr●…butively
,
though
all
places
of
the
world
,
not
representatively
,
in
any
aecumenick
Council
of
the
whole
world
.
Decreed
through
the
whole
word
,
is
all
one
with
,
Decreed
by
the
whole
world
,
which
is
distributily
to
be
taken
.
Ieroms
words
convince
this
,
for
the
Councils
decree
,
representing
the
world
,
would
be
all
at
once
;
but
Ierom
sayes
this
Chance
came
not
in
Simul
&
Semel
,
but
paulatim
ly
degrees
;
And
that
the
Prostasia
came
in
by
Custome
,
which
points
at
a
graduall
comeing
in
.
Besides
,
the
Apostles
changing
the
first
mould
of
government
,
to
prevent
Scism
,
will
say
they
made
themselves
wiser
then
the
Lord
.
His
3
Reason
is
[
That
this
will
suppose
the
worlds
universal
defection
,
from
the
Apostolick
Government
,
against
which
there
is
,
no
footstep
of
a
Testimony
.
]
Ans.
we
We
have
seen
(
as
he
cannot
deny
)
as
great
,
and
more
sudden
changes
of
the
divine
institutions
,
exemplified
in
Scripture
;
and
that
ane
universall
defection
,
hath
been
through
the
Christian
world
,
from
both
the
Apostolick
Doctrine
,
and
Government
,
he
will
not
deny
:
and
many
Testimonies
there
might
have
been
against
this
,
though
they
have
not
come
to
our
hands
.
He
knowes
how
our
divines
answer
such
a
Question
of
the
Papists
,
as
to
the
beginnings
of
their
Corruptions
,
and
their
universall
spread
.
Moreover
,
this
mistery
of
Iniquity
,
and
affectation
of
primacy
,
began
in
the
Apostles
owne
time
,
and
therefore
we
need
not
wonder
that
it
spread
shortly
thereafter
.
Ierome
tells
us
that
this
change
was
Paulatim
,
by
degrees
,
and
upon
specious
pretences
of
order
and
union
,
and
therefore
it
is
no
wonder
that
this
monster
in
its
nature
and
dreadfull
effects
,
was
not
seen
at
first
.
His
4t
.
Reason
is
[
That
Ierom
makes
this
change
to
have
been
for
remedy
of
Schism
,
and
it
is
absurd
to
say
,
that
the
Government
of
the
Apostles
was
lyable
to
this
evil
But
this
inconvenience
is
salved
,
if
we
say
,
that
the
Apostles
for
preventing
Schisme
which
parity
breeds
,
set
up
Bishops
over
Presbyters
.
]
Ans.
1.
To
begin
at
his
last
part
,
he
eschews
not
this
inconvenienc
himself
;
for
he
makes
the
Apostles
to
have
Governed
the
first
Curches
Episcopaly
,
keeping
the
Episcopall
reyns
of
Government
stil
in
their
owne
hand
(
in
Ieroms
sense
)
till
their
absene
and
Schism
procured
that
change
which
Ierom
speaks
of
.
So
that
,
with
him
,
the
root
of
Schism
was
sown
in
that
Church
which
they
Governed
Episcopally
;
the
Presbyters
with
him
,
ab
initio
,
yea
first
or
last
not
haveing
a
power
of
ordination
,
and
jurisdiction
;
and
he
maks
jerome
to
reflect
upon
the
Apostles
,
as
if
they
had
bettered
Christs
appointment
,
as
to
Government
:
I
pray
him
,
how
grew
up
the
Corinth
Scism
while
Paul
acted
the
Bishop
over
that
Church
?
as
he
and
the
rest
of
hisparty
doe
plead
.
The
men
of
his
way
say
that
the
Apostles
keept
the
reyns
of
Government
in
their
own
hand
,
until
they
were
about
to
die
,
before
wich
time
there
were
schimes
in
their
Churches
.
Did
not
the
Apostles
foresee
this
?
and
if
the
Apostolick
Episcapacy
was
by
lyable
to
schismes
,
much
more
that
of
their
substituts
.
2.
It
is
too
gross
ane
Inferenc
to
say
that
[
Because
Ierome
holdes
that
for
preventing
schismes
which
were
at
that
time
,
the
Government
was
changed
,
therefore
Ierome
charges
it
upon
the
Apostles
Government
,
]
he
may
as
well
say
,
that
a
mans
asserting
Corruptions
to
be
in
the
Church
,
will
infer
his
imputing
them
to
the
ordinances
.
Was
there
nor
discord
among
the
disciples
,
under
Christs
own
immediat
Government
?
but
did
that
reflect
upon
his
Holy
Government
that
this
recorded
?
Did
not
Paul
and
Barnabas
divid
&
part
asunder
?
but
did
Luke
in
relating
this
,
Charge
it
upon
the
holy
Apostolick
Government
.
3.
The
absurd
[
reflexion
upon
the
Apostles
Government
]
which
he
speaks
of
,
lyes
upon
his
party
,
and
these
who
first
brought
in
,
and
now
(
after
its
evil
effects
are
discovered
)
uphold
this
hierarchy
,
which
is
so
crosse
to
the
Apostolick
parity
.
Ierom
sayes
[
they
brought
in
this
imparity
for
remedy
of
schisme
]
but
leaves
the
charge
of
[
reflecting
upon
the
Apostolick
government
]
upon
the
Authores
of
this
innovation
,
and
upon
its
promoters
still
it
mustly
.
His
5t
.
Reason
is
That
Ierom
in
his
writtings
derives
Episcopacy
as
high
as
from
the
Apostles
,
making
Iames
Bishop
of
Ierusalem
,
Titus
of
Crete
,
Mark
of
Alexandria
:
and
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
to
be
that
which
Aaron
and
the
levites
were
in
the
old
Testament
.
Then
he
adds
,
that
if
we
make
him
contradict
himself
,
it
must
be
with
advantage
to
Bishops
.
Ans.
Wee
have
heard
already
,
that
it
is
past
doubt
with
many
godly
learned
,
that
the
Fathers
used
the
terme
Bishop
,
in
a
various
and
general
sense
,
and
spoke
of
the
Apostles
,
and
of
extraordinary
officers
,
after
the
mode
and
custome
of
their
own
times
,
wherein
these
offices
and
designations
were
prevalent
.
It
is
this
Informer
,
who
puts
a
contradiction
upon
Ierome
,
while
he
maks
him
assert
Episcopacy
to
be
set
up
by
the
Apostles
,
upon
occasion
of
the
Corinth
Schism
,
in
contradiction
to
his
Scriptur
proofes
of
the
parity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
from
the
Apostles
doctrine
,
and
brings
him
in
here
as
asserting
the
Apostles
,
to
have
been
formaly
Bishops
from
the
begining
.
Wheras
our
answer
hath
none
of
these
inconveniences
;
and
tho
it
were
granted
,
that
it
is
the
true
Ierome
who
asserts
this
of
the
Apostlés
(
which
we
put
this
Informer
to
prove
)
yet
we
accommodat
this
with
his
other
doctrine
,
by
what
is
said
of
the
aequivocall
sense
of
the
word
.
Aaron
and
the
Levits
authority
might
,
in
Ieroms
judgement
,
be
as
to
Church
government
in
general
,
derived
in
the
n●…w
Testament
,
and
also
as
to
a
distinction
of
Church
officers
therein
.
But
if
he
should
alledge
,
that
Ierom
assimilats
here
,
the
one
government
and
the
other
;
he
will
mak
him
plead
for
a
gospell
Aaron
and
pope
.
In
a
word
,
Ieroms
judgement
,
as
to
the
divine
right
of
Presbyterian
parity
,
being
so
clear
,
and
by
him
founded
upon
the
Apostles
writings
;
ought
to
preponderat
any
other
general
,
or
ambiguous
expressions
,
anent
Bishops
;
and
as
a
rule
,
to
expound
the
same
,
in
the
sense
most
suitable
unto
this
his
judgement
:
especialy
since
the
Fathers
usage
of
speech
,
as
to
Bishops
,
is
thus
general
and
ambiguous
as
is
said
.
But
the
Doubter
objects
to
purpose
[
That
Ierom
letts
the
Bishops
know
that
they
have
their
power
,
more
by
Custom
,
then
by
divine
right
]
To
this
the
Informer
repones
his
recocted
crambe
againe
viz
,
[
Ierom
speaks
of
the
power
which
Bishops
in
his
time
were
invested
with
,
beyond
the
first
Bishops
—
And
that
Ierom
in
that
same
Epistle
expones
[
Consuetudo
,
or
Custom
]
by
[
Apostolical
tradition
]
—
That
if
we
understand
him
of
Consuetudo
,
or
custom
after
the
Apostles
,
this
will
fastten
upon
him
a
contradiction
.
That
he
sayes
of
the
first
Bishops
,
who
governed
by
commoune
Council
with
the
Presbyters
;
that
they
differed
onely
from
them
in
ordination
,
but
of
these
in
his
owne
time
,
ad
unum
omnis
cura
delata
,
the
wole
charge
was
put
upon
one
.
]
Ans.
As
for
this
conceit
,
of
Ieromes
distinguishing
here
onely
[
Bishops
of
his
own
time
,
]
from
[
these
of
the
Apostles
time
,
]
we
have
confuted
it
already
,
and
shown
its
absurdity
,
and
that
it
is
most
crosse
to
Ieroms
scope
and
words
,
who
proves
a
compleat
parity
among
Ministers
,
and
ane
identity
of
Bishop
,
and
Presbyter
,
in
Name
and
thing
,
all
alongst
the
Apostles
times
,
and
writings
,
even
to
Iohn
,
the
surviver
of
all
the
Apostles
,
So
that
it
is
most
absurd
to
fancy
him
to
speak
of
Bishops
in
the
Apostles
timet
.
The
Informer
offers
but
a
gross
distortion
of
his
words
,
for
he
sayes
of
the
Bishop
who
differed
only
in
ordination
,
from
Presbyters
:
quid
facit
,
what
doth
the
Bishop
except
ordination
&c
in
the
present
time
,
but
of
these
who
have
all
the
Care
,
he
sayes
Paulatim
ad
unum
cura
delata
,
the
wholl
care
was
put
upon
one
,
in
the
preterit
time
,
pointing
out
these
who
came
in
upon
that
schism
,
which
,
with
the
Informer
,
was
in
the
Apostles
time
:
The
objection
tells
him
,
that
Ierom
applyes
the
Bishops
mould
whom
this
man
calls
[
first
Bishops
]
to
[
his
owne
time
]
when
he
sayes
what
doth
the
Bishop
,
except
ordination
&c
:
And
haveing
proved
Bishopes
and
Presbyters
to
be
all
one
,
he
sayes
Sciant
,
that
is
,
let
the
present
Bishops
know
,
that
they
have
their
power
more
by
Custom
,
then
divine
appointment
.
2.
As
for
Ieroms
expounding
Consuetudo
or
Custome
,
by
Apostolick
tradition
,
it
receaves
the
same
answer
with
what
is
said
,
as
to
his
calling
Apostles
,
Bishops
.
For
with
Ierome
,
Apostolick
tradition
,
and
Ecclesiastick
Custom
are
all
one
;
as
that
instance
clears
anent
the
observation
of
lent
,
which
he
calls
Apostolica
traditio
,
or
Apostolick
tradition
,
writing
to
Marcellus
,
and
yet
writing
against
the
Luciferians
,
he
calls
it
Ecclesiae
consuetudo
,
o●…
a
Custom
of
the
Church
:
therefore
by
Apostolick
tradition
,
he
meaned
not
Apostolick
appointment
,
for
this
were
ane
implicantia
in
terminus
,
a
flat
contradiction
,
since
he
denyes
this
to
these
Bishops
,
but
only
Ecclesiastick
Custom
,
upon
which
he
sayes
their
office
was
founded
.
The
Informers
2d
.
Answer
o
this
exception
is
(
with
Davenant
)
That
by
[
tru●…h
of
divine
appointinent
]
Ierom
meaned
Christs
express
command
,
by
[
Custom
]
the
Apostles
practise
,
begun
by
them
,
and
after
continued
.
For
proveing
this
he
adduces
the
Instance
now
given
,
anent
Ieroms
making
[
Apostolick
tradition
]
,
and
[
Ecclesiastick
Custome
]
,
all
one
.
Hence
he
thus
senses
the
words
,
That
Bishops
were
brought
into
the
Church
,
not
by
Christs
express
command
,
but
by
a
Custom
,
introduced
by
the
Apostles
into
the
Church
,
and
continued
in
their
Successors
.
Ans.
1.
This
fine
conceit
maks
Ierom
reflect
oddly
upon
the
Apostles
,
as
if
they
taught
one
thing
,
and
practised
another
;
for
Ierome
proves
from
their
writings
,
that
all
along
they
make
Bishops
and
Presbyters
one
,
Now
if
they
in
practice
set
up
Bishops
distinct
from
Presbyters
,
what
Harmony
makes
this
?
2.
He
thus
maks
him
reflect
upon
Christs
express
command
,
in
relation
to
government
,
as
if
it
were
altered
;
and
opon
his
government
Apostolick
,
in
saying
that
it
was
the
ground
of
schismes
.
How
will
this
man
guard
against
this
,
which
he
imputed
to
us
before
?
3.
What
will
Davenant
or
he
make
of
these
Three
periods
of
time
in
Ieroms
discourse
,
observed
by
learned
Iunius
and
others
,
to
clear
his
words
.
1.
Presbyters
and
Bishops
all
one
and
governing
by
Common
Council
all
the
Apostles
time
.
2.
Scismes
arising
.
3.
Paulatim
and
postea
,
in
process
of
time
,
and
by
degrees
,
a
new
mould
of
government
projected
,
and
immutata
ratio
,
the
order
changed
,
as
Ambrose
saith
to
the
same
purpose
.
Now
this
glosse
of
his
words
,
will
make
the
Apostolick
government
and
practise
,
not
only
the
rise
of
scismes
,
but
to
be
Changed
,
for
a
change
its
sure
Ierom
speaks
of
from
the
first
order
of
government
appointed
by
the
Apostles
;
and
making
yet
the
Apostles
practise
in
government
to
continue
,
the
answer
contradicts
it self
,
as
well
as
Ierome
.
As
for
the
instance
adduced
,
it
cannot
quadrat
here
in
this
place
,
when
Ierom
opposes
th●…
consuetudo
or
Custom
,
unto
disposition
of
divine
truth
,
for
the
Apostles
practise
,
seconded
by
their
Doctrin
,
(
as
the
Informer
holdeth
that
both
will
patroniz
prelacy
)
is
most
formaly
a
divine
appointment
,
and
their
giveing
unto
the
Churches
what
they
receaved
of
Lord
in
their
commission
;
and
therefore
cannot
with
any
shew
of
Reason
,
be
apposed
unto
a
divine
appointment
,
as
Ierome
opposes
this
Consuetudo
,
or
Custom
.
In
Fine
.
How
wil
Davenant
or
he
,
separat
and
distinguish
that
which
Jerome
cites
[
Act.
20.
]
for
the
parity
of
Bishop
or
Presbyter
,
and
to
prove
Presbyters
their
common
joynt
government
,
viz
,
[
That
Paul
gave
the
whol
Episcopal
Charge
to
these
elders
in
his
last
farewell
as
the
Holy
Ghosts
Bishops
,
not
noticing
Timothy
in
the
thing
.
]
How
will
hee
(
I
say
)
distinguish
this
from
ane
Apostolick
practice
and
a
practice
to
be
continued
?
So
that
here
was
(
in
Ieroms
sense
)
a
Presbyterian
practice
of
this
great
Apostle
,
a
practice
founding
that
Government
and
to
be
continued
so
.
But
the
Informer
dismisses
this
discourse
of
Ierom
with
some
remarkes
.
The
1
is
That
he
speaks
at
least
of
ane
Apostolick
right
,
as
in
many
other
his
writings
,
in
relation
to
prelacy
.
Ans.
wee
have
proved
that
Ieroms
words
in
these
Tuo
places
mentioned
(
the
clearest
account
of
his
judgement
in
this
mater
,
since
he
is
disputing
this
point
ex
professo
)
doe
evince
the
contrary
.
his
2.
Remark
is
That
suppose
he
makes
Bishops
laiter
then
the
Apostles
,
yet
he
maks
them
needful
to
prevent
Schism
.
Ans.
Ierom
onely
Narrats
rem
Gestam
,
or
the
mater
of
fact
,
viz.
The
ground
that
moved
to
bring
them
in
,
but
gives
not
his
approbation
of
it
.
Besides
,
the
Informer
would
take
home
his
own
argument
here
,
and
bewar
of
making
Ierom
reflect
upon
the
Apostolick
Government
,
and
contradict
himself
,
in
approving
of
a
government
as
a
remedy
of
schism
,
which
he
disputs
against
from
Scripture
.
His
3d.
Note
is
[
That
Ierom
submitted
to
Episcopacy
;
and
that
Mr.
Durham
sayes
that
Aerius
was
condemned
for
brangling
this
order
to
the
hazard
of
union
.
]
Ans.
Ieroms
keeping
fellowship
wi●…h
the
visible
Church
in
his
time
(
tainted
with
this
Corruption
,
and
which
was
but
then
are
embrio
of
that
grown
Monster
now
among
us
,
)
is
a
poor
argument
to
plead
for
the
best
and
purest
(
and
in
so
far
the
most
considerable
)
part
●…f
Minsters
and
professo●…s
in
this
Church
,
heir
complying
with
a
Scismatick
backslyding
par●…y
,
introducing
this
Corruption
after
it
hath
been
universaly
cast
out
and
vowed
against
,
and
the
same
may
be
said
of
Aerius
Neither
contradict
wee
Ierom
in
this
,
for
he
maks
not
prelacy
necessary
for
keeping
out
shisme
,
as
we
have
alteady
told
him
,
and
we
heard
that
learned
Whittaker
calls
it
a
remedy
worse
then
the
Disease
.
Before
●…e
can
mke
either
Ieroms
practise
heranent
,
or
Mr.
Durhams
assertion
as
to
Aerius
,
bear
any
conclusion
against
us
,
he
must
prove
that
the
prelatick
party
are
the
onely
visible
organick
Church
of
Scotland
,
else
Ieroms
practise
will
fortify
more
the
Presbyterians
plea
against
him
,
for
breaking
down
the
wall
of
Gods
house
,
and
seperating
from
the
Presbyterian
Government
of
this
nationall
Church
.
But
of
this
when
we
come
to
examine
the
third
Dialogue
.
CHAP.
XIII
.
The
difference
betwixt
our
present
Prelacy
and
the
Ancient
Episcopacy
stated
and
evinced
in
12.
Instances
.
Hence
all
the
Informers
pleadings
from
Antiquity
for
our
Prelats
,
is
found
a
beating
of
the
Aire
and
impertinent
.
ALthough
this
Informer
would
make
the
world
believe
,
that
our
Prelacy
is
nothing
discrepant
from
that
of
the
ancient
Bishops
,
yet
there
are
many
remarkable
differences
betwixt
the
one
and
the
other
,
which
renders
all
his
pretences
from
antiquity
meer
words
and
winde
.
1.
In
general
its
clear
from
a
great
consent
of
the
learned
,
that
the
Bishop
who
first
came
in
after
the
Apostolick
age
was
nothing
but
Episcopus
preses
or
Moderator
,
and
had
no
power
of
ordination
and
Iurisdiction
above
Presbyters
.
This
Moderator
fixedly
set
up
durante
vita
,
during
life
;
And
Indued
with
a
higher
honour
upon
this
ground
,
is
Beza's
Episcopus
humanus
,
or
human
Bishop
,
whom
he
distinguishes
from
the
divine
Bishop
of
Gods
appointment
.
Ambrose
in
his
time
,
acknowledges
[
on
1
Tim.
3.
]
[
That
Bishops
and
Presbyters
had
the
same
essentiall
office
and
ordination
.
]
Dr
Reynolds
,
in
his
conference
with
Hart
,
proves
,
that
at
first
the
Moderator
or
president
among
Ministers
in
their
meetings
,
is
he
whom
the
Ancients
in
after
times
called
Bishop
.
So
he
holds
that
the
Bishop
at
his
first
rise
was
only
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Moderator
of
the
Presbytery
.
Blondel
at
large
mantains
the
same
,
only
he
holds
that
the
next
in
degree
succeeded
him
when
dead
.
Hence
Musculus
after
he
hath
from
the
texts
alledged
by
Jerome
,
proved
that
Bishop
and
Presbyter
are
all
one
▪
adds
That
thereafter
Ambition
begetting
strifes
about
precedencie
,
one
was
set
up
to
be
Moderator
in
a
fixed
orb
.
And
least
our
Informer
or
any
else
alleadge
,
that
prelacy
therefore
is
necessary
to
prevent
Schisme
.
This
eminent
light
of
the
reformed
Church
adds
.
but
whither
that
device
of
man
profited
the
Church
or
no
,
the
times
after
could
better
judge
,
and
that
the
effects
issueing
upon
it
,
dicovered
,
that
it
was
not
the
Spirit
of
God
his
remedy
to
take
away
Schisme
,
but
Satans
project
to
destroy
a
faithfull
Ministery
.
The
same
saith
Sadael
viz
,
that
this
difference
betwixt
Bishops
and
Ministers
which
was
introduced
to
remedie
Schisme
,
opened
a
gap
to
ambition
.
So
Dr
Whittaker
haveing
out
of
Jerome
shewed
[
That
faction
occasioned
the
change
of
the
Ancient
Apostolick
parity
among
Ministers
,
]
—
adds
—
That
many
wise
and
godly
men
have
judged
the
change
and
remedy
more
pernicious
then
the
disease
it self
,
which
though
at
first
it
did
not
appear
,
yet
experience
after
proved
that
it
brought
the
Antichristian
yoake
upon
the
neck
of
the
Church
.
See
the
appendix
to
jus
▪
divin
.
Minist.
Evangel.
In
which
Testimonies
of
these
great
men
we
may
observe
two
things
.
1.
That
they
admitt
the
first
Bishops
to
have
been
nothing
else
but
fixed
Moderators
.
2
:
That
even
this
much
they
doe
condemne
as
a
deviation
from
the
first
appointment
,
and
as
that
which
gave
a
rise
to
the
Antichristian
Tyranny
.
Now
the
difference
and
disproportion
betwixt
this
fixed
Moderator
,
and
our
present
diocesian
erastian
prelat
,
is
so
plaine
and
obvious
,
that
nothing
further
needs
be
said
to
clear
it
.
Therefore
his
Argument
from
the
Catalogues
and
those
early
first
Bishops
who
tooke
place
in
the
Church
,
is
pitifully
claudicant
as
to
a
conclusion
of
the
ancient
Churches
approbation
of
our
Prelats
.
To
clear
it
further
,
its
evident
(
if
we
lay
weight
upon
the
Judgement
of
the
ancient
Bishopes
themselves
in
point
of
Church
Government
)
that
1
,
They
held
not
their
consecration
or
ordination
to
be
distinct
from
that
of
Presbyters
,
Episcopi
&
Presbyteri
una
&
eadem
est
ordinatio
.
[
That
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
have
one
and
the
same
ordination
,
]
we
heard
is
Ambrose
assertion
.
2.
No
delegation
of
externall
jurisdiction
to
Presbyters
was
acknowledged
by
the
ancients
.
As
it
is
by
our
new
hierachical
pleaders
.
The
Prelatists
hold
that
the
Bishop
is
properly
the
[
Pastour
of
the
whole
diocess
,
]
and
that
all
the
Ministers
thereof
have
but
a
derived
precarius
Ministry
under
him
▪
so
D●…wn
.
(
defens
.
lib
,
2.
c.
4.
p.
67.
)
Field
.
(
of
the
Church
56.
c.
27
)
Sarav
.
(
de
trip
.
epis.
p
,
87.
)
Spala●…
.
l.
2.
c.
9
Num.
15.
and
yet
Ambrose
[
on
1
Tim.
5
▪
And
Chrisostom
[
Hom.
17
on
Matthew
]
calleth
Presbyters
expresly
Christi
vicarios
,
Christs
vicars
.
Cyprian
.
[
lib.
4.
Epist.
8.
]
sayes
,
Dominum
sacerd●…tes
in
sua
ecclesia
—
&c.
That
the
Lord
condescended
to
elect
&
constitut
to
himself
Priests
in
his
Church
.
3.
The
Ancients
held
that
the
power
of
externall
jurisdiction
was
common
with
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
Ignatius
(
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Trallians
,
)
Calls
the
Presbyters
senatum
Dei
,
Gods
Court
,
or
Senat.
Et
non
consiliarios
solum
,
sed
&
assessores
Episcopi
.
not
Councellours
only
(
as
are
our
Curats
,
and
scarse
that
)
but
the
Bishops
assessors
.
Irenaeus
.
(
lib.
4.
Cap:
44.
)
Calls
them
Principes
,
Princes
or
Chieff
.
Augustin
.
(
Serm
:
86.
)
Calls
the
Brethren
ineremo
,
Patronos
rectores
terrae
,
Patrones
and
Rectors
of
the
Earth
.
Chrisostom
expressly
shews
(
on
1.
Tim.
1
,
Hom:
11.
)
Ecclesijs
praesidisse
sicut
Episcopi
,
&c
:
That
they
presided
over
the
Churches
as
the
Bishops
,
and
receaved
together
with
them
the
office
of
teaching
and
governing
the
Church
.
The
homily
begines
thus
,
postquam
de
Episcopis
dixit
,
eosque
formavit
,
quidnam
illos
habere
conveniat
,
a
quo
item
abstinere
necesse
sit
dictans
,
ommisso
interim
Presbyterorum
ordine
ad
diaconos
transiit
.
Cur
id
quaeso
?
quia
scilicet
inter
Episcopum
atque
Presbyterum
interest
ferme
nihil
.
quippe
&
Presbyteris
Ecclesiae
cura
permissa
est
:
&
quae
de
Episcopis
dixit
,
●…ea
etiam
Presbyteris
congruunt
:
that
is
,
after
he
hath
spoken
of
Bishopes
and
formed
them
,
injoyning
what
thinges
it
becomes
them
to
have
,
and
from
what
it
is
necessary
they
should
abstain
,
omitting
the
mean
whil
the
order
of
Presbyters
,
he
passes
over
to
deacones
.
Why
so
,
I
pray
?
even
because
that
betuixt
a
Bishope
and
Presbyter
there
is
almost
no
difference
.
Because
unto
Presbyters
also
the
care
of
the
Church
is
allowed
:
and
what
he
said
before
concerning
Bishopes
,
the
same
thinges
also
do
agree
to
Presbyters
.
I
know
he
addes
—
sola
quippe
ordinatione
superiores
illi
sunt
,
atque
hoc
tantum
,
plus
quam
Presbyteri
habere
videntur
.
That
the
Bishopes
only
in
ordination
are
superiour
to
Presbyters
,
according
to
the
latin
interpretation
followed
by
Dounam
,
and
Bilson
,
and
by
Bellarmin
before
them
.
But
the
more
learned
interpreters
have
observed
that
the
greeke
will
bear
a
farr
other
sence
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Sola
enim
suffragatione
horum
ascenderunt
atque
hoc
solo
videntur
Presbyteris
injuriam
facere
.
that
is
,
that
onely
by
the
Presbyters
suffrage
they
have
ascended
,
(
viz
to
this
power
)
and
in
this
onely
they
seem
to
do
injury
to
Presbyters
.
The
learned
Iunius
(
de
cleric
.
cap.
7.
not.
611.
)
tels
us
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
hic
)
Presbyterorum
non
Episcoporum
;
quod
si
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
est
ordinatio
,
ergo
Presbyterorum
est
ordinatio
.
The
hand
suffrage
,
is
here
the
Presbyters
.
but
if
it
be
meaned
of
ordination
,
then
ordination
belonges
to
them
.
And
having
proved
this
construction
&
sence
of
the
greeke
from
Suidas
,
he
shewes
that
Chrisost.
places
not
the
difference
in
ordination
betuixt
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
but
in
this
that
the
Bishopes
ascendunt
supra
Presbyteros
in
gradum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Doe
ascend
into
there
degree
of
Episcopacy
above
the
Presbyters
—
although
,
because
they
stepp
up
by
their
suffrage
,
they
seem
to
wrong
them
when
they
assume
any
power
to
themselves
,
who
upon
the
ground
of
order
,
not
of
power
,
(
saith
he
)
are
set
over
them
by
there
owne
suffrag
.
He
also
tels
Bellarm.
(
de
cleric
.
ca.
15.
not.
29.
)
That
granting
his
sence
of
Chrysost.
Wordes
,
yet
the
Bishop
ordained
onely
signo
&
sermone
declaring
the
sacred
institution
or
inauguration
of
the
person
ordained
,
but
not
ordinatione
veritatis
,
or
by
the
true
ordination
which
that
signe
represented
.
Some
add
,
that
if
Chrisost.
be
thus
understood
in
the
sence
of
Bellarm.
and
his
Episcopal
sectators
,
he
did
not
rightly
expound
his
text
,
while
distinguishing
that
which
he
acknowledges
the
Apostle
makes
one
&
the●…
same
▪
Ierome
tels
us
of
their
common
Government
of
the
Churches
together
with
the
Bishops
;
from
whom
Gratian
(
in
decretis
caus
.
16.
Quest.
1
cap.
)
shewes
that
Ecclesia
habet
senatum
Presbyterorum
&c
:
That
the
Church
hath
a
senat
of
Presbyters
without
whose
counsel
the
Bishop
can
doe
nothing
.
2.
We
heard
that
these
Ancient
Bishops
were
sett
up
by
the
Presbyters
as
their
fixed
Moderator
and
had
all
their
Episcopall
power
from
their
free
choice
and
election
.
And
that
any
prerogative
which
they
had
over
Presbyters
,
they
ascribe
it
to
Custom
,
and
to
the
Presbyters
own
choic
,
consuetudini
.
,
non
dominicae
dispositionis
veritati
,
to
Custom
not
the
truth
of
divine
appointment
,
as
Ierome
speakes
.
Irenaeus
,
(
who
lived
ann.
180
;
lib
4.
cap.
43
)
tells
us
that
we
must
adher
to
those
Presbyters
,
qui
successionem
habent
ab
Apostolis
,
qui
cum
Episcopatus
successione
charisma
veritatis
acceperunt
.
—
Who
have
succession
from
the
Apostles
,
and
together
with
the
succession
of
Episcopacy
have
the
gift
of
verity
.
Ambrose
(
in
cap
4.
Ephes.
)
affirmes
that
—
non
per
omnia
conveniunt
&c.
—
[
the
government
in
his
time
agreed
not
in
al
points
with
scripture
]
he
means
it
of
any
excrescent
power
which
the
Bishop
then
had
above
Presbyters
.
And
Augustine
ascribes
al
his
difference
from
Ierom
(
who
was
a
Presbyter
)
unto
Ecclesiae
usus
,
the
Churches
Custome
,
and
grantes
that
in
this
onely
Episcopatus
Presbyterio
major
est
,
the
Episcopacy
is
greater
then
the
Presbyterat
.
(
Tom.
2.
operum
.
Epist.
19.
ad
Hieron
)
And
Ierome
holds
(
in
his
Epistle
to
Evagrius
)
Primatum
hunc
Episcoporum
Alexandriae
Primum
caepisse
&c.
That
this
primacy
of
Bishops
began
first
at
Alexandria
,
and
,
post-mortem
Marcae
Evangelistae
—
after
the
death
of
mark
the
Evangelist
.
And
thus
gives
the
lie
to
our
Informer
who
would
make
us
believe
that
it
came
from
Markes
personal
practise
and
appointment
while
a
live
.
he
tels
us
also
that
it
was
[
paulatim
]
&
by
●…ent
degrees
,
that
omnis
sollicitudo
ad
unum
delata
,
The
episcopall
care
was
put
upon
on
.
Sozom.
(
lib.
1.
cap.
15.
)
calls
it
civitatis
consuetudinem
a
custome
wh●…ch
prevailed
with
other
cites
▪
't
is
remarkable
,
that
by
Ephiphanius
confession
(
Haeres
87.
)
non
habuit
Alexandrie
duos
episcopos
ut
aliae
urbes
.
Alexandria
had
not
two
Bishopes
as
other
cities
.
But
the
Informer
wil
not
dare
to
say
,
that
our
Prelats
now
have
their
power
by
Presbyters
election
as
these
ancient
Bishopes
3.
It
is
also
clear
,
that
in
these
first
times
when
the
Episcopus
▪
praeses
was
set
up
,
and
for
some
ages
afterward
,
not
only
the
Presbyters
but
the
people
also
had
a
great
interest
in
their
choice
.
Cyprian
(
epist.
68.
—
)
speaking
of
the
choice
of
Bishops
sayes
That
pleb●…
maxime
habet
potestatem
,
the
people
have
mainely
a
power
—
and
that
[
plebe
presente
,
]
that
is
in
the
peoples
presence
,
they
were
set
up
:
Which
he
sayes
was
a
power
they
had
descending
upon
them
de
divina
auctoritate
▪
that
is
,
from
the
divine
Authority
.
And
this
had
the
approbation
of
ane
African
Synod
consulted
by
the
Churches
of
Spaine
as
to
Election
.
Athanas
:
(
epist.
ad
Orthodox
.
)
condemned
the
comeing
in
of
a
Bishop
without
the
peoples
consent
as
a
breach
not
only
of
ane
[
Ecclesiastick
constitution
,
]
but
ane
[
Apostolick
precept
.
]
See
Smect
:
(
page
26.
)
proveing
this
at
large
that
Bishops
were
elected
by
the
people
.
Cyprian
.
(
lib.
1.
Epist.
4.
nomine
Synodi
africanae
)
videmus
,
de
divina
authoritate
descendere
ut
sacer
▪
dos
plebe
presente
sub
omnium
oculis
deligatur
&c.
[
That
the
Priest
was
chosen
under
the
eyes
of
all
the
people
being
present
,
and
approved
as
fitt
and
worthy
by
a
publick
Testimony
.
]
This
(
he
sayes
)
we
see
descends
from
divine
Authoritie
,
&
(
ibid
)
diligenter
de
traditione
divina
&
Apostolica
traditione
tenendum
est
quod
apud
nos
fere
&
per
provincias
universas
tenetur
ut
episcopus
deligatar
plebi
cui
ordinatur
presente
&c.
[
That
it
was
to
to
be
held
from
the
divine
and
apostolick
tradition
,
as
almost
through
all
provinces
it
was
observed
,
that
that
the
Bishop
was
chosen
in
the
peoples
presence
over
whom
he
]
was
ordained
&c.
]
He
testifies
that
thus
Cornelius
was
chosen
Bishop
of
Rome
(
lib.
4
epist.
2.
)
Grat.
(
dist.
62.
Can
)
nulla
ratio
fuit
ut
inter
episcopos
habeantur
qui
nec
a
clero
sunt
electi
,
nec
a
plebibus
sunt
expetiti
.
No
reason
permitts
that
they
should
be
holden
Bishops
,
who
are
neither
chosen
by
the
clergy
nor
desired
by
the
people
.
]
So
Ambrose
was
chosen
by
the
citticens
of
Millan
,
Flavianus
by
those
of
Antioch
,
Chrisostom
,
by
the
Constantin●…politans
.
This
Custome
was
so
rooted
,
that
when
Emperors
afterward
obtruded
Bishops
without
the
previus
election
of
the
clergie
and
people
,
the
most
famous
Bishops
much
stomached
it
.
Ubi
ille
Canon
,
(
saith
Athanasius
Epist.
ad
solitariam
vitam
agentes
)
ut
a
pallatio
mittatur
is
qui
futurus
est
Episcopus
.
Where
is
that
canon
,
That
he
who
is
to
be
Bishop
,
should
be
sent
from
the
court
?
Let
our
court
prelats
mark
this
:
And
our
curats
answere
this
quere
.
Now
I
hope
our
Informer
will
not
alledge
that
the
people
have
any
the
least
Interest
in
the
choise
of
our
Prelats
,
so
that
they
are
but
novell
&
none
of
the
ancient
Bishops
in
this
point
.
4.
Non
of
the
first
Bishops
could
ordaine
alone
.
This
is
beyond
debate
as
to
the
first
[
Episcopus
preses
.
]
But
even
in
after
times
also
when
Bishops
power
was
farther
advanced
they
could
not
thus
ordaine
.
That
their
power
of
ordination
was
not
singular
appeares
from
the
4th
Councel
of
Carthage
(
Can.
22
)
which
decrees
that
the
Bishopes
ordain
not
without
the
Clergy
;
and
[
Can.
3.
]
they
are
not
to
impose
handes
without
them
.
The
Presbyters
in
Cyprians
time
had
the
power
bartisandi
,
of
baptizing
,
manum
imponendi
,
or
of
laying
on
hands
,
&
ordinandi
,
that
is
,
of
ordaining
.
(
epist.
78.
)
and
in
Egypt
,
in
absence
of
the
Bishop
they
ordained
alone
.
see
Smect
.
(
p.
27.
)
upon
this
ground
Ambrose
said
,
that
betwixt
the
Bishop
and
presbyter
there
is
almost
no
difference
.
Now
have
not
our
prelats
power
to
ordaine
alone
?
and
have
they
not
de
facto
frequently
done
so
?
so
that
upon
this
account
also
they
are
new
minted
Gentlemen
.
5.
The
power
and
Government
of
the
ancient
Bishops
in
Church
judicatories
was
[
not
sole
and
singular
,
]
as
that
of
our
prelats
,
[
nor
did
they
invad
or
inhanse
their
decisive
conclusive
suffrage
]
as
they
doe
,
who
are
Princes
in
all
the
present
Church
meetinges
which
must
only
give
them
advice
,
and
not
that
,
unless
this
high
priest
judge
them
of
known
loyaltie
and
prudence
,
and
may
doe
with
their
advice
what
he
pleases
.
Wheras
Cyprian
(
Epist.
6.
and
28
)
professes
that
he
neither
could
nor
would
doe
any
thing
without
the
Clergie
.
And
the
4●…
.
councill
of
carthage
condemnes
the
Bishops
decision
unless
fortified
by
the
sentence
of
the
Clergie
(
Can.
23.
)
where
was
the
negative
voice
here
?
see
Ruffin
.
hist.
lib.
10.
Cap.
9.
Smectim
.
proves
from
Canons
of
ancient
Councills
&
the
Fathers
,
That
neither
1.
In
censuring
presbyters
.
Nor
2.
In
judgeing
of
the
conversation
or
crimes
of
Church
members
.
Nor
3.
In
excommunication
,
nor
receaving
of
penitents
,
Bishops
could
doe
any
thing
without
presbyters
.
And
that
there
was
no
delegation
of
their
power
.
Downam
himself
confesses
in
reference
to
Ambrose
time
,
and
long
after
it
.
So
that
for
400
Years
our
prelats
present
Prince
like
power
was
not
known
in
the
Church
.
The
ancient
Bishops
made
themselves
sole
in
no
pointe
of
ecclesiastick
disciplin
as
our
prelats
,
who
have
excommunicat
alone
.
Tertull.
(
Apoleget
.
)
shews
that
the
exhortations
,
castigations
,
and
censuradivina
,
the
divine
censure
among
which
he
takes
in
excommunication
,
were
performed
by
the
probati
quique
seniores
,
all
the
approved
elders
.
Befor
him
Iraenus
[
haeres
:
lib:
4
cap.
44.
]
Will
have
these
Presbyters
obeyed
.
Qui
successionem
habent
ab
Apostolis
,
have
succession
from
the
Apostles
—
And
that
ad
correctionem
aliorum
,
for
censure
of
others
as
well
as
for
sound
doctrine
.
Basilius
magnus
Archiepisc.
Caesariens
.
affirms
,
that
jus
ligendi
&
solvendi
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ex
aequo
,
omnibus
pastoribus
&
doctoribus
&c.
That
the
power
of
binding
and
lowsing
is
equally
and
together
given
by
Christ
to
all
Pastours
and
Doctors
.
Which
even
Lombard
denieth
not
[
sentent
.
lib
4.
dist.
19.
]
It
is
also
demonstrated
that
elaborat
piece
that
the
oath
ex
officio
is
a
Monster
to
Antiquity
.
6.
Our
Prelats
Civil
&
State
offices
are
also
a
Monster
to
pure
antiquity
,
as
they
are
Cro●…se
to
our
Churches
Authority
;
who
in
her
general
assemblie
hath
condemned
this
.
(
Assemb
:
38.
sess:
25.
)
The
forsaid
author
proves
this
also
at
large
,
to
whom
we
refer
the
Reader
,
So
that
our
Informer
must
acknowledge
that
our
Prelats
in
this
point
also
are
different
from
the
Ancients
.
Whosoever
shal
peruse
the
Canones
called
Apostolick
,
and
of
ancient
councels
,
will
find
Bishopes
medling
in
state-affairs
,
and
especialy
their
holding
of
state
offices
,
so
harmoniusly
condemned
,
that
its
a
wonder
that
any
who
pretends
to
the
knowledge
of
antiquity
,
and
to
plead
for
prelacy
upon
this
ground
,
should
have
the
considenc
to
justify
it
.
The
6.
canon
of
those
called
Apostolick
passes
the
sentence
of
deposition
upon
bishops
who
assume
secular
imployments
.
[
Episcopus
vel
Presbyter
,
vel
diaconus
seculares
curas
ne
suscipiat
,
alioqui
deponatur
.
]
Balsamon
upon
this
canon
,
referrs
us
to
13.
cap.
8.
Tit.
Where
there
is
exhibit
a
full
collection
of
canons
to
this
purpose
.
The
81
canon
.
diximus
non
oportere
Episcopum
vel
Presbyterum
seipsum
ad
publicas
administrationes
demittere
,
sed
in
Ecclesiasticis
negotiis
versari
.
Vel
ergo
ita
facere
persuadeatur
,
vel
depon●…tur
.
That
is
,
we
have
appointed
that
a
Bishop
or
Presbyter
must
not
stoop
to
,
or
debase
himself
with
publick
(
that
is
,
civil
)
administrationes
or
offices
,
let
him
therfor
be
either
perswaded
so
to
do
,
or
let
him
be
deposed
.
●…alsamon
upon
this
canon
,
observing
that
it
lenifies
the
first
,
referrs
to
XVI
Canon
Carth.
Syn.
Again
Canon
83.
runes
thus
,
Episcopus
vel
Presbyter
,
vel
diaconus
,
exercitui
vacans
;
&
utraque
obtinere
volens
,
remanum
scilicet
magistratum
,
&
Sacerdotalem
administrationem
,
deponatur
,
quae
sunt
enim
caesaris
,
Caesari
,
&
quae
sunt
Dei
,
Deo
.
That
is
a
●…ishop
or
Presbyter
or
deacon
who
bears
office
in
an
arm●…
,
and
will
needs
hold
both
offices
,
to
wit
the
Roman
magistracy
,
and
the
sacerdotal
administration
or
ministry
,
let
him
be
deposed
;
for
●…uch
things
as
belong
to
Caesar
must
be
rendred
to
Caesar
,
and
the
things
that
are
Gods
unto
God
.
Balsamon
upon
this
canon
referrs
us
to
VII
.
Can.
chalced.
syn
.
—
tales
(
saith
he
)
anathemate
ferientem
si
non
penitentiam
agant
—
Which
strickes
them
with
[
anathema
]
(
the
last
extremest
curse
or
ex
communication
.
)
who
assume
military
imployments
and
repent
not
.
And
having
moved
ane
objection
,
whether
the
formentioned
clause
[
cesset
vel
deponatur
,
let
him
leave
off
this
office
,
or
let
him
be
deposed
.
]
is
here
also
to
be
understood
,
he
tels
us
in
the
close
of
his
answer
,
that
omnia
publica
eandem
rationem
habent
,
that
al
publick
civil
offices
fals
under
the
same
consideration
as
thus
discharged
.
And
begins
his
gloss
upon
this
canon
thu●…
,
diversi
canones
Apostolici
prohibuerunt
sacris
initiatos
publica
negotia
administrare
.
That
is
,
diverse
Apostolick
canones
have
forbidden
such
as
are
entred
into
sacred
functiones
to
handle
or
administer
publick
(
or
civil
)
affaires
.
In
the
beginning
of
his
gloss
upon
the
6
canon
,
he
represents
thus
the
crime
of
church
officers
holding
of
civil
places
which
is
censured
therin
▪
De
hominibus
consecratis
qui
seculares
servitutes
exercent
&c
:
concerning
men
consecrat
to
god
who
exercise
wordly
slaveries
.
—
such
a
Character
do
the
Canons
put
upon
our
Prelates
state
offices
.
That
VII
.
Canon
of
the
Councel
of
Chalcedon
puts
the
formentioned
censur
upon
such
as
—
[
secularia
negotia
exercent
divinum
ministerium
negligentes
]
—
who
manadge
wordly
places
and
offices
neglecting
the
divin
ministry
.
The
XVI
.
Canon
of
the
second
Council
of
Nice
forbidding
Bishops
or
presbyters
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
actores
or
procurators
,
doth
it
upon
this
ground
.
—
debent
enim
ad
id
quod
scripium
est
respicere
nemo
Deo
militans
seipsum
implicat
secularibus
negotiis
.
For
they
ought
to
take
heed
to
that
which
is
written
no
man
warring
for
god
,
or
who
is
his
souldier
should
involve
himself
in
secular
affaires
,
see
Balsamon
,
comment
.
in
Canon
.
Apost.
concil
.
&
patrum
,
&
in
Photii
nomo
can
pag.
(
mihi
)
39
:
108
,
127
,
178
,
167
,
319.
Whenc
we
may
collect
.
1.
how
constant
and
sever
the
ancients
were
in
their
censour
of
this
guilt
2.
That
they
held
this
to
be
a
debasing
of
the
holy
ministry
,
to
which
the
pastor
or
Bishop
most
give
himself
3.
That
upon
the
ground
of
that
gospel
precept
(
2.
tim.
2
:
4.
)
No
man
that
warreth
,
intangleth
himself
With
the
affaires
of
this
life
,
and
that
other
ground
of
giving
Caesar
what
is
Caesars
,
and
to
God
what
is
Gods
,
they
do
condemne
,
not
military
imployments
only
,
in
a
Pastor
or
Bishop
or
taking
farms
(
as
our
Informer
would
make
us
believe
)
but
also
also
all
secular
and
civil
offices
without
exception
.
4.
That
they
held
the
sacred
function
of
the
ministry
to
be
utterly
inconsistant
with
publick
civil
imployments
.
And
the
civil
office
of
a
state-ruler
incompatible
with
the
ministerial
office
,
in
one
and
the
same
persone
;
since
they
are
opposed
&
contradistinguished
as
thus
inconsistant
,
in
the
forementioned
Canones
and
the
grounds
thereof
.
So
that
there
is
not
a
shaddow
of
defence
for
prelates
state
offices
.
Whil
these
Canones
do
sit
in
judgement
,
especialy
the
scripture
grounds
hinted
therein
,
and
many
others
which
have
been
adduced
.
7.
What
ever
generall
expressions
of
the
ancients
he
may
plead
,
yet
is
it
not
certain
,
that
in
the
first
pure
ages
even
after
the
[
Episcopus
humanus
,
]
and
the
fixed
presidents
were
set
up
,
the
archbishops
,
primats
,
metropolitanes
,
were
Monsters
and
unknowne
,
yea
even
the
diocesian
mould
and
cast
of
Churches
,
let
any
peruse
Mr
Bains
,
his
diocesians
tryall
tryall
against
Downam
,
and
this
will
be
convincingly
clear
.
8.
Where
will
the
Informer
shew
us
our
erastian
prelacy
in
all
his
antiquity
?
A
prel●…y
deryoing
all
its
power
both
of
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
absolutly
from
the
civill
Magistrat
,
having
no
intrinsick
spirituall
authority
,
and
in
all
its
administeration
,
acting
by
way
of
deputation
and
commission
from
the
Magistrat
as
accountable
to
him
in
every
piece
thereof
immediatly
and
solely
as
other
inferiour
civil
Governours
.
Dar
he
say
that
these
Bishops
in
the
first
ages
exercised
not
ane
inherent
Ecclesiastick
spiritual
power
,
distinct
from
and
independant
upon
the
Magistrat
?
Was
all
their
meetings
and
all
matters
cognoscible
in
them
,
given
up
to
be
,
pro
libitu
,
disposed
of
by
any
Prince
or
potentat
whither
heathen
or
Christian
?
Did
not
all
Ministers
and
Bishops
of
these
times
exercise
ane
Ecclesiastick
independant
authority
,
as
being
totally
distinct
from
,
and
not
a
part
of
the
civill
Government
?
Was
ever
there
Erastian
Government
heard
of
in
the
Christian
World
till
Thomas
Erastus
of
Heidleberge
brotched
it
?
And
hath
it
not
since
that
time
been
Impugned
by
the
most
famous
lights
of
the
reformed
Churches
as
contrary
to
the
Rules
of
the
Gospell
Church
Government
?
So
that
our
Informer
must
acknowledge
the
present
Ecclesiasticocivil
,
or
linsy-wolsy-Prelacy
to
be
a
speckled
bird
of
new
fashioned
coloures
,
never
before
seen
,
to
which
he
will
not
find
a
paralleel
among
all
the
Fathers
or
Bishops
of
former
ages
.
9.
Let
me
add
,
how
will
our
Informer
make
it
appear
That
in
the
first
purer
ages
,
any
of
the
ancient
Bishops
did
deny
&
wholly
exclud
[
ruling
elders
]
from
Church
Iudieatories
.
We
have
proved
this
officer
to
be
juris
divini
from
Scripture
.
And
the
full
consent
of
Antiquity
,
&
also
of
reformed
divines
is
abundantlie
clear
,
&
exhibit
by
many
of
the
learned
for
the
divine
right
of
this
officer
.
Ambrose
is
brought
in
compleaning
of
the
disuse
of
these
officers
(
on
1
Tim.
5.
)
As
a
devation
from
the
Scripture-patern
,
&
proceeding
from
the
pride
&
negligence
of
Doctors
.
Origin
.
his
Testimonie
(
lib
:
3.
contr:
Celsum
)
is
remarkable
,
who
shewes
that
among
the
more
polite
hearers
who
were
above
the
Catechumenists
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
Non
nulli
praepositi
sunt
qui
in
vitam
&
mores
eorem
qui
admittuntur
,
inquirunt
,
ut
qui
turpia
committunt
,
eos
communi
caetu
interdicant
,
qui
vero
ab
istis
abborrent
.
ex
animo
complext
meliores
quotidie
reddant
.
There
are
some
set
over
the
rest
who
inquires
into
the
life
and
manners
of
those
who
are
admitted
,
that
such
as
committ
these
things
that
are
vile
,
they
may
discharge
them
from
the
publick
assembly
,
and
embracing
from
their
heart
such
as
are
farr
from
these
things
,
they
may
render
them
every
day
better
.
Here
are
censurers
of
manners
found
in
the
ancient
Church
,
though
not
Ministers
,
and
designed
and
constitut
to
their
work
with
authority
in
their
hand
to
interdict
the
scandalous
,
and
what
are
these
but
ruling
elders
?
So
Augustin
(
Epist.
137.
)
writeing
to
his
Charge
directs
it
thus
dilectis
sratrbus
,
clero
,
Senioribus
,
&
universae
plebi
Eccle●…ae
hippo
ensis
,
To
the
beloved
brethren
,
the
Clergie
,
the
elders
,
and
the
wholl
people
of
the
Church
of
Hippo.
So
(
Contr.
Crese
.
Gramattic
.
)
omnes
vos
.
Episcopi
,
Presbyteri
,
diaconi
,
&
Siniores
Scitis
.
All
you
'
Bishops
Presbyters
,
deacons
and
elders
,
doe
know
.
Here
are
Tuo
sorts
of
elders
mentioned
in
one
comma
,
who
can
be
nothing
else
but
ruling
elders
.
For
the
same
purpose
,
the
learned
in
handling
this
theam
,
doe
cite
Barronius
(
Ann
:
103.
)
Where
he
enumerats
Episcopi
,
Presbyteri
,
diaconi
,
Seniores
.
Bishops
,
Presbyters
,
Deacons
,
Elders
.
So
also
Tertullian
(
Apolleget
.
adversus
gentes
c.
39.
)
Cyprian
(
Epist.
39.
)
(
Optatus
(
lib.
1.
p.
41.
)
and
many
others
.
See
assertion
of
the
government
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
.
Christoph
.
justell
.
observ.
&
not
.
in
Cod.
Can.
Eccles.
affric
.
p.
110
,
111.
jus
divinum
Regim
.
Eccles.
Smectim
.
&c
:
10.
The
Ancient
Bishops
were
not
set
over
whole
provinces
,
but
city
by
city
for
most
part
,
yea
severall
Cities
had
more
,
which
sayes
they
were
not
at
all
Bishops
properly
.
Clemens
(
in
Constit.
l.
7.
c.
46.
)
shews
that
Evodius
and
Ignatius
had
at
once
the
Episcopacy
over
the
Church
of
Antioch
,
and
what
was
this
but
a
meer
Collegiat
Ministery
.
Council
.
African
(
Cap.
21.
)
appoints
that
to
examine
the
cause
of
a
Presbyter
,
sex
Episcopl
ex
vicinis
locis
adjungerentur
,
6
Bishops
from
neighbouring
places
be
adjoyned
.
Poor
dorps
had
their
Bishops
as
is
clear
in
History
.
Nazianzon
,
a
little
towne
neer
Caesarea
,
yet
was
all
the
Episcopall
See
of
Gregory
Nazianzen
.
In
Chrysostoms
time
,
the
diocess
contained
but
one
citie
.
Homil.
3.
(
in
acta
)
nonne
terr
arum
orbis
imperium
tenet
imperator
&c.
[
doth
not
the
Emperour
(
saith
he
)
Govern
the
World
,
but
this
man
is
a
Bishop
only
of
one
city
.
]
Sozom.
(
Hist.
Bcclesiast
.
lib.
7.
cap.
19.
)
Tells
us
that
he
found
with
the
Arabians
and
those
of
Cyprus
,
Bishops
in
little
Dorps
.
11.
The
Ancient
Bishops
placed
[
preaching
]
among
the
chief
partes
of
their
office
,
and
were
not
idle
drones
as
ours
are
?
Theophilact
.
on
1
Tim.
3.
tells
us
that
docendi
officium
omnium
precipue
ut
insit
episcopis
est
necesse
,
that
the
office
of
preaching
,
which
is
the
chieff
of
all
others
,
its
necessarie
that
the
Bishop
be
indewed
with
it
.
As
ours
Court-prelats
,
so
our
non-preaching
Prelats
,
are
strangers
unto
,
and
condemned
by
the
ancient
Canons
.
Photii
Nomocan
.
tit.
8.
cap
12.
[
de
Episcopis
,
qui
non
convertunt
haereticos
,
&
de
Episcopis
&
clericis
qui
non
docent
populum
.
]
he
presents
and
digests
the
Canons
against
Bishops
and
clergy
men
who
convert
not
haeretiks
,
and
teach
not
the
people
.
some
of
these
Canones
are
as
followes
.
The
58.
canon
of
those
called
[
Apostolick
]
,
runes
thus
,
Episcopus
vel
Presbyter
,
qui
cleri
vel
populi
curam
non
gerit
,
&
eos
piet
atem
non
docet
segregetur
:
&
si
in
socordia
perseveret
,
deponatur
.
The
Bishop
or
Presbyter
who
takes
no
care
of
the
people
or
clergy
and
teaches
them
not
piety
,
let
him
be
set
aside
:
and
if
he
continue
in
his
folly
let
him
be
deposed
.
Balsamon
upon
this
Canon
,
tells
us
that
,
Episcopalis
dignitas
in
docendo
consistit
,
&
omnis
Episcopus
debet
docere
populum
pia
dogmata
&c
:
The
Episcopal
dignity
consists
in
teaching
,
and
every
Bishop
ought
to
teach
the
people
holy
statutes
for
the
Bishop
is
for
this
end
established
to
attend
the
people
&c
:
therafter
he
shewes
that
the
presbyters
ought
to
be
so
imployed
,
quia
etiam
prope
Episcopos
sedent
in
superioribus
cathedris
,
[
because
they
sit
beside
the
Bishops
in
the
higher
seats
]
they
were
not
then
the
prelats
underlinges
as
our
curats
are
now
;
hence
he
concludes
that
the
Bishop
or
priest
who
neglected
this
duety
,
were
to
be
set
aside
,
and
if
continuing
,
to
be
deposed
.
The
36.
of
these
Canons
puts
this
censour
upon
the
Bishop
who
neglects
this
duty
,
Si
quis
ordinatus
Episcopus
non
suscipiat
ministerium
&
curam
sibi
commissam
sit
segregatus
&c
:
That
the
ordained
Bishop
shal
be
set
asid
sured
who
goes
not
about
his
ministry
and
the
duty
intrusted
to
him
&c.
Balsamon
expoundes
this
part
of
the
Canon
,
and
summes
it
up
thus
.
Decernit
itaque
praesens
Canon
,
ut
si
quis
Episcopus
,
vel
Presbyter
ad
docendum
pertinentem
manuum
impositionem
acceperit
,
&
suum
munus
non
implea
,
segregetur
.
The
present
Canon
discerns
that
if
any
Bishop
or
Presbyter
hath
received
imposition
of
hands
relating
to
teaching
,
and
fulfilles
not
his
office
,
that
he
be
set
aside
&c.
Where
its
evident
that
he
makes
the
Bishops
ordination
,
or
imposition
of
hands
,
relative
unto
the
great
duety
and
office
of
preaching
the
gospel
,
aswel
as
that
of
the
Presbyter
,
and
accordingly
expoundes
the
Canon
.
The
XXXIX
.
canon
intrusts
the
Bishop
with
the
Charg
of
the
peoples
soules
,
in
correspondence
with
the
preceeding
.
In
the
forecited
cap
:
XII
.
Photii
,
we
are
referred
to
the
Syn.
Carthag
.
can
.
CXXIII
.
Syn.
VI.
can
.
XIX
.
LXIIII.
See
also
Syn.
Sexta
in
trullo
can
.
XIX
.
quod
opportet
eos
qui
prasunt
Ecclesiis
,
in
omnibus
quidem
diebus
,
sed
praecipue
dominicis
—
docere
pietatis
&
rectae
rationis
eloquia
,
ex
divina
scriptura
colligentes
intelligentias
&c
That
all
such
as
are
set
over
Churches
,
on
all
dayes
,
but
especialy
on
the
Lords
dayes
most
teach
the
oracles
of
piety
and
pure
religion
,
drawing
instructions
from
the
divine
scriptures
&c
:
Balsamon
begins
his
commentary
upon
the
canon
thus
,
Episcopi
Ecclesiarum
doctores
constituuntur
,
&
propterea
dicit
canon
cis
omnino
necesse
esse
,
eum
cui
praesunt
populam
semper
docere
,
&
multo
magis
in
diebus
dominicis
&c
:
That
is
,
The
Bishops
are
constitut
teachers
of
the
Churches
,
and
therefor
the
canon
sayes
unto
them
,
that
its
absolutely
necessary
alwayes
to
teach
that
people
over
whom
they
are
set
,
and
much
more
on
the
lordes
dayes
wherin
all
are
almost
present
in
Churches
and
artificers
ceases
from
ther
work
&c.
So
that
our
non-preaching
,
or
seldom
preaching
prelates
,
who
by
a
new
consecration
(
forsooth
,
)
superadded
unto
their
Presbyterial
ordination
to
preach
the
gospel
,
get
a
bill
of
ease
from
this
great
duety
,
to
act
state
games
,
except
when
their
Lordships
please
to
step
into
the
pulpit
,
to
supererogat
,
stands
arraighned
,
stigmatized
,
and
deposed
by
the
ancient
Canones
,
as
unworthy
of
any
office
in
the
house
of
god
.
Vide
can
.
Apost.
conc
general
&
partic
.
Sanct.
Patr.
Photii
nomocan
.
cum
Balsam
.
comment
.
pag.
(
mihi
)
39
:
116
,
117
,
121
,
207.
Unto
this
account
and
censure
of
antiquity
,
and
of
the
ancient
canons
,
past
upon
our
non-preaching
prelates
,
I
wil
here
subjoyn
a
remarkable
passage
of
a
learled
divine
whose
praise
is
in
all
the
Churches
.
Whittaker
(
de
Eccles.
contr.
2.
cap.
3.
)
being
about
to
prove
that
the
Church
of
rome
is
no
true
Church
of
Christ
.
Presents
this
for
his
first
argument
.
Pontifex
Romanus
non
est
verus
Episcopus
:
Ergo
Ecclesia
Romana
non
est
vera
Ecclesia
.
Nam
Ecclesia
non
potestesse
sine
episcopo
.
The
Pope
of
Rome
is
no
true
Bishop
:
therefore
the
Church
of
Rome
is
no
true
Church
:
because
the
Church
cannot
be
without
a
Bishop
.
But
least
this
last
assertion
cheer
up
our
Informer
and
his
fellowes
,
he
addes
,
disputo
ex
eorum
placitis
.
That
he
disputs
upon
his
popish
adversaries
principles
;
and
thus
classeth
them
among
the
popish
party
in
this
point
.
But
how
proves
he
the
pope
to
be
no
true
Bishop
—
propter
praecipuum
munus
episcopi
(
saith
he
)
quod
in
illo
desideratur
,
because
of
the
Chief
office
of
a
Bishop
whcih
is
wanting
in
him
.
And
what
is
that
,
olim
episcopi
Romani
diligenter
docebant
ecclesiam
;
&
nulli
facti
sunt
episcopi
nisi
qui
in
hoc
munere
fideles
erant
.
Olim
hoc
ad
se
pertinere
,
&
praecipuum
suum
munus
esse
putabant
,
ut
populum
sibi
commissum
docerent
atque
instituerent
;
adeo
ut
monstri
simile
esset
,
per
Annos
post
Christum
plusquam
sexcentos
,
episcopum
aliquem
in
ecclesia
esse
,
qui
aut
nollet
,
aut
non
posset
populum
docere
.
that
is
,
of
old
the
Bishops
of
Rome
diligently
taught
the
Church
,
and
none
were
made
Bishopes
who
were
not
faithfull
in
this
office
;
of
old
they
lookt
upon
this
as
the
Chief
duety
incumbent
upon
them
to
teach
and
instruct
the
people
committed
to
them
;
so
that
fore
more
then
six
hundred
Yeares
after
Christ
,
it
would
have
been
lookt
upon
as
a
monster
,
if
any
such
Bishop
were
in
the
Church
who
either
was
not
willing
or
able
to
teach
the
people
.
He
addes
,
That
all
the
Apostolick
Bishopes
were
such
.
And
that
the
Apostle
requires
it
in
a
Bishop
that
he
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
apt
to
teach
1
Tim.
3
:
2.
hoc
est
(
saith
he
)
non
ejusmodi
,
qui
curet
●…antum
,
&
det
operam
,
ut
alii
doceant
,
&
hanc
authoritatem
docendi
aliis
tribuat
:
sed
qui
ipse
sufficiat
alios
docere
.
Not
such
a
one
who
is
diligent
onely
to
provid
,
others
to
teach
,
and
gives
this
authority
to
others
,
But
who
is
himself
sufficient
to
teach
others
.
This
he
proves
because
the
Apostle
is
in
that
place
shewing
,
how
the
Bishop
most
be
indued
and
gifted
befor
he
be
chosen
,
and
that
therfore
by
[
being
apt
to
teach
]
we
most
understand
a
personal
care
and
ability
and
not
a
deputed
care
,
quis
enim
hoc
praestare
non
posset
?
(
saith
he
)
who
is
he
who
may
not
perform
this
.
This
he
further
cleares
from
2.
tim.
2.
2.
where
the
Apostle
injoyns
Timothy
to
commit
what
he
had
heard
of
him
to
faithfull
men
,
qui
essent
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
themselves
able
to
teach
others
.
Reprehending
Turrian
(
and
with
him
our
Episcopal
men
)
in
interpreting
that
first
passadge
of
a
deputed
care
as
to
teaching
.
And
shewes
that
the
old
interpreter
translates
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
doctor
,
or
teacher
.
And
a
doctor
(
saith
he
)
is
such
a
one
as
can
teach
himself
.
Thereafter
he
cites
Oecumenius
,
and
Chrysostom
thus
expounding
the
premised
scripture
,
and
even
soom
of
the
popish
scoolmen
,
as
Aquinas
upon
this
text
,
who
cals
this
the
proper
work
and
duety
of
a
Prelat
.
And
shewes
us
that
Aquinas
pertinently
applyes
to
this
purpose
that
passage
,
Jer.
3.
15.
I
wil
give
Pastors
according
to
my
own
heart
who
shal
feed
yow
with
knowledge
and
understanding
.
And
that
Cajetan
,
and
Catharinus
do
thus
expound
this
text
.
In
all
which
we
see
with
how
full
a
consent
of
ancient
and
modern
Churches
and
divines
our
non-preaching
or
seldom
preaching
Prelates
are
condemned
,
and
how
fully
our
scripture-argument
against
them
upon
this
head
,
is
fortified
and
confirmed
.
12.
As
in
other
points
of
difference
,
so
the
ancient
Bishopes
were
as
farr
from
our
Prelats
fastuus
pompe
,
and
sumptuus
grandeur
which
they
assume
.
Ammianus
Marcellinus
(
lib.
27.
de
habitu
vitae
beatorum
episcoporum
,
)
tells
us
of
their
tenuitas
edendi
,
potandique
parcissime
,
indumentorum
vilitas
&c.
Their
spare
eating
and
drinking
,
their
meanenes
of
apparrel
,
their
lovely
countenance
,
as
that
which
commendes
them
to
God
and
his
true
worshippers
.
Paulus
Samosatenus
,
his
fastuus
pompe
and
attendants
,
although
a
great
Bishop
,
is
highly
condemned
,
as
exposeing
our
faith
to
envy
and
hatred
.
Euseb.
(
lib.
7.
cap.
29.
)
The
Canon
of
the
4
Councell
of
carthage
(
insert
by
Gratian
in
the
body
of
the
decree
distinct.
41.
)
provides
that
,
Episcopus
non
longe
ab
ecclesia
hospitiolum
,
vil
emsupellectilem
,
&c.
That
the
Bishop
have
his
little
manse
not
far
from
the
Church
that
he
have
meane
houshold
stuffe
&c.
Et
dignitatis
suae
Authoritatem
fide
&
meritis
quaerat
,
and
purchase
Authority
to
his
office
or
dignity
by
faith
and
good
works
.
Sozom.
(
lib
,
6.
Cap:
16.
)
Relats
of
Basilius
Magnus
,
Bishop
of
Caesaria
,
that
he
answered
the
Imperours
praefect
who
threatned
the
Confiscation
of
his
goods
,
thus
,
Horum
nihil
me
Cruciari
potest
,
equidem
opes
non
habeo
,
preterquam
laceram
vestem
,
&
Paucos
libros
.
None
of
these
things
can
torment
me
,
truely
I
have
no
goods
but
a
torne
garment
and
some
books
.
See
the
historia
motuum
[
page
143.
to
174.
]
Now
from
all
that
is
said
,
I
think
common
ingenuity
will
acknowledge
;
(
and
this
Informer
himself
,
if
he
be
not
ane
utter
stranger
to
it
,
)
that
our
present
Episcopacy
is
as
far
discrepant
from
that
of
the
Ancient
Christian
Church
,
as
east
from
west
,
and
by
consequence
that
this
pleading
from
the
ancient
prostasie
,
or
even
the
after
Bishops
to
legittimat
and
patronize
our
present
prelacy
,
is
a
most
gross
nonsequitur
and
notorius
fallacy
.
CHAP.
XIV
.
The
Informers
pretended
Testimonies
out
of
Calvine
,
Beza
,
Blondel
,
&c.
For
Episcopacy
,
Examined
.
Their
anti-Episcopall
judgment
,
cleared
from
their
writings
.
The
Informer
crosses
Bishop
Spotswood
,
and
Tilen.
His
two
absurdities
which
by
way
of
Dilemma
he
offers
to
us
,
from
our
assertion
of
the
unalterablees
of
Presbyterian
Government
,
&
our
concession
of
a
Proestos
early
brought
in
,
Scanned
,
&
retorted
upon
himself
.
The
Authores
of
jus
divinum
Ministerii
Evangelici
,
vindicated
at
some
length
.
WHereas
the
Informer
is
bold
to
affirme
that
Calvin●…
Beza
,
Blondel
,
and
other
eminent
divines
who
have
written
against
Episcopacy
,
are
reconcilable
to
it
,
yea
to
a
hierarchy
of
the
highest
stamp
.
Wee
answer
1.
The
full
and
harmanious
consent
of
Ancient
and
modern
divines
and
reformed
Churches
,
for
that
which
we
plead
for
in
point
of
Church-Government
,
shall
be
exhibit
in
the
last
Chapter
.
2.
As
for
Calvin's
judgment
in
relation
to
Presbyterian
Government
,
It
is
so
fully
known
to
the
world
in
his
writings
,
that
we
think
there
needs
no
more
to
put
a
brand
of
impudence
upon
any
,
then
to
deny
it
.
And
we
doe
appeal
to
his
judicious
commentes
upon
all
the
controverted
places
of
the
new
Testament
betwixt
them
and
us
;
wherein
all
that
we
plead
for
,
either
as
to
the
identity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
in
name
and
thing
,
the
Presbyteryes
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
the
extraordinary
Evangelistick
Power
of
Timothy
and
Titus
,
the
divine
right
of
the
ruling
elder
,
the
peoples
right
in
the
call
of
Ministers
,
the
unlawfulness
of
Prelats
sole
power
and
dominion
over
their
brethren
,
the
unwarrantablenes
of
Ministers
state
offices
,
&c
,
is
clearly
asserted
.
Let
any
consult
him
upon
Matth.
18.
17.
Matth
21
:
22.
Luk.
22
:
25.
Act.
6
:
2
,
3
,
4.
Act.
14
:
23.
Act.
20
:
17
,
28
,
29
,
30.
1.
Cor.
5.
1
Cor.
12.
28.
with
Rom.
12
:
6
:
7.
2
Cor.
2
:
6
,
7.
Eph
4
:
11
,
12.
1
Thess.
5
:
12
,
13.
2
Thess.
3
:
14.
Heb.
13
:
7
,
17.
1
Tim.
1
:
3.
&c.
and
4
:
14.
2
Tim
2
4
:
2
Tim.
1
:
6.
Tit.
1
:
6
,
7.
&c.
and
such
like
places
,
where
he
will
be
found
to
give
sentence
for
us
against
the
Prelatik
party
,
and
expounding
them
just
as
we
doe
.
3.
These
adversaries
doe
grant
that
the
Government
in
this
Church
,
which
famous
Mr.
Knox
owned
,
and
all
his
dayes
contended
for
,
was
Presbyterial
Government
.
And
it
is
as
well
knowne
and
acknowledged
by
themselves
,
that
he
had
the
sense
and
judgment
both
of
Calvin
and
Beza
in
that
great
bussiness
.
Spotswood
in
his
history
tells
us
that
[
John
Knox
framed
our
rules
of
disciplin
in
imitation
of
what
he
had
Seen
at
Geneva
.
]
Tilen
▪
in
his
petulant
piece
intituled
Paraensis
ad
Scotos
Genevensis
discipline
Zelotas
,
makes
this
undenyable
.
He
calls
Calvin
and
Beza
all
along
our
Masters
,
and
alledges
that
we
can
hear
of
nothing
but
out
of
their
scool
&c.
But
that
they
owned
Presbyterian
Government
,
as
the
onely
Government
appointed
in
the
house
of
God
,
he
never
took
the
confidence
or
had
the
forehead
to
deny
.
When
John
Knox
was
desired
by
some
to
write
to
Calvin
,
and
others
about
a
certain
difficulty
,
he
answered
that
he
came
not
here
without
all
their
Iudgments
in
what
he
had
done
,
and
that
they
might
think
him
unconstant
in
writting
for
a
resolution
in
that
matter
.
Now
John
Knox
look't
upon
Episcopocy
as
a
limb
of
Antichrists
Hierarchie
,
and
as
haveing
aliquid
commumune
cum
Anti
Christo.
Something
in
it
common
with
Antichrist
.
So
that
what
the
Informer
mentions
of
Measson
,
and
Bish:
Andrews
their
asserting
of
Calvin
and
Beza's
Episcopall
Government
at
Geneva
,
and
their
preeminencie
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
is
a
gross
calumny
.
The
eminent
parts
of
these
famous
divines
might
make
their
judgement
have
great
influence
in
determining
others
,
but
that
either
Calvin
or
Beza
,
did
ever
incroach
upon
the
decisive
power
of
their
fellow
Presbyters
,
or
acted
any
thing
pro
imperio
or
solely
,
is
a
calumny
which
any
who
ever
read
their
lives
can
sufficiently
disprove
.
Their
laboures
and
practise
as
well
as
their
writings
was
for
mantaineing
the
due
right
of
Presbyterian
Government
against
enemies
of
all
sortes
.
In
the
life
of
Galleaceus
Caracciolus
,
It
is
reported
,
That
Calvin
being
consulted
by
him
in
a
case
of
conscience
requireing
secrecy
(
in
a
great
measure
)
would
give
him
no
determinat
answer
(
tho
a
ruleing
elder
in
that
Church
)
without
consulting
his
Brethren
.
As
for
that
which
the
Informer
cites
out
of
Calvines
Inflit.
[
l.
4.
c.
4.
Sect.
2.
]
where
[
He
acknowledges
that
Jerom
teaches
that
the
proestos
is
ane
ancient
institution
,
and
that
he
repeats
what
Jerome
sayes
,
a
Marco
&c.
]
It
s
a
pitiful
proofe
to
conclud
therupon
that
Calvin
acknowledges
diocesian
Prelats
as
Ancient
as
Mark.
For
Calvine
knew
well
that
Jerome
speaks
but
of
the
proestos
first
set
up
,
and
the
Informer
hath
not
proved
that
either
Calvin
or
Jerom
gave
their
approbation
to
the
setting
of
him
up
.
And
for
what
he
adds
[
That
Calvin
sayes
ne
ex
equalitate
ut
fieri
solet
dissidi●…
orirenter
.
That
they
were
set
up
least
from
equality
discord
should
arise
as
usuallie
there
doth
.
]
granting
that
he
acknowledges
they
were
more
then
meer
Moderators
,
that
is
fixed
Moderators
.
What
then
?
Are
our
Prelats
no
more
?
Or
will
his
acknowledgment
of
the
factum
,
prove
his
acknowledment
of
the
jus
?
and
though
mans
corruption
abuse
parity
to
discord
,
what
then
?
our
corruption
will
abuse
the
best
ordinance
of
God
.
As
for
what
he
cites
from
Instit.
(
l.
4.
c.
5.
Sect.
11.
Our
Informer
hath
not
proved
.
That
Calvin
by
[
Episcopi
]
and
[
paraeciarum
rectorcs
]
doth
understand
diverse
Church
officers
of
Gods
appointment
,
as
he
distinguishes
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
.
That
Calvin
did
not
acknowledge
the
Episcopus
distinct
from
the
paraeciae
rector
his
comment
on
Tit.
1
:
7.
makes
it
evident
—
[
For
a
Bishop
&c.
]
locus
hic
abunde
docet
nullum
esse
episcopi
&
Presbyteri
discrimen
,
quia
nunc
secund●…
nomine
promiscue
appellat
quos
prius
vocavit
Presbyteros
.
Imo
idem
prosequens
argumentum
utrumque
nomen
indifferenter
eodem
,
sensu
usurpat
,
quemadmodum
&
Hieronimus
tum
hoc
loco
,
tum
in
Epistola
ad
Evagrium
annotavit
.
Atque
hinc
perspicere
licet
quanto
plus
delatum
hominum
placitis
fuerit
,
quam
decebat
,
qui
abrogato
Spiritus
Sancti
Sermone
,
usus
hominum
arbitrio
inductus
,
praevaluit
.
That
is
,
This
place
abundantly
shewes
that
there
is
no
difference
betuixt
a
Bishop
and
Presbyter
because
now
again
he
promiscuusly
calls
them
by
the
seccond
mane
,
whom
befor
he
called
Presbyters
,
nay
prosecuting
the
same
argument
he
maks
use
of
both
the
names
indifferently
in
the
same
sense
,
as
also
Ierom
both
in
this
place
and
in
his
Epistle
to
Evagrius
,
hath
observed
.
And
hence
we
may
perceive
how
much
hath
been
ascribed
to
mens
pleasure
,
&
inventiones
more
then
did
become
,
because
ane
use
brought
in
at
mens
pleasure
hath
prevaled
while
the
language
of
the
holy
ghost
is
laid
aside
—
and
after
he
hath
spoken
of
the
first
Moderators
earlie
brought
in
,
he
adds
—
verum
nomen
officij
(
N.
B.
)
quod
Deus
in
communi
nibus
dederat
,
in
unum
solum
transferri
,
reliquis
spoiliatis
&
injurium
est
&
absurdum
,
deinde
sic
preve●…tere
Spiritus
sancti
linguam
,
ut
nobis
eaedem
voces
,
aliud
quam
volue●…
〈◊〉
significent
,
nimis
profanae
audaciae
est
.
That
is
,
But
that
the
name
of
the
office
which
God
gave
in
common
to
all
should
be
transferred
to
one
only
,
robbing
the
rest
thereof
,
is
injurious
and
absurd
.
More
over
to
pervert
thus
the
language
of
the
holy
ghost
,
that
the
same
words
should
signifie
another
thing
then
he
pleased
is
too
profane
boldnes
.
Thus
Calvin
puts
this
censure
upon
our
Informer
,
in
making
the
name
[
Bishop
]
signifie
any
more
then
[
a
Presbyter
.
]
And
upon
Act.
20.
28.
De
voce
Episcopi
hic
notandum
,
omnes
Ephesinos
Presbyteros
sic
vocari
indifferenter
,
unde
colligimus
Secundum
Scripturae
usum
nihil
a
Presbyteris
differre
Episcopos
.
That
is
,
Concerning
the
name
of
Bishop
,
we
must
observe
this
,
that
all
the
Presbyters
in
Ephesus
are
so
called
indifferently
,
hence
we
conclud
that
according
to
the
scripture
language
,
Bishops
doe
nothing
differ
from
Presbyters
.
Now
let
any
judge
if
Calvine
make
not
the
Name
and
thing
of
the
scripture
Bishop
proper
to
every
Minister
of
a
parish
,
and
if
he
judged
a
Diocesian
Bishop
,
thus
differenced
from
the
parish
Minister
,
to
be
a
warrantable
office
which
he
holds
to
be
so
crosse
to
Scripture
.
So
that
in
the
passage
which
this
man
hath
above
cited
,
he
would
have
all
Bishops
contending
for
and
reteaning
the
true
scripture
function
,
for
none
else
he
can
call
eximium
munus
,
or
ane
excellent
gift
.
So
that
those
of
these
places
will
help
our
Informer
.
The
Context
and
tenour
of
that
4
chapter
obliedgeth
as
to
think
that
this
is
really
the
meaning
,
that
whatever
titles
these
Ancients
used
,
yet
they
designed
not
thereby
to
wrong
that
Presbyteriall
Government
grounded
upon
Scripture
,
which
,
Calvin
,
is
there
defending
.
And
moreover
,
even
straniing
that
place
[
Chap.
5.
par.
11.
]
to
the
out
most
advantage
,
it
will
Inferr
nothing
but
this
,
that
Bishops
,
and
Parishpriests
in
those
dayes
,
had
the
essence
of
the
Pastorall
office
;
which
is
not
denyed
,
or
that
their
Pastorall
acts
,
when
rightly
performed
were
valid
.
The
Pastorall
office
Calvin
cals
pium
&
eximium
munus
as
the
ensuing
words
doe
convince
.
As
for
his
citation
from
Sect:
13.
it
were
very
absurd
to
think
that
Calvine
by
[
the
heirarchy
which
the
Fathers
commend
as
handed
down
from
the
Apostles
]
should
understand
the
prelatick
hierarchy
which
this
man
pleads
for
.
Since
1.
Many
Fathers
,
as
Ierome
,
never
saw
such
a
hierarchy
set
up
,
but
by
[
Bishops
]
understand
either
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
at
first
set
up
,
or
the
Bishops
of
whom
we
now
heard
,
who
governed
with
Presbyters
joyntly
,
and
had
no
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
.
2.
Calvin
speaks
of
the
Fathers
commending
a
Hierarchy
,
not
like
the
papall
,
but
he
tells
not
what
his
judgement
of
that
hierarchie
is
.
3.
How
could
Calvin
commend
a
hierarchie
(
such
as
the
Informer
pleads
for
)
or
so
much
as
acknowledge
it
as
handed
doun
from
the
Apostles
,
who
shews
from
their
Doctrine
that
they
owned
no
Bishop
higher
then
a
Presbyter
,
as
is
clear
from
what
is
said
.
To
which
we
may
add
Calvins
words
on
Philip
:
1.
Episcopi
nomen
omnibus
ministris
est
commune
.
Sunt
igitur
synon●…ma
Episcopus
&
Pastor
.
Postea
invaluit
usus
ut
quem
suo
collegio
praeficiebant
in
Singulis
Ecclesijs
,
Presbyteri
,
Episcopus
vocaretur
Solus
.
Id
tamen
ex
hominum
consuetudine
natum
est
,
scripturae
authoritate
minime
nititur
.
That
is
,
the
name
of
Bishop
is
common
to
all
Ministers
,
Bishop
and
Presbyter
then
are
one
and
the
same
.
—
Afterward
the
Custome
prevailed
to
call
the
Minister
whom
the
Presbyters
set
over
their
meeting
,
in
evry
church
the
Bishops
only
,
but
this
had
its
rise
from
mens
Custome
,
but
is
not
at
all
grounded
on
the
Authority
of
Scripture
.
—
And
after
he
hath
spoken
of
the
advantage
of
one
to
preside
for
orders
sake
,
he
adds
this
limitation
—
de
Singulis
corporibus
loquor
,
non
de
totis
provincijs
&c
:
I
speak
of
single
incorperations
,
not
of
whole
provinces
,
adding
,
prestaret
spiritum
Sanctum
linguarum
autorem
in
loquendo
sequi
,
quam
formas
loquendi
ab
ipso
positas
in
deterius
mutare
,
nam
ex
corrupta
verbi
Significatione
hoc
malifecutu●…
est
,
quod
per
inde
ac
si
non
essent
omnes
Presbyteri
collegae
(
N.
B.
)
adeandem
vocati
functionem
,
unus
,
sibi
pretextu
no●…ae
appellationis
,
dominium
●…n
alios
arripuit
.
That
is
,
it
were
better
in
our
speech
to
follow
the
holy
ghost
the
author
of
languages
,
then
to
change
into
the
worse
the
forms
of
speaking
set
downe
by
him
.
For
from
this
abused
signification
of
the
word
,
this
evill
hath
followed
,
that
as
if
[
all
Presbyters
]
were
not
Colleagues
called
to
[
the
same
function
,
]
one
hath
usurped
to
himself
a
dominion
over
the
rest
under
pretext
of
this
new
appellation
.
As
for
what
he
objects
[
p.
78.
]
from
Calvin
upon
Tit.
1.
5.
[
That
unus
authoritate
praeest
&c
:
]
I
Ansr.
After
he
hath
said
that
every
city
had
severall
Presbyters
—
and
asserted
that
there
are
Two
sorts
of
elders
,
and
that
these
elders
were
the
Bishops
appointed
to
teach
—
He
moves
ane
objection
—
Had
Titus
this
Princely
power
and
alone
,
and
answers
—
Non
permitti
arbitrio
titi
ut
unus
possit
omnia
,
&
quos
voluerit
Episcopos
Ecclesiis
imponat
,
sed
tantum
jubet
ut
electionibus
praefit
tonquam
Moderator
.
That
is
,
It
is
not
permitted
to
Titus
pleasure
to
doe
all
things
alone
,
and
impose
upon
the
Churches
what
Bishops
he
pleased
:
but
he
only
bides
him
oversee
the
Elections
as
Moderator
.
Paralleling
this
with
Act.
14.
23.
where
he
saith
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
acted
not
soli
,
&
pro
imperio
,
that
is
,
solely
and
imperiously
to
put
Pastores
upon
the
people
who
were
not
expetiti
or
electi
,
desired
and
chosen
,
but
only
probatos
&
cognitos
,
men
approved
and
known
.
Now
let
this
man
say
himself
,
doth
not
Calvin
here
clearely
assert
our
principles
,
and
kill
the
diocesian
Prelat
with
the
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
?
So
that
nothing
can
be
hence
Inferred
,
but
that
Church
consistories
were
not
then
without
order
,
and
that
one
did
praeside
among
them
;
for
Calvine
sayeth
on
the
7.
verse
,
porro
locus
hic
abunde
docet
nullum
esse
Presbyteri
&
Episcopi
discrimen
.
And
he
who
praesided
here
was
Titus
,
whose
Episcopacy
we
have
aboundantly
disproved
.
As
for
that
which
he
tells
us
Calvin
adds
,
[
that
one
was
in
authority
over
the
rest
at
that
time
,
]
ergo
,
what
?
Had
not
Paul
,
Barnabas
,
&
Titus
ane
extraordinary
authority
&
commission
?
for
he
sayes
,
tunc
,
or
at
that
time
wherein
these
offices
did
exist
;
but
will
any
think
that
Calvin
could
mean
,
a
Diocesian
Prelats
ordinary
power
which
;
immediatly
befor
he
was
disputing
against
from
the
text
?
He
adds
presently
nihil
tamen
hoc
ad
prophanum
&
tirannicum
collationum
morem
.
This
hath
nothing
to
doe
with
the
profane
and
tyrranicall
Custome
of
Collations
,
longe
enim
diversa
fuit
Apostolorum
ratio
,
for
the
Apostles
case
and
ground
was
far
different
from
this
.
As
for
that
which
he
addes
[
of
Calvins
letters
to
a
Bishop
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
anent
Episcopacy
it self
,
as
being
of
God
]
I
can
appeall
this
mans
conscience
,
if
Calvin
thought
the
Episcopall
hierarchie
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
far
less
the
popish
hierarchy
,
to
be
of
God
,
and
whither
he
doth
not
in
his
Commentaries
Particularlie
in
the
places
cited
,
speak
against
the
diocisian
Prelat
as
such
.
Besides
,
we
shall
here
tell
the
Informer
that
this
passage
which
he
cites
as
in
the
volume
of
his
[
opuscul
a
page
72
]
upon
a
search
of
two
several
editions
,
hath
not
been
found
.
As
for
his
letter
to
the
King
of
Pole
,
approveing
all
the
degrees
of
the
hierarchie
]
it
is
so
grosly
contrary
to
Calvins
principles
and
writings
,
that
the
Informer
must
excuse
us
,
not
to
take
it
upon
trust
from
him
,
Especially
since
he
exhibits
no
part
of
that
letter
.
For
his
letter
to
the
Duke
of
Somer
set
(
citted
by
Durel
,
and
the
more
to
be
suspected
as
coming
from
the
hands
of
such
ane
enemy
to
his
principles
.
)
[
anent
some
fantastick
ones
fludiing
to
bring
in
confusion
under
the
name
of
the
gospell
]
we
think
it
a
fantastick
inferenc
of
our
Informer
,
to
conclude
therupon
,
that
he
calls
the
asserters
of
Presbyterian
governement
such
.
Although
in
that
Epistle
there
is
no
express
advice
to
remove
Episcopacy
,
what
then
?
there
is
no
express
advice
for
removing
severall
other
Corruptions
.
But
the
Consequence
that
therefore
Calvine
did
not
disowne
these
Corruptions
,
the
Informer
himself
will
grant
to
be
a
gross
non
sequitur
.
And
some
Considerationes
of
prudence
might
move
to
wave
the
express
touching
upon
this
head
at
that
season
,
when
light
was
but
dawning
as
to
a
Doctrinall
reformation
,
and
the
scales
of
the
gross
cimmerian
darkness
of
popery
,
were
but
begining
to
fall
off
from
the
eyes
of
that
people
.
Yet
when
the
Informer
shall
peruse
that
Epistle
again
,
he
will
find
that
Calvine
Leaves
it
not
altogether
untouched
,
when
heuseth
these
wordes
,
habeat
sane
hoc
locum
In
rebus
istius
vitae
—
atqui
alia
prorsus
est
ratio
regiminis
Ecclesiae
quod
spirituale
est
,
in
quo
nihil
non
ad
Dei
verbum
exigi
fas
est
,
non
est
inquam
penes
ullum
mortalem
quicquam
hic
aliis
dare
,
aut
in
illorum
gratiam
deflectere
,
—
that
is
,
let
this
truely
have
place
in
affaeires
of
this
life
—
but
the
Church
Government
,
which
is
spirituall
,
is
of
a
far
other
nature
,
wherin
there
is
nothing
but
what
most
be
brought
unto
the
touchstone
of
the
word
of
God
,
here
I
say
it
is
not
in
the
power
of
any
mortall
to
gratify
any
thing
unto
others
,
or
to
decline
for
their
favour
.
A
passage
which
compared
to
Calvi●…s
principles
in
point
of
Church
Government
,
doth
fully
Antidot
the
Informers
waspish
extraction
from
this
Epistle
.
For
his
treatise
to
the
Emperor
Charles
the
5i
.
anent
imbracing
of
a
hierarchy
tyed
by
a
brotherly
society
among
Bishops
and
by
the
bond
of
truth
,
and
united
only
to
Christ
]
I
see
nothing
discrepant
in
it
to
Calvines
,
or
Presbyterian
principles
,
If
[
Hierarchie
]
be
rightly
taken
,
and
for
this
(
if
their
be
indeed
such
a
passage
whereof
I
have
no
certainty
)
I
think
we
can
in
no
reason
suppose
Calvine
to
owne
the
popish
Government
,
even
as
abstracted
from
false
doctrine
,
since
he
holds
the
very
Diocesian
Bishop
,
to
be
contrary
to
the
Apostolick
Government
,
far
more
the
Hierarchy
;
will
any
man
say
,
that
Calvin
did
owne
all
the
Locu●…s
of
the
profane
popish
orders
which
are
parts
of
this
Hierachy
?
so
that
Calvin
by
hierarchy
,
and
spirituale
regimen
,
doth
indigitat
the
most
simple
and
primitive
Episcopacy
which
the
fathers
speake
of
;
and
withall
since
the
embracing
of
the
gospell
simplicity
and
truth
which
Calvin
there
desires
(
as
he
sayes
,
)
would
quickly
sned
off
all
Luxuriant
branches
of
humane
invention
in
point
of
Government
,
and
like
wayes
since
Calvin
ownes
the
Church
Government
set
down
in
Scripture
as
our
pattern
(
which
doth
as
much
reprobat
the
popish
hierarchy
,
as
the
doctrine
therein
set
down
,
doth
their
errors
;
)
all
this
will
preponderat
towards
Calvins
meaning
only
a
gospell
Ministery
,
which
is
equally
distinct
from
Bishops
in
the
popish
and
prelaticall
mould
.
As
for
the
difference
[
betwixt
the
primitive
and
popish
Episcopacy
]
I
think
there
is
indeed
a
great
difference
,
&
we
have
proved
our
present
hierarchy
to
be
as
much
different
from
it
,
and
soom
what
more
if
its
erastian
mould
be
taken
in
as
the
Informer
must
.
The
treatise
to
Charles
the
fifth
,
entituled
de
necessitate
reformanda
Ecclesia
is
so
Generally
cited
by
the
informer
,
without
quoting
,
either
page
or
section
that
himself
seemes
half
convinced
of
the
Impertinency
therof
.
For
Saravia
his
asserting
,
that
he
defended
Calvins
opinion
against
Beza
,
he
said
in
this
as
in
the
rest
,
more
then
he
could
prove
.
For
what
he
adds
of
Hooker
and
Durel
who
assert
[
That
Presbytery
was
settled
at
Geneva
,
because
another
Bishop
could
not
be
gotten
after
the
popish
was
away
,
and
that
it
was
settled
not
out
of
a
dislike
to
the
hierarchie
,
but
because
they
were
in
ane
equality
and
stood
so
,
being
bent
on
reforming
the
doctrine
]
I
Answer
.
His
Authores
in
this
assertion
stand
upon
a
very
slippery
and
sandie
fundation
.
What
?
Were
there
no
able
men
to
be
Bishop
after
the
popish
Bishop
was
gone
?
and
had
they
not
leasure
sufficient
to
doe
this
after
the
doctrine
was
reformed
?
Why
lived
they
so
long
without
a
beloved
hierarchy
?
and
(
which
is
yet
more
strange
)
why
Imployed
they
their
pens
and
their
paines
so
much
for
Presbyterian
government
,
and
not
rather
for
the
hierarchy
?
why
were
both
Calvin
and
Beza
so
active
in
that
which
Iohn
Knox
did
here
in
opposition
to
prelacy
?
But
stay
,
hath
not
the
Informer
told
us
,
that
Masone
and
Bishop
Andrews
doe
assert
[
That
Calvin
and
Beza
assumed
ane
Episcopall
power
at
Geneva
]
How
comes
Durel
and
Hooker
then
[
To
suppose
a
compleat
parity
among
the
Ministers
to
havt
begun
and
continued
at
Geneva
for
want
of
a
Bishop
foresooth
]
He
must
grant
that
some
of
these
accusers
are
ingrained
liars
and
accusers
of
the
brethren
in
this
point
,
So
he
must
deliberat
whither
he
will
bestow
this
upon
Mason
and
Bishop
Andrews
,
or
Hooker
and
Durepl
.
For
what
he
adds
of
these
,
that
have
written
for
Presbyterian
government
,
that
they
designed
only
to
prove
it
lawfull
,
it
is
a
gross
Calumny
,
their
designe
is
to
prove
it
a
divine
frame
of
government
appointed
in
the
new
Testament
,
which
I
hope
he
will
say
is
necessary
as
well
as
lawfull
,
since
Christ
promises
to
the
end
his
presence
with
those
officers
cloathed
with
his
commission
.
And
him self
holds
that
the
end
of
that
Government
practised
in
the
new
Testament
,
and
its
grounds
are
Moral
and
perpetual
.
For
Blondel
his
calling
Episcopal
preeminence
an
apostolical
constitution
,
which
the
Informer
cites
page
84.
no
such
wordes
being
in
the
printed
copy
,
(
as
he
acknowledges
)
who
will
be
so
foolishly
credulous
as
to
take
it
upon
the
Informer
or
Durells
bare
word
that
it
was
in
the
written
on
,
Unless
we
will
admitt
the
Informer
(
as
the
Papists
doe
by
the
Scriptures
in
their
unwritten
traditions
)
to
add
his
unprinted
patchments
to
any
author
,
and
thus
to
dispute
pro
libitu
,
and
make
his
weapons
from
testimonies
of
authors
,
(
as
once
a
certain
Chiftain's
sword
is
said
to
have
done
)
to
wound
and
kill
a
great
way
before
the
point
.
He
distinguishes
the
Government
he
pleads
for
,
as
divinitus
institutus
,
or
of
divine
appointment
,
from
any
other
frame
as
humane
only
,
which
will
say
that
this
divine
institution
must
stand
,
and
all
other
frames
of
Government
give
place
to
it
.
The
same
may
be
accomodat
to
that
which
he
cites
out
of
Beza
(
pag
85.
)
who
looked
upon
the
very
Episcopus
humanus
as
he
calls
him
,
or
the
first
proestos
,
as
the
first
rise
of
all
the
popish
Hierarchie
and
mischeiffs
.
That
sentence
of
Beza
de
min.
grad.
Cap.
21.
pag.
343.
stands
Intirely
thus
,
imo
C●…nctos
sic
[
id
est
Archiepiscopos
&
Episcopos
]
hodie
appell●…tos
,
modo
sanctissimorum
illorum
Episcoporum
[
meaning
Timothy
and
Titus
,
&c
,
whom
Saravta
termed
.
Bishops
;
Beza
allowing
the
designation
in
a
sound
&
scripture
sence
]
exemplum
imitentur
&
tam
misere
deformatam
domum
Dei
ad
amussim
ex
verbi
divini
regula
pro
viribus
in●…aurent
ut
Ecclesiae
Christianae
fidos
pastores
,
cur
non
agnoscamus
,
observemus
&
omni
reverentia
prosequamur
?
Nedum
ut
quod
falsissime
&
impudentissime
nonnulli
nobis
objiciuut
euiquam
uspiam
Ecclesiae
,
&c.
certainely
there
walking
up
to
such
rules
and
patterns
as
are
here
prescribed
,
as
the
proviso's
upon
which
Beza
Proefesses
to
reverence
and
owne
them
,
would
so
sned
off
the
Episcopal
heteroclyt
excrescencies
of
our
diocesian
Erastian
Prelats
,
and
smooth
them
to
the
Scripture
Episcopacy
,
as
quite
to
destroy
their
power
and
office
,
pleaded
for
by
this
pamphleter
.
As
his
acting
,
so
his
writing
for
Presbyterian
Government
accordingly
,
was
not
to
prescribe
his
owne
,
(
which
Beza
disclaimes
,
)
but
Gods
example
.
How
will
the
Informer
prove
,
that
Beza's
denying
his
prescribing
of
their
example
of
Church
Government
at
Geneua
,
meerly
as
such
,
will
infer
his
not
commending
a
divine
frame
of
Church
Government
?
This
was
not
to
prescribe
his
example
simpliciter
.
And
how
will
he
prove
that
Beza
looked
upon
a
Government
which
he
held
to
be
[
the
egg
from
which
Anti
Christ
sprung
]
as
Dei
beneficentia
,
or
Gods
beneficence
,
He
makes
him
a
very
gross
ignoramus
,
for
what
man
of
the
meanest
capacity
would
say
so
?
And
if
Beza
held
the
first
Episcopacie
or
proestos
to
be
a
recess
from
the
divine
institution
,
he
certainly
condemned
it
[
in
so
far
.
]
And
the
diocesian
Prelat
he
holds
to
be
Satanicall
.
Therefore
when
he
seems
to
condemne
the
desowning
of
all
order
of
Bishops
,
he
must
understand
it
of
a
condemning
scripture
order
,
&
the
beautiful
subordination
among
Church
officers
,
or
that
divine
order
that
is
among
them
.
But
here
again
I
must
needs
take
notice
,
that
in
this
passage
of
Beza
in
his
dispute
with
Saravia
,
the
Informer
hath
sned
off
that
which
wounds
his
cause
to
death
,
for
the
words
following
doe
discover
another
ground
of
this
distinction
of
Bishops
from
Presbyters
(
viz
Beza
and
Jeroms
humane
Custome
)
then
what
the
Informer
would
persuade
.
For
it
followes
immediatly
,
neque
hoc
scelere
tenentur
,
qui
de
episcopalis
muneris
sive
prostasias
finibus
regendis
,
&
de
discrimineinter
ordinem
&
gradum
.
postulant
,
ut
ex
verbo
Dei
decidatur
.
Whence
it
is
evident
that
he
does
not
understand
Bishops
set
over
Presbyters
to
be
Iure
divino
or
speaks
of
them
in
this
place
.
As
for
the
passages
of
Beza's
letters
to
Bishop
Whitegift
,
and
Grindal
,
which
the
Informer
after
cites
,
(
pag.
●…6
.
)
I
say
1.
That
certainly
Beza's
principles
so
largely
expressed
from
Scripture
anent
Church
Government
,
and
the
contrariety
of
the
episcopus
humanus
or
humane
Bishop
,
(
far
more
the
Diocesian
Satanical
Bishop
,
)
to
the
divine
rule
in
his
principles
,
will
necessarly
infer
,
that
in
this
great
mans
Judgement
none
of
these
Prelats
had
qua
tales
or
as
such
,
a
lawfull
spirituall
authority
from
God
,
2.
It
is
as
certaine
that
all
Beza's
pleading
and
arguments
strikes
against
the
diocesian
Prelat
or
Arch
prelat
as
in
that
capacity
,
and
against
this
office
and
policy
in
it self
,
abstracting
from
its
union
unto
the
pope
,
so
that
he
could
own
no
authority
that
way
committed
to
them
of
God
.
3.
It
followes
,
that
since
he
judged
the
episcopall
hierarchy
unlawfull
,
he
held
the
first
parity
unalterable
,
since
he
pleades
for
it
upon
morall
perpetuall
Scripture
grounds
and
institutions
.
And
by
these
his
solid
Scripture
grounds
,
when
ex
professo
handling
this
point
and
theologically
,
we
are
more
to
determine
of
his
Judgement
then
by
Missives
.
Wherein
the
circumstances
of
time
,
and
severall
exigences
,
might
engadge
to
some
insinuations
in
point
of
a
civill
deference
,
and
respect
.
But
however
that
be
,
we
are
to
look
unto
intentio
and
natura
operis
in
his
writings
,
or
the
native
designe
thereof
,
rather
then
critically
to
scanne
or
straine
every
practical
conformity
or
disconformity
therunto
.
And
the
Informers
answer
to
what
we
offer
anent
the
assertions
of
Bishop
Mortoune
,
Bilson
,
Iewel
,
who
write
for
the
parity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyters
by
divine
right
viz
,
[
That
they
held
the
Episcopall
office
themselves
]
charging
them
thus
with
a
practical
breach
of
their
principles
,
most
make
him
retract
this
argument
,
as
signifing
any
thing
against
us
,
Since
the
retortion
thereof
is
so
manifest
;
and
therefore
nothing
he
hath
said
will
impeach
Calvine
and
Beza's
impugning
of
Episcopacy
,
whose
impugnations
of
it
will
stand
to
all
generations
.
Moreover
in
this
citation
of
that
epist.
to
Bishop
Grindal
,
the
Informer
hath
sued
off
the
half
of
the
sentence
viz
,
quod
tu
igitur
coram
istam
quorundam
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
tamdiu
pertulisti
reverende
vir
,
ineo
sane
insigne
patientiae
ac
lenitatis
Christianae
specimen
dedisti
,
quo
majori
&c.
—
and
neer
the
close
of
the
same
letter
Beza
faithfully
adviseth
,
as
the
fittest
remedy
for
removing
offences
,
ut
in
legitimo
—
caetu
,
ex
uno
Dei
verbo
,
abolitis
semel
papisticae
tyrannidis
vestigiis
,
ea
constituatur
administrandae
Ecclesiae
ratio
,
non
quae
huic
vel
illi
adlubescat
,
non
quae
veteri
aut
recenti
consuetudine
(
—
)
sed
quae
—
firmo
verbi
Dei
fundamento
superstructae
piorum
Conscientiis
fatisfaciat
,
&
in
eternum
perseveret
;
that
is
,
that
in
a
lawfull
A
ssembly
from
the
Word
of
God
onely
,
all
the
footsteps
of
popish
Tyranny
being
once
abolished
,
that
Method
of
Church
Government
be
established
,
not
which
shall
please
this
or
that
person
,
not
which
is
founded
upon
new
or
old
Custom
or
the
wisdom
of
the
flesh
,
but
which
being
built
upon
the
sure
foundation
of
the
word
of
God
,
may
satisfie
the
consciences
of
the
godly
,
and
endure
for
ever
.
Which
rule
and
mould
of
Bishops
would
no
doubt
cashier
and
raze
to
the
foundation
the
diocesian
Erastian
prelate
whom
he
pleades
for
,
yea
all
the
Prelates
in
Brittain
.
For
what
he
adds
(
p.
87.
)
It
may
be
easily
,
and
without
prejudice
to
our
cause
granted
,
that
God
by
his
providence
had
made
him
a
Iudge
.
The
Informer
will
not
owne
such
ane
Atheisticall
principle
,
as
to
deny
that
the
Bishops
civil
government
in
England
,
or
pretended
Ecclesiastick
,
is
not
the
object
of
divine
providence
,
or
be
so
brutish
as
to
conclude
Gods
approbation
of
usurping
Tyrannes
,
from
his
permissive
providence
in
reference
to
their
tyranny
or
usurpation
,
else
he
will
for
ever
destroy
his
loyalty
and
fealty
,
either
to
the
King
or
his
Lordbishop
.
That
passage
of
Calvins
letter
to
Cardinal
Sadolet
,
after
citedby
him
(
p.
88.
)
though
admitted
,
is
a
poor
proof
that
he
held
Church
Government
to
be
alterable
.
Certainly
Calvin
held
the
scripture
-
parity
to
be
the
most
ancient
Government
Vetustissimae
Ecclesiae
,
or
of
the
most
ancient
Church
,
for
such
no
doubt
he
held
the
Apostolick
Church
to
be
.
Beside
,
wee
must
tell
him
that
this
passage
upon
search
is
not
found
,
and
as
it
is
here
expressed
is
very
insignificant
;
since
by
Vetus
Ecclesia
,
he
may
understand
the
Church
after
the
Apostles
time
,
which
early
began
to
Corrupt
the
Government
.
As
for
Salmasius
his
retracting
his
opinion
as
to
Church
Government
,
it
will
no
more
Impeach
the
truth
it self
which
he
asserts
,
then
any
other
mans
defection
will
weaken
the
sound
Doctrine
which
he
once
held
.
Would
the
Informer
take
this
argument
from
the
Papists
if
they
should
plead
from
the
retractiones
of
protestants
,
and
from
their
writing
for
popery
,
that
the
protestant
Doctrine
were
not
sound
?
would
he
not
say
that
their
first
practise
,
or
writings
for
truth
,
will
stand
good
and
witnesse
against
them
in
their
defection
?
Though
it
may
be
a
question
whither
that
retraction
be
reall
or
not
which
Durel
mentions
,
and
the
Informer
out
of
him
.
(
p.
89.
)
Especially
this
being
another
of
our
Informers
mute
citations
which
he
keeps
(
as
he
doth
the
state
of
the
questions
in
these
Dialogues
)
under
the
Clouds
,
pointing
us
to
no
page
in
that
Answer
of
Salmasius
to
Milton
.
We
will
not
here
stand
to
shew
how
that
Salmasius
eyes
were
blinded
with
Court-gifts
and
pensions
,
having
receaved
no
small
summe
from
King
Charles
the
second
for
his
encouragement
to
that
worke
,
and
several
learned
divines
who
best
knew
him
,
think
his
literature
more
Considerable
then
his
divinity
was
solid
.
As
for
that
place
of
Salmasius
in
his
Walo
.
Mess.
(
c.
4.
p.
253.
)
cited
page
90.
the
Intire
sentence
is
Epistolae
illae
viz
;
(
quae
Ignatii
dicuntur
)
natae
&
suppositae
videntur
circa
initium
aut
▪
medium
secundi
saeculi
,
quo
tempore
primus
singularis
Episcopatus
supra
Presbyteratum
Introductus
fuit
.
Whatever
time
this
was
,
it
appears
by
what
followes
that
place
in
Salmasius
,
that
about
this
time
Church
power
began
exceedingly
to
be
Corrupted
,
and
Bishops
exalted
almost
to
ane
equality
with
Christ
;
and
men
began
to
plead
a
jus
divinum
for
them
;
for
Ignatius
,
(
In
Epistola
ad
Trallenses
)
asserts
,
Episcopum
venerandum
esse
sicut
Christum
quemadmodum
Apostoli
praeceperunt
,
that
the
Bishops
must
be
had
in
veneration
as
Christ
,
as
the
Apostles
have
commanded
,
and
he
cites
the
Apostles
words
,
but
such
as
do
no
where
occurr
in
our
Bibles
.
And
certanly
if
there
be
no
more
truth
in
that
relation
anent
his
retraction
,
mentioned
by
that
author
,
then
their
is
soliditie
in
that
ground
of
it
which
he
alledges
,
it
is
not
worth
the
noticing
.
For
the
confusions
in
England
cannot
with
any
shew
of
Reason
be
charged
upon
Presbyteriall
Government
,
which
was
never
yet
settled
there
.
And
this
Informer
dare
not
deny
the
blest
effects
of
truth
and
unity
&
godlines
,
which
it
hath
had
in
this
land
,
as
is
acknowledged
by
Churches
abroad
,
and
particularly
in
that
passage
of
the
Syntagma
confessionum
which
he
cites
in
the
last
dialogue
,
If
Blondel
in
callng
Episcopacy
most
ancient
,
doth
except
the
more
ancient
Apostolick
times
,
which
he
pleads
as
exemplifying
Presbyterian
parity
,
he
gives
it
but
the
spurious
after-birth
of
humane
antiquity
.
The
same
we
say
as
to
his
passage
cited
out
of
Moulin
(
p.
90.
)
and
if
something
of
the
[
humane
proestos
]
were
granted
to
have
creeped
in
ere
Iohn
went
oft
the
stage
,
will
that
commend
it
any
more
then
that
mistery
of
Iniquity
,
and
love
of
preeminence
which
the
Scripture
assures
us
was
in
Paules
time
and
his
?
Surely
by
no
meanes
.
Besides
,
we
must
here
again
tell
our
Informer
that
this
Citation
out
of
Moulen
is
among
the
rest
of
his
Mutes
,
since
he
hath
neither
noted
booke
nor
page
.
But
now
from
our
opinion
of
the
unalterablenes
of
Presbyterian
government
,
and
our
acknowledgment
of
the
bringing
in
of
a
Proestos
so
early
,
the
Informer
will
involve
us
(
he
sayes
)
in
one
of
Two
great
absurdities
.
Parturiunt
montes
!
What
are
these
?
the
1.
is
[
That
that
generation
who
lived
shortly
after
Iohn
,
was
altogether
ignorant
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
minde
anent
Presbyterian
parity
,
else
they
would
not
have
adventured
to
change
the
government
]
But
this
absurdity
is
easily
discussed
,
for
it
lights
equally
upon
the
Instance
already
given
of
Israells
defection
in
worshipping
the
golden
Calf
fourtie
dayes
(
sooner
then
40.
years
or
more
)
after
the
holy
patterne
of
doctrine
shewed
them
upon
the
mount
.
How
often
doe
we
find
suddener
changes
in
scripture
of
the
divine
Institutions
?
How
quickly
after
Ioshua
and
the
elders
did
all
Israell
depart
from
Gods
way
and
ordinances
?
How
quickly
did
they
relapse
after
deliverances
,
both
in
the
times
of
the
Kings
and
of
the
judges
,
yea
and
after
solemne
vowes
of
Reformation
?
How
quickly
after
Hezekias
death
did
they
turne
aside
?
How
quickly
after
Josiahs
death
?
How
quickly
after
Solomons
death
did
Rehoboam
forsake
the
law
of
God
and
all
Israell
with
him
?
I
think
these
scripture
instances
of
as
universal
,
&
far
greater
defections
then
this
was
anent
the
proestos
,
might
have
made
this
man
ashamed
to
bring
this
as
ane
absurditie
.
Now
what
will
he
say
to
his
own
Question
here
?
I
▪
it
possible
,
is
it
probable
that
Gods
Israell
could
be
ignorant
of
his
minde
,
and
adventure
so
quickly
to
change
his
ordinances
?
Heard
not
all
the
Churche
of
Israel
Gods
voice
from
mount
Sinai
?
Had
not
these
departers
afterward
known
or
seen
his
eminent
seers
,
heard
his
word
and
seen
his
works
?
Could
they
be
altogether
ignorant
of
his
minde
who
thus
suddenly
departed
from
him
?
How
could
they
then
adventure
to
make
such
a
change
?
Alace
!
What
a
poor
querist
is
this
?
I
think
indeed
He
and
his
party
have
given
the
Instance
in
our
generation
,
that
such
a
sudden
defectione
is
both
possible
and
probable
.
Was
ever
a
nation
more
solemnlie
and
universallie
ingaged
unto
God
,
and
had
seen
more
of
his
greatnes
,
power
,
and
glorie
,
then
wee
did
in
the
late
worke
of
reformation
?
How
long
is
it
since
Scotland
not
onely
knew
and
imbraced
Presbyterian
Government
;
but
also
solemnlie
vowed
to
mantaine
it
?
But
he
knowes
how
universally
this
work
and
cause
of
God
is
now
rejected
,
his
Covenant
abjured
and
disowned
.
And
the
Informer
himself
(
who
for
what
I
know
,
might
have
seen
our
first
beautifull
house
)
is
pleading
for
this
perjurius
change
of
Gods
ordinances
and
lawes
,
and
breaking
his
everlasting
Covenant
.
Read
he
never
the
106.
Psal.
7.
vers
.
They
provocked
him
at
the
sea
even
the
red
sea
,
and
vers
11.
The
waters
covered
their
enemies
and
there
was
not
one
of
them
left
—
Then
believed
they
his
words
,
they
sang
his
praise
,
they
soon
frogat
his
works
,
they
waited
not
fr
his
counsell
.
The
Informer
bluntly
supposes
ane
impossibility
of
a
peoples
crossing
light
in
apostazing
changes
,
and
that
all
that
generation
most
needs
give
a
formall
consent
to
this
change
of
government
in
order
to
its
introduction
;
both
which
are
groundless
suppositions
,
and
they
render
this
horne
of
his
Dilemma
very
pointlesse
.
Besides
,
this
change
(
as
we
said
before
)
was
but
small
at
the
first
,
onelie
a
fixed
Moderator
,
and
far
from
his
Prelacy
,
which
even
in
Ieroms
time
was
but
come
the
length
of
taking
from
Presbyters
ordination
,
or
rather
the
rituall
part
of
it
.
And
the
change
had
plausible
pretexts
of
order
,
and
union
,
as
every
innovation
hath
its
own
pretences
,
besides
that
this
change
was
not
all
at
once
but
by
degrees
.
Wee
must
also
here
tell
him
,
that
the
same
very
suggestion
is
his
3d.
Reason
to
prove
Ieroms
bringing
in
Bishops
in
the
Apostles
time
,
and
so
a
nauseating
repitition
.
But
if
we
decline
this
absurdity
,
the
next
he
thinks
is
worse
viz
,
That
that
generation
went
over
the
belly
of
light
in
changing
the
Government
,
and
conspired
against
Christ
and
his
Apostles
Government
,
and
none
are
found
testifying
against
it
.
Answer
1.
This
absurdity
doth
like
wayes
fall
upon
the
former
Scripture
instances
of
greater
,
and
more
sudden
,
and
as
universal
defections
of
the
Church
of
Israel
.
What
will
he
say
to
these
questions
in
relation
thereunto
?
Were
all
ignorant
?
Did
all
sin
against
light
,
and
adventure
presumptuously
to
change
the
divine
ordinances
?
And
as
for
a
Testimony
against
these
evills
,
the
Informer
himself
and
his
party
(
for
all
their
clamoures
against
us
)
falls
under
ane
obligation
to
answer
this
,
in
relation
to
many
corruptions
and
erroures
,
which
as
early
creept
into
the
Church
as
Prelacy
;
Wherof
we
gave
Instances
already
,
and
no
Testimonies
are
recorded
against
them
.
He
seems
to
have
forgot
,
or
to
be
ignorant
of
our
divines
answer
to
this
argument
of
Papists
,
calling
for
our
producing
of
Testimonies
against
such
and
such
evills
,
or
dating
their
first
rise
,
viz.
That
there
might
be
,
tho
we
have
not
known
them
,
and
that
it
is
bad
arguing
from
the
defect
of
the
History
,
or
the
darknes
of
the
first
original
of
such
a
corruption
,
to
deny
the
plaine
mater
of
fact
,
and
the
corruption
itself
to
be
such
.
How
many
Thousand
eminent
persons
and
acts
of
these
times
(
which
we
told
him
,
the
learned
doe
acknowledge
,
to
be
very
dark
as
to
matter
of
fact
)
have
never
come
to
our
knowledge
?
And
since
we
have
often
told
him
from
Ierom
that
this
change
was
lent
,
and
by
considerable
degrees
,
and
intervalles
of
time
,
and
Method
of
its
procedor
,
some
might
be
overtaken
with
weaknes
,
others
puffed
up
with
ambition
,
and
upon
this
ground
the
one
might
endeavour
,
&
the
other
give
way
to
this
change
,
especially
its
first
degrees
being
small
in
respect
of
what
followed
.
Knowes
not
this
man
,
that
the
evill
one
sowes
his
tares
while
men
sleep
?
And
this
hierarchie
being
as
in
its
nature
,
so
in
its
rise
,
a
Mystery
;
Mystery
of
Iniquity
!
Mystery
Babylon
!
Yea
and
a
Mystery
which
was
working
long
before
this
change
,
even
in
Pauls
time
;
upon
all
these
grounds
his
absurdity
evanishes
,
and
reflects
a
greater
absurdity
upon
himself
,
who
would
have
us
shut
our
eyes
against
Scripture
light
upon
such
pretences
as
these
,
&
rather
embrace
2
corruption
contrary
unto
it
,
then
acknowledge
that
the
Church
did
erre
.
We
know
very
well
what
a
wicket
this
notion
hath
opened
for
obtruding
and
retaining
popish
innovations
,
and
these
men
are
fast
warping
in
to
that
Method
.
As
for
that
which
he
adds
of
Blondel
(
p.
94
)
who
asserts
that
the
Presbyters
made
him
proestos
,
or
fixed
Moderator
,
who
was
first
ordained
.
Wee
told
him
already
that
this
fixed
president
,
tho
a
deviation
from
the
Scripture
rule
,
yet
is
farre
from
the
diocesian
Prelats
sole
power
in
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
,
So
that
his
confidence
(
some
will
be
apt
to
say
impudence
)
is
strange
in
calling
this
a
power
episcopall
now
existent
,
since
notwithstanding
all
its
after
growth
,
it
was
not
in
Ieromes
time
come
the
length
of
our
present
Hierachical
power
of
Prelats
,
by
many
dayes
journey
.
Neither
is
it
probable
that
Blondel
could
suppose
this
to
be
allowed
of
John
,
which
he
holds
to
be
crosse
to
the
divine
pattern
.
As
for
Blond
(
Apol:
pag:
25.
)
the
Informer
hath
been
mistaken
in
this
citation
,
no
such
words
being
found
in
that
place
.
But
in
page
52.
after
that
he
hath
abundantly
proven
this
(
thesis
)
initio
Presbyter
&
Episcopus
synonyma
fuerunt
,
[
that
in
the
beginning
Bishop
and
Presbyter
were
one
and
the
same
.
]
he
begins
the
next
sect
.
thus
.
Ubicumque
Primum
nascente
Chistianismo
Presbyterorum
aggregari
Collegium
caepit
,
Antiquissimum
(
rectius
Antiquissimo
)
inter
Collegas
Primatus
Contigit
ut
concessus
totius
Caput
,
fratrumque
tandem
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
jure
quodam
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fieret
.
Which
onely
a
mounts
to
thus
much
,
that
first
a
moderator
,
among
ministers
being
established
,
grew
by
peecmeal
to
a
fixed
prostasie
and
after
he
hath
Confirmed
this
,
he
addes
in
the
next
sect
:
Cum
itaque
Collegium
id
est
ordinatus
ratione
utentium
caetus
fine
ordine
nec
institui
,
nec
Conservari
,
nec
agere
,
nec
agi
,
(
amplius
dicam
)
nec
cogitari
potest
;
aequabilis
inter
ejusdem
muneris
Consortes
,
ac
sese
honore
mutuo
praevenientes
sanctos
paritas
,
divina
propemodum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&
commune
Consilium
,
in
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
aut
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
nequaquam
degenerabant
:
stabant
enim
aequo
(
in
eodem
gradu
&
ordine
)
jure
omnes
sed
suo
quisque
loco
;
erantque
in
familiâ
quaque
Ecclesiasticâ
,
post
primo
genitum
secundo
,
tertio
&c.
Geniti
,
qui
majorem
natufratrem
(
secundum
Patrem
caelestem
)
colebant
,
eique
nec
ambienti
nec
poscenti
(
invidioso
nunc
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
In
singulis
communis
regiminis
actibus
jure
volentes
cedebant
,
acprimas
ubique
partes
deferebant
;
ut
si
quando
novus
Cooptandus
esset
Collega
,
Cleri
totius
jam
consistentis
plebisque
Consentientibus
suffragiis
&
judicio
Comprobatis
,
(
N.
B.
)
totius
Presbyterii
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
praeunte
tamen
ac
reliquorum
nomine
solemnia
benedictionum
verba
pronunciante
promotione
antiquissimo
)
in
possessionem
muneris
mitteretur
,
priorum
per
Consecrationem
quoddamodo
filius
factus
,
qui
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ratione
aequo
cum
aliis
omnibus
jure
(
licet
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
frater
erat
,
ubi
vero
quaestionis
in
Ecclesiae
regimine
quicquam
emergeret
,
consultantium
in
commune
fratrum
disceptationibus
(
quasi
naturae
jure
favore
omnium
firmato
,
)
praeesset
Senior
;
non
gradu
alio
major
(
N.
B.
)
non
nativa
gradus
communis
potestate
potior
,
sed
adventitiâ
ob
aetatis
meritum
delegata
,
superior
.
Which
is
this
in
summ
[
that
though
the
colledg
of
the
ordained
were
all
alike
as
to
their
official
power
,
yet
least
their
joynt
councel
should
fall
under
anarchical
confusion
,
the
first
ordained
minister
(
although
of
the
same
degree
&
juridical
power
with
his
colleagues
)
had
a
sort
of
veneration
and
precendency
as
to
some
acts
,
but
stille
in
their
name
,
&
by
their
consent
who
were
his
brethren
.
Which
will
reach
a
patrociny
to
the
diocesian
Erastian
Prelat
,
with
his
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
his
negative
voice
in
Church
judicatories
,
and
his
delegation
of
Ecclesiastick
power
to
the
whole
synod
,
his
civil
state
office
&c.
When
east
and
west
shal
meet
together
.
Then
he
addes
.
Hanc
originalem
Ecclesiasticae
politiae
formam
sub
Apostolorum
oculis
natam
,
non
immerito
putavit
Hilarius
,
quid
enim
pietati
,
naturae
rationibusque
dictamini
consonum
magis
,
quam
ut
priorum
canitiem
reverenter
habeant
aetate
posteriores
?
fac
tamen
Apostolis
non
modo
nonimprobantibus
,
sed
palam
laudantibus
ortam
;
ego
sane
libere
ab
initio
observatam
Christianisque
sive
ab
Apostolis
sive
ab
eorum
discipulis
traditam
,
sed
ut
mutabilem
&
pro
usu
&
arbitrio
Ecclesiae
mutandam
(
prout
in
causa
consimili
piae
memoriae
Crakanthorpus
sensit
)
crediderim
.
In
which
passage
he
pleades
onely
for
this
fixed
moderatour
,
and
doth
not
positivly
assert
the
Apostolik
institution
for
it
,
but
comes
neer
Bezaes
expressiones
in
reference
to
the
[
Episcopus
humanus
.
]
As
for
Blondels
confessing
this
primus
Presbyter
to
have
had
authority
with
his
precedency
,
as
the
Informer
is
bold
to
assert
,
he
had
done
well
to
point
us
to
the
place
where
these
wordes
are
found
[
quis
enim
praesidentiamsine
authoritate
somniet
?
]
for
upon
search
they
are
not
found
;
but
it
seems
the
Informer
puts
this
sense
upon
his
words
which
follow
these
cited
above
ac
forte
consistorialium
omnium
qui
Pastorum
Ecclesias
quasque
in
commune
regentium
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
urgent
,
calculos
evertit
,
quod
ab
ipsa
Apostolorum
aetate
collegii
cujusque
Presbyterialis
singulare
quoddam
caput
fuit
.
Qui
vero
?
an
nostrum
ullus
synedrium
sibi
(
N.
B.
)
vel
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
vel
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
hactenus
somniavit
?
an
non
eodem
inter
nos
jure
modoque
,
vel
per
vices
,
pares
inter
compares
,
vel
delegata
a
paribus
ad
tempus
potestate
praesunt
,
quo
inter
christianismi
primordia
ae●…o
honoris
inter
conseniores
primas
fuit
?
Where
he
denyes
that
this
singular
head
of
the
consistory
,
or
moderator
his
power
did
justle
with
,
or
evert
the
common
votes
or
Episcopacy
of
the
Pastoures
,
and
consequently
their
joynt
Presbyterial
government
,
because
the
consistory
or
meeting
could
neither
be
without
a
head
,
(
or
mouth
)
nor
have
many
heads
,
which
he
assimilates
to
the
then
power
of
their
moderators
,
chosen
from
among
his
equals
and
co-presbyters
,
either
by
turns
,
or
a
delegated
power
of
presidency
for
some
time
.
The
Informers
citation
of
Chamier
(
p.
35.
)
[
acknowledging
from
the
beginning
a
[
primus
Presbyter
]
with
a
[
nova
potestas
and
jurisdictio
]
ne
esset
Episcopatus
mere
titulus
:
Or
a
first
Presbyter
,
with
a
new
power
and
jurisdiction
&c.
]
Burns
his
fingers
,
and
rebounds
a
deadly
blow
upon
himself
;
for
in
calling
this
jurisdiction
and
power
,
Nova
or
new
,
he
makes
it
later
then
the
first
scripture
patent
anent
that
Presbyters
Authority
,
which
was
the
same
with
that
of
his
Brethren
before
this
humane
supperadded
power
.
And
consequently
he
must
look
upon
him
onely
as
Beza's
humane
Bishop
,
supposing
ane
anterior
divine
Bishop
which
is
the
Pastour
or
Minister
.
And
here
again
the
Informer
puts
us
to
tell
him
that
this
his
citation
of
Chamier
attributinge
a
new
jurisdiction
from
the
beginning
to
the
primus
Presbyter
,
or
first
Minister
,
is
so
general
,
without
pointing
at
either
book
or
page
,
that
it
seemes
he
resolved
that
in
this
(
as
in
other
passages
)
none
should
trace
him
,
to
know
whither
he
cited
true
or
false
.
However
the
place
he
means
is
,
lib.
10.
de
oecum
.
pont.
c.
5.
Where
Chamier
grants
primum
Presbyterum
accepisse
novam
potestatem
,
that
the
first
Presbyter
receaved
a
new
power
.
But
that
it
was
so
from
the
beginning
,
is
our
Informers
incrusted
eekement
,
which
(
as
in
another
passage
of
Blondell
)
we
must
suppose
his
lyncian
eyes
discovered
in
some
written
copy
of
Chamier
,
which
the
printer
was
so
uncivil
as
not
to
put
in
,
because
this
our
great
doubt-resolver
was
not
overseer
at
the
presse
.
Any
who
looketh
upon
that
chapter
may
discover
that
Chamiers
scope
is
to
prove
that
ab
initio
regimen
Ecclesiae
fuit
Aristocraticum
,
that
from
the
beginning
the
Church
government
was
Aristocracy
,
and
that
the
disparity
which
after
came
in
use
,
was
ane
innovation
.
As
for
what
he
adds
of
Moulin
,
(
pag.
76.
)
If
he
hold
[
The
Episcopall
power
in
ordination
to
be
among
these
things
,
which
,
though
in
the
Apostles
time
,
yet
were
alterable
]
He
may
be
probably
supposed
to
include
it
among
the
Apostles
extraordinary
expired
prerogatives
,
which
this
man
must
acknowledge
will
lay
no
foundation
for
prelacy
.
As
for
Stillingfleet
,
we
are
not
concerned
in
his
principles
,
or
any
debat
betuixt
him
&
them
.
For
that
which
he
calls
ane
evasion
[
Anent
the
alteration
of
some
things
in
the
Apostolick
Church
]
As
wee
disowne
Stillingfleet
,
in
making
the
frame
of
government
which
the
Apostles
established
in
the
Church
,
versatile
,
various
or
alterable
.
So
we
disowne
this
Informer
in
resolving
it
solely
upon
the
Churches
decision
,
[
what
Apostolick
practises
are
imitable
or
morall
,
and
what
not
.
]
A
dangerous
popish
principle
,
and
wherein
he
will
be
found
inconsistent
with
himself
.
But
for
the
apostolick
government
by
the
Common
Concell
of
Presbyters
,
wee
hold
it
morall
and
perpetual
,
upon
the
same
grounds
of
the
Churches
union
and
edification
which
himself
doth
plead
.
As
for
the
shifts
and
bad
issues
which
he
alleadges
Presbyterian
writters
are
driven
unto
,
Neither
he
nor
any
of
his
party
can
make
it
appear
,
but
his
own
pitifull
shifts
,
and
of
others
of
his
way
,
in
pleading
for
this
Hierarchy
,
wee
hope
by
this
time
are
sufficiently
apparent
.
As
for
Durells
offer
[
To
get
Episcopacy
ane
approbation
from
all
forraigne
divines
]
we
lett
it
pass
as
a
peice
of
prelatick
pageantry
fitt
to
fill
pamphlets
.
Ad
pompam
non
ad
pugnam
—
quid
tanto
tulit
hic
promissor
hiatu
.
Durel
and
the
Informer
cannot
stand
befor
their
evidences
,
who
have
made
the
Contrary
appear
.
For
what
he
adds
anent
our
Superintendents
,
as
haveing
upon
the
matter
ane
Episcopal
power
,
I
referr
him
to
the
defence
of
the
Epistle
of
Philadelphus
against
Spotswoods
Calumnies
,
printed
at
the
end
of
Didoclavius
page
.
30
,
31.
Where
he
will
find
the
difference
betuixt
them
and
Prelats
cleared
and
stated
in
12.
Particulars
to
his
Conviction
,
unless
he
hath
resolved
—
Ne
si
persuaseris
,
persuaderis
.
So
that
worthy
Mr.
Knox
gave
no
patrocinie
to
prelacy
in
Countenancing
the
admission
of
Superintendents
.
How
he
hath
deryved
his
Prelacie
from
Scripture
,
and
through
antiquitie
to
reformed
times
,
&
Churches
,
in
their
confessions
,
Let
the
impartial
judge
by
what
I
have
answered
from
the
beginning
.
As
for
the
Authors
of
jus
divinum
Minist:
Anglic
:
[
Their
proof
of
the
identitie
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
at
length
cleared
from
Fathers
,
Schoolemen
,
&
reformed
divines
,
even
from
Episcopall
divines
in
England
]
the
Informer
had
done
better
not
to
mention
that
peice
,
then
to
have
made
such
a
simple
&
insipid
returne
,
[
Anent
the
Scoolmens
notione
,
whither
Episcopacy
be
a
different
order
from
Presbytery
,
or
a
different
degree
of
the
same
order
]
for
though
this
were
granted
that
the
scoole-men
tost
such
a
question
,
dare
he
say
that
the
Ancient
Fathers
both
greek
and
latine
,
and
late
reformed
divines
cited
in
that
learned
peice
,
in
their
clear
and
positive
assertions
of
the
parity
of
Bishop
&
Presbyter
jure
divino
,
intertained
any
such
notion
as
this
?
Againe
,
had
he
been
so
ingenuus
and
true
to
the
learned
authores
of
that
peice
,
and
unto
himself
,
●…s
he
ought
to
have
been
,
he
might
have
found
cited
therein
a
passage
of
Cassander
in
his
book
of
Consul●…
.
(
Artic.
14
)
Which
breaks
this
his
answer
all
in
peices
,
and
because
his
squeemish
eyes
lookt
asquint
upon
it
,
I
shall
here
sett
it
downe
,
that
it
may
appear
what
a
great
charge
this
is
which
he
brings
against
these
divines
.
An
Episcopa●…us
inter
ordines
ecclesiasticos
ponendus
sit
,
inter
theologos
&
canoni●…as
non
convenit
;
convenit
autem
inter
ownes
in
Apostolorum
aetate
inter
episcopos
&
presbyteros
nullum
discrimen
fuisse
,
sed
post
modum
schismatis
evitandi
causa
episcopum
Presbyteris
fuisse
praepositum
&c
:
That
is
,
Whither
Episcopacy
is
to
be
placed
among
the
Ecclesiastick
orders
,
It
is
not
agreed
between
the
Theologues
&
Canonists
,
but
it
is
agreed
among
all
,
that
in
the
Apostles
age
there
was
no
difference
between
Bishops
&
Presbyters
,
but
afterward
upon
the
ground
of
eviting
Schisme
,
the
Bishop
was
set
ever
Presbyters
,
&c.
Now
whither
these
disputants
did
agree
That
alwayes
from
the
Apostles
time
,
there
were
Bishops
distinct
from
Presbyters
,
as
this
Informer
is
not
ashamed
to
affirme
.
Let
the
greatest
adversarie
judge
by
this
account
of
such
ane
impartiall
witnes
.
How
could
he
say
,
that
these
Fathers
might
be
of
this
mind
,
and
likwayes
these
later
divines
,
that
alwayes
from
the
Apostles
there
were
Bishops
set
over
Presbyters
.
What
a
selfcontradicting
tenet
is
this
for
any
rationall
man
to
intertaine
?
viz
,
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
re
&
nomine
,
in
name
and
thing
,
the
same
in
the
Apostles
times
,
and
in
their
doctrine
:
and
yet
[
that
Bishops
were
set
over
Presbyters
by
the
Apostles
,
and
distinct
from
them
in
their
times
.
]
What
will
he
make
of
all
Ierome
Scripture
proofes
through
the
Apostles
times
,
and
writings
,
anent
this
compleat
parity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
?
of
the
saying
of
Ambrose
[
That
,
Non
per
omnia
conveniunt
seripta
Apostolorum
ordinationi
quae
nun●…
est
in
Ecclesia
.
The
writtings
of
the
Apostles
agree●…
not
in
every
thing
with
the
ordinance
or
appointment
(
he
means
of
government
)
which
is
now
in
the
Church
.
]
What
will
he
make
of
Bishop
Iewel
telling
Harding
,
in
his
defence
against
him
?
[
That
in
calling
it
a
haerefie
to
affirme
Bishops
and
Presbyters
to
be
one
,
He
reflects
upon
Ierome
and
other
Fathers
whom
he
cites
against
him
,
yea
upon
the
Apostle
Paul
,
and
makes
him
also
a
Haeretick
]
What
will
he
make
of
that
assertion
of
Beza
,
Episcopus
papam
peperit
.
The
Bishop
brought
forth
the
Pope
.
Of
Whittaker
[
That
the
setting
up
the
Prelat
,
yea
the
first
proestos
or
president
to
prevent
Schisme
,
was
a
remedy
worse
then
the
disease
.
]
Now
if
he
will
reconcile
these
sayings
and
assertions
with
their
holding
Bishops
distinct
from
Presbyters
,
to
have
been
in
,
and
from
the
times
of
the
Apostles
,
he
will
prove
a
wonderfull
Oedipus
.
But
our
Informer
hath
not
yet
done
with
these
Authors
,
and
hath
another
reflection
upon
them
anent
what
they
say
page
64.
[
That
Eusebius
and
Iraeneus
were
deceaved
themselves
,
&
deceaved
others
]
he
tells
us
1.
[
They
are
hard
put
to
it
when
seeking
to
relieve
themselves
by
discrediting
these
authores
]
But
this
man
is
hard
put
to
it
,
if
he
deny
that
which
is
so
Noto●…ly
true
,
&
made
good
by
so
many
of
the
learned
.
Were
Iunius
and
Scalliger
(
who
are
approved
herein
by
Dr
Reynolds
)
hard
put
to
it
,
who
demonstrats
Eusebius
gross
errors
&
mistakes
.
2.
He
sayes
Though
in
some
things
Eusebius
was
mistaken
,
most
he
be
so
in
every
point
wherin
he
maks
Bishops
superior
to
Presbyters
,
&
drawes
their
succession
from
the
Apostles
.
Ans.
For
the
Catalogues
of
Bishops
from
the
Apostles
,
we
spoke
to
it
already
,
and
for
Eusebius
speaking
alwayes
in
that
straine
,
the
reverend
authors
of
that
peece
,
(
with
others
)
doe
tell
the
Informer
that
all
that
Eusebius
sayes
,
is
that
it
is
reported
—
that
his
learned
censurer
Scalliger
,
maks
it
appear
that
he
read
ancient
histories
parum
attente
,
(
not
attentivly
,
)
&
that
he
takes
his
measures
in
this
point
,
&
his
relations
upon
trust
,
from
Clemens
fabulus
,
&
Hegesippus
not
extant
.
3.
The
Informer
thinks
it
strange
[
that
they
can
suppose
Irenaeus
(
Iohns
contemporarie
and
disciple
)
to
be
deceaved
as
to
Church
government
.
]
Answer
.
Had
he
but
looked
upon
the
4.
proposition
of
their
appendix
,
he
might
have
seen
this
objection
fully
removed
.
For
therein
they
make
good
from
many
places
of
Irenaeus
(
which
were
tedious
here
to
transcribe
)
that
by
Bishops
he
understood
meer
Presbyters
,
and
not
Bishops
distinct
from
Presbyters
.
From
which
places
of
Irenaeus
they
collect
.
1.
That
he
calls
Presbyters
Successors
of
the
Apostles
.
2.
That
he
calls
them
Bishops
.
3.
That
he
holds
the
Apostolick
doctrine
to
be
derived
by
their
succession
.
4.
That
what
in
one
place
he
sayes
of
Bishops
,
the
same
he
sayes
elswhere
of
Presbyters
;
which
sense
and
account
of
him
they
back
with
pregnant
Testimonies
of
Dr.
Reynolds
,
&
Whittaker
,
&
other
learned
protestant
divines
,
and
lights
in
that
Church
.
And
in
proposition
7.
anent
the
pretended
Succession
of
Prelats
from
the
Apostolick
times
,
they
cleare
it
that
these
Successions
are
drawen
from
meer
Presbyters
,
viz
,
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
the
Minister
first
ordained
,
as
among
the
Athenians
their
were
9.
Archontes
or
Chief
Rulers
,
equall
in
Authority
:
yet
the
Succession
of
Governours
in
Athens
,
was
derived
from
one
of
them
who
was
the
first
Archo●…
,
ut
compendiosior
ac
minus
impedita
esset
temporum
enumeratio
,
that
the
Calculation
of
times
might
not
be
hindered
,
but
be
the
more
compendious
.
4.
He
sayes
it
is
more
likly
that
Ierom
was
deceaved
,
If
we
understand
him
to
speak
of
Bishops
who
were
introduced
after
the
Apostles
times
,
then
Eusebius
or
Irenaeus
who
lived
before
]
Ans.
That
Eusebius
was
deceaved
,
is
not
only
alleadged
,
but
proven
by
the
learned
,
and
Ierom
proving
so
clearlie
from
Scripture
the
identity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
both
in
name
and
thing
,
doth
convincing
lie
inferr
that
the
Bishops
set
over
Presbyters
,
are
discrepant
from
the
scripture
pattern
.
That
Irenaeus
by
Bishops
understood
these
first
Moderators
,
is
made
good
from
his
writings
.
Next
,
wheras
these
reverend
authores
(
pag.
114
,
115.
)
say
that
Irenaeus
by
Bishops
meaned
[
Presbyters
,
]
and
(
page
.
65.
)
That
the
Fathers
spoke
of
Church
officers
of
former
times
after
the
stile
of
their
owne
,
and
that
the
Bishops
in
the
Catalogues
are
onlie
the
first
ordained
Presbyters
,
for
the
more
expedit
reckoning
]
this
man
thinks
these
Answers
inconsistent
;
Because
1.
they
say
that
Eusebius
&
Irenaeus
were
deceaved
when
they
spoke
of
Bishops
,
And
Next
that
by
Bishops
,
Irenaeus
meaned
only
Presbyters
.
Ans.
Had
the
Informer
attended
better
the
places
he
points
at
,
he
would
have
keepd
off
this
fantastick
reflection
.
For
they
shew
that
these
first
Proestotes
or
Moderators
,
who
were
in
themselves
,
and
upon
the
Mater
,
meere
Presbyters
,
were
by
former
times
and
writers
presented
under
ane
Episcopal
notion
,
and
the
power
of
Bishops
then
prevalent
,
unto
Eusebius
and
Irenaeus
;
whom
Eusebius
especially
,
too
credulously
following
in
his
Character
and
accounts
of
them
,
occasioned
the
deceaving
of
others
,
and
that
he
and
Irenaeus
speaking
of
them
in
that
manner
and
stile
in
the
Catalogues
,
might
deceave
others
,
by
naming
them
so
,
who
were
upon
the
mater
meer
Presbyters
;
whom
the
succeeding
writers
following
(
as
they
shew
out
of
Iunius
.
Contr.
2.
Ch:
5.
not
:
18.
)
and
fancying
to
themselves
such
Bishops
as
then
had
obtained
,
fell
into
these
snares
of
tradition
,
because
they
supposed
that
according
to
the
Custome
of
their
times
,
there
could
be
but
one
Bishop
in
a
Church
at
the
same
time
.
And
to
cleare
it
,
that
the
persons
whom
Irenaeus
speaks
of
,
were
upon
the
mater
,
Presbyters
,
in
answer
to
that
objection
from
Irenaeus
(
lib:
3.
Cap:
3.
)
where
Bishops
are
named
as
set
up
by
the
Apostles
,
They
answer
that
the
word
Bishop
hath
a
various
acceptation
:
and
that
Irenaeus
names
Anicetus
,
Higinus
,
Pius
,
Presbyters
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
the
words
being
then
promiscuouslie
used
.
So
that
whatever
impression
Irenaeus
might
have
of
them
according
to
the
language
and
Custome
of
the
time
,
yet
upon
the
matter
they
were
Presbyters
only
:
and
therefore
they
put
the
Episcopall
partie
to
prove
that
those
whom
they
named
Bishops
,
were
veri
nominis
Episcopi
,
or
Hierarchicall
Bishops
.
They
doe
not
speak
so
much
of
the
Impression
which
Irenaeus
or
Eusebius
had
of
them
,
as
of
the
true
nature
and
State
of
these
Church-officers
,
whom
according
to
the
Custome
of
their
times
they
call
Bishops
.
By
Irenaeus
his
calling
them
sometimes
Presbyters
,
according
to
the
promiscuous
use
of
the
names
,
even
handed
down
to
him
,
they
prove
that
his
expressing
them
under
ane
Episcopall
notion
then
receaved
,
or
any
such
impression
of
them
which
he
might
entertaine
,
was
wrong
:
since
according
to
the
scripture
language
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
imports
no
other
office
then
a
Pastour
.
What
inconsistency
will
our
Informer
shew
in
this
,
that
Irenaeus
and
others
were
deceaved
in
representing
the
first
Proestotes
under
ane
Episcopall
notion
,
upon
a
Credulous
report
from
their
forefathers
:
and
yet
that
the
persons
whom
they
thus
represented
were
upon
the
mater
Presbyters
.
As
for
what
he
adds
(
p.
102
,
)
[
from
Bucer
(
de
animarum
cura
)
anent
a
Proestos
,
or
the
Election
and
ordination
of
one
who
went
before
the
rest
,
and
had
the
Episcopal
Ministerie
in
the
Chief
degree
,
even
in
the
times
of
the
Apostles
,
by
the
Testimony
of
Tertullian
,
Cyprian
,
Irenaeus
,
Eusebius
,
ancienter
then
Ierom
.
]
Wee
say
that
any
who
knowes
Bucers
judgment
in
Church
government
,
and
are
acquaint
with
his
writings
theranent
,
will
acknowledge
that
the
Proestos
is
the
utmost
length
he
goes
as
to
Episcopacy
;
and
a
Proestos
during
life
,
hath
no
doubt
something
of
ane
Episcopal
Ministerie
,
and
is
above
his
Brethren
:
and
we
are
to
expone
his
summus
gradus
,
or
Chief
degree
,
by
the
word
praecipue
or
Chiefly
,
that
goes
before
.
Who
will
doubt
but
the
constant
fixed
Proestos
is
in
so
farr
set
over
the
rest
?
But
here
we
must
minde
the
Informer
of
Two
things
.
1.
That
this
Proestos
chosen
by
the
Presbytery
,
is
(
as
we
said
)
farr
short
of
the
Diocesian
Prelat
who
owns
no
Presbyters
in
his
election
,
&
hath
ane
arbitrary
power
over
them
.
2.
That
it
being
thus
defacto
,
is
farr
from
amounting
to
a
proof
of
the
jus
,
and
who
will
say
that
Bucer
could
take
the
Apostle
James
to
be
formalie
Bishop
of
Ierusalem
,
or
chosen
to
be
a
fixed
Moderator
by
Presbyters
,
whose
Apostolick
office
both
Bucer
and
the
Informer
will
acknowledge
to
have
reached
the
whole
world
,
in
relation
to
the
watering
&
planting
of
Churches
.
Next
,
if
these
words
will
plead
for
a
Hierarchie
,
even
in
the
Apostles
times
,
and
that
Bucer
took
upon
the
Testimonie
of
Tertullian
,
Irenaeus
&c
,
the
Apostle
James
and
others
for
Hierarchicall
Bishops
,
surely
he
was
oblidged
to
have
taken
notice
of
Ieroms
proofs
for
the
parity
of
Bishops
&
Presbyters
in
the
Apostles
times
;
which
since
he
doth
not
,
it
s
most
probable
that
he
means
to
assert
the
factum
only
,
of
exalting
Presbyters
to
such
a
degree
at
that
time
,
but
not
the
jus
as
is
said
:
else
I
see
no
consistencie
in
the
words
if
he
reckon
the
Apostle
James
in
this
account
.
For
he
sayes
Apostolorum
temporibus
unus
ex
Presbyteris
electus
.
That
in
the
Apostles
times
one
was
chosen
from
among
the
Presbyters
.
Now
surely
the
Apostle
James
was
not
of
the
Presbyters
meerly
,
or
chosen
from
among
them
;
But
to
undeceave
our
Informer
as
to
Bucers
judgment
in
this
point
,
and
to
fortify
the
answer
adduced
,
I
shall
present
unto
him
that
which
Bucer
asserts
(
De
Gub
:
Eccles
:
p
:
432.
)
viz
,
That
the
Fathers
call
these
first
Proestotes
or
Moderators
,
yea
even
the
Apostles
themselves
,
Bishops
(
N.
B.
)
[
in
a
large
&
generall
appellation
]
Becaus
they
first
preached
the
gospell
to
those
Churches
,
and
that
to
prove
a
succession
of
the
true
doctrine
,
they
named
the
most
eminent
Ministers
the
Bishops
,
to
shew
that
there
was
in
these
Churches
a
Constant
tract
from
the
Apostles
both
of
sound
doctrine
,
&
faithfull
teachers
thereof
;
Eminent
,
I
say
,
for
gifts
,
and
zeale
,
or
suffering
for
the
gospell
(
N.
B.
)
not
in
any
Episcopall
authoritie
except
what
was
in
that
prostasie
often
mentioned
.
Now
whither
Bucer
was
for
ane
Episcopacy
in
the
highest
degree
even
in
the
Apostles
time
,
and
the
Episcopacy
of
Iames
,
Let
any
judge
.
And
whither
or
not
this
Informer
hath
acquitt
prelacie
of
being
both
a
groundlesse
,
and
godlesse
usurpation
in
Gods
Church
(
as
his
now
prosyleted
Doubter
sayes
he
was
taught
to
call
it
)
the
appeal
is
likwayes
made
to
the
judicious
and
impartiall
,
to
judge
from
what
is
offered
from
the
begining
hereanent
.
CHAP.
XV.
Mr
Durhams
citations
of
the
Fathers
for
evincing
the
identity
of
Angel
,
Bishop
,
and
Presbyter
,
vindicat
from
the
exceptions
of
this
Informer
.
Mr
Durhame
in
his
excellent
commentary
upon
the
revelation
(
pag.
223.
)
having
gone
throw
the
Epistles
,
and
embraced
the
sylleptick
sense
and
acceptation
of
the
word
,
Angel
,
presents
in
a
digression
several
weighty
and
unanswerable
arguments
,
both
from
these
Epistles
,
and
parallel
texts
,
to
prove
the
identity
of
angel
,
Bishop
,
and
Presbyter
.
Which
this
Informer
passes
over
sicco
pede
,
finding
them
no
doubt
pills
of
too
hard
a
digestion
for
his
stomack
.
But
Mr.
Durham
adding
to
his
scriptureproofes
of
this
important
truth
,
Several
clear
testimonys
of
most
eminent
Ancient
fathers
,
asserting
the
very
same
thing
,
then
Seria
res
agitur
with
our
Informer
,
and
he
bestirrs
himself
amain
to
take
these
weapons
out
of
Mr
Durhams
hand
,
offering
several
exceptions
against
his
testimonys
,
which
(
in
vindication
of
the
memory
of
so
great
a
Seer
from
this
pampleters
imputations
,
and
for
the
more
full
confirmation
of
this
truth
)
we
shal
now
examine
and
repell
.
Mr
Durhame
sayes
That
not
only
Ierome
,
but
likewise
others
of
the
Ancients
,
such
as
Augustin
,
Ambrose
,
Chrysostom
,
were
of
Aerius
minde
hereanent
.
To
this
he
answers
[
That
Mr
Durhame
brings
this
as
Medina's
assertion
,
as
he
is
cited
by
Bellarmin
.
But
knowes
he
not
that
Medina
is
cited
for
this
by
many
others
,
as
Dr
Reynolds
particularly
.
And
likewise
why
would
he
not
examine
these
Ancients
cited
by
Medina
,
and
examine
what
truth
is
in
his
citations
,
if
he
intended
to
repell
this
Testimony
.
Well
,
but
what
sayes
our
Informer
to
these
Testimonies
offered
by
Mr
Durhame
.
He
answers
.
1.
That
though
these
fathers
be
of
Ieroms
minde
,
i●…is
n●…
great
prejudice
that
will
hence
ensue
to
Bishops
,
as
he
hat●…
already
cleared
.
Ans.
We
have
made
it
appear
tha●…
Ierome
makes
the
first
Bishops
,
meere
fixed
Moderators
,
and
likewise
ane
humane
invention
or
custom
,
discrepant
from
ihe
first
divine
Bishops
,
who
are
proved
by
him
to
be
in
Scripture
the
same
with
Presbyters
.
And
i●…
this
be
no
prejudice
to
his
Diocesian
Prelat
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
Iurisdiction
,
let
any
judge
.
2.
The
Informer
wonders
how
Mr
Durhame
coul●…
cite
Augusti●…
as
of
Aerius
minde
,
since
Augustine
hold
him
to
be
erroneous
upon
this
ground
.
(
Haeres
.
53.
A●…s
.
Why
doth
he
not
answer
to
that
passage
of
Augusti●…
cited
by
Mr.
Durhame
,
as
he
pretends
to
answer
to
som●…
of
the
rest
of
these
fathers
.
What
sayes
he
to
Augustin●…
words
?
are
they
not
his
?
Or
doe
they
not
clearly
assert
the
identity
of
Bishop
&
Presbyter
?
To
say
that
Augustin
accounted
Aerius
a
heretick
for
this
,
while
he
offers
not
to
remove
Augustins
cleare
assertion
of
the
same
thing
,
is
but
to
sett
him
by
the
ears
with
himself
,
not
to
answer
his
Testimony
.
Next
,
as
for
Augustin's
accounting
Aerius
a
heretick
for
this
,
he
should
know
that
the
learned
doe
Consent
that
Augustin
in
this
followes
Epiphanius
,
who
first
imputed
heresie
to
Aerius
,
and
made
but
very
simple-insipid
answers
to
Aerius
arguments
for
his
opinion
.
And
moreover
that
Augustin
relates
his
opinion
anent
the
parity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
or
rather
his
denying
that
their
ought
to
be
ane
Ecclesiastick
constitution
anent
their
difference
,
as
that
which
Epiphanius
put
among
the
roll
of
heresies
,
himself
not
positively
determining
,
that
this
was
a
heresie
.
For
(
as
is
consented
unto
by
the
learned
,
and
particularly
by
Dr.
Reinolds
in
his
letter
to
Sir
Francis
Knolls
,
touching
Dr.
Bancrofts
Sermon
about
the
difference
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
)
Augustin
aknowledges
himself
ignorant
how
farr
the
definition
of
heresie
doth
extend
.
He
enumerats
the
heresies
which
he
found
noted
by
other
writers
,
but
applyes
not
the
definition
of
heresie
to
every
one
of
them
.
Far
lesse
could
he
doe
so
in
this
point
,
which
was
his
own
judgement
,
as
the
passage
cited
by
Mr.
Durham
doth
evince
.
That
Ierom
and
Augustin
were
of
Aerius
minde
as
to
Bishops
,
is
the
judgment
of
very
many
:
sane
cum
Aerio
sensit
Hieronimus
(
saith
Whittak
.
Contr.
4.
Q.
1.
Cap.
3.
Sect.
30.
)
Ierom
truely
was
of
Aerius
minde
,
on
which
ground
we
need
care
the
less
that
Aerius
is
so
oft
objected
to
us
by
blockish
men
.
See
how
rude
Whittaker
is
again
to
our
Informer
.
Saravia
himself
(
de
Grad
.
cap.
23.
)
acknowledges
that
Ierom
dissented
from
Epiphanius
in
this
.
Dr.
Reynolds
in
that
Epistle
to
Knolls
about
Bancrofts
Sermon
,
asserting
with
the
Informer
[
That
Aerius
was
for
his
opinion
condemned
of
heresie
by
the
whole
Church
]
proves
from
Ierom
and
other
writters
who
were
contemporarie
with
Epiphanius
or
flourished
after
him
.
That
Augustin
Presents
that
assertion
anent
the
identite
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
a●…
hereticall
,
only
as
he
found
it
related
by
Epiphanius
,
wheras
himself
knew
not
how
farr
the
name
of
heresie
was
to
be
extended
,
as
he
testefys
in
his
preface
concerning
heresies
.
But
that
Augustin
himself
was
of
the
judgement
that
by
divine
right
,
there
is
no
difference
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
he
proves
from
his
words
Epist.
19.
he
cites
also
—
Iewell
against
Harding
the
jesuit
(
asserting
likwise
with
the
Informer
that
Aerius
was
condemned
for
his
opinion
as
a
heretick
)
who
proves
that
Jerome
,
Augustin
,
Ambrose
,
were
of
the
same
minde
.
Thus
wee
see
Augustin
made
in
this
point
consistent
with
Ierome
,
&
also
with
himself
,
whom
this
man
makes
to
speake
contradictions
,
so
as
he
may
come
faire
off
.
3.
He
answers
That
Ambrose
and
Chrysostoms
Testimony
will
not
come
Mr.
Durhams
length
,
Becaus
,
Though
Ambrose
[
or
one
Hilary
]
sayes
that
Episcopi
&
Presbyteri
una
est
ordinatio
,
that
they
are
both
priests
,
yet
the
Bishop
is
the
first
,
So
that
every
Priest
is
not
a
Bishop
,
for
the
Bishop
is
the
first
priest
.
Ans.
The
Informer
hath
left
out
wittily
(
whither
honestly
or
not
,
let
others
judge
)
in
his
translation
of
this
sentence
,
the
inference
which
Ambrose
Drawes
from
this
identity
of
the
office
,
viz
,
that
they
have
both
one
ordination
.
He
maks
the
office
one
,
and
the
ordination
one
consequently
,
and
gives
this
reason
why
they
have
one
ordination
,
viz
,
because
,
every
one
of
them
is
a
priest
or
Minister
,
uterque
enim
Sacerdos
,
sath
he
:
Their
ordination
,
is
terminat
upon
,
and
relative
unto
,
one
and
the
same
office
.
Now
what
greater
length
would
he
have
Ambrose
assertion
come
then
this
?
That
there
is
no
diff●…rent
ordination
of
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
and
consequently
no
officiall
differences
doth
he
not
plead
for
ane
officiall
specifick
difference
?
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
?
Makes
he
not
the
Bishops
succeed
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
in
their
officiall
power
,
and
the
Presbyters
to
come
after
the
Seventy
Disciples
or
meer
ordinary
Pastoures
?
Are
their
not
many
essential
differences
,
which
this
mans
principles
,
&
the
present
practise
,
fixes
betwixt
the
Bishop
&
Presbyter
,
wherof
we
have
spoken
above
?
How
can
Ambrose
then
assert
,
that
they
have
the
same
office
and
ordination
?
Where
is
the
Consecration
?
Where
is
the
Bishops
sole
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
?
Where
is
his
negative
voice
among
the
Presbyters
,
making
them
in
all
their
officiall
power
certain
deputs
under
him
,
if
their
office
be
one
,
and
their
ordination
the
same
with
his
?
2.
As
for
the
difference
here
assigned
,
viz
,
That
the
Bishop
is
the
first
priest
,
and
that
every
Presbyter
is
not
a
Bishop
in
Ambrose
sense
,
this
will
nothing
help
our
Informer
;
Becaus
1.
This
is
fitly
applicable
to
the
Proestos
then
in
use
,
yea
to
the
Moderator
of
a
Synod
,
who
(
as
such
)
hath
a
sort
of
Prostasie
while
the
Synod
sits
,
and
every
Minister
is
not
Moderator
,
though
the
Moderator
be
no
more
then
a
Minister
in
his
officiall
power
;
nay
,
this
is
applicable
to
the
least
accidentall
difference
Imaginable
.
Every
man
is
not
white
or
black
,
yet
every
such
is
a
man
.
Every
Parliament
man
is
not
speaker
,
though
the
speaker
is
a
Parliament
man
only
as
to
his
authority
.
Blondel
his
first
ordained
Minister
,
who
,
with
him
,
is
the
first
Bishop
or
Proestos
,
hath
this
properlie
applicable
unto
him
.
2.
He
must
be
minded
,
that
Ambrose
sayes
,
when
speaking
of
the
Scriptur
-
parity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
non
per
omnia
conveniunt
scripta
Apostolorum
ordinationi
quae
nunc
est
in
Ecclesia
.
That
the
writings
of
the
Apostles
did
not
in
every
point
agree
to
the
order
which
was
then
in
the
Church
.
Now
this
preter
-
scripturall
or
new
order
of
government
,
what
is
it
but
that
anent
the
primus
or
first
among
the
Presbyters
?
so
that
this
very
primus
or
prostasie
(
tho
farr
from
the
present
Hierarchie
of
our
Prelats
as
is
said
)
yet
comes
after
the
scripture
appointment
—
with
Ambrose
,
and
is
unlike
to
that
paritie
betwixt
Bishop
&
Presbyter
,
which
is
therein
held
forth
.
The
Informer
Next
offers
something
in
answer
to
Chrisostoms
Testimony
,
who
asserts
That
almost
there
is
no
difference
betwix
a
Bishop
and
Presbyter
.
And
his
great
Answer
is
That
notwithstanding
these
Fathers
acknowledge
a
difference
,
and
themselves
were
Bishops
]
Ans.
If
the
difference
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
come
to
a
ferme
nihil
,
or
almost
none
,
Surely
it
decays
and
is
ready
to
vanish
away
.
And
what
this
difference
is
,
and
wherein
placed
,
we
have
already
heard
;
and
surely
that
prostasie
in
Chrysostoms
time
;
behoved
to
be
very
in
considerable
,
since
it
came
to
make
upno
greater
difference
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
then
a
ferme
nihil
,
upon
the
borders
of
a
non
ens
.
As
for
what
he
sayes
of
their
being
Bishops
themselves
.
I
answer
,
they
are
the
more
impartiall
witnesses
in
this
mater
;
They
tell
us
oft
that
Ierome
was
a
Presbyter
,
and
therefore
no
friend
to
Bishops
.
Now
here
is
a
Testimonie
of
eminent
Bishops
for
this
very
truth
which
Ierom
asserts
,
and
which
this
man
would
make
us
believe
,
was
condemned
as
a
Heresie
.
And
surelie
we
are
more
tender
of
their
reputation
,
who
interpret
any
Prostasie
or
Episcopacie
which
they
held
,
to
be
according
to
this
their
judgement
anent
Episcopacie
,
and
assert
that
what
overplus
of
power
they
had
or
might
possibly
exercise
,
beyond
that
of
a
Presbyter
,
was
by
them
lookt
upon
as
founded
on
Ecclesiastick
Custome
or
Ecclesiae
usus
,
As
Augustin
speaks
,
but
not
to
flow
from
a
divine
right
,
Then
this
Informer
and
his
fellowes
,
who
make
them
maintaine
one
thing
and
practise
another
;
yea
and
contradict
themselves
so
grossly
in
maintaining
as
high
a
jus
divinum
,
as
Apostolick
doctrine
,
and
practise
,
in
relation
to
the
Hierarchicall
Bishop
,
and
yet
assert
a
ferme
nihil
as
to
the
difference
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
.
But
the
Informer
adds
,
That
they
might
think
Bispop
and
Presbyter
to
differ
Gradu
,
not
ordine
,
in
degree
not
in
order
,
which
is
still
a
debate
in
the
Schools
.
Ans.
This
assertion
is
so
improbable
,
that
he
dare
but
lisp
it
out
,
and
faintly
asserts
it
with
a
might
be
;
But
sure
he
must
needs
acknowledge
this
distinction
of
the
Schooles
to
be
much
later
then
these
Fathers
,
and
any
graduall
difference
which
they
place
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
it
is
clear
,
that
they
found
it
upon
Ecclesiastick
Custome
,
as
we
heard
both
Ierome
,
Augustin
and
Ambrose
assert
.
But
how
long
will
this
man
involve
himself
in
contradictions
,
and
these
Fathers
also
?
Told
he
us
not
(
page
15.
)
That
Augustin
upon
Psal
45
:
16.
affirms
,
That
the
Bishops
are
properly
the
Successors
of
the
Apostles
unto
their
office
.
And
saith
he
not
immediatly
thereafter
,
That
Ambrose
upon
1
Cor.
12
:
28.
affirms
of
the
Apostles
first
named
in
that
Classe
of
Church
officers
,
that
ipsi
sunt
Episcopi
firmante
illud
Petro
,
episcopatum
,
ejus
accipiat
alter
.
That
the
Apostles
are
the
Bishops
by
Peters
assertion
,
let
another
take
his
Bisheprick
.
Tells
he
us
not
likewise
here
that
Augustin
makes
James
the
first
Bishop
of
Ierusalem
,
and
Peter
,
the
first
Bishop
of
Rome
?
Tells
he
us
not
,
that
they
transmitted
ane
Episcopall
power
in
that
traine
of
Successors
,
proved
by
Catalogues
of
Bishops
?
Did
we
not
hear
him
plead
,
that
the
seventy
Disciples
,
placed
in
ane
inferiour
orb
to
the
Twelve
Apostles
,
are
properlie
succceded
by
Presbyters
;
that
Matthias
behoved
to
be
ordained
ane
Apostle
,
tho
one
of
the
Seventy
disciples
,
is
his
great
argument
to
prove
this
.
Now
I
beseech
him
per
omnes
musas
,
will
he
say
that
Apostles
and
Presbyters
differ
only
ordine
and
not
gradu
,
in
order
,
not
in
degree
?
or
that
these
fathers
doe
hold
this
opinion
?
how
come
their
successors
then
to
coalesce
into
one
,
after
such
a
manner
as
to
differ
only
in
a
ferme
nihil
,
or
almost
nothing
?
Saith
not
Ambrose
,
Episcopi
&
Presbyteri
una
est
ordinatio
,
the
Bishop
and
Presbyter
have
the
same
ordination
.
But
the
Informer
will
not
adventure
to
say
that
the
Apostle
and
Presbyter
have
one
ordination
.
For
Matthias
one
of
the
Seventy
must
be
solemnlie
by
God
ordained
ane
Apostle
:
And
the
Prelats
must
be
solemnlie
consecrat
by
their
fellowes
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
their
new
episcopall
order
.
In
a
word
,
we
heard
from
Cassander
,
that
the
Canonists
and
Theologues
who
dispute
this
Question
,
doe
both
accord
,
that
as
to
a
jus
divinum
or
divine
right
,
there
is
no
difference
betwixt
Bishop
and
Presbyter
either
in
order
or
degree
.
And
so
though
it
were
granted
(
which
yet
the
Informer
himself
dare
not
positively
assert
)
that
the
Fathers
tossed
this
question
,
it
will
nothing
help
him
,
nor
prejudge
Mr
Durhams
quotation
,
which
speaks
of
a
jus
divinum
.
As
for
what
he
adds
,
That
the
Fathers
cited
by
Medina
might
hold
the
same
notion
,
Let
him
hear
how
Bellarmin
(
no
friend
to
Presbyterian
Government
)
represents
his
assertion
(
de
Cler.
Cap
15.
)
Michael
Medina
lib.
1.
De
sacrorum
hominum
origine
&
eminentia
(
Cap.
5.
)
Affirmat
sanctum
Hieronimum
idem
omnino
cum
Aerianis
sensisse
,
neque
solum
Hieronimum
in
ea
haeresi
fuisse
,
sed
etiam
Ambrosium
,
Sedulium
,
Primasium
,
Chrysostomum
,
Theodoretum
,
Oecumenium
,
&
Theophylactum
,
atque
ita
,
inquit
Medina
,
isti
viri
alioqui
Sanctissimi
,
&
Sacrarum
Scripturarum
consultissimi
,
quorum
tamen
sententiam
prius
in
Aerio
,
deinde
in
Waldensibus
,
postremo
in
Joanne
Wickleffo
,
damnavit
ecclesia
.
That
is
,
Michael
Medina
in
the
first
book
concerning
the
originall
and
eminencie
of
sacred
men
5.
Chap.
Affirms
that
St
Jerome
was
every
way
of
the
same
judgment
with
the
Aerians
,
And
that
not
only
Jerome
was
in
that
Heresie
.
But
also
Ambrose
,
Sedulius
,
Primasius
,
Chrysostom
,
Theodoret
,
Oecomenius
,
and
Theophylact
;
And
thus
(
saith
Medina
)
these
men
otherwayes
most
godly
,
and
most
expert
in
the
holie
Scrptures
,
whose
judgment
notwithstanding
the
Church
condemned
,
first
in
Aerius
,
Next
in
the
Waldeneses
,
And
lastly
in
Iohn
Wickleff
.
]
Let
our
Informer
note
here
.
1.
That
it
is
beyond
debate
with
Bellarmin
that
with
Medina
at
least
,
all
these
Fathers
were
Aerians
.
2.
That
his
holy
Catholick
Church
of
Rome
is
the
grand
condemner
of
this
Heresie
.
3.
That
this
is
one
of
the
Heresies
of
the
old
Waldenses
,
these
famous
witnesses
against
Antichrist
:
And
of
John
Wickleff
,
and
such
like
eminent
reformers
.
Afterward
he
adds
[
That
in
Jerome
and
these
Greek
Fathers
,
that
opinion
was
of
old
dissembled
out
of
reverence
to
them
,
But
contrarily
in
the
Hereticks
alwayes
condemned
.
]
So
we
see
the
Presbyterian
Principles
,
are
with
him
,
one
of
the
Heresies
of
Protestants
.
Peter
Swav
.
(
in
the
History
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
pag.
664.
edit.
Francfort
.
)
relates
.
[
That
when
the
Authoritie
of
Ierom
and
Augustin
was
brought
to
prove
episcopacie
to
be
but
ane
Ecclesiastick
constitution
,
Michael
Medina
answered
—
That
it
was
no
wonder
that
Jerom
,
Augustin
,
and
others
of
the
Fathers
,
fell
into
that
heresie
,
not
having
throughly
searched
the
matter
,
&
that
he
maintained
pro
virili
this
to
be
their
opinion
.
Finallie
,
to
make
these
Fathers
one
with
themselves
(
whom
this
man
enforceth
in
his
next
passages
,
cited
page
71
,
72.
Anent
the
derivation
of
Episcopacie
from
the
Apostles
and
higher
,
to
speak
palpable
contradictions
)
we
must
say
,
with
Whittaker
,
that
they
call
the
Apostles
so
,
because
they
did
that
upon
the
matter
which
Bishops
then
did
.
And
because
their
power
quadam
similitudine
,
or
by
a
certain
similitude
or
likenesse
(
as
Junius
expresseth
it
)
was
like
to
that
of
these
extraordinarie
Church
officers
,
whom
notwithstanding
they
could
not
succeed
in
the
same
office
,
nor
could
these
Fathers
think
so
upon
the
grounds
formerly
mentioned
.
Tilen.
in
his
Specul
.
Antichr
.
ortum
aperiens
(
Aphoris
.
88.
)
Tells
us
that
[
episcopos
&
Presbyteros
re
&
nomine
eosdem
fuisse
,
non
Hieronimus
solum
in
1.
Tim.
3.
Sed
etiam
scriptura
perspicue
docet
Tit.
1.
Act.
20.
Phil.
1.
Proinde
humani
instituti
,
sive
positivi
,
ut
vocant
juris
,
est
illa
sub
diversis
nominibus
munerum
distinctio
.
That
Bishops
and
Presbyters
were
the
same
in
name
and
thing
or
office
,
Not
only
Jerome
on
1.
Tim.
3.
But
the
Scripture
also
doth
evidently
teach
,
Tit.
1.
Act.
20.
Phil.
1.
And
therefore
that
distinction
of
the
offices
under
diverse
names
is
of
human
institution
,
as
they
call
it
,
or
of
positive
right
]
A
fitt
looking-glasse
,
this
had
no
doubt
been
to
the
same
Tilen
when
he
wrote
,
his
paraenesis
,
and
changed
his
note
.
And
likwise
it
is
a
fitt
looking
glasse
for
this
Informer
:
CHAP.
XVI
.
The
harmonius
consent
of
ancient
Fathers
,
Modern
divines
,
and
confessions
of
Reformed
Churches
for
Presbyterian
Government
,
in
all
its
essentiall
points
of
difference
from
Prelacie
,
is
exhibit
.
IT
is
clear
that
Presbyterian
Government
(
the
pure
,
ancient
,
and
genuine
Government
of
this
Church
)
in
every
essentiall
ingredient
of
it
,
as
it
stands
in
opposition
to
prelacie
,
is
approved
by
,
such
a
consent
of
antiquity
,
and
modern
diuines
,
that
it
would
take
up
almost
as
much
roome
as
this
Informers
pamphlet
,
to
reckon
up
their
names
.
That
we
may
present
them
in
〈◊〉
compendious
view
take
it
thus
.
1.
That
jure
divino
,
there
is
no
difference
betwixt
a
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
hath
a
very
large
consent
of
antiquitie
collected
by
many
of
the
learned
,
whose
testimonies
we
may
see
in
Bishop
Jewel
against
Hardin
,
edit:
Ann.
1570.
p.
243.
And
Reynolds
in
the
forementioned
Epistle
at
large
cited
(
Petries
Hist.
part.
3.
p
:
469
,
470
,
471.
)
Where
there
is
exhibit
a
full
consent
both
of
the
Greek
,
and
Latin
Fathers
,
for
this
point
of
truth
.
The
Doctor
in
his
conference
with
Hart
,
holds
That
the
president
chosen
out
at
first
to
moderat
,
is
be
whom
afterwards
the
Fathers
called
Bishop
,
and
that
the
name
Bishop
common
to
all
Ministers
,
was
by
them
thus
appropriat
to
this
president
.
Next
for
modern
writers
,
the
same
Dr
Reynolds
tells
us
in
the
formentioned
Epistle
,
that
those
who
have
laboured
about
the
reforming
of
the
Church
these
500
Years
,
have
taught
that
all
Pastours
be
they
intituled
Bishops
or
Priests
,
have
equall
authoritie
and
power
by
Gods
word
.
Citing
the
Waldenses
in
Aen.
Silv.
hift
.
of
Bohem.
Chap.
35.
Pich
.
Hierarch
.
Ecclesiast.
lib.
2.
Cap:
10.
Marsil
.
Patavin
.
Defens
.
pacis
part
.
2.
Cap.
15.
Wickleff
.
in
Thom.
Waldens
.
Doct.
Fil.
Tom.
1.
lib:
2.
Cap:
60.
and
Tom
:
2.
cap
:
7.
And
his
Schollers
Husse
and
the
Hussits
,
Aeneas
Silvius
Loccit
.
Luther
.
Advers.
falso
:
nomin:
Scot
:
Epise.
&
adversus
Papat
.
Rom.
Calv.
in
Epist.
ad
Phil.
Tit.
1.
Erentius
Apolog.
Confess
.
Wittenberg
.
—
Cap.
21
:
Bulinger
.
Decad.
5.
Serm:
3.
Musculus
Loc.
Com:
Tit:
de
Ministerio
Verbi
.
Then
he
adds
Jewel
,
Pilkington
,
Dr.
Humphrey
in
Campian
.
&
Duraeum
Jesuit
.
Part.
2.
Ra●…
:
3.
Whittak
.
ad
rationes
Campian
.
6.
&
Confut
Durae
.
lik
.
6.
Mr
Bradfoord
,
Lambert
,
Fox
(
Act.
Mon.
)
Fulk
.
(
Ansr.
to
the
Rhemeflits
.
)
To
these
may
be
added
Cartwright
against
the
Rhemists
.
Bishop
Bilson
himself
against
Seminartes
lib.
1.
p
:
318.
Bishop
Morton
in
his
Catholick
Apologie
Part.
1.
Cap.
33.
Erasmus
upon
1
Tim.
4.
To
which
add
,
that
in
the
O●…cumenick
Coun●…les
of
Constance
&
Basile
,
it
was
concluded
that
Presbyters
should
have
decisive
suffrage
in
Councils
,
as
well
as
Bishops
,
because
that
by
the
Law
of
God
Bishops
were
not
greater
then
they
,
and
it
is
expreslie
given
them
.
Act.
15.
23.
To
which
we
may
add
the
Concil.
Aquisgravense
sub
Ludovico
Pio
Imperatore
.
1.
Anno
816.
Which
approved
it
for
sound
divinity
out
of
Scripture
,
that
Bishops
and
Presbyters
are
equal
;
bringing
the
same
texts
that
Aerius
doth
.
To
these
mentioned
the
learned
Reynolds
doth
add
,
the
common
judgement
of
Reformed
Churches
,
viz.
Helvetia
,
Savoy
,
France
,
Scotland
,
Germanie
,
Hungary
,
Poland
,
the
Low
Countries
,
citing
the
harmonie
of
Confessions
.
Yea
their
own
Church
of
England
(
Chap:
II.
of
the
harmonie
.
)
Therafter
he
learnedly
refutes
our
Informer
as
to
what
he
sayes
anent
Ieroms
(
so
often
repeated
)
a
Marco
Evangelista
—
shewing
both
by
the
decree
of
the
4t
.
Council
of
Carthage
Cap
:
3.
Anent
Presbyters
interest
in
ordination
(
which
,
saith
he
,
proves
that
the
Bishops
ordained
not
then
alone
in
all
places
,
although
Ierom
sayes
,
quid
facit
excepta
ordinatione
&c
:
)
and
by
Ieroms
proving
Bishops
and
Presbyters
to
be
all
one
in
scripture
,
and
even
in
the
right
of
ordination
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
That
Ierom
could
not
mean
Bishops
in
Alexandria
to
have
had
that
Episcopall
power
since
Mark
,
about
which
the
question
is
.
Where
also
he
vindicats
Calvin
(
Jnstit
:
〈◊〉
:
4.
c
:
4.
Sect:
2.
)
cited
by
Bancroft
(
as
likwayes
by
our
Dialogist
here
)
as
consenting
to
the
establishment
of
ane
Episcopacie
since
Mark
at
Alexandria
.
He
saith
[
That
Calvin
having
showen
that
Ministers
choose
out
one
to
preside
,
to
whom
especially
they
gave
the
name
of
[
Bishop
,
]
Shews
that
notwithstanding
this
Bishop
was
not
above
them
in
honour
and
dignitie
,
that
he
should
rule
over
them
,
but
was
appointed
only
to
ask
the
votes
,
to
direct
and
admonish
—
and
see
that
performed
which
was
agreed
upon
by
their
common
consent
—
And
having
declared
,
that
Ierom
shews
this
to
have
been
in
by
the
consent
of
men
upon
Tit.
1.
He
adds
,
that
the
same
Ierom
other
where
shews
,
how
ancient
ane
order
in
the
Church
it
was
,
even
from
Marks
time
to
Heraclius
&c
:
In
which
words
of
Calvin
(
saith
the
Doctor
)
seeing
that
the
order
of
the
Church
which
he
mentions
,
hath
evident
relation
to
that
before
described
,
and
that
in
the
describing
of
it
he
had
said
,
The
Bishop
was
not
so
above
the
rest
in
honour
that
he
had
rule
over
them
:
It
followes
that
Mr.
Calvin
doth
not
so
much
as
seem
to
confess
upon
Ieroms
report
[
that
ever
since
Marks
time
Bishops
have
had
a
ruling
superioritie
over
the
Clergie
]
A
contradictorie
Conclusion
to
that
of
our
Informer
.
The
Doctor
proceeds
thus
.
Wherfore
to
use
no
more
proofe
in
a
thing
manifest
,
which
else
might
be
easily
proved
more
at
large
out
of
Ierom
and
Mr.
Calvin
both
,
it
is
certain
that
neither
of
them
doth
affirme
,
that
Bishops
so
long
time
have
had
such
a
superioritie
,
as
Dr.
Bancroft
seems
to
father
upon
them
.
To
all
this
adde
,
that
Dr.
Holland
the
Kings
professor
in
Oxford
,
at
ane
Act
(
Iully
9.
1608.
)
Concluded
against
Mr
Lanes
question
[
an
Episcopatus
sit
ordo
distinctús
a
Presbyteratu
,
eoque
superior
jure
divino
.
That
is
,
whither
Episcopacie
be
a
distinct
order
from
the
Presbyterat
&
superiour
thereunto
by
divine
right
]
That
the
affirmative
was
most
false
,
against
the
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
the
doctrin
of
the
Church
of
England
,
yea
the
very
Schoolmen
themselves
,
Lombard
,
Thomas
,
Bonaventur
.
A
2d
.
Essentiall
point
of
Presbyterian
government
in
opposition
to
Prelacie
,
is
in
the
mater
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
viz
,
that
these
are
not
in
the
hand
of
any
single
Prelat
,
but
that
Presbyters
have
ane
essentiall
joynt
interest
therin
.
And
this
also
hath
a
large
Consent
and
Testimonie
of
the
learned
both
ancient
and
Modern
.
For
this
the
4t
.
Council
of
Carthage
is
adduced
Can.
5.
and
the
Councils
of
Constance
and
Basile
,
anent
Presbyters
decisive
suffrages
in
Council
.
Cyprian
Epist.
33.
and
78.
Council
of
Antioch
,
Can●…
:
10.
of
Aneyra
.
Can.
13.
Ruffins
hist.
lib.
10.
Cap.
9.
Sozom.
l.
2.
c.
23.
and
many
such
.
Smectim
.
pag.
28
,
29
,
30
,
31.
cites
many
Testimonies
for
this
.
See
Blondel
.
Apol.
Sect.
3.
pag.
120.
to
130.
Prins
un-Bish
:
of
Timothie
and
Titus
from
pag.
52.
to
83.
Where
the
full
Consent
of
reformed
divines
is
adduced
,
such
as
Ioannes
Luckawits
in
his
confession
of
the
Taborits
against
Rokenzana
Cap
:
13.
the
Wald●…nses
and
Taborits
apud
Fox
acts
.
Monum
.
p.
210.
Illyric
.
Catol
.
testiumveritatis
.
Tit.
Waldenses
455.
Melanchton
,
Arg.
&
Respons.
par.
7.
De
Potest
.
Episcopi
Arg.
2.
Hiperius
on
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
Hemmingius
ibid.
Gerardus
Loc.
Theol.
de
Ministerio
Ecclesiastico
proves
this
at
large
.
Peizelius
,
Arg.
&
Resp.
Par.
7.
de
Ordin
.
Ministrorum
in
Arg.
1.
Musculus
,
Loc:
Com.
de
Ministerio
verbi
.
Morn●…y
Lord
of
Pless
.
de
Eccles.
Cap
11.
Nay
Canonists
and
Schoolmen
themselves
,
Summa
angelica
ordo
,
Sect:
13.
and
Innocentius
there
cited
.
Filiu●…ius
Iesuit
▪
de
Casibus
Consc.
Par.
1.
Tract
.
9.
Alexander
Alensis
Sum.
Theol.
par
.
4.
Quest.
9.
M.
5.
Artic.
1.
Cajetan
.
on
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
and
many
others
.
Likwise
it
is
made
good
that
the
Bishops
swallowing
up
this
power
of
Presbyters
,
and
reserving
it
only
to
himself
comes
from
Popish
Authority
.
Leo
primus
(
Epist.
●…8
.
)
on
complaints
of
unlawfull
ordinations
writing
to
the
German
and
French
Bishops
,
reckons
up
what
things
are
reserved
to
the
Bishops
,
and
among
the
rest
Presbyterorum
&
diaconorum
consecratio
,
the
consecration
of
Presbyters
and
deacons
.
Then
adds
,
quae
omnia
solis
deberi
summis
pontificibus
authoritate
Canonum
praecipitur
.
That
is
,
All
which
things
are
commanded
to
be
reserved
to
the
cheife
priests
by
the
Authority
of
the
Canons
.
For
this
see
also
Rabanus
Maurus
de
Instit.
Clericorum
.
l.
1.
c.
6.
And
to
this
truth
of
Presbyters
power
in
ordination
,
the
Confessions
of
reformed
Churches
gives
a
harmonious
echo
.
The
latter
confession
of
Helvetia
(
Harmon
.
of
Confess
Chap.
11.
pag:
232.
)
asserts
,
That
the
holy
function
of
the
Ministery
is
givin●…
the
laying
on
of
the
hands
of
Presbyters
,
no
word
of
Pre
lats
hands
.
So
the
18.
Chap:
(
pag.
236.
)
they
are
to
be
ordained
by
publick
prayer
and
laying
on
of
hands
,
which
power
they
say
is
the
same
and
alike
in
all
,
citing
that
passage
Luke
.
10.
he
that
will
be
great
among
yow
,
let
him
be
your
servant
.
So
Act.
15.
and
Ierom
on
Tit.
1.
—
therfor
(
say
they
)
let
no
man
forbid
that
we
return
to
the
old
appointment
of
God
(
so
they
call
the
Presbyterian
way
of
ordination
)
and
rather
receive
it
then
the
Custome
devised
by
men
,
(
So
they
call
the
Episcopall
Method
)
.
Thus
the
Confession
of
Bohem.
Chap.
9.
(
Harm
.
Sect
:
11
pag.
246.
247.
)
after
setting
down
the
qualifications
of
Ministers
—
As
to
ordination
they
say
,
that
after
prayer
and
fasting
they
are
to
be
confirmed
and
approved
of
the
Elders
by
the
laying
on
of
their
hands
.
So
the
Confess
.
Sax
:
Chap
:
12.
(
Harm:
Conf:
par.
2.
)
affirme
that
it
belongs
to
Ministers
of
the
word
to
ordaine
Ministers
,
lawfullie
elected
and
called
.
Where
we
have
asserted
both
the
Presbyters
power
in
ordination
,
and
the
peoples
interest
in
the
Call
of
Pastors
,
in
opposition
to
prelacy
.
So
the
Confession
of
the
French
Church
.
Credimus
veram
Ecclesiam
&c
:
We
believe
that
the
true
Church
ought
to
be
governed
by
that
policy
which
Christ
hath
ordained
,
viz
,
that
there
be
Pastours
,
Presbyters
or
Elders
and
Deacons
.
And
again
we
believe
that
all
true
pastours
wherever
they
be
,
are
endued
with
equal
and
the
same
power
under
one
head
and
Bishop
Christ
Iesus
,
which
strikes
our
Diocesian
and
Erastian
frame
of
government
starke
dead
.
Which
is
seconded
thus
by
the
Belgick
Confess
.
(
Art:
30.
)
All
Christs
Ministers
of
the
word
of
God
have
the
same
and
equal
power
and
authority
as
being
all
Ministers
of
that
only
universall
head
and
Bishop
Christ
.
To
thesewe
might
adde
many
other
Testimonies
of
reformed
divines
,
as
Calvin
,
Piscator
,
Marl●…rat
on
1.
Tim:
4.
14.
Tit.
1.
3.
Zanch.
de
Statu
.
P●…ccat
.
and
Legal
.
in
4tum
.
praecep
.
Chemnitius
Loc.
Com.
Part.
3.
de
Eccles.
Cap.
4.
Exam.
Concil.
Trid.
part.
2.
de
Sacram.
ordinis
pag.
224
,
225.
proving
also
that
Election
and
vocation
of
Ministers
belongs
to
the
whole
Church
.
Antonius
Sadael
,
Resp.
ad
repetita
Turriani
Sophismata
,
par.
2.
lo●…
.
12.
Beza
(
de
divers
:
Ministrorum
gradibus
.
)
Iunius
[
Controv.
5.
l.
c
3.
N
:
3.
]
Chamierus
[
Panstratia
Cathol:
Tom
:
2.
de
Occum
:
Pontis
:
Cap:
6.
A
3d.
Great
point
of
Presbyterian
Government
in
opposition
to
prelacie
,
is
the
peoples
interest
in
the
election
and
call
of
Ministers
.
And
for
this
there
is
as
full
a
consent
of
divines
,
and
Churches
,
both
ancient
and
Modern
.
Severall
of
the
forementioned
Confessions
clears
this
,
the
peoples
election
and
call
being
taken
in
together
with
,
Presbyters
ordination
,
Cyprian
(
Epist.
68.
)
is
full
to
this
purpose
.
Plebs
ipsa
maxime
habet
potestatem
,
vel
eligendi
dignos
sacerdotes
,
vel
indignos
recusandi
,
quod
&
ipsum
videmus
de
divina
authoritate
descendere
ut
Sacerdos
sub
omnium
oculis
,
plebe
presente
deligatur
,
&
dignus
atque
idoneus
public●…
judicio
ac
Testimonio
comprobetur
.
That
is
,
The
people
themselves
have
Chiefly
the
power
,
either
of
Electing
,
worthy
priests
,
or
refusing
the
unworthy
:
which
mater
we
see
even
of
it self
to
descend
from
the
divine
authority
,
that
the
priest
be
set
apart
under
the
eyes
of
all
in
the
peoples
presence
,
and
as
worthy
and
qualified
be
approved
by
a
publick
judgment
and
Testimony
.
So
lib:
1.
Epist:
4.
is
full
for
the
Churches
libertie
and
right
in
elections
.
The
4t
.
Council
of
Carthage
[
Can.
22.
]
Requires
to
the
admission
of
every
Clergy
man
,
civium
assensum
,
&
testimonium
&
convenientiam
,
The
consent
of
the
citzens
,
their
testimonie
,
and
agreement
Socrat
[
l.
4.
c.
25.
sayes
that
Ambrose
was
chosen
Bishop
of
Millan
by
the
uniform
voice
of
the
Church
.
In
the
pretended
Apostolick
,
but
truely
old
constitutions
of
Clement
[
lib.
8.
cap.
4.
]
The
Bishop
who
must
be
ordained
is
appointed
in
all
things
to
be
unblameable
,
chosen
by
all
the
people
;
unto
whom
let
the
people
being
assembled
on
the
Lords
day
(
N.
B.
)
with
the
Presbytery
and
the
Bishops
there
present
,
give
their
consent
:
And
a
Bishop
askes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Presbytery
,
&
the
people●…
,
if
they
desire
such
a
man
to
be
set
over
them
.
The
Helvetick
confession
told
us
,
that
the
right
choosing
of
Ministers
is
by
consent
of
the
Church
.
So
the
Belgick
confession
tells
us
[
that
Ministers
,
Elders
,
and
Deacons
,
are
to
be
advanced
to
their
office
by
the
lawfull
election
of
the
Church
.
]
Greg.
Nazian.
(
orat
.
31.
)
commends
Athanasius
his
calling
as
being
after
the
Apostolical
example
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
suffrage
of
all
the
people
.
Blondel
clears
this
from
a
large
consent
of
antiquitie
(
page
,
379.
to
473.
)
And
this
is
cleared
also
by
a
large
consent
of
protestant
divines
.
Luther
(
de
potest
.
Papae
.
)
Calvin
(
on
Act.
6
:
3.
)
Beza
(
confess
.
Cap.
5.
Art.
35.
)
Musculus
(
in
Loc.
com
.
)
Zanch.
(
on
4t
.
com
.
)
Junius
(
Animadvers
.
on
Bellarm.
Controv.
5.
l.
c.
7.
)
Cartwright
(
on
Act.
14.
v.
23.
)
Wallaeus
,
Bullinger
,
Wittaker
.
See
Mr
Gilesp
.
Misc.
quest.
pag
18
,
19.
Our
first
book
of
Discipline
appoints
to
the
people
their
votes
and
suffrage
in
election
of
Ministers
.
(
in
the
4t
.
head
.
)
And
the
2d
.
book
(
Cap
3.
)
discharges
any
to
intrude
contrary
to
the
will
of
the
congregation
—
or
without
the
voice
of
the
eldership
.
A
4t
.
Essential
point
of
Presbyterian
Government
in
opposition
to
Prelacie
,
is
in
relation
to
the
office
of
the
ruleing
elder
,
as
appointed
by
Christ
.
This
we
cleared
from
Scripture
,
and
there
is
as
cleare
a
consent
of
antiquitie
for
it
,
and
of
modern
reformed
Churches
and
divines
,
exhibited
by
our
writers
.
For
this
Ignatius
(
Epist:
ad
Trallianos
,
ad
initium
pag.
66.
edit.
oxon.
An.
1644.
)
is
cited
.
Likewise
Baronius
(
in
his
Annals
Anno
103.
in
the
Gesta
purgationis
Caeciliani
&
Felicis
.
)
Tertul.
(
Apolog.
Advers:
gentes
.
Cap.
39.
)
Origen
.
(
ontra
Celsum
lib.
3.
)
Cyprian
(
Epist.
36.
)
Optatus
(
lib.
1.
pag.
41.
edit:
paris
:
An.
1631.
)
Ambrose
(
comment
.
on
1
Tim.
5
:
1.
)
And
for
modern
writers
,
Whittaker
(
contra
Duraeum
lib:
9.
Sect.
47.
)
Thorndicks
discourse
of
religious
assemblies
(
cap.
4.
pag.
117.
)
Rivet
(
Cathol.
Orthodox
,
Tract
.
2.
quest.
22
,
Sect.
4
)
.
Finally
.
Presbyterian
Government
,
as
it
stands
in
opposition
to
the
present
Prelacie
in
its
Erastian
mould
,
and
maintaines
a
spirituall
authoritie
in
the
hands
of
Church
officers
,
distinct
from
,
and
independent
upon
the
civill
powers
of
the
world
,
hath
as
full
a
consent
of
the
learned
.
As
Erastianism
was
first
hatched
by
Thomas
Erastus
Physician
in
Heidleberg
about
the
year
1568.
—
And
much
catched
up
,
and
pleaded
for
by
Arminians
since
,
so
it
hath
been
impugned
by
a
full
consent
of
reformed
divines
,
who
have
fully
proved
it
to
be
contrary
to
the
rules
of
Church
Government
set
down
in
the
Scripture
both
in
the
old
and
new
Testament
,
and
utterly
eversive
of
the
Gospel
Ministrie
and
Church
.
The
eminent
divines
who
have
written
against
it
,
are
Beza
(
who
encounters
with
Erastus
himself
upon
this
point
)
Zachriasursin
,
Wallaeus
,
Helmichius
,
Triglandus
,
Dr
Revius
,
Dr
Voetius
,
Appollonius
,
and
many
others
,
Especially
the
famous
and
learned
Mr
Gillespy
in
that
elaborat
peice
,
entituled
,
Aarons
rod
blossoming
;
wherein
the
consent
of
the
ancient
,
and
modern
Church
,
as
to
this
great
point
of
truth
,
is
exhibit
.
See
2.
book
.
1
Cap.
p●…g.
167.
Now
,
from
all
that
is
said
,
Whither
Presbyterian
Government
hath
not
the
patronage
of
the
purest
Scripture
antiquity
,
and
a
full
consent
of
the
after
purer
times
,
and
of
reformed
Churches
and
divines
,
in
all
the
forementioned
points
of
its
opposition
to
the
Prelacie
now
established
:
Both
in
holding
,
1.
The
identity
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
as
to
name
and
things
2.
Presbyters
right
of
ordination
,
and
Jurisdiction
.
3.
The
peoples
interest
in
the
Election
,
and
call
o.
Ministers
.
4.
The
ruleing
Elders
office
.
5.
The
Churches
intrinsick
power
of
Government
,
I
leave
to
the
Impartiall
to
judge
.
And
consequently
of
the
vanity
of
this
new
Dialoguist
,
His
pleading
upon
this
point
.
A
Confutation
Of
the
Second
DIALOGUE
,
Anent
the
Covenants
Against
EPISCOPACIE
.
Wherein
,
the
Informers
reasonings
against
the
abjuration
of
the
present
Episcopacie
in
the
National
and
Solemne
League
and
Covenant
,
and
the
obligation
of
these
oaths
in
opposition
thereunto
,
are
examined
.
CHAP.
I.
Atwofold
state
of
the
Question
proposed
,
the
one
touching
the
abjuration
of
this
Prelacie
in
either
or
both
these
Covenants
,
the
other
concerning
the
obligation
of
these
oathts
against
it
.
That
Prelacie
is
abjured
in
the
National
and
Solemne
League
and
Covenant
,
proved
at
large
.
And
arguments
offered
to
evince
their
oblidging
force
upon
the
present
and
succeeding
generations
.
THE
state
of
the
Question
in
the
Second
Dialogue
is
twofold
,
1.
Whither
the
Prelacie
now
established
by
Law
in
this
Church
,
be
abjured
in
the
national
,
and
solemne
league
and
Covenant
?
2.
Upon
supposition
that
it
is
abjured
in
both
the
one
and
the
other
,
whither
the
obligation
of
these
Oaths
stands
against
it
,
yea
or
not
?
Wee
shall
a
litle
touch
.
For
the
1.
Our
National
Covenant
,
sworne
by
King
Iames
in
the
the
year
1580
,
and
by
the
Estates
of
this
land
,
and
many
times
thereafter
,
solemnlie
and
universally
renewed
,
both
by
our
Church
and
State
,
doth
clearly
exclude
Prelacie
.
The
passages
thereof
pleaded
against
Prelacie
,
and
wherein
our
obligation
lyes
,
are
these
.
1.
In
General
,
wee
professe
to
believe
the
word
of
God
to
be
the
onlie
rule
,
the
Gospel
contained
therein
to
be
Gods
undoubted
truth
,
as
then
received
in
this
Land
&
maintained
by
sundrie
reformed
Kirks
&
States
,
chiefly
by
our
own
.
Whereupon
we
renounce
all
contrary
doctrine
,
and
especially
all
kind
of
Papistrie
in
generall
&
particular
heads
,
as
confuted
by
the
word
of
God
and
rejected
by
the
Kirk
of
Scotland
.
2.
After
a
large
enumeration
of
many
points
of
poprie
,
disowned
upon
this
ground
and
vowed
against
,
as
contrary
unto
the
word
of
God
,
and
the
gospel
of
Salvation
contained
therein
.
Wee
renounce
the
Popes
worldly
monarchie
,
and
wicked
Hierarchie
,
and
whatever
hath
been
brought
into
this
Church
without
,
or
against
the
word
of
God
.
3.
Wee
vow
to
joyne
our selves
to
this
reformed
Kirke
in
Doctrine
,
faith
,
religion
&
Discipline
;
Swearing
by
the
great
name
of
God
to
continue
in
obedience
to
the
doctrine
,
and
Discipline
of
this
Kirke
,
and
upon
our
Eternall
perill
to
maintaine
and
defend
the
same
according
to
our
vocation
,
and
power
,
all
the
dayes
of
our
life
.
Now
the
obligation
of
this
engadgement
against
prelacie
is
evident
these
wayes
.
1.
All
doctrines
contrary
unto
,
or
beside
the
word
of
God
,
are
here
rejected
and
disowned
:
All
doctrines
contrary
to
the
simplicity
of
the
Gospel
,
recived
and
believed
by
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
and
whatever
hath
been
brought
into
this
Church
without
or
against
Gods
Word
.
But
so
it
is
that
the
present
hierarchy
is
contrary
unto
the
Word
of
God
,
both
in
its
Diocesi●…
and
Erastian
mould
,
as
hath
been
proved
at
large
.
And
we
heard
that
this
Church
of
Scotland
,
since
it
received
Christianity
,
did
stand
for
a
long
time
under
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
untill
Palladius
was
sent
unto
us
from
Pope
Celestine
,
never
knew
a
Prelat
,
Ergo
,
Prelacie
in
its
Diocesian
Erastian
mould
is
here
abjured
.
2.
Our
Prelacie
is
condemned
in
that
clause
of
the
Popes
wicked
hierarchie
,
whereby
the
Prelatick
Government
is
most
clearly
pointed
at
,
which
is
evident
thus
.
1.
That
the
Government
of
the
popish
Church
is
prelaticall
:
this
man
will
not
deny
,
it
is
by
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
,
Primats
Deans
&c
:
and
it
being
distinct
from
his
Monarchie
,
for
else
the
naming
of
his
worldly
monarchie
had
been
enough
:
and
moreover
,
it
being
ranked
among
these
things
which
are
brought
into
the
Church
against
the
Word
of
God
,
and
into
this
Church
against
her
pure
Doctrine
which
was
clearly
the
sense
of
it
,
that
assemblies
,
and
the
body
of
this
Protestant
Church
entertained
;
assemblies
declaring
that
the
Word
[
Bishop
]
was
not
to
be
taken
as
in
time
of
Papistrie
.
And
Iohn
Knox
(
whose
sense
and
Judgement
herein
was
certanlie
retained
,
and
upon
all
occasions
manifested
by
our
Reformers
)
accounting
Prelacie
to
have
quid
commune
cum
Antichristo
.
Ergo
,
Prelacie
is
here
vowed
against
simpliciter
and
in
it self
considered
.
2.
If
he
grant
a
hierarchie
to
be
here
abjured
,
sure
it
must
be
abjured
with
the
rest
of
the
corruptions
enumerat
in
that
large
list
of
them
exhibited
in
this
Oath
.
Now
these
are
abjured
in
themselves
simpliciter
,
as
contrary
unto
the
Word
of
God
and
the
doctrine
of
this
Kirke
,
ergo
,
So
must
a
prelacie
or
hierarchie
be
in
its
self
abjured
under
the
same
formalis
ratio
,
as
thus
brought
in
,
whither
by
the
Pope
or
any
other
.
3.
This
hierarchie
is
supposed
in
this
Oath
to
be
contrary
unto
the
Discipline
of
this
Church
,
as
well
as
the
popish
Doctrine
is
therein
supposed
contrarie
to
her
pure
Doctrine
.
Now
(
as
we
shall
shew
)
the
Discipline
which
this
Church
then
owned
,
was
Presbyterian
.
So
that
that
Discipline
or
Hierarchie
,
which
stands
in
opposition
to
Presbyterian
Government
,
is
here
abjured
:
but
so
it
is
that
prelacie
ex
se
,
&
sua
natura
stands
thus
opposit
unto
it
,
ergo
,
by
the
hierarchie
,
all
prelacy
is
abjured
.
3.
Prelacy
is
abjured
in
that
clause
where
we
professe
to
joyne
our selves
to
this
reformed
Kirk
in
her
Discipline
,
as
well
as
her
Doctrine
,
and
vow
and
sweare
adherence
unto
both
.
Now
that
the
Discipline
then
owned
by
this
Church
,
was
Presbyterian
Government
or
discipline
,
Is
evident
these
wayes
.
1.
Discipline
by
generall
assemblies
and
Synods
having
compleat
parity
of
all
Ministers
,
with
a
joynt
decisive
suffrage
,
is
Presbyterian
Discipline
;
but
this
was
that
Discipline
owned
by
our
Church
:
For
her
first
Nationall
Assembly
(
compleatly
Presbyterial
in
its
mould
)
was
in
the
Year
1560.
After
which
time
untill
1580
When
this
Covenant
was
sworne
,
there
were
many
assemblies
exercising
their
power
.
2
,
That
is
presbyterian
Discipline
,
which
did
judicially
condemne
prelacie
as
having
no
warrand
in
the
Word
,
and
ownes
no
Church
officers
as
lawfull
but
pastours
,
Doctors
,
Elders
and
Deacons
.
But
so
it
is
that
this
was
the
judiciall
decision
of
our
generall
assemblies
,
long
before
this
Covenant
;
for
the
first
book
of
discipline
,
containing
the
Basis
of
presbyterian
Government
,
was
approved
and
subscribed
by
this
Church
in
the
year
1560.
And
the
Second
book
of
discipline
in
Anno
1578.
Which
two
books
compleatly
overthrow
Prelacie
,
&
layes
down
a
mould
of
Presbyterian
government
.
And
therafter
in
the
assembly
at
Dundie
(
Anno.
1580.
Sess.
4.
)
The
office
of
a
Prelat
was
particularly
condemned
by
a
solemne
act
,
and
abolished
as
unlawfull
,
and
void
of
Scripture
warrand
,
ordaining
under
paine
of
excommunication
such
as
brooked
the
said
office
to
lay
it
aside
,
as
ane
office
to
which
they
are
not
called
of
God
,
and
cease
from
preaching
and
administring
Sacraments
,
under
hazard
of
the
same
Censure
;
or
using
the
office
of
a
Pastour
till
they
receive
admission
[
de
novo
]
from
the
generall
assemblie
.
Now
in
the
nationall
covenant
,
this
existent
discipline
being
sworne
to
be
maintained
,
who
can
say
but
that
Prelacie
is
most
formallie
abjured
therein
;
Especially
if
it
be
considered
,
that
in
the
same
year
1580
This
national
covenant
was
sworn
,
at
which
timethese
things
were
so
fresh
&
recent
.
3.
That
discipline
which
the
takers
and
framers
of
this
cov●…nant
,
at
the
taking
of
it
,
and
in
pursuance
of
its
ends
,
did
carry
on
and
establish
,
that
discipline
it
must
needs
include
and
engadge
unto
in
their
sense
:
but
that
was
Presbyterian-government
.
For
(
to
omit
many
preceeding
discoveries
heirof
mentioned
in
the
Apology
)
in
the
year
1580.
The
assemblie
after
their
judiciall
declarator
,
that
Prelacie
is
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
,
sent
Commissioners
to
the
King
to
desire
the
establishment
of
the
book
of
policie
by
ane
Act
of
Council
,
untill
a
parliament
were
conveened
;
and
what
this
book
of
policie
contained
,
we
did
already
hint
.
Then
in
this
same
year
,
the
national
covenant
and
confession
is
sworn
by
the
King
and
Council
.
In
the
assemblie
1581.
it
is
subscribed
by
all
the
members
,
and
the
Act
of
the
Assemblie
at
Dundie
explained
.
And
it
was
again
judicially
declared
that
the
Church
did
thereby
wholly
Condemne
the
estate
of
Bishops
as
they
were
in
Scotland
.
At
which
very
Nick
of
time
the
Confession
of
faith
(
Sworn
before
in
the
year
1580.
)
is
presented
to
the
assemblie
by
the
King
and
Council
,
Together
with
his
Letter
to
Noblemen
and
Gentlemen
for
erecting
Presbyteries
Compleatly
through
the
nation
,
and
dissolving
Prelacies
,
all
the
three
,
viz
,
both
the
King
,
the
Estates
and
the
assemblie
,
fully
agreeing
in
this
judgement
as
to
Church
government
,
and
this
oath
for
its
maintenance
.
And
according
to
this
joynt
authoritative
determination
of
Church
and
State
,
Presbyteries
were
erected
.
Likwise
in
this
assemblie
according
to
the
forsaid
joynt
conclusion
,
the
Second
book
of
discipline
containing
the
mould
of
Presbyterial
Government
,
and
likewise
this
National
Covenant
and
oath
for
its
perservation
,
are
(
as
the
two
great
Charters
of
our
Churches
government
and
liberties
)
insert
into
the
Churches
records
ad
futuram
rei
memoriam
,
And
that
posterity
might
not
be
ignorant
of
the
discipline
sworn
in
that
covenant
.
Upon
which
,
and
many
such
like
grounds
,
the
Assemblie
1638
did
again
judicially
declare
this
sense
of
this
National
Oath
,
which
accordingly
was
received
with
ane
expresse
application
to
prelacy
,
and
the
other
Corruptions
attending
it
,
and
taken
by
the
whole
land
with
a
full
concurrence
of
the
civil
Sanction
and
authoritie
,
Anno.
1640.
The
2d
.
Great
engadgement
pleaded
against
prelacie
,
is
that
of
the
Solemne
League
and
covenant
:
Wherin
we
vow
the
preservation
of
the
reformed
religion
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
in
Doctrine
,
Worship
,
Discipline
and
government
according
to
the
word
of
God
,
and
the
example
of
the
best
reformed
Churches
.
In
the
Second
Article
,
Wee
sweare
the
extirpation
of
poprie
and
prelacie
,
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
,
their
Chancellours
and
Commissaries
&c.
And
all
Ecclesiasticall
officers
depending
on
that
Hierarchie
—
of
whatever
is
found
contrary
to
sound
Doctrine
and
the
power
of
godliness
.
Which
engadgement
hath
been
likwise
taken
by
all
rancks
,
by
Parliaments
,
Assemblies
,
and
the
body
of
the
people
.
Now
that
the
Prelacie
at
this
time
established
is
abjured
in
this
engadgement
,
is
these
wayes
Evident
.
1.
Prelacie
being
razed
in
Anno.
1638.
according
to
our
national
covenant
,
and
ane
engadgement
being
framed
of
adherence
to
the
Religion
established
in
Doctrine
,
worship
,
discipline
and
Government
,
in
opposition
unto
all
innovations
formerly
introduced
,
and
upon
both
grounds
,
Presbyterian
government
,
in
its
exact
paritie
being
sett
up
,
and
judicially
enacted
,
both
by
Assemblie
and
parliament
:
that
the
Solemne
league
must
needs
strike
against
Prelacie
,
is
in
this
apparent
,
because
this
league
is
clearlie
referable
to
the
great
ends
of
the
national
covenant
,
as
it
stood
then
established
,
explained
and
Sworne
by
this
whole
nation
;
and
therfor
is
ane
accessorie
engadgement
,
commensurat
unto
,
and
to
be
explained
by
the
preceeding
:
and
consequently
none
can
doubt
that
it
strikes
against
prelacie
,
and
engadgeth
to
Presbyterian
government
,
who
knowes
how
former
engadgements
stood
.
2.
The
preservation
of
the
Doctrine
,
worship
,
Discipline
and
goverment
then
existent
in
Scotland
,
referring
to
the
then
establishment
therof
,
in
opposition
to
the
former
prelacie
and
all
its
corruptions
;
It
s
evident
that
all
sort
of
prelacie
&
whatever
corruption
in
Government
is
inconsistent
with
Presbyterian
simplicity
and
parity
,
is
here
abjured
and
covenanted
against
.
As
we
engadge
the
preservation
of
the
Doctrine
and
worship
as
then
reformed
,
from
Prelatick
innovations
,
so
likewise
we
sweare
to
preserve
our
Churches
ancient
and
pure
discipline
as
it
stood
then
recovered
from
prelatick
encroachments
.
That
discipline
&
government
is
here
sworne
unto
,
as
the
discipline
and
government
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
which
the
Church
and
State
of
Scotland
at
this
time
established
and
owned
:
But
so
it
is
,
that
that
was
Presbyterian
government
,
then
fully
ratified
both
by
Church
and
State
,
Ergo
,
the
preservation
of
Presbyterian
government
is
sworne
;
and
by
further
consequence
that
government
which
was
by
Church
and
state
extirpate
,
as
abjured
in
the
nationall
covenant
,
and
contrary
unto
this
Presbyterian
frame
,
was
likwise
abjured
and
covenanted
against
in
this
league
.
But
such
was
prelacie
,
Bishops
,
Arch-Bishops
&c
:
ergo
.
Again
.
3.
The
great
ground
upon
which
our
adversaries
deny
the
national
Covenant
to
strike
against
prelacie
,
is
,
that
they
hold
that
the
then
existent
discipline
,
to
which
in
that
Oath
we
vow
adherence
as
the
discipline
of
this
Church
,
was
not
Presbyterian
government
,
&
that
King
Iames
did
not
own
it
.
Ergo
,
(
by
ane
argument
a
contrariis
,
and
ad
hominem
)
since
its
undenyable
with
them
that
de
facto
Presbyterian
government
was
now
enacted
,
ratified
,
established
and
sett
up
,
both
by
Assemblies
and
King
and
Parliament
,
that
goverment
we
must
stand
oblidged
unto
by
the
solemn
league
,
as
the
reformed
discipline
and
government
of
this
Church
,
and
contrarily
that
government
which
was
then
de
facto
by
assemblies
,
King
and
Parliament
razed
as
inconsistent
with
Presbyterian
government
,
and
as
abjured
in
the
nationall
Covenant
,
that
government
wee
cannot
deny
,
but
the
solemne
league
stricks
against
.
But
so
it
is
that
prelacie
was
at
this
time
razed
by
Assemblies
,
King
and
Parliament
,
as
inconsistent
with
the
nationall
covenant
,
and
Presbyterian
government
then
established
,
ergo
this
solemne
league
stricks
against
Prelacie
.
4.
The
word
preserve
here
used
—
and
the
expression
of
common
enemies
cleares
this
further
:
preserving
●…relates
to
that
which
one
is
in
possession
of
,
the
common
enemies
of
this
possession
,
in
the
sense
of
all
,
both
Imposers
and
engadgers
,
are
the
Prelats
and
their
Malignant
Agents
,
so
that
the
holding
fast
of
what
was
attained
in
point
of
reformation
&c
:
Presbyterian
government
in
all
its
established
priviledges
against
Prelats
,
Prelacie
,
and
all
the
incroachements
thereof
,
is
here
most
evidently
engadged
unto
.
5.
That
engadgement
and
oath
which
they
who
have
set
up
prelacie
in
our
Church
,
did
Cassat
and
remove
,
as
inconsistent
therewith
,
that
must
needs
,
by
their
own
confession
strike
against
it
:
but
so
it
is
,
that
our
Parliament
and
Rulers
did
wholly
Cassat
this
solemne
league
,
in
order
to
the
establishing
of
Prelacie
.
Ergo
,
by
their
own
confession
it
strikes
against
it
.
They
cassat
the
nationall
covenant
onlie
as
interpreted
against
Prelacie
,
supposing
that
it
will
not
in
its
self
strike
against
it
,
but
the
league
they
simply
abjure
,
and
disclaime
its
obligation
as
to
a
change
of
this
Prelacie
:
Ergo
they
doe
upon
the
mater
acknowledge
that
it
stricks
against
it
.
Finaly
,
Our
adversaries
doe
grant
that
it
strikes
against
Bishops
,
Arch-Bishops
,
Deans
&c
:
That
we
are
bound
therby
to
extirpat
such
officers
,
though
its
onlie
that
specifick
complex
forme
expressed
in
the
Second
Article
,
which
they
think
is
properlie
abjured
.
But
1.
Is
it
not
a
prelacie
inconsistent
with
Presbyterian
government
(
which
we
engadge
to
preserve
in
the
First
Article
)
which
wee
abjure
and
engage
to
extirpat
in
the
Second
,
and
under
this
formalis
ratio
,
as
thus
inconsistent
,
in
the
sense
and
judgement
of
our
Church
and
State
(
the
Imposers
of
the
Oath
)
?
And
are
not
Bishops
,
Arch-Bishops
,
Deans
&c
:
contrary
to
Presbyterian
government
,
then
in
being
?
2.
Dare
this
man
or
any
of
that
partie
deny
but
that
the
former
prelacie
which
we
had
in
Scotland
was
intended
to
be
abjured
by
our
Church
and
State
,
and
the
Imposers
and
renewers
of
this
oath
,
and
doe
not
all
engagements
bind
according
to
the
sense
of
Imposers
,
in
the
judgement
of
Casuists
?
3.
Is
not
our
Government
now
by
two
Arch-Bishops
and
twelve
Bishops
?
Have
not
these
their
Deans
,
Archdeacons
,
Chanters
&
c
?
4.
Are
not
our
Prelats
restored
to
all
their
pretended
priviledges
,
taken
from
them
by
the
Parliament
who
Imposed
this
oath
?
Nay
redintegrat
to
a
more
absolute
possession
of
pretended
Spirituall
authority
then
ever
any
befor
them
possessed
since
our
reformation
?
5.
Are
we
not
engadged
to
extirpat
all
Eeclesiastick
officers
depending
upon
that
hierarchie
,
as
we
are
engaged
against
whatsoever
is
contrary
to
sound
Doctrine
and
the
power
of
godlinesse
not
in
bulk
onlie
,
but
every
thing
Sigillatim
upon
this
ground
,
and
formalis
ratio
?
And
dare
any
of
them
deny
that
in
the
sense
of
Imposers
,
a
diocesian
Bishop
or
Arch-Bishop
(
especially
as
their
power
now
stands
enlarged
and
qualified
)
is
contrary
to
sound
doctrine
,
and
the
power
of
godlines
?
Dare
he
say
that
any
of
the
Imposers
judged
ane
Arch-Bishop
,
or
Bishop
,
especially
in
such
ane
Erastian
mould
as
he
is
now
,
to
be
consistent
with
the
word
of
God
?
Sure
he
were
very
Impudent
who
would
assert
it
.
This
being
clear
then
,
that
these
engadgements
leavells
against
the
present
Prelacie
,
let
us
point
out
Next
,
their
obliging
force
.
This
will
be
clear
,
if
we
consider
these
oaths
.
1.
In
their
forme
or
formalis
ratio
,
or
nature
and
essence
.
2.
In
relation
to
their
subject
whom
they
affect
.
3.
In
their
mater
and
object
.
4.
Their
end
and
designe
.
1.
In
their
Forme
,
and
that
either
in
relation
to
severall
sorts
of
tyes
included
in
them
.
Or
2.
The
Qualifiations
of
these
tyes
.
For
the
1.
They
are
oaths
wherin
God
is
invocked
as
a
witnesse
of
our
sinceritie
,
and
as
a
swift
witness
against
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
Ark
,
is
,
thou
shalt
not
take
the
name
of
the
Lord
thy
God
in
vaine
,
and
with
this
severe
Certificat
,
that
he
will
not
hold
them
guiltlesse
who
thus
profane
his
name
.
He
threatens
to
be
a
swift
witnesse
against
the
false
swearer
.
[
Thou
shalt
performe
to
the
Lord
thy
oaths
,
]
is
amongst
the
grand
and
morall
precepts
frequentlie
inculcat
in
Scripture
.
See
levit
:
6.
3.
19.
12.
Numb.
30.
2.
Psal.
15.
4.
In
this
egagement
the
debt
accrews
to
God
,
and
the
absolution
consequentlie
must
have
his
speciall
warrand
.
Quia
religio
juramenti
pertinet
ad
forum
divinum
.
Hence
the
Scripture
is
full
of
Instances
of
the
Lords
dreadfull
punishing
the
sin
of
perjurie
,
witnesse
that
of
Saul
and
Zedekiah
whereof
afterward
.
Now
in
both
these
engadgements
,
there
is
expresse
mention
made
of
Swearing
by
,
and
unto
God
.
2.
These
engadgements
are
promises
or
promissory
oaths
,
whererein
we
express
our
purpose
,
and
resolution
,
as
to
important
duties
both
to
God
and
man
,
invocking
himselfs
as
a
witness
of
our
sinceritie
:
we
have
opened
our
mouths
to
God
,
and
to
one
another
in
reference
to
great
and
weighty
duties
,
relating
to
the
first
and
Second
Table
.
O
what
strong
bonds
are
promises
,
especially
of
this
nature
;
what
conscience
did
even
heathens
make
of
them
,
where
of
instances
are
abundantly
adduced
in
the
Apologie
(
pag:
334
,
335.
&c.
)
3
:
These
engadgements
are
vowes
unto
God
,
that
is
promises
made
to
God
in
the
things
of
God
,
such
as
publick
and
personall
reformation
:
God
here
is
not
only
invoked
as
a
witness
,
but
is
the
proper
Correlat
and
partie
in
this
engagement
,
and
O
but
it
is
a
fearfull
thing
to
fall
into
his
hands
,
to
be
punished
for
the
breach
hereof
.
The
Scripture
is
full
as
to
commands
and
precedents
to
pay
and
performe
our
vowes
,
see
Numb
:
30
:
2.
1.
Sam:
1
,
21.
Ps.
76
,
11.
Ecc
:
5
,
4.
5.
4.
They
are
Covenants
,
and
that
both
with
God
and
man
,
viz:
engadgements
to
God
for
performance
of
duties
revealed
in
his
word
,
such
as
the
people
made
,
when
upon
the
lawes
promulgation
,
they
said
,
whatsoever
the
Lord
commands
we
will
doe
,
Exod.
19.
8.
cap.
24
:
3
,
7.
Deut.
5
,
27.
and
26
,
17.
and
therefore
are
so
often
charged
with
breach
of
Covenant
in
their
after
disobedience
.
We
have
engadged
to
God
(
in
these
vowes
)
speaking
to
us
in
his
word
from
heaven
,
touching
nationall
and
personall
reformation
.
Here
is
also
a
mutuall
stipulation
betwixt
the
nations
,
and
with
one
another
touching
important
duties
of
the
2d
.
table
in
relation
to
there
mutuall
rights
.
Now
,
the
Scripture
is
full
in
pointing
out
the
weight
and
importance
of
such
engadgements
,
see
Ezek:
17.
Jos.
9
:
18
,
19.
Neh
:
9
:
38.
Jer:
34
:
18.
So
that
in
these
Sacred
bonds
there
is
the
tye
of
an
oath
,
from
the
reverence
we
owe
to
God
,
whose
name
we
must
not
take
in
vain
.
The
obligation
of
a
vow
,
from
the
homage
and
fealty
we
owe
unto
him
,
the
strength
of
a
promise
,
both
to
God
and
man
,
from
the
influence
of
truth
and
righteousnesse
,
all
concurring
to
render
the
same
Sacred
and
inviolable
.
The
binding
force
of
these
engadgements
does
further
appear
in
their
qualities
,
as
1.
they
were
solemnly
taken
on
:
It
s
a
Maxime
that
the
obligation
grows
▪
with
the
solemnity
of
ane
engadgement
;
and
the
Scripture
aggregeth
the
breach
from
the
solemnity
,
such
as
the
cutting
the
ealfe
in
twain
,
and
Zedekiahs
giving
of
the
hand
&c.
For
this
imports
deliberation
and
resolution
in
the
engadgers
,
and
renders
the
breach
more
scandalous
and
infamous
.
These
oaths
were
taken
by
solemn
assemblies
,
and
Parliaments
,
after
conference
,
prayer
,
fasting
&c.
2.
These
are
holy
and
most
weightie
engagements
in
the
great
concerns
of
Gods
glory
and
our
own
salvation
,
the
crown
and
kingdome
of
Christ
against
Anti-christ
.
3.
They
are
large
and
extensive
,
including
duties
of
the
whole
word
of
God
,
all
duties
we
are
tyed
to
in
his
holy
law
.
4.
They
are
universall
engadgements
,
all
were
given
up
to
God
in
them
,
representatives
and
members
of
Church
and
state
.
5.
perpetuall
and
reall
,
as
that
betwixt
David
and
Ionathan
2.
Sam:
9
:
7
:
21
:
7.
That
betwixt
Ioshua
and
the
Gibeonites
,
Ioshua
9
:
18
,
19.
And
that
Covenant
Dent
:
29
:
14
,
15.
Secondly
the
binding
force
of
theseengadgements
appears
in
the
subject
they
affect
,
as
first
,
our
Church
in
her
representatives
,
and
in
their
most
publick
capacity
,
the
solemne
assemblies
in
both
nations
.
2.
State
representatives
&
Parliaments
,
thus
all
assurances
are
given
,
that
either
civil
or
Ecclesiastick
lawes
can
affoord
,
and
the
publick
faith
of
Church
&
state
is
plighted
with
inviolable
tyes
:
So
that
they
must
stand
while
we
have
a
Church
or
state
,
in
Scotland
;
both
as
men
and
as
Christians
,
as
mmbers
of
Church
&
State
,
under
either
a
rereligious
or
civill
consideration
,
we
stand
hereby
inviolably
engadged
:
and
not
only
representatives
but
the
incorporation
of
Church
and
State
are
under
the
same
.
Thirdly
their
binding
force
appears
in
the
matter
and
Object
,
1.
The
immediatformall
object
is
the
Word
of
God
&
the
Truths
and
duties
therein
contained
,
and
whatever
is
contrary
to
sound
doctrine
,
and
the
power
of
Godlinesse
,
under
that
formalis
ratio
,
is
here
abjured
,
the
eternall
Truth
of
the
Gospell
as
holden
out
in
the
Word
,
and
received
in
this
and
reformed
Kirks
being
the
grand
rule
in
this
engadgement
,
whatsoever
is
approved
by
it
,
is
embraced
,
and
what
is
condemned
by
it
,
is
rejected
under
that
notion
.
2.
The
more
remote
or
materiall
Object
,
are
the
publick
,
necessary
,
great
and
important
Truths
and
duties
therein
enumerat
,
both
of
the
1
and
2
Table
,
and
the
errours
and
sins
therein
abjured
:
To
the
observation
,
faith
and
obedience
of
the
one
,
and
abhorrencie
of
the
other
,
under
the
formentioned
consideration
as
either
consonant
unto
,
or
dissonant
from
Gods
eternall
Word
and
truth
,
we
stand
perpetually
and
inviolably
oblidged
:
So
that
this
Oath
hath
ane
objective
,
as
well
as
subjective
necessity
contained
therein
,
a
necessity
of
the
matter
in
its
own
nature
,
prior
to
the
engadgement
,
as
well
as
a
necessity
of
performance
flowing
from
the
engadgement
it self
,
which
may
take
place
in
things
indifferent
.
Finaly
the
constantly
obliging
ends
and
scope
of
these
engadgments
,
joyned
with
the
importance
of
the
Matter
subservient
to
these
ends
,
further
discover
their
inviolable
obligaions
.
There
is
here
both
necessitas
precepti
,
necessitas
medij
,
&
finis
.
The
matter
sworne
to
be
performed
,
falls
under
divine
precepts
,
the
sins
and
evills
abjured
,
falls
under
divine
prohibitions
,
and
these
engadgements
are
both
in
respect
of
the
matter
it self
,
and
as
to
the
professed
scope
of
the
swearers
and
engadgers
,
levelled
at
continually
obliging
ends
,
such
as
Gods
glory
,
the
advancing
of
Christs
Kingdom
,
the
publick
good
of
Church
and
State
,
the
preservation
and
propagation
of
publick
and
personall
reformation
,
truth
,
unity
&c.
Now
both
these
Oaths
and
Covenants
are
professedly
entered
into
as
perpetual
engadgements
,
and
in
order
to
these
great
ends
for
ever
to
be
promoted
,
as
their
tenor
clearly
holds
out
.
If
any
say
what
is
all
to
the
speciall
obligation
for
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
in
opposition
to
Prelacie●…
?
the
Oath
may
be
temporary
or
cassat
and
made
void
as
to
that
point
,
though
there
be
never
so
great
duties
otherwayes
engadged
unto
therin
.
Ans
This
particular
engadgement
in
relation
to
the
maintenance
of
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
in
opposition
to
Prelacie
,
runs
along
in
the
forementioned
particulars
.
1.
It
falls
under
the
obligation
of
the
Oath
,
vow
,
promise
,
and
Covenant
,
and
under
the
forementioned
qualifications
of
solemnity
,
universality
,
and
importance
.
Again
2.
the
publick
faith
of
Church
and
State
reaches
this
most
evidently
,
and
is
engadged
for
it
.
And
3.
as
Gods
great
ordinance
holden
out
in
his
Word
,
Presbyterian
Government
falls
within
the
compass
of
the
object
of
these
Oaths
,
and
under
that
consideration
is
sworne
to
be
maintained
,
and
Prelacie
as
contrary
therunto
is
abjured
,
which
contrariety
hath
been
already
cleaed
.
Again
Presbyterian
Government
is
here
engadged
unto
as
subservient
to
these
great
ends
mentioned
,
and
Prelacie
is
abjured
as
hindering
the
same
,
as
both
the
Word
of
God
and
experience
hath
convincingly
discovered
.
CHAP.
II.
The
Informers
arguments
against
the
abjuration
of
Prelacy
in
the
nationall
Covenant
fully
examined
.
Some
reasons
of
his
against
an
Oath
in
generall
,
or
this
Oaths
obligation
upon
the
posterity
,
weighed
.
The
Apologeticall
narration
,
and
the
Assembly
1638
,
vindicated
.
WE
come
now
to
examine
what
this
new
absolver
or
pretended
doubt-resolver
,
hath
presented
to
us
against
the
oblidging
force
of
these
great
engadgments
.
The
defence
which
he
hath
patcht
up
out
of
the
survey
of
Naphtali
,
and
that
pamphlet
called
the
seasonable
case
,
consists
of
2.
parts
.
1.
He
denys
that
the
bond
of
either
the
national
,
or
solemne
league
and
Covenant
,
doth
strike
against
the
present
Prelacie
.
2.
Upon
supposall
that
the
solemne
league
and
Covenant
doth
strike
against
it
,
he
denys
its
obligation
.
In
both
points
we
shall
examine
his
grounds
and
trace
his
Method
.
I
the
doubter
alledges
that
Prelates
are
abjured
in
the
Covenant
,
so
that
none
may
warrantably
owne
the
Ministry
of
such
as
preach
under
them
,
as
being
perjured
.
To
this
consequence
he
repones
nothing
,
but
seems
to
admitt
it
,
and
therefore
we
need
not
speak
unto
it
.
Only
he
quarrells
with
the
antecedent
&
tells
us
that
we
would
act
more
Christian
Like
,
if
we
were
sparing
in
judging
another
mans
servants
,
who
stand
or
fall
to
their
own
Master
.
But
the
judging
there
forbidden
,
being
a
rash
felfish
judging
of
others
in
things
indifferent
,
as
meats
or
drinks
,
and
(
as
Calvin
paraphraseth
the
words
)
de
hominium
factis
pronunciare
extra
verbum
Dei
de
factis
aliorum
non
licet
statuere
secundum
nostram
ipsius
estimationem
,
sed
ex
verbo
Dei
.
That
we
are
not
to
judge
of
mens
practises
by
our
own
opinion
,
but
according
to
the
rule
of
the
Word
,
and
not
without
its
limits
.
Telling
us
further
,
that
Iudicium
quod
a
verbo
sumitur
,
neque
humanum
est
neque
alienum
that
it
is
no
human
privat
judgement
which
is
drawn
from
the
Scriptures
,
the
impertinent
application
of
this
passage
&
premised
Scripture
to
our
case
,
which
is
a
practicall
disowning
of
palpable
perjury
,
and
turning
away
from
such
,
whose
instruction
causeth
to
erre
from
the
words
of
knowledge
,
is
obviously
evident
.
This
is
no
judging
without
Gods
word
,
but
according
to
it
,
to
say
that
perjury
is
perjury
,
sin
is
sin
.
Our
Informer
by
this
new
knack
would
take
away
all
christian
judgement
of
discretion
,
yea
by
this
his
wide
glosse
,
all
judiciall
decisions
whither
civill
or
ecclesiastik
.
Besides
,
is
not
his
pamphlet
a
judging
of
another
mans
servants
,
Ministers
and
people
,
as
schismaticks
and
what
not
,
for
disowning
Curats
upon
the
forementioned
grounds
.
Doth
he
not
and
all
his
party
judge
,
despise
,
and
persecute
the
people
God
,
for
that
which
he
calls
indifferent
,
and
a
disputable
point
,
at
the
foot
of
the
page
.
But
to
proceed
,
his
Doubter
alledging
[
that
all
stand
bound
against
Bishops
in
the
Covenants
which
doe
abjure
them
]
he
cryes
out
at
,
all
Bound
!
as
a
paradox
,
and
tells
us
that
many
Ministers
and
people
never
took
it
,
and
asks
if
we
think
them
bound
.
Yes
we
think
them
bound
as
we
do
judge
them
bound
in
Gods
covenant
(
Deut:
29.
)
who
were
not
there
,
as
well
as
these
who
were
there
,
young
and
old
,
wives
,
little
ones
,
from
the
hewer
of
wood
,
to
the
drawer
of
water
.
It
seems
this
man
either
hath
not
read
that
chapt:
or
understands
not
the
import
of
nationall
compacts
even
among
nations
themselves
;
which
do
certainlie
oblidge
all
members
in
the
incorporation
,
although
not
personally
sworne
by
every
individuall
.
Will
he
say
that
no
subject
as
a
born
subject
oweth
fealty
and
alledgeance
to
his
Majestie
,
but
such
as
have
personally
sworn
the
oaths
of
supremacie
or
alledgeance
.
If
so
,
then
a
man
could
not
,
be
guilty
of
treason
,
which
is
certainly
a
breach
of
this
fealty
,
unlesse
he
had
personally
sworn
,
which
I
know
not
who
will
assert
.
But
the
doubter
alledging
That
it
obligeth
even
the
posterity
,
he
tells
us
that
this
is
a
strange
fancy
,
Iuramentum
being
with
casuists
,
vinculum
personale
,
binding
those
that
took
it
only
,
that
accordingly
the
Covenant
sayes
,
[
we
every
one
for
ourselves
]
and
not
[
for
our selves
and
others
]
—
That
the
father
who
was
against
Bishops
,
his
swearing
should
not
prelimit
his
sons
judgement
(
who
is
for
them
)
in
a
disputable
point
,
or
oblidge
him
to
act
contrary
,
to
his
judgment
.
Ans:
1.
That
there
are
covenants
and
oaths
reall
and
hereditary
,
as
well
as
personal
,
is
evident
in
scripture
;
and
if
this
man
were
not
more
led
by
fancy
then
truth
he
would
not
deny
it
,
which
is
not
only
thus
evident
,
but
acknowledged
also
by
Casuists
.
Was
not
that
oath
and
Covenant
,
Deut:
29.
made
with
them
who
were
not
there
and
belonging
unto
(
and
by
consequence
engadging
)
their
seed
for
ever
.
Deut:
5
:
2
,
3.
Moses
tells
the
people
emphatically
that
God
made
the
Covenant
with
them
who
were
then
alive
,
even
that
Covenant
at
Horeb
,
though
they
were
all
near
dead
with
whom
it
was
made
.
Neh
9.
38.
all
entred
into
Covenant
but
only
some
sealed
it
.
Was
not
that
oath
of
Josephs
brethren
anent
the
carrying
up
of
his
bones
from
Egypt
to
Canaan
,
the
oath
to
the
Gibeonites
,
such
as
did
reach
and
oblidge
their
posteritie
?
So
that
oath
betwixt
David
and
Jonathan
.
2.
Sam:
9.
7.
Now
that
the
nature
of
this
oath
is
such
,
cannot
be
doubted
,
it
being
about
matters
of
perpetuall
and
everlasting
importance
,
which
no
time
can
alter
,
evacuat
or
limit
,
and
having
the
publick
faith
of
Church
and
state
interposed
therin
,
by
a
vowand
Covenant
with
God
and
man
over
and
above
the
oath
:
And
likewise
being
in
its
nature
promissory
,
in
relation
to
duties
,
midses
and
ends
perpetually
necessary
and
oblidging
,
it
is
palpably
evident
that
it
is
reall
,
and
not
personall
only
.
2.
For
that
expression
,
every
one
for
our selves
,
it
is
very
impertinently
here
alleadged
to
exclude
the
posterity
:
for
the
end
and
motive
of
the
oath
before
this
is
expressed
to
be
,
the
glory
of
God
,
the
advancement
of
Christs
kingdome
,
the
happiness
of
the
King
and
his
posterity
,
the
true
publick
liberty
,
safety
of
the
kingdomes
&c.
wherin
every
ones
private
state
is
included
;
which
of
necessity
includes
the
posterity
and
designes
the
obligation
for
them
.
Next
,
in
the
close
of
the
first
article
,
the
posterity
is
expresly
taken
in
,
when
the
end
and
designe
of
the
matters
therin
contained
is
said
to
be
,
that
we
and
our
posterity
after
us
may
live
in
faith
and
love
&c
:
And
in
the
close
of
the
5.
article
we
engadge
to
endeavour
that
the
Kingdomes
may
remaine
conjoined
in
a
firme
peace
and
union
to
all
posterity
:
and
therefor
his
negative
inference
viz:
for
our selves
,
and
not
for
our
posterity
,
is
opposit
unto
the
very
sense
,
scope
,
and
words
of
this
oath
:
so
that
this
clause
is
cleary
referable
unto
the
various
capacities
,
conditions
,
and
relations
,
wherein
,
in
order
to
the
work
of
God
,
the
then
engadgers
stood
.
3.
his
notion
about
prelimiting
the
son
by
the
fathers
engadgement
,
is
a
poore
shift
.
For
this
might
be
objected
against
any
nationall
mutuall
compact
,
in
matters
of
a
farr
lower
nature
then
this
.
This
might
have
been
objected
against
Josuahs
oath
to
the
Gibeonites
.
Might
not
the
posterity
look
upon
it
as
a
disputable
point
to
keep
unto
them
,
and
might
not
Zedekiahs
posterity
look
on
it
as
a
disputable
point
to
keep
that
oath
of
his
to
the
king
of
Babylon
?
I
wonder
if
this
man
would
think
it
ane
unlawfull
Covenant
and
vow
to
engadge
for
prelacie
as
now
constitute
,
and
oblidge
for
our selves
and
posterity
,
that
it
shall
stand
in
this
posture
.
Sure
he
will
not
deny
the
warrantableness
of
this
,
since
he
looks
upon
prelacie
as
the
ancient
apostolick
frame
,
owned
by
the
primitive
Church
.
But
shall
the
sons
judgement
who
is
other
wayes
minded
,
be
prelimited
by
the
father
,
or
els
must
he
act
contrary
to
his
judgement
?
let
the
Informer
see
to
this
.
If
he
say
it
s
not
a
disputable
point
to
hold
the
present
prelacie
,
and
that
therefor
the
son
is
oblidged
to
informe
his
judgement
and
act
rationally
,
the
obligation
to
the
dutie
carrying
in
its
bosom
a
prior
obligation
to
know
it
:
surely
he
must
acknowledge
that
this
is
our
case
and
answer
as
to
the
Covenant
;
and
that
consequently
his
objection
is
naught
,
and
the
horns
of
his
horned
argument
are
crooked
,
so
that
it
pushes
us
with
neither
of
them
.
We
might
also
here
tell
him
that
a
prelimitation
as
to
practice
,
in
many
things
not
indispensably
necessary
:
will
fall
under
the
fathers
paternall
power
over
Children
,
witnesse
that
case
of
the
Rechabites
:
And
that
this
will
not
in
every
thing
inferre
a
prelimi
,
tation
in
judgment
as
to
the
object
simpliciter
:
Nay
who
knows
no●…
that
the
great
morall
precept
[
honour
Thy
Father
and
thy
Mother
]
imports
a
very
extensive
obligation
upon
Children
as
such
,
in
order
to
obedience
to
parents
,
and
gives
unto
parents
a
large
,
and
extensive
authority
hereanent
.
But
shall
the
son
be
prelimit
in
his
judgment
anent
all
these
,
or
act
contrary
to
it
?
so
this
objection
(
in
the
Informers
sense
,
and
according
to
his
scope
)
will
blurre
out
a
great
part
of
the
5t
.
Command
.
But
what
needs
more
,
the
matters
here
engadged
unto
,
are
important
truths
and
dutys
,
not
disputable
points
,
as
he
and
the
rest
of
his
adiaphorist
latitudinarian
party
would
make
them
:
and
therefor
we
are
under
perpetuall
obligations
to
owne
and
mantaine
the
same
.
But
if
this
man
will
abide
a
quere
here
,
and
a
litle
retortion
of
his
notion
further
,
thinks
he
it
not
hard
to
prelimit
the
faithfull
ministery
and
professors
of
this
nation
,
in
their
judgement
about
his
disputable
points
of
the
present
conformity
,
by
so
many
laws
and
acts
,
or
else
oblidge
them
to
act
contrary
to
their
judgement
?
Sure
fathers
have
at
least
as
great
,
if
not
a
greater
authority
to
limit
their
children
,
then
the
Prelats
and
their
party
to
prelimit
the
Presbyterian
Ministers
of
this
Church
.
Especially
(
which
is
our
advantage
in
this
comparison
)
the
children
being
supposed
under
no
previous
contrary
obligations
to
that
which
in
this
case
the
fathers
put
upon
them
in
relation
to
prelacie
,
as
the
non-conformists
are
under
counter
obligations
to
that
which
is
now
demanded
of
them
by
their
persequutors
.
Mr
Crofton
.
(
in
his
analepsis
,
pag.
145.
)
tells
us
that
considering
the
Covenant
as
made
by
the
people
of
England
,
as
a
Kingdom
and
a
Politicall
body
,
professing
the
reformed
religion
,
it
looks
like
a
nationall
obligation
,
that
the
confluence
of
publick
assent
and
authority
by
the
people
collectively
and
distributively
considered
,
the
accession
of
Royall
assent
,
makes
it
a
Publick
and
nationall
Covenant
,
binding
all
persons
of
the
nation
(
that
sware
,
or
sware
not
personally
)
and
our
posterity
after
us
,
in
their
particular
places
,
and
all
that
shall
succeed
unto
the
publick
places
,
and
Politick
capacities
of
this
kingdom
,
to
preserve
and
pursue
the
things
therein
promised
,
so
long
as
it
remaines
a
kingdom
,
under
one
king
,
and
in
the
profession
of
one
reformed
religion
.
He
enforces
this
with
the
lord
chief
Barons
speech
,
to
the
condemned
traytors
at
the
old
baylie
[
you
were
bound
to
beare
allegance
to
your
king
,
yea
though
you
may
not
have
taken
the
oath
of
alleadgance
your selves
,
yet
yow
were
bound
by
the
Recogintion
of
king
James
and
his
posterity
made
at
his
first
coming
to
the
crown
of
this
Realme
,
by
the
whole
parliament
,
being
the
whole
collective
body
of
the
kindom
]
hence
he
inferrs
,
that
they
and
their
posterity
,
must
needs
be
bound
,
who
themselves
have
[
universaly
]
by
the
authority
of
such
who
were
intrusted
for
them
engadged
the
faith
of
the
nation
:
for
I
see
not
(
saith
he
)
how
they
can
give
away
our
estates
or
take
pardons
in
the
name
,
and
to
the
security
of
the
nation
if
they
may
not
in
our
name
make
oaths
,
promises
,
and
Covenants
to
bind
us
and
our
Succeeding
generations
and
posterities
,
in
sense
whereof
I
cannot
but
desire
all
that
wish
well
to
England
to
consider
the
Covenant
,
the
Solemne
League
and
Covenant
.
So
that
with
Mr
Crofton
it
is
an
uncontrovertible
point
,
that
the
obligation
of
this
Sacred
oath
reaches
the
posterity
,
which
he
makes
good
from
the
sense
and
pleading
of
the
Lord
chief
Baron
in
the
point
of
alledgance
and
fealty
to
his
Majesty
which
is
the
sentiment
of
all
Lawers
,
and
of
the
law
itself
.
So
that
what
our
Informer
calls
ane
odd
fancy
,
appears
to
be
a
most
solid
truth
,
consonant
both
to
Scripture
,
reason
and
the
law
of
nations
.
As
for
the
next
objection
of
his
doubter
anent
the
fathers
oblidging
for
the
child
in
Baptism
it
is
not
our
argument
,
nor
is
sutable
to
the
state
of
this
question
,
which
is
concerning
a
Covenant
taken
for
our
seed
als
well
as
for
our selves
;
and
if
he
acknowledge
that
the
father
binds
not
,
in
the
name
and
room
of
the
childe
,
then
it
toucheth
not
our
point
,
for
our
question
is
about
fathers
taking
on
engadgements
for
themselves
and
their
posterity
.
As
for
what
the
Informer
adds
here
,
its
good
that
he
acknowledges
that
ane
oblidging
force
flows
from
the
binding
mater
in
that
baptismall
Covenant
,
and
that
the
childs
obligation
is
strengthened
by
his
vow
,
which
is
enough
in
our
case
against
him
,
since
the
matter
of
our
Covenants
,
and
vows
fall
under
divine
precepts
,
to
which
the
obligation
of
the
oaths
and
vows
is
accessory
.
So
that
having
sworne
to
keep
these
holy
engadgements
unto
God
,
we
must
performe
,
and
here
he
contradicts
his
forleader
,
the
author
▪
of
the
seasonable
case
,
who
will
have
us
either
acknowledge
the
matter
of
the
Covenant
indifferent
,
or
not
plead
the
force
of
an
oath
or
vow
as
superadded
to
that
which
was
duty
before
.
The
doubter
next
objects
That
having
sworne
against
prelacie
we
must
not
any
more
dispute
,
or
question
the
obligation
,
citing
,
Prov:
20.
25.
This
objection
he
advantagiously
for
himself
,
but
foolishly
propones
,
that
he
may
make
way
for
some
discourse
(
forsooth
)
upon
this
Scripture
.
We
acknowledge
as
well
as
he
,
that
we
are
not
forbidden
to
enquire
into
an
oath
and
vow
in
what
cases
,
and
how
farre
it
is
binding
.
Nay
this
is
commanded
,
since
we
must
both
sweare
and
performe
in
Iudgement
,
which
requires
a
knowledge
and
inquiry
as
we
saide
before
;
and
when
an
oath
of
vow
is
found
materialy
unlawfull
,
and
vinculum
Iniquitatis
,
it
is
no
transgression
of
this
precept
to
quite
it
.
Such
an
inquiry
as
is
in
order
to
the
understanding
and
performance
of
this
vow
in
faith
,
we
will
allow
whither
to
young
or
old
.
Only
for
what
he
sayes
of
many
who
were
put
to
sweare
at
schools
and
colledges
,
and
engadge
in
this
Covenant
,
who
could
not
do
it
in
judgement
,
it
is
a
calumnie
which
he
cannot
justifie
,
all
being
exhorted
and
instructed
therein
who
were
come
to
Years
of
discretion
,
so
as
to
be
in
capacity
to
enter
into
this
Covenant
,
with
judgement
:
and
if
lesser
young
ones
present
in
congregations
where
it
was
sworne
,
did
signifie
a
spontaneous
consent
,
it
was
no
more
,
then
what
Israels
litle
ones
did
by
their
presence
before
the
Lord
,
Deut:
29.
Well
,
but
what
is
forbidden
ehre
to
make
inquiry
(
saith
he
)
how
the
vow
may
be
eluded
.
This
is
ingenuouslie
saide
,
and
hereby
his
own
lips
condemne
him
and
all
his
party
,
who
have
been
now
for
many
years
,
racking
their
wits
to
finde
out
evasions
how
to
elude
this
Sacred
vow
.
Witnesse
the
many
pamphlets
on
this
Subject
since
his
Majestie
's
returne
,
and
this
mans
among
the
rest
.
But
the
Doubter
alleading
that
upon
enquiry
we
will
finde
our selves
bound
against
prelacy
both
by
the
nationall
&
solemme
League
.
He
falls
upon
his
impugnation
first
of
the
nationall
Covenant
,
telling
us
as
touching
it
[
that
the
terme
of
the
Popes
wicked
hiearchy
will
not
include
prelacie
,
as
the
survey
of
Naphtali
fully
proves
]
well
,
let
us
hear
these
proofs
.
The
first
is
because
king
Iames
and
his
counsel
(
the
imposers
of
that
Covenant
,
and
the
takers
of
it
,
Anno
1580
)
did
in
anno
1581
:
ratifie
the
agreement
at
Leith
,
made
betwixt
the
Commissioners
of
the
state
and
Church
anno
1581.
which
was
in
favours
of
episcopacy
.
And
would
the
king
and
counsell
the
next
year
have
acted
so
contrary
to
it
,
if
they
had
thought
all
episcopacy
to
be
abjured
therin
Ans.
Is
this
the
great
demonstration
,
which
the
Survever
,
and
he
have
drawen
out
to
prove
this
point
,
this
being
nothing
but
the
old
musty
store
of
the
Seasonable
case
,
better
propounded
therein
,
then
it
s
here
.
To
this
I
say
,
first
,
it
is
a
very
weak
or
rather
wilde
proof
to
conclude
that
such
a
corruption
as
prelacie
could
not
be
imported
in
that
expression
,
Because
the
takers
and
imposers
did
some
time
after
counteract
and
contradict
their
engadgement
:
must
the
sense
of
a
promissory
oath
and
Covenant
be
measured
by
the
after
practice
of
engadgers
?
Sure
he
will
not
darre
to
admit
this
rule
,
and
yet
it
s
the
very
topick
of
his
argument
.
I
would
but
ask
him
,
if
we
could
clearly
demonstrat
from
the
words
of
this
oath
,
and
from
this
expression
,
that
episcopacy
is
therein
abjured
,
must
he
not
grant
that
this
argument
taken
from
their
after
practice
who
took
it
,
will
signifie
nothing
,
since
it
cannot
stand
good
against
the
sense
of
the
words
,
and
the
obligation
natively
resulting
therefrom
.
Sure
he
cannot
deny
this
,
else
he
will
swallow
monstrous
absurdities
.
And
therefor
unlesse
he
can
disprove
our
arguments
,
which
do
prove
prelacie
to
be
abjured
in
that
oath
,
and
by
the
words
in
their
genuine
sense
,
he
must
grant
that
this
practicall
argument
will
signifie
nothing
.
2.
He
might
have
found
that
the
Apologist
outshoots
the
Surveyer
and
him
,
as
also
the
Seasonable
case
in
their
own
bow
,
and
breaks
this
argument
with
a
wedge
of
their
own
setting
:
for
whereas
they
alledge
that
about
a
year
or
lesse
after
this
Covenant
was
imposed
and
taken
,
King
James
ratified
that
aggreement
at
Leith
.
He
retorts
that
at
the
assembly
1581.
which
had
declared
prelacie
utterly
Unlawfull
,
and
without
warrand
in
the
word
,
the
Kings
Commissioner
presented
to
them
(
together
with
the
Covenant
subscribed
by
the
King
)
a
plot
of
presbyterys
to
be
erected
by
him
through
the
Kingdom
,
together
with
his
letter
to
noblemen
and
gentlemen
to
be
assistant
therein
,
and
for
dissolving
prelacies
,
to
make
way
for
these
judicatories
made
up
of
Ministers
and
Elders
.
Hence
(
Saith
he
)
how
could
King
James
intend
prelacy
by
this
confession
since
the
self
same
day
(
a
shorter
time
then
half
a
year
)
wherein
this
confession
(
subscribed
by
him
and
his
houshold
)
was
presented
to
be
subscribed
by
the
assembly
,
he
presented
a
plot
of
presbyteries
to
be
erected
through
the
Kingdom
.
Now
let
our
Absolvers
Medium
come
in
here
,
would
King
and
counsell
have
acted
so
much
for
presbytery
,
and
in
opposition
to
Prelacie
,
in
that
very
day
wherein
this
nationall
Covenant
was
presented
by
him
,
If
he
had
not
judged
prelacie
to
be
therein
abjured
,
and
presbyterie
engaged
unto
.
And
(
if
this
assemblies
carriage
will
have
any
weight
in
this
argument
)
would
they
have
recorded
this
oath
as
the
Test
and
badge
of
this
their
nationall
engagement
,
after
they
had
immediatly
before
judicially
declared
against
prelacie
,
if
they
had
not
looked
upon
it
as
abjured
therin
,
and
understood
this
oath
in
a
sense
opposit
thereunto
.
The
Informers
next
reason
is
,
that
in
their
strivings
with
the
King
to
get
prelacie
away
,
they
never
used
this
argument
;
that
it
was
abjured
in
the
nationall
Covenan●…
,
which
they
would
have
done
,
had
they
thought
it
to
be
included
in
that
expression
,
of
[
the
Popes
Hierarchie
.
]
This
,
our
Informer
hath
very
justly
copied
out
of
the
Seasonable
case
.
What
?
had
the
Surveyer
in
all
these
pages
which
he
cites
,
no
new
notions
to
furnish
him
with
,
that
this
proctor
is
still
feeding
on
the
old
store
.
But
to
the
matter
,
first
,
how
(
I
pray
)
runs
this
argument
,
[
Ministers
pleaded
not
this
obligation
at
that
time
with
King
James
:
Ergo
,
There
was
no
such
meaning
in
the
nationall
Covenant
]
surely
this
is
a
wide
consequence
.
2.
this
is
yet
wider
[
we
know
not
of
any
such
pleading
at
that
time
:
ergo
there
was
none
]
besides
,
he
might
have
found
that
the
Apollogist
tells
him
out
of
Petries
hist:
pag.
448.
That
Mr.
Melvin
in
anno
1584.
writing
to
divines
abroad
anent
our
Church
,
shews
them
that
three
years
since
,
the
discipline
of
this
Church
was
approved
,
sealed
,
and
confirmed
with
profession
of
faith
,
subscription
of
hand
,
and
religion
of
oath
,
by
the
King
and
every
subject
of
every
state
particularly
.
And
that
(
pag
;
570.
)
he
shews
that
when
some
Ministers
(
anno
1604
)
were
accused
by
the
Synod
of
Lothian
as
to
a
designe
of
overturning
the
government
,
the
synod
presented
the
confession
of
faith
to
them
,
as
containing
ane
abjuration
of
prelacie
,
and
a
vow
for
presbyterian
government
,
And
that
Mr.
Forbes
one
of
the
impannelled
Ministers
for
holding
that
meeting
at
Aberdeen
in
anno
1605.
in
his
discourse
to
the
gentlemen
of
the
assize
,
shewed
that
they
were
bound
by
the
nationall
Covenant
to
mantaine
the
discipline
of
the
Church
,
and
having
read
it
to
them
,
he
told
them
that
they
would
be
guilty
of
perjury
,
if
for
feare
or
flattery
they
discernd
that
to
be
treason
which
themselves
had
sworne
and
subscribed
.
Who
also
desired
the
Earle
of
Dunbar
to
shew
the
King
what
followed
upon
the
breach
of
the
oath
to
the
Gibeonites
,
and
that
they
feared
the
like
should
fall
on
him
and
his
posterity
.
The
Seasonable
case
(
pag:
13.
)
acknow
ledges
that
Ministers
at
that
time
lookt
upon
themselves
as
obliged
against
prelacy
,
by
the
national
Covenant
,
as
well
as
we
by
the
League
,
in
plaine
contradiction
to
this
Informer
.
As
for
that
which
he
adds
[
of
Beza's
intention
in
writing
against
prelacie
]
we
spoke
to
it
already
upon
the
first
dialogue
.
And
seeing
this
man
objects
to
us
Beza
here
again
,
we
will
offer
to
his
consideration
,
Beza
his
79.
epistle
written
to
John
Knox
,
and
dated
at
Geneva
,
Aprile
12.
1562.
Wherein
he
sayes
,
This
is
the
blessing
of
God
that
ye
brought
into
Scotland
,
together
with
the
sownd
doctrine
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
good
discipline
—
he
obrests
him
to
keep
these
two
,
since
if
the
one
be
lost
,
the
other
cannot
long
continue
—
thereafter
he
imputes
it
to
this
cause
,
viz
the
want
of
this
pure
discipline
,
that
the
gospell
is
preached
to
many
in
judgement
,
not
in
Mercy
.
Then
he
adds
,
I
would
have
thee
(
my
Knox
)
and
the
rest
of
the
brethren
remember
(
which
is
now
as
befor
our
eyes
)
that
as
the
Bishops
brought
in
the
papacie
,
so
these
false
Bishops
the
relicts
of
papacie
,
will
bring
Epicurisme
into
the
Church
.
Let
them
beware
of
this
whoever
wish
the
safety
of
the
Church
:
and
seeing
ye
have
once
banished
is
out
of
Scotland
,
receive
it
never
again
,
albeit
it
doth
flatter
with
the
shew
of
retaining
unity
,
whereby
many
of
the
best
ancients
were
deceived
.
See
Petries
hist.
part.
3.
pag.
376.
The
Doubter
next
enquiring
what
is
meant
by
the
Popes
hierarchie
.
He
answers
,
not
all
Bishops
,
but
these
who
actually
depended
upon
the
Pope
,
and
that
all
Bishops
can
no
more
be
understood
,
then
reformed
Presbyters
,
who
renounce
their
dependance
upon
him
;
Presbyters
and
Deacons
being
a
part
of
his
hierarchie
,
as
the
Council
of
Trent
determines
.
Ans.
This
is
already
removed
when
we
did
shew
that
prelacy
is
here
abjured
simpliciter
,
and
absoluty
,
abstracting
from
this
dependance
,
it
being
here
abjured
as
other
corruptions
are
abjured
,
not
mainly
or
only
,
because
the
Pope
brought
them
in
(
as
the
assembly
at
Glasgow
in
the
year
1638
clears
it
in
their
explanatory
act
,
and
likewise
the
Apollogist
pag.
396.
)
but
as
a
corruption
,
●…ex
se
&
sua
natura
of
its
own
nature
,
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
,
and
the
pure
received
doctrine
of
this
Church
.
It
is
His
wicked
hierarchie
as
the
rest
of
the
corruptious
therein
enumerat
,
are
called
[
his
]
such
as
invocation
of
Saints
,
dedications
of
altars
&c.
Because
introduced
by
him
,
not
to
distinguish
these
corruptions
,
from
a
lawfull
dedication
of
altars
,
worshipping
of
Images
&c.
Doth
this
man
think
that
these
Reformers
would
have
admitted
such
corruptions
presented
under
another
notion
then
the
Popes
authority
,
and
obtruded
by
this
Argument
;
that
their
dependance
upon
him
being
broken
off
,
they
were
no
more
to
be
accounted
his
corruptions
?
]
or
that
they
would
have
embraced
extreme
unction
,
or
some
other
of
his
Sacraments
,
and
the
inferiour
orders
of
Lectors
,
Acoluthi
,
Exorcists
&c
:
upon
some
other
consideration
then
his
Sacraments
or
orders
?
surely
he
dare
not
assert
this
,
and
so
the
case
is
here
.
2.
As
for
his
reason
that
otherwise
all
Ministers
and
Deacons
should
be
abjured
.
It
is
very
impertinent
,
Because
1.
Ministers
and
Deacons
,
are
officers
of
divine
appointment
,
so
that
the
abuse
being
removed
,
this
divine
officer
stands
;
but
prelacie
is
,
exse
,
or
of
it self
,
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
,
as
we
have
proved
.
2.
The
Hierarchie
is
abjured
in
that
Covenant
,
as
contrary
to
the
then
discipline
of
this
Church
,
but
so
are
not
Presbyters
and
Deacons
.
3.
We
have
proved
that
the
Hierarchie
,
and
the
speciall
prerogatives
which
prelates
arrogate
to
themselves
,
ar
originaly
papal
,
and
they
in
a
speciall
manner
are
looked
upon
by
him
as
his
creatures
.
4.
as
the
Papacy
cannot
subsist
without
prelacie
,
and
any
otherwayes
then
upon
its
shoulders
,
so
neirher
prelacie
nor
the
Papacy
can
consist
with
Presbyterian
government
,
and
Presbyters
divine
right
and
power
.
The
Doubter
next
objects
[
that
all
Bishops
depend
on
the
Pope
,
citing
Appol
:
pag.
395.
And
that
therefor
all
Episcopacy
is
abjured
in
this
oath
.
]
He
answers
,
the
Apologie
sayes
they
depend
upon
the
Pope
,
in
esse
&
operari
,
but
asks
how
he
proves
it
,
and
tells
us
that
to
say
it
is
so
because
the
Pope
acknowledges
they
depend
upon
him
alone
,
is
a
poor
because
,
evident
to
any
ordinary
capacity
,
resolving
this
upon
the
Popes
[
ipse
dixit
]
like
a
Papist
,
and
gives
the
Papists
that
advantage
over
Protestant
Churches
,
that
a
Bishop
depends
upon
the
Popes
supremacie
,
now
and
from
the
beginning
,
wherein
he
saith
,
protestants
do
oppose
the
Pope
and
prove
that
his
supremacy
was
contradicted
by
Councils
and
Fathers
.
Anf
:
The
silly
Impertinency
of
this
new
agent
of
the
tottering
cause
,
is
here
very
evident
,
in
thus
reflecting
upon
that
Author
,
whose
answers
to
these
poor
arguments
of
the
Seasonable
case
,
he
dare
not
touch
.
For
that
Pamphleter
alleging
[
that
Prelates
are
not
abjured
in
that
Covenant
,
but
as
they
depend
on
the
Pope
,
as
it
abjures
the
five
bastard
Sacraments
,
as
he
makes
them
Sacraments
,
and
that
therefor
the
corruptions
only
of
these
offices
which
flow
from
him
,
are
abjured
,
and
as
a
part
of
his
blasphemous
priesthood
.
]
The
Apollogist
taking
this
concession
,
inferrs
thereupon
,
That
if
these
offices
be
abjured
as
a
part
of
his
Hierarchie
,
and
as
confirmed
by
,
and
depending
upon
him
,
then
Prelates
are
abjured
,
who
depend
upon
him
in
esse
&
operári
.
The
Prelate
as
such
being
no
officer
of
divine
appointment
,
as
the
Presbyter
and
deacon
,
which
if
they
were
,
then
this
Casuists
argument
would
hold
good
,
that
we
were
to
remove
the
corruption
,
and
retain
the
institution
and
ordinance
of
God
.
But
since
we
do
suppose
the
office
it●…self
to
be
a
corruption
,
and
he
hath
not
proved
the
contrary
,
his
paralled
as
to
the
bastard
Sacraments
is
naught
.
And
to
clear
this
matter
of
fact
that
they
are
a
part
of
the
Popes
hierarchie
,
by
the
Popes
acknowledgement
,
that
Author
cites
Peter-Suave
in
his
history
of
the
council
of
Trent
,
where
the
Pope
would
not
have
it
determined
,
whither
Prelats
were
Iuris
Divini
,
lest
they
should
not
depend
upon
him
after
this
as
formerlie
.
Now
the
question
here
being
,
whether
the
Pope
lookt
upon
Prelates
as
a
part
of
his
hierarchie
,
as
in
the
capacity
of
Prelates
:
in
order
to
the
clearing
of
this
other
question
depending
betwixt
this
reverend
author
,
and
the
Author
of
the
Seasenable
case
,
viz.
whither
our
Reformers
intended
to
abjure
Prelats
in
that
Covenant
,
as
a
part
of
the
Popes
hierarchie
.
To
clear
this
matter
of
fact
,
what
could
be
more
pertinent
then
the
Popes
own
acknowledgement
,
and
judiciall
declarator
;
that
de
facto
they
depend
upon
him
,
and
areowned
as
parts
of
his
hierarchie
,
is
in
this
convincingly
apparent
.
That
de
jure
they
have
no
divine
warrand
,
this
author
supposed
it
as
his
principle
,
the
contrary
wherof
neither
that
Pamphleter
,
nor
any
other
hath
proved
:
So
that
the
Popes
[
ipse
dixit
]
in
this
,
is
sufficient
to
prove
this
matter
of
fact
.
That
he
made
not
the
Popes
,
[
ipse
dixit
]
the
rule
to
decide
whither
this
officer
be
juris
divini
,
or
not
,
is
in
this
convincingly
evident
(
and
by
consequence
this
mans
obvious
folly
in
imputing
to
him
such
ane
assertion
)
that
he
grants
,
that
if
this
Casuist
had
proved
the
Prelate
to
be
juris
divini
,
and
institute
by
Christ
or
his
Apostles
,
then
the
abjuring
[
of
the
Popes
wicked
Hierarchie
]
,
would
import
only
the
abjuring
of
[
the
corruption
of
this
officer
]
,
whose
lawfull
office
might
be
still
retained
:
but
this
casuist
taking
this
for
granted
that
he
is
so
institute
,
and
reasoning
upon
that
supposition
,
the
author
had
good
ground
,
until
his
Antagonist
as
the
affirmer
shouldpro
vehis
supposition
,
to
hold
fast
his
own
principle
viz
,
that
the
prelats
Episcopal
being
is
papal
:
which
is
cleared
by
many
of
the
Learned
from
convincing
Testimonies
.
Let
this
Resolver
read
Leo
(
epist.
86.
)
and
Swave
(
Tom.
4.
pag.
465.
of
the
Council
of
Trent
,
sess.
23.
cap.
4.
de
Sacram.
ordinis
)
where
Anathema
is
pronounced
upon
any
that
denyes
Prelates
power
of
ordination
.
&c.
over
Presbyters
.
I
suppose
he
were
alleging
against
a
Papist
that
some
of
the
Popish
orders
are
essential
pieces
of
his
hierarchie
,
and
should
prove
it
by
the
Popes
acknowledgment
and
constitutions
,
would
he
think
the
Papists
rejoynder
good
,
ergo
,
ye
owne
the
Popes
authority
,
and
make
his
,
[
ipse
dixit
]
judge
.
Say
it
were
a
question
anent
ths
Acoluthi
or
Exorcists
&c.
Whither
they
are
a
part
of
the
Popes
Hierarchie
?
would
he
not
think
the
Popes
acknowledgment
and
owning
them
for
such
,
to
be
a
sufficient
argument
to
prove
this
?
Since
he
supposeth
(
and
rationally
)
that
they
have
no
other
right
either
in
esse
,
or
operari
.
Do
not
all
our
divines
draw
Arguments
from
the
Pope
and
his
councils
acknowledgment
,
to
prove
their
owning
of
many
corruptions
,
and
that
they
are
properly
theirs
.
But
do
they
justifie
the
Popes
[
Ipse
dixit
]
in
proving
this
,
or
in
this
method
of
arguing
?
since
they
do
suppose
aliunde
,
that
they
have
no
divine
right
,
as
the
Apologist
in
the
point
of
prelacie
rationally
doth
.
2.
as
for
what
he
adds
of
protestant
Churchet
,
or
Prelates
,
their
opposing
the
Popes
pretended
right
and
Supremacy
hereanent
,
we
say
that
they
impugne
his
supremacy
best
,
who
lay
an
axe
to
its
root
[
prelacie
]
.
And
to
grant
that
prelacy
is
of
its
self
a
part
of
his
Hierarchie
,
will
no
more
justify
his
supremacy
,
then
Pauls
saying
that
the
mysterie
of
iniquity
was
working
in
his
time
would
do
it
.
And
al
tho
the
first
Proestotes
or
Bishops
did
not
formally
depend
upon
him
,
yet
as
a
humane
device
they
made
way
for
him
,
and
eatenus
,
are
a
part
of
his
Hierarchie
,
which
the
opposition
of
some
Bishops
when
he
first
attempted
supremacy
doth
nothing
invalidat
.
Besides
that
the
question
here
betwixt
the
Apologist
and
that
Pamphleter
,
was
about
prelacie
as
it
appeared
befor
the
Reformers
in
its
then
being
and
would
,
but
not
of
the
first
proestotes
or
moderatours
.
What
he
adds
here
anent
Calvin
[
his
owning
of
a
hierarchie
,
and
pronouncing
Anathema
upon
them
who
would
dissowne
it
,
if
cut
off
from
its
dependance
upon
the
Pope
]
is
answered
already
upon
the
1.
Dialogue
.
He●…e
I
shall
only
adde
,
that
if
Calvin
in
that
passage
,
opposed
unto
the
[
Popish
Bishops
]
Such
as
take
Christ
for
their
head
,
what
curse
will
he
not
judge
them
worthy
of
,
who
owne
and
plead
for
such
Bishops
as
pretending
to
renounce
the
Popes
headship
,
take
for
their
immediat
head
a
civill
Pope
,
and
make
him
as
to
all
spirituall
maters
,
a
more
absolute
head
then
the
Pope
himself
.
As
for
his
argument
from
these
Ministers
who
reasoned
with
the
Doctors
of
Aberdeen
[
their
declaring
that
the
Doctors
might
take
the
Nationall
Covenant
,
and
yet
debate
and
vote
in
relation
to
episcopacie
in
the
ensuing
assembly
]
I
wonder
what
blurred
this
mans
eyes
,
that
citing
pag.
395.
of
the
Apollogy
,
he
could
not
look
back
,
to
pag.
393.
where
he
might
have
found
this
argument
of
his
Master
the
author
of
the
Seasonable
case
answered
,
which
this
casuist
drew
from
that
pamphlet
emitted
anno
1638.
under
the
name
of
his
Majesties
Commissioner
;
so
that
we
have
it
here
in
the
3●…
concoction
,
and
yet
it
is
as
raw
as
at
the
first
.
The
answer
in
short
is
(
I
remit
it
at
length
to
his
reading
in
that
peice
)
that
it
was
not
the
nationall
Covenant
it self
that
the
Doctors
scrupled
to
subscribe
,
and
consequently
anent
which
that
debate
was
stated
betwixt
the
Ministers
and
them
,
but
the
addition
containing
,
the
application
to
the
present
times
,
which
as
to
prelacie
was
expressed
thus
[
a
forbearing
the
approbation
of
the
corruptions
of
the
publick
government
of
the
Church
]
by
this
they
thought
they
were
expresly
specifically
bound
against
prelacie
:
this
these
Ministers
denyed
,
but
never
said
that
prelacie
was
not
abjured
in
the
nationall
Covenant
it
self
,
or
the
negative
Confession
.
Let
this
Absolver
read
the
answers
of
the
Ministers
,
wherein
this
will
be
cleared
.
The
Doubter
next
objects
[
that
the
decision
of
the
assembly
1638.
put
it
out
of
doubt
that
prelacie
was
abjured
in
that
Covenant
,
and
that
all
Episcopacy
was
meant
by
the
Popes
hierarchie
]
.
To
which
he
answers
.
1.
That
prelacie
being
of
divine
,
or
Apostolick
right
,
that
decision
is
null
from
the
beginning
.
Ans.
wheras
he
sayes
he
hath
proved
prelacie
to
be
of
divine
or
apostolik
right
,
I
will
presume
to
say
I
have
proved
the
contrary
;
so
that
the
Covenant
is
so
far
from
being
null
upon
this
ground
,
that
it
is
rather
an
accessorie
tye
to
disown
a
corruption
,
to
the
disowning
wherof
,
wewere
before
by
scripture
grounds
preoblidged
.
But
passing
this
,
he
next
alledges
that
it
was
more
then
that
assembly
could
do
to
declare
this
.
Who
so
?
1.
(
sayth
he
)
how
could
they
put
a
sense
upon
ane
oath
taken
58.
years
before
,
and
few
or
none
of
the
first
takers
alive
,
or
if
alive
,
few
or
none
members
of
that
assemblie
?
how
could
they
know
that
their
exposition
was
according
to
the
mind
of
the
first
imposers
?
But
why
will
this
Plageary
tell
us
still
over
and
over
the
arguments
of
the
Seasonable
case
,
without
noticing
the
answer
therof
already
exhibit
unto
him
?
did
not
the
Apologist
tell
him
,
that
this
reason
supposeth
the
sense
of
that
Covenant
to
perish
with
the
first
framers
.
And
whereas
that
casuist
added
,
to
make
the
argument
stronger
(
which
this
his
disciple
forgot
)
that
the
oath
being
vinculum
personale
,
they
could
not
give
the
sense
of
dead
men
.
To
this
the
Apologist
answers
,
that
there
is
also
a
vinculum
reale
,
as
this
nationall
oath
was
,
and
that
it
oblidging
all
the
Land
,
and
the
posterity
,
we
were
accordingly
in
order
to
performance
,
bound
to
Search
into
its
meaning
,
and
that
this
was
the
proper
work
&
duty
of
a
general
assembly
.
That
that
casuist
himself
acknowledged
(
which
this
borrower
should
have
noticed
)
that
this
was
the
judgement
of
Ministers
concerning
its
sense
when
prelates
were
first
obtruded
upon
this
Church
,
so
that
its
true
meaning
from
hand
to
hand
was
come
to
them
,
and
that
they
were
the
more
in
tuto
to
judge
of
it
.
And
whereas
the
argument
of
the
Seasonable
case
had
a
Limitation
in
it
which
this
man
forgott
,
viz:
[
unless
that
assembly
could
produce
authentick
evidences
that
this
was
the
meaning
of
Imposers
]
the
Apologist
told
him
that
they
did
produce
authentick
expresse
evidences
,
that
such
was
the
meaning
of
the
first
takers
.
I
would
know
how
this
man
comes
to
descant
upon
the
sense
of
ancient
writers
in
this
pamphlet
,
and
to
determine
anent
sentences
of
private
writers
,
dead
severall
centuries
of
years
agoe
?
He
is
very
confident
in
fastning
his
Glosses
upon
Jerom's
words
.
I
trowe
that
Author
is
dead
more
then
58.
years
agoe
.
And
for
as
clear
as
his
words
are
against
the
divine
right
of
prelacie
,
yet
this
man
thinks
he
is
Cock
sure
that
this
was
not
the
meaning
of
Jerom's
words
,
which
presbyrerians
alledge
.
Quis
talia
fando
,
temperet
a
risu
.
But
the
Seasonable
case
goes
on
to
object
next
(
and
this
resolver
followes
up
at
his
heels
.
)
That
all
which
that
Assembly
produceth
(
Sess.
16.
)
to
prove
this
to
be
the
meaning
of
that
Oath
,
amounts
only
to
this
,
that
the
Church
about
that
time
of
taking
the
Covenant
,
and
also
afterward
,
was
labouring
against
Bishops
,
but
proves
not
that
episcopacie
was
abjured
in
the
words
of
the
oath
.
Now
why
would
he
not
do
his
Doubter
such
a
small
piece
of
justice
,
as
to
put
into
his
mouth
the
large
answer
of
the
Apollogist
to
this
argument
,
from
(
pag.
406.
to
409.
)
But
this
would
have
made
him
too
stiffe
a
Doubter
for
this
Resolver
or
Informer
:
but
had
he
nothing
in
the
Surveyer
to
resolve
this
?
Well
,
the
Apollogist
here
tells
him
and
his
Leaders
in
this
argument
,
that
the
Covenant
supposeth
a
Government
then
in
being
,
to
the
defence
of
which
it
oblidgeth
:
that
that
Government
was
not
prelacie
,
but
presbytery
,
he
clears
by
a
large
induction
of
our
assemblies
acts
and
procedour
,
as
the
Assembly
1638.
did
before
;
so
that
,
that
matter
of
fact
being
clear
,
there
is
No
doubt
but
that
the
nationall
Covenant
binds
to
defend
and
preserve
presbyterian
Government
then
owned
and
existing
;
even
as
its
engadgement
to
defend
the
King
must
needs
be
understood
of
King
James
who
was
then
reigning
.
That
this
was
the
government
then
Existent
and
owned
by
this
Church
,
we
cleared
in
short
already
,
and
need
not
here
repeat
it
.
But
3.
this
Informer
(
passing
over
a
more
plausible
objection
of
his
Master
the
Seasonable
case
)
enquires
by
what
warr
and
that
assembly
could
put
upon
others
their
sense
of
the
Covenant
;
they
might
declare
their
own
sense
(
saith
he
)
which
possibly
was
not
right
,
but
how
could
they
oblidge
others
to
their
sense
,
who
had
taken
it
before
,
the
first
imposers
having
given
them
no
such
power
.
The
Apollogist
here
told
him
,
that
this
assembly
put
no
sense
of
their
own
upon
any
who
took
it
either
before
or
after
,
but
as
the
representatives
of
this
Church
gave
a
judiciall
interpretation
of
it
,
and
by
authentick
evidences
made
it
appear
,
that
this
was
the
sense
of
the
imposers
,
and
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
when
it
was
taken
,
and
that
such
as
sware
it
before
with
an
explicatory
addition
[
to
forbear
the
approbation
of
prelacie
,
untill
the
assembly
should
try
whither
it
was
abjured
in
that
oath
]
did
consequently
commit
this
unto
,
and
were
accordingly
depending
upon
the
assembly
to
declare
the
meaning
therof
;
besides
that
the
judicial
interpretation
of
this
nationall
Church
her
oath
,
did
of
right
belong
unto
this
her
supreme
judicatory
as
is
said
.
Here
the
Doubter
objects
[
that
those
who
took
the
Covenant
after
it
was
thus
sensed
by
the
assembly
,
have
abjured
Episcopacy
]
.
To
this
he
answeres
that
the
assembly
did
intend
to
put
no
other
sense
upon
it
,
then
the
sense
of
the
words
,
and
of
the
first
imposers
.
Very
true
,
but
what
then
?
the
first
imposers
having
no
such
meaning
(
sayth
he
)
as
to
abjure
Episcopacie
,
the
assemblies
ground
failes
,
and
their
posterior
meaning
could
not
bind
against
the
first
meaning
.
This
last
is
easily
granted
,
but
the
great
pinch
lyes
in
this
,
how
proves
he
that
the
first
Imposers
never
meaned
it
against
Episcopacie
.
This
he
sayes
is
already
shewed
,
but
where
?
we
must
waite
it
seems
for
a
new
pamphlet
to
get
an
account
of
this
great
proofe
.
The
Doubter
next
alleadeth
to
purpose
[
that
we
engadge
our selves
in
that
Covenant
to
adhere
to
this
Church
in
doctrine
,
faith
,
religion
and
discipline
,
—
and
to
continue
in
the
doctrine
and
disciplin
thereof
,
which
is
Presbyterian
discipline
.
]
To
this
he
answers
.
That
by
discipline
,
cannot
he
meant
Presbyterian
government
.
Why
so
?
because
(
saith
he
)
at
the
first
imposing
of
the
Covenant
there
was
no
such
government
in
Scotland
nor
for
a
confiderable
time
after
.
Ans.
we
have
made
it
appear
that
Episcopacie
was
judicially
declared
unlawfull
,
and
that
both
the
books
of
discipline
were
received
,
which
overthrow
prelacie
,
and
asserts
Presbyterian
discipline
,
before
ever
that
Covenant
was
taken
;
and
that
at
the
very
time
of
taking
it
the
old
mould
of
prelacies
were
dissolved
,
and
Presbyteries
erected
both
by
the
King
,
and
assembly
.
But
how
proves
our
Informer
that
there
was
no
such
government
in
Scotland
at
that
time
?
because
(
saith
he
)
the
King
,
for
all
Ministers
essayes
to
introduce
Presbytery
,
yet
owned
Episcopacy
.
But
how
proves
he
this
,
that
at
the
imposing
of
the
Covenant
,
he
owned
episcopacy
?
did
he
not
owne
the
assemblies
power
,
and
the
power
of
Synods
?
presented
he
not
to
that
assembly
1581
,
a
plot
of
Presbytries
,
and
his
letter
enjoyning
their
erection
,
&
to
dissolve
prelacies
,
together
with
the
subscribed
Covenant
?
how
did
this
own
episcopacy
?
let
Royalists
take
notice
what
an
ingrained
dissembler
this
man
makes
King
James
,
in
saying
that
he
still
owned
episcopacy
,
when
so
palpably
disowning
it
to
the
sense
of
all
reasonable
men
.
And
if
king
James
came
all
this
length
as
to
the
introducing
of
Presbytrie
,
surely
Ministers
essayes
with
him
for
this
end
,
were
very
effectuall
.
Besides
,
it
s
a
poor
argument
to
prove
that
this
protestant
organick
Church
was
not
at
that
time
owning
Presbyterian
government
,
or
exercising
it
(
and
by
consequence
that
the
Discipline
as
then
existent
,
sworne
to
be
mantained
in
that
oath
,
is
not
Presbyterian
)
to
say
that
king
James
owned
episcopacie
.
Nay
,
in
granting
these
essayes
of
Ministers
for
Presbytry
,
he
grants
that
Presbyterian
government
was
owned
.
For
sute
I
am
what
was
their
sense
and
endeavours
as
to
Presbyterian
government
from
the
beginning
,
the
same
were
the
sense
and
endeavours
of
the
body
of
this
protestant
Church
.
But
his
2d
answer
to
the
premised
objection
of
his
Doubter
is
ushered
in
with
a
therefor●…
—
what
next
?
therefor
the
government
meant
in
it
must
be
Episcopacie
,
if
any
particular
mode
of
government
be
understood
.
This
is
well
stept
out
,
a
piece
beyond
his
Master
the
Seasonable
case
,
who
hardly
comes
this
length
.
The
man
that
will
let
us
Episcopacie
in
this
Church
at
that
time
,
as
the
Government
imbracd
by
her
,
must
have
odd
prospectives
,
and
of
a
like
quality
with
these
of
our
Informer
,
which
have
descryed
Diocesian
Bishops
in
Scripture
.
We
heard
that
the
Seasonable
case
grants
[
that
Ministers
then
lookt
on
themselves
as
oblidged
against
episcopacie
,
both
by
the
nationall
Covenant
,
and
by
the
word
of
God
]
pray
Sir
,
be
tender
of
these
Ministers
reputation
,
were
they
so
principled
and
still
owning
episcopacie
too
?
this
is
strange
,
yea
and
owning
it
and
promising
to
defend
it
in
this
Covenant
.
Besides
,
how
will
he
reconcil
our
Churches
labouring
now
against
Bishops
,
acknowledged
by
him
pag.
118.
with
her
practising
Episcopacy
,
which
he
asserts
pag.
118.
But
his
answer
hath
a
proviso
[
if
any
particular
mode
of
government
was
understood
.
]
But
why
will
this
latetudinarian
Informer
cast
the
mist
of
a
hesitating
[
if
]
upon
a
clear
and
plaine
truth
?
strange
!
Speaks
not
the
Covenant
of
an
existent
frame
of
Government
embraced
by
this
Church
?
What!
Were
they
embracing
a
Proteus
?
was
it
an
existent
individuum
vagum
,
or
materia
prima
,
some
Embryon
that
had
received
yet
no
forme
?
But
how
proves
he
that
Prelacie
was
sworne
unto
in
that
Oath
?
Because
(
saith
he
)
the
Year
after
,
the
King
ratified
the
agreement
at
Leith
in
favours
of
Episcopacie
.
This
we
heard
before
,
and
did
shew
what
an
insignificant
reason
it
is
,
from
King
James
practice
a
year
after
,
to
inferre
what
is
the
sense
and
intendment
of
this
Oath
,
and
the
takers
of
it
.
A
topick
and
reason
which
none
who
are
solid
and
rational
will
admitt
.
Yet
the
Informer
still
beats
upon
this
Anvill
.
Besides
,
the
Apollogist
tells
him
(
pag.
15.
)
that
this
treaty
at
Leith
,
anno
1571
,
was
opposed
and
censured
by
the
Nationall
Assembly
,
the
very
next
year
;
So
that
this
national
Church
in
her
suprem
judicatory
,
gave
no
consent
unto
,
but
opposed
that
treaty
,
and
whatever
recesses
from
her
Presbyterial
Government
,
were
therin
begun
;
But
this
mans
sqeemish
eyes
,
stil
overlooks
what
he
cannot
answer
.
Now
remark
our
Informers
profound
and
subtill
reasoning
in
this
point
.
King
James
did
not
abjure
episcopacy
in
the
Nationall
Covenant
,
why
so
?
Because
the
next
Year
he
acted
for
Episcopacie
.
And
when
we
allege
that
the
Government
to
which
that
Covenant
oblidgeth
,
was
Presbyterian
Government
which
was
then
existent
;
he
tells
us
that
the
Government
then
existent
was
episcopall
.
And
when
he
is
put
to
the
proofe
of
this
paradox
against
such
clear
evidences
,
he
just
recurrs
again
and
tells
us
(
for
his
proof
)
that
King
James
then
acted
for
episcopacie
;
fine
circular
reasoning
this
is
,
and
the
Informer
shall
thus
never
want
a
Medium
,
&
knows
exactly
to
answer
the
solidest
argument
against-him
with
turning
,
according
to
the
Souldiers
dialect
,
asye
were
.
But
what
is
meant
by
[
discipline
]
in
that
Covenant
?
The
substantialls
of
it
(
sayth
he
)
and
necessary
policie
as
exprest
in
the
first
dook
of
discipline
,
9.
Cap.
which
is
unalterable
,
tho
particular
formes
(
as
some
think
)
may
be
changed
.
But
1.
Why
will
this
versatil
Informer
bemist
his
reader
what
dark
and
generall
expressions
.
Whither
means
he
the
[
essential
necessary
Policy
,
]
according
to
that
phrase
of
the
book
,
or
a
necessary
Policy
exprest
and
asserted
in
that
book
?
If
the
first
,
I
would
ask
him
.
1.
Why
condescends
he
not
upon
that
essential
and
necessary
policy
,
and
gives
no
account
of
its
nature
and
extent
,
as
it
is
contradistinguished
from
that
which
is
not
necessary
,
but
mutable
.
2.
If
by
substantials
of
Government●…
,
he
mean
all
Church-officers
of
divine
appointment
,
according
to
the
Scripture
account
of
their
qualifications
,
their
authority
,
and
its
due
exercise
,
with
what
sense
or
reason
can
he
suppose
,
or
any
els
,
that
this
wil
not
determin
a
particular
form
,
&
cansubsist
without
it
?
how
can
a
particular
form
be
more
formaly
and
explicitly
described
then
thus
?
But
,
next
,
if
by
necessary
Policy
,
he
understand
the
Policy
held
out
and
asserted
in
that
first
book
,
I
would
ask
him
.
1.
Why
excludes
he
the
second
book
,
which
was
at
this
time
extant
and
received
,
and
which
doth
in
severall
chapters
viz.
5
,
6
,
7
,
8.
treat
of
the
Pastor
,
Doctor
,
Elder
,
and
Deacons
office
,
which
he
will
no
doupt
own
as
substantiall
peeces
of
Church-policy
,
being
so
clearly
asserted
in
Scripture
.
2.
Why
answers
he
not
to
the
account
&
character
of
that
first
book
given
by
the
Apoll
:
(
pag.
10.
)
who
tells
him
that
it
overthrowes
prelacy
in
the
establishing
of
Church-sessions
,
the
way
of
election
and
triall
of
Ministers
,
and
severall
other
things
contrary
to
the
episcopall
method
;
will
he
by
this
silence
consent
,
that
prelacy
stands
in
opposition
to
the
substantialls
of
Church
Government
,
and
the
utterly
necessary
Policy
therof
?
to
a
policy
indeed
unalterable
;
(
to
use
his
time
phrase
)
?
if
he
say
,
that
he
understands
by
this
phrase
,
that
policy
which
is
necessary
in
either
or
both
these
books
,
but
not
the
intir
.
Policy
delineated
therin
;
how
will
he
prove
that
the
Covenant-obligation
in
the
Intention
of
the
imposers
,
reaches
the
on
and
not
the
other
?
Next
I
would
ask
this
Informer
,
whither
thinks
he
that
particular
forms
of
Government
are
alterable
,
yea
or
not
?
if
not
,
how
comes
he
to
distinguish
them
in
this
,
from
the
essentiall
necessary
Policy
which
he
cals
unalterable
?
if
he
think
them
alterable
,
why
doth
he
not
positively
assert
this
,
but
presents
this
opininion
as
the
thoughts
of
some
only
,
and
censurs
Stilling
fleets
opinion
herin
(
pag.
76.
)
Besides
,
if
by
[
substantials
of
Government
]
he
unstand
[
the
disciplin
asserted
in
that
book
,
]
he
justles
and
deals
stroaks
what
his
reverend
father
B.
Spotswood
,
in
his
character
therof
exhibit
in
his
History
,
pag.
174.
For
first
,
he
sayes
it
was
framed
in
imitation
of
the
Government
of
the
reformed
Church
in
Geneva
,
which
all
know
was
Presbyterian
.
2dly
.
He
sayes
it
it
could
not
take
effect
as
being
but
a
Dream
.
And
did
he
call
the
[
substantialls
of
Government
]
but
a
Dream
,
thinks
this
man
?
Surely
either
the
Bishop
or
our
Informer
dreams
.
3dly
.
He
wisheth
Iohn
Knox
had
retained
the
old
policy
,
and
therefore
in
his
sense
this
policy
was
distinct
from
Prelacie
.
On
the
other
hand
the
framers
(
the
Ministry
owneing
it
)
supplicat
the
Parliament
after
it
was
drawn
up
for
[
the
restauration
of
the
Discipline
of
the
ancient
Church
,
]
and
for
discharging
the
Popes
usurpation
,
and
of
all
that
Discipline
that
did
flow
therefrom
,
as
inconsistent
with
the
Discipline
of
the
ancient
Church
,
and
the
Disciplin
contained
in
that
book
.
How
absurd
is
it
to
suppose
that
it
was
only
substantialls
which
was
at
this
time
existent
,
and
no
particular
forme
;
it
being
a
forme
of
Government
and
the
Discipline
of
this
Church
,
which
the
Covenant
oblidges
unto
;
and
the
Apologist
as
,
well
as
the
Assembly
1638.
could
have
given
him
a
large
account
and
proof
of
a
particular
forme
at
this
time
existent
.
In
a
Word
,
let
us
have
all
the
substantialls
of
Government
,
i.
e.
AllChurch
officers
divinely
appointed
,
with
their
due
power
and
Assemblies
higher
and
lower
,
and
it
will
quickly
justle
his
prelacie
to
the
door
,
and
make
him
him
and
hisFathers
feest
he
dint
of
the
true
Church
of
Scotland
,
her
sword
and
censures
for
what
they
have
done
,
if
they
repent
not
.
CHAP.
III.
The
Abjuration
of
Prelacie
in
the
solemne
League
and
Covenant
,
vindicat
from
the
exceptions
of
this
Informer
.
Also
Mr
Crofton
and
Timorcus
acquit
of
affoording
any
Patrociny
to
his
cause
.
Dr
Sanderson
stands
in
terms
of
contradiction
to
him
in
this
point
.
BUt
now
this
our
Oedipus
and
doubt
resolver
who
hath
acquit
himself
so
dexterously
in
absolving
us
from
the
nationall
Covenant
,
marches
up
after
the
Seasonable
case
,
to
try
how
he
can
play
the
absolver
as
to
the
solemne
league
.
And
his
Doubter
making
a
wide
step
to
the
2d
.
Article
[
wherein
he
allegeth
Bishops
are
abjured
,
and
that
Protestant
Bishops
are
meant
]
.
To
this
he
answers
,
That
it
s
not
every
kinde
of
Protestant
Bishops
that
is
there
intended
,
and
that
Timorcus
(
pag.
14
,
16.
)
holds
that
all
episcopacy
is
not
abjured
,
but
that
they
could
in
England
freely
Submit
to
the
primitive
episcopacy
viz
,
the
precedencie
of
one
over
the
rest
;
without
whom
nothing
is
ordinarly
to
be
done
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
—
that
they
assert
its
only
the
English
kinde
of
prelacy
(
expressed
in
the
Article
for
that
end
)
that
is
abjured
,
which
we
have
not
in
Scotland
.
That
Mr
Vines
and
Gattaker
assert
,
that
its
only
that
complex
frame
consisting
of
all
the
officers
there
mentioned
,
that
is
abjured
—
that
the
Assembly
of
divines
was
reconcilable
to
moderate
episcopacie
,
—
—
That
Timorcus
holds
that
the
English
parliament
&
our
commissioners
were
not
against
all
Episcopacy
,
(
citing
likewise
Mr
Crofton
pag.
70
:
71.
)
hence
he
concludeth
that
the
English
preshyterians
would
not
cry
out
against
conformists
as
guilty
of
perjury
.
Ans.
I.
It
is
a
very
pityfull
shift
to
measure
our
obligation
in
Scotland
against
Prelacy
,
by
the
2d
.
Article
of
the
league
,
which
relates
to
the
Church
of
England
,
wherein
only
that
prelacy
was
existent
.
For
since
Scotland
,
from
the
time
of
our
reformation
never
had
such
a
Prelacie
as
the
adversaries
acknowledge
,
they
must
consequently
grant
that
the
prelacie
which
that
article
engadgeth
to
extirpat
,
is
not
solely
or
mainly
the
Prelacie
which
we
stand
oblidged
against
in
that
Covenant
,
but
a
Prelacy
inconsistent
with
Presbyterian
Government
(
and
under
that
formall
consideration
)
which
in
the
first
article
we
are
engadged
to
preserve
.
In
order
to
which
preservation
of
our
reformed
discipline
from
our
own
Prelacie
,
the
2d
Article
,
which
doth
relate
to
the
extirpation
of
Prelacy
in
England
and
Ireland
,
is
subservient
as
a
mean
to
its
end
.
This
is
convincingly
clear
,
for
I.
Extirpation
and
Preservation
being
opposite
terms
,
and
the
last
being
made
use
of
as
to
our
Church
of
Scotland
,
must
needs
relate
to
Presbyterian
Government
as
then
established
,
in
all
its
previledges
,
which
clearly
excludes
the
episcopacy
formerly
existent
therein
;
And
the
extirpation
,
and
reformation
ingadged
to
in
the
2d
.
Art.
must
relate
to
the
then
existent
Prelacy
in
England
and
Ireland
,
and
that
by
way
of
mids
leading
unto
,
and
for
execution
of
the
ends
of
preserving
our
own
established
reformation
,
engadged
unto
in
the
first
Article
.
2.
We
said
already
that
our
Parliament
did
rescind
all
acts
against
our
episcopacy
,
together
with
the
solemne
league
,
and
restore
Prelats
to
the
sole
possession
of
Church
Government
under
the
King
,
declaring
clearly
that
the
preservation
engadged
unto
in
the
first
article
,
cannot
consist
with
our
Prelacie
.
Again
,
as
this
duty
of
extirpation
is
engadged
unto
in
so
far
as
is
necessary
in
order
to
the
preserving
of
our
own
established
reformation
,
by
this
Church
principally
vowed
and
intended
,
so
that
clause
in
the
end
of
the
2d
.
Article
,
viz.
[
to
extirpate
whatsoever
is
found
contrary
to
sound
doctrine
,
and
the
power
of
godliness
]
amounts
both
as
to
us
and
England
,
to
such
an
extensive
engadgement
in
opposition
to
Prelacie
,
that
it
totally
excludes
it
even
in
our
adversaries
mould
,
under
this
formalis
ratio
as
thus
opposit
to
sound
doctrine
&c.
Which
hath
been
cleared
upon
the
first
Dialogue
.
Next
,
will
this
man
deny
that
these
officers
,
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
,
Deans
,
Chapters
,
&c.
are
not
in
themselves
and
simply
abjured
in
that
2d
.
article
,
or
that
the
Presbyterians
in
England
would
not
disowne
them
as
inconsistent
with
the
Covenant
?
Sayes
he
not
that
it
is
only
a
fixed
presidency
of
order
which
they
are
for
?
and
is
this
all
that
Arch-Bishops
and
Diocesian
Bishops
do
possess
?
have
we
not
in
Scotland
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
,
Deans
and
are
we
not
engadged
to
extirpat
these
in
the
2d
.
article
?
how
then
can
he
say
that
it
is
only
that
complex
frame
with
all
these
officers
which
we
are
oblidged
against
.
Do
not
two
remarkable
clauses
contradict
this
gloss
?
I
we
engadgeto
extirpate
all
Ecclesiastick
officers
depending
on
that
Hierarchie
,
what
?
is
it
only
all
in
bulk
,
and
not
all
and
every
one
?
this
were
equivalent
to
such
a
wilde
assertion
,
as
if
one
should
say
that
after
the
enumeration
of
these
evills
schism
,
heresie
,
profannesse
,
—
which
are
thus
Summed
up
,
whatsoever
is
contrary
to
sound
doctrine
and
the
power
of
godliness
,
this
engadgement
did
only
relate
to
all
these
evills
complexly
,
and
not
to
every
one
sigilatim
or
apart
.
2.
Whatsoever
is
contrary
to
sound
doctrine
in
our
principles
,
is
there
abjured
as
I
said
:
but
such
are
Bishops
,
Arch-Bishops
,
and
I
adde
,
whatsoever
is
inconsistent
with
our
established
reformation
and
with
Presbyterian
government
,
is
also
here
formally
abjured
.
In
the
3d
place
,
Timorcus
is
clearly
against
our
Informer
,
for
in
explaining
what
is
that
prelacy
which
is
abjured
,
he
distinguisheth
a
Prelacie
of
jurisdiction
,
and
of
meer
order
.
The
prelacie
of
jurisdiction
,
he
saith
is
twofold
,
the
first
is
,
whereby
the
Bishop
hath
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
(
such
as
is
our
prelacy
now
in
Scotland
)
in
which
government
Timorcus
saith
that
Ministers
,
do
meet
with
the
Bishop
only
ex
abundanti
,
to
give
him
advice
,
which
is
all
that
our
Curats
are
allowed
by
law
,
as
is
said
above
,
and
scarce
that
.
The
2d
sort
of
prelacie
he
calls
paternall
,
wherein
the
colledge
of
Presbyters
have
a
constant
Prelate
or
President
,
who
must
concurre
with
them
ordinarly
in
ordination
and
acts
of
jurisdiction
.
He
interprets
the
Covenant
expresly
to
strick
against
the
Prelate
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
;
which
prelacy
he
calls
Popish
even
though
the
Bishop
admit
Presbyters
to
concurre
with
him
in
ordination
and
government
.
Now
let
this
man
say
,
since
Timorcus
(
whom
he
will
not
assert
that
these
others
divines
do
contradict
in
this
point
)
together
with
the
parliament
of
England
according
to
Timorcus
,
do
disowne
such
a
prelacie
as
is
here
described
,
and
interpret
the
Covenant
obligation
as
reaching
the
extirpation
thereof
,
doth
not
this
articlé
of
extirpation
according
to
their
sense
,
clearly
reach
and
cut
off
the
present
prelacie
of
diocesian
Bishops
and
Arch-Bishops
,
obtruded
upon
this
Church
?
can
he
deny
that
they
have
the
sole
power
of
ordination
&
jurisdiction
,
that
all
the
power
which
Curats
have
according
to
our
Law
,
is
to
give
the
Bishops
advice
,
yea
and
not
that
either
,
unlesse
he
judge
them
to
be
persons
of
Known
loyaltie
and
Prudence
.
And
surely
if
this
precedency
of
meer
order
,
here
exprest
,
be
the
only
primitive
Episcopacie
,
it
is
far
short
of
what
our
Informer
pleads
for
,
and
will
never
come
up
to
justifie
the
prelacie
now
existent
.
And
if
in
the
sense
of
Timorcus
,
and
the
other
divines
mentioned
,
and
in
the
sense
of
the
imposers
of
that
oath
,
the
extirpation
engadged
unto
,
cuts
off
whatsoever
is
beyond
this
precedency
of
meer
order
;
it
is
incontrovertibly
clear
that
even
in
their
sense
,
the
prelacie
now
existent
is
abjured
.
That
Mr.
Crofton
,
and
the
Presbyterian
Covenanting
partie
in
England
according
to
him
,
are
not
reconcilable
to
our
prelacie
,
nor
the
Covenant
in
their
sense
,
appears
evidently
by
his
pleadings
for
the
Covenant
,
against
the
Oxford
men
and
others
.
In
his
Analepsis
(
pag.
74.
75.
)
he
mentions
a
breviary
of
reasons
to
prove
[
that
the
prelatical
government
in
its
formality
is
a
plaine
and
clear
papacie
,
and
that
a
Diocesan
Bishop
,
and
ane
universal
Metropolitan
or
Pope
differ
only
in
degree
and
limites
,
not
in
kind
]
citing
,
and
approving
of
Salmasius
and
Beza's
,
calling
episcopacie
a
step
to
the
papacy
;
so
that
the
very
office
of
a
diocesian
Bishop
as
such
,
is
as
unlawfull
as
the
Papacie
in
Mr
Croftons
judgment
,
it
being
with
him
a
part
thereof
.
Again
(
pag.
78.
)
whereas
the
Oxford
men
plead
[
that
they
cannot
swear
against
episcopall
government
,
which
they
conceive
to
be
of
divine
or
apostolick
institution
]
he
chargth
them
and
Dr
Gauden
,
with
sophistick
concealment
of
the
ratioformalis
objecti
,
and
not
describing
of
episcopall
government
:
And
tells
him
that
episcopall
government
may
denominat
a
government
,
communi
concilio
Presbyterorum
,
with
a
Moderator
or
Chaireman
,
ordinis
causa
,
which
he
sayes
is
of
divine
institution
,
and
exemplified
act.
20.
where
Bishop
and
Presbyteter
are
terms
synonimous
denominating
persons
invested
with
the
same
office
and
authority
.
This
he
sayes
the
Covenant
strikes
not
against
,
and
the
prelacie
which
is
abjured
he
describes
to
be
a
government
wherein
one
person
is
advanced
into
a
distinct
order
of
Ministrie
above
other
Ministers
,
and
is
invested
with
Prince-like
power
over
them
,
enjoying
an
authority
peculiar
to
him
eo
nomine
as
Bishop
,
of
sole
ordination
and
jurisdiction
,
unto
whom
all
other
his
fellow
Ministers
are
subject
,
and
must
swear
obedience
to
him
&c.
I
wonder
if
our
Informer
will
deny
this
to
be
the
characteristick
of
our
present
Prelats
,
or
affirme
that
they
possess
no
more
authority
in
Church
judicatories
but
a
meer
precedency
,
ordins
causa
,
which
is
all
the
Episcopacy
which
Mr
Crofton
holds
that
the
Scripture
,
and
the
Covenant
according
therunto
,
will
allow
.
Thereafter
,
(
pag.
72.
)
He
tells
these
Masters
,
that
Christ
gave
his
Disciples
charge
that
they
should
not
affect
superiority
one
over
another
,
or
princely
power
over
Gods
heritag●…
;
and
puts
them
to
prove
,
that
the
office
of
the
Ministry
,
may
in
ordination
be
divided
,
or
that
there
are
more
orders
of
the
Ministry
then
one
(
which
our
Informer
still
begs
a
supposition
of
)
viz.
Bishop
or
Presbyter
,
or
more
officers
in
the
Church
then
Elders
and
Deacons
appointed
by
Christ
,
or
his
Apostles
by
their
apostolick
authority
.
That
the
Presbyter
(
in
whom
are
required
the
same
qualifications
,
to
whom
is
to
be
yeelded
the
same
obedience
,
subjection
andrespect
,
who
recives
the
same
ordination
,
and
is
charged
with
the
same
duty
,
and
invested
with
the
same
power
of
feeding
and
governing
the
Church
of
God
,
with
the
Bishop
,
and
none
other
)
is
an
order
distinct
from
,
and
subject
to
the
Bishop
,
to
be
ruled
by
him
,
and
not
to
exercise
his
office
but
by
the
Bishops
licence
,
and
that
the
Presbyter
must
swear
obedience
to
the
Bishop
as
his
ordinary
.
Which
are
the
grand
postulata
and
topicks
of
all
this
mans
reasoning
in
point
of
prelacy
.
The
autitheses
of
which
tenets
we
see
Mr
Crofton
most
evidently
maintaines
as
the
sense
of
the
Covenant
in
point
of
episcopacy
;
he
further
describes
(
pag:
80.
and
81.
)
the
prelacy
covenanted
against
,
and
anent
which
he
challengeth
these
Masters
proof
of
a
jus
divinum
,
to
be
such
wherein
one
Minister
or
Bishop
doth
stand
charged
with
all
the
congregatious
and
pastors
—
—
of
a
Countie
,
or
many
Counties
making
one
di●…cess
—
who
is
by
office
bound
to
a
pastoral
correction
and
government
of
them
—
that
these
Bishops
may
be
subject
to
one
Metropolitan
Church
and
Archbishop
,
to
whom
they
shall
swear
obedience
—
adding
,
that
if
the
Word
of
God
conclude
such
superiority
,
over
the
Church
in
one
Kingdom
,
it
will
conclude
a
Catholick
superiority
over
the
universall
Church
,
and
advance
the
Pope
as
warrantably
above
the
Archbishops
,
as
the
Archbishops
are
above
the
Bishops
,
and
the
Bishops
above
the
Presbyters
,
these
not
being
differences
of
kind
,
but
degree
.
Adding
further
,
that
no
more
is
pleaded
for
Prelats
divine
or
Apostolick
right
in
the
Church
of
England
,
but
what
is
pleaded
by
Bellarmine
,
&
the
Council
of
Trent
,
for
she
Papacie
.
Now
from
what
is
said
,
I
darre
referre
it
is
this
Informer
himself
,
whither
Mr
Crofton
doth
not
clearly
disowne
all
the
essentialls
of
our
present
prelacy
,
and
hold
it
to
be
abjured
in
the
Covenant
;
the
office
of
our
present
Bishops
and
Arch-Bishops
being
incontravertibly
such
as
he
here
describes
.
And
whither
Mr
Crofton
holds
not
our
prelacy
,
arch-prelacy
,
and
metropolitan
primacy
,
to
stand
upon
the
same
basis
with
the
papacy
,
and
to
be
equally
with
it
,
excentrick
to
the
Scriptures
;
and
that
he
esteems
consequently
the
Bishops
and
Arch-Bishops
(
which
I
hope
he
will
not
deny
to
be
abjurd
in
the
Covenant
)
to
depend
(
as
such
)
upon
the
Pope
as
a
part
of
his
hierarchy
.
Next
(
pag.
81
)
he
sayes
that
it
is
not
the
first
sort
of
episcopall
government
formerly
described
,
wherein
all
Ministers
are
invested
with
equal
power
and
auhority
or
dignity
,
are
all
of
the
same
order
,
and
governe
by
common
counsel
,
but
the
specificall
prelacy
last
described
,
which
presumes
it self
to
be
a
Hierarchie
:
So
that
with
Mr
Crofton
our
present
prelacie
falls
within
the
denomination
of
the
Hierarchy
abjured
in
the
solemne
league
,
and
of
the
Popes
wicked
Hierarchie
abjured
in
the
nationall
Covenant
—
for
he
tells
us
in
the
preceeding
page
that
none
can
deny
that
a
quantenus
ad
omne
,
&c.
He
tells
them
moreover
in
that
same
pag.
that
had
he
lived
in
the
Churches
of
Ephesus
,
Antioch
,
Phillippi
,
Creet
,
or
the
seven
Churches
of
Asia
,
invested
with
the
same
ministeriall
authority
which
he
then
enjoyned
,
he
might
have
stood
up
a
Peer
to
any
Bishops
therein
;
so
that
he
esteemed
no
Bishop
there
,
but
Presbyters
.
Besides
(
pag.
82.
)
he
cites
severall
writers
to
prove
that
the
authority
and
distinction
of
Episcopall
and
Archiepiscopall
chaires
&
metropolitan
primacies
,
owe
their
institution
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
or
politick
constitutions
of
Princes
.
He
tells
us
(
pag.
84.
)
out
of
Cartwright
and
Whittaker
—
that
the
Church
in
respect
of
Christ
its
head
(
not
his
vicar
,
or
superiority
of
single
prelats
)
is
a
monarchy
;
in
respect
of
the
ancients
and
pastors
that
governe
in
common
(
all
the
Presbytrie
)
with
like
authority
among
themselves
(
not
a
superiority
over
them
)
it
is
an
Aristocracie
,
and
in
respect
the
people
are
not
excluded
,
but
have
their
interest
,
it
is
a
Democracy
.
The
inserted
parentheses
are
Mr
Croftons
;
and
let
any
judge
whither
he
assert
not
with
these
authors
,
a
Presbyterian
frame
of
government
opposit
to
diocesian
Bishops
and
Arch-Bishops
.
In
his
Analepsis
,
in
answer
to
Dr
Gauden
(
pag.
2.
)
he
charges
him
(
as
before
the
Oxford
men
)
with
an
uncertain
proposall
of
the
object
,
and
the
ratio
formalis
of
the
Covenant
obligation
as
to
prelacy
,
under
the
general
terme
of
Episcopacie
(
therein
also
las●…ing
our
Informer
for
the
same
laxness
and
ambiguity
)
telling
them
that
by
good
demonstration
[
Bishop
]
and
[
Presbyter
]
have
been
asserted
to
be
synonimous
titles
of
Church
officers
,
and
are
found
to
have
been
so
used
in
the
primitive
times
of
the
Church
and
of
the
Fathers
—
adding
,
that
the
government
of
the
Church
by
its
Ministers
—
in
their
severall
assemblies
,
with
a
Moderator
Ordinis
causa
,
to
dispose
and
regulat
what
belongs
to
order
—
is
the
primitive
episcopacie
—
which
he
grants
to
the
Doctor
,
that
the
Covenant
will
not
strike
against
—
then
(
pag.
3.
and
4.
)
he
describes
the
Episcopacy
which
the
Covenant
strikes
against
.
And
pag.
5.
summeth
it
up
thus
—
that
the
Covenant
cannot
be
accomplisht
by
the
removal
of
Prelats
pride
&c.
Whilst
the
Preeminence
,
prerogative
,
Paternal
power
,
and
juridicall
authority
assumed
by
them
as
distinct
from
,
and
above
all
other
Ministers
of
the
gospel
,
as
the
only
immediat
successors
of
the
Apostles
(
So
our
Informer
makes
them
)
&c.
—
are
continued
.
What
will
this
Oedipus
answer
to
Croftons
assertion
?
Have
not
our
Prelats
this
preeminence
above
Presbyters
,
as
a
distinct
order
from
them
?
and
have
they
not
a
juridicall
authority
over
them
,
by
our
law
and
practise
,
and
his
pleading
too
?
doth
not
Mr
Crofton
in
terminis
assert
,
that
the
Covenant
obligation
can
never
be
satisfied
untill
such
be
removed
?
are
they
no
more
in
Church
judicatores
,
but
Moderators
and
Chairemen
,
set
up
Ordinis
causa
to
order
the
actions
of
the
meeting
?
doth
not
our
law
give
them
a
negative
voice
in
the
meeting
,
and
alloweth
Presbyters
only
to
give
them
advice
,
if
their
Lordships
do
judge
them
prudent
and
loyall
.
Again
,
wheras
the
Dr
,
(
pag.
18.
)
did
conclude
that
the
Hierarchy
being
dead
,
must
rise
in
another
qualitie
.
Mr
Crofton
tells
him
(
pag.
6.
)
That
if
it
arise
according
to
the
Covenant
,
it
must
be
in
the
establishment
of
Congregational
,
Classical
,
Provincial
and
National
Assemblies
or
Synods
of
Church
officers
,
Communi
consilio
Presbyterorum
(
this
phrase
of
Jerome
he
frequentlie
useth
)
to
debate
and
determine
the
affaires
of
the
Church
,
and
Exercise
all
acts
of
discipline
and
Ecclesiastick
power
—
each
having
a
Prefident
to
propone
questions
,
gather
suffrages
&c.
and
no
more
.
Which
mould
of
government
,
whither
it
would
not
smooth
our
prelacie
to
a
compleat
Presbyterian
parity
,
let
the
Informer
himself
judge
.
It
is
incontrovertibly
clear
from
these
passages
of
Crofton
,
that
even
in
their
sense
whom
our
Informer
alleges
to
stand
on
his
side
,
the
present
prelacie
is
abjured
.
Finally
,
as
for
the
authors
after
cited
,
and
that
declaration
of
the
sense
of
the
2d
article
which
he
mentions
,
we
say
,
as
it
is
not
clear
(
nay
the
contrary
is
evident
)
that
such
proposals
in
explication
of
that
article
,
were
either
mad
or
approven
by
all
,
or
the
soundest
Presbyterians
there
present
,
so
it
is
als
evident
that
if
prelacy
even
as
by
them
reserved
,
be
found
contrary
to
sound
droctrine
,
and
the
power
of
godliness
,
that
article
of
exti●…pation
doth
most
clearly
and
formally
reach
it
.
Neither
are
we
so
much
concerned
in
the
problemarick
glossings
or
disputes
of
any
persons
in
England
(
they
not
having
tendered
that
oath
unto
us
)
as
in
the
obligation
of
this
oath
,
and
that
of
the
Nationall
Covenant
lying
upon
us
,
to
preserve
our
reformation
as
it
stood
then
establisht
.
Moreover
this
man
would
take
Dr
Sandersons
advice
here
that
an
oath
being
stricti
juris
—
the
meaning
is
to
be
kept
when
clear
from
the
words
—
but
if
it
be
doubtfull
,
every
one
is
to
take
care
that
they
indulge
not
their
own
affections
and
inclinations
,
or
give
way
to
too
large
a
license
of
glossing
,
to
the
end
they
may
with
more
ease
loose
themselves
from
the
obligation
,
or
give
such
a
sense
to
others
,
or
take
it
to
themselves
—
as
the
unconcernd
do
see
that
the
words
will
not
bear
,
both
for
fear
of
perjury
and
ensnaring
of
others
.
Thus
he
,
de
jur
prom
.
praelect.
2.
parag.
9.
The
Doubter
objects
next
[
that
we
are
not
concerned
in
the
parliament
of
England
sense
,
but
in
the
sense
of
the
Church
and
state
of
Scotland
,
who
imposed
the
oath
,
and
meant
it
against
all
sort
of
prelacie
.
]
To
this
he
answers
,
that
it
being
a
common
league
of
the
three
Kingdoms
,
the
meaning
must
be
determined
by
all
the
three
;
and
that
Timorcus
shews
that
the
Parliament
of
England
their
sense
mas
with
concnrrence
of
our
Commissiners
.
Ans.
1.
We
have
already
made
it
good
,
that
giving
the
Informer
the
advantage
of
the
sense
of
the
2d
.
article
which
he
alledges
,
it
will
notwithstanding
clearly
exclude
our
present
prelacy
.
Timorcus
telling
us
expresly
(
pag.
16.
)
that
the
Covenant
,
aperily
oblidges
against
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
,
Deans
&c.
which
termes
he
sayes
are
lyable
to
no
ambiguity
,
and
particularly
against
all
such
exercise
of
prelacie
,
as
is
by
one
single
person
,
arrogating
to
himself
sole
and
single
power
in
ordination
and
jurisdiction
.
Darre
this
man
deny
that
our
present
prelates
have
this
legall
prerogative
expresly
allowed
them
by
our
lawes
?
is
not
all
Church
government
to
be
managed
by
them
with
advice
only
of
such
of
the
Clergie
,
as
their
Lordships
(
forsooth
)
shall
judge
loyall
?
so
that
the
prelacie
which
Timorcus
and
the
English
are
for
,
is
point
blanck
cross
to
the
present
hierarchie
;
and
the
three
nations
sense
of
that
article
will
(
as
we
have
proved
)
never
be
reconciled
to
his
sense
and
pleading
in
this
point
.
2.
We
told
him
also
that
it
is
not
the
2d
.
Art
.
Whereby
mostly
or
principally
our
obligation
against
prelacy
is
to
be
measured
,
it
being
that
which
relates
especially
to
England
,
where
Prelacy
was
then
existent
;
and
whatever
sense
any
there
do
put
upon
that
Article
,
yet
they
never
offered
to
put
any
glosses
upon
our
great
engadgement
to
preserve
our
reformation
then
established
,
and
never
imagned
nor
offered
the
least
limitation
of
our
obligations
both
by
the
National
Covenant
as
then
particularly
applyed
against
prelacie
,
and
likewise
our
obligation
in
the
first
part
and
article
of
the
League
,
to
preserve
our
establisht
reformation
,
in
Doctrine
,
Worship
,
Discipline
,
and
Government
,
which
consequently
stands
inviolable
according
to
its
native
and
necessary
meaning
,
in
contradiction
to
our
Prelacie
or
any
Prelacie
whatsoever
,
as
he
dar
not
deny
that
this
Church
and
Nation
at
the
imposing
did
understand
the
same
.
Our
Informer
permits
now
his
Doubter
to
tell
him
[
that
we
are
engadged
to
preserve
the
Government
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
which
was
Presbyterian
,
and
that
therefor
in
the
2d
.
article
we
swear
against
all
kinde
of
Prelacie
,
Prelacie
and
Presbytery
being
inconsistent
.
]
To
this
he
answers
that
if
we
are
in
the
1.
Article
bound
to
maintain
Presbyterie
,
and
in
the
2d
left
at
libertie
for
some
kinde
of
Prelacy
,
and
with
all
if
Presbyterie
and
Prelacie
be
inconsistent
,
then
we
have
sworne
contradictions
,
viz
,
to
admit
of
no
kinde
of
Prelacie
,
and
yet
admit
of
some
kinde
of
it
.
Ans.
1.
He
hath
it
yet
to
prove
that
either
we
or
England
are
left
to
a
latitude
(
according
to
the
Genuine
sense
of
that
Article
)
as
to
any
prelacy
,
or
whatever
government
else
is
inconsistent
with
Presbyterian
Government
,
because
,
1
the
generall
oblidgements
[
to
endeavour
a
reformation
according
to
the
Word
of
God
—
and
to
extirpat
what
ever
is
found
contrarie
to
sound
Doctrine
and
the
power
of
Godliness
]
will
(
as
I
have
said
)
necessarily
import
,
both
as
to
us
&
them
,
ane
engadgement
against
all
kind
of
Prelacy
under
this
notion
and
upon
this
ground
.
2.
As
for
[
Englands
reserving
a
latitude
for
a
proestos
]
which
he
here
alledges
,
Timorcus
will
tell
us
(
out
of
Doctor
Sanderson
)
of
this
rule
as
to
the
interpretation
of
promissory
Oaths
that
tho
it
s
granted
that
promissory
imposed
Oaths
must
be
interpret
according
to
the
sense
of
Imposers
,
as
our
private
Oaths
according
to
our
sense
,
yet
both
these
rules
are
to
be
limited
,
so
that
neither
our
private
sense
of
our
spontaneous
Oaths
,
nor
yet
the
sense
of
those
who
impose
Oaths
upon
others
,
must
be
other
then
will
comport
,
with
the
just
signification
of
the
words
and
phrases
,
in
the
Oath
,
vow
,
or
Covenant
,
for
this
were
to
destroy
[
saith
he
]
the
simplicity
necessary
to
every
Oath
,
and
indeed
not
to
interpret
,
but
to
coin
ane
Oath
or
new
obligation
.
Now
the
obligation
of
both
Nations
in
this
Oath
,
is
to
endeavour
reformation
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
and
to
extirpat
whatever
is
contrary
to
sound
Doctrine
and
the
power
of
godliness
.
If
therefore
a
fixt
Moderator
,
or
any
supposed
moderat
mould
of
Prelacy
be
found
contrary
thereunto
,
no
mans
glossings
whatsoever
,
can
(
according
to
this
necessary
rule
)
prejudge
the
native
import
,
signification
,
and
extent
of
these
generall
clauses
.
In
the
2d
.
place
,
his
contradiction
here
imputed
to
us
,
is
but
his
owne
airie
imagination
,
for
it
is
not
ad
idem
,
and
eodem
modo
.
Wherein
he
imagineth
the
contradiction
to
lye
.
Our
duty
to
preserve
,
and
our
obligation
thereanent
,
being
relative
to
the
establisht
Government
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
and
the
extirpation
engadged
unto
,
being
relative
to
another
nation
and
Church
,
wherein
that
species
of
Prelacy
particularized
in
the
Article
,
was
existent
;
so
that
there
is
no
liberty
left
for
any
kinde
of
Prelacy
in
Scotland
;
and
for
Englands
reserving
,
I
have
told
him
that
what
ever
glosses
any
may
put
upon
that
2d
.
article
,
yet
if
the
generall
clauses
and
expressions
mentioned
will
exclude
all
kinde
of
prelacie
,
their
glosses
will
not
comport
with
the
simplicity
and
genuin
sense
of
the
oath
,
and
therfor
are
not
to
be
admitted
.
Since
if
it
can
be
made
good
from
the
scripture
that
all
kinde
of
prelacy
is
unlawfull
,
dissonant
to
the
divine
rule
,
and
repugnant
to
the
power
of
godliness
,
the
oath
doth
most
clearly
strike
against
it
.
Mr
Crofton
pag.
110.
in
answer
to
the
Author
whom
he
calls
Dr
Featly's
ghost
,
objecting
that
in
the
Covenant
,
the
Church
of
Scotland
is
set
before
the
Church
of
England
,
tells
him
that
it
is
in
relation
to
different
acts
,
the
Reformed
Religion
of
Scotland
to
be
preserved
,
of
England
to
be
Reformed
;
that
it
is
no
Solecism
to
put
the
factum
before
the
fieri
,
to
sweare
the
preservation
of
good
acquired
,
before
ane
endeavour
to
obtain
the
same
or
better
,
to
prefix
the
pattern
to
that
which
is
to
be
therunto
conformed
.
He
adds
,
that
his
Antagonist
hath
little
reason
to
grudge
that
Scotland
should
be
propounded
as
a
pattern
of
Reformation
to
England
,
since
Beda
reports
that
this
nation
did
as
first
communicat
the
science
of
divine
knowledge
without
grudge
or
envy
unto
the
people
of
England
,
citing
his
Eccles.
hist.
gent.
Ang.
lib.
5.
cap.
23.
Hence
he
infers
,
that
it
is
no
folecisin
to
propound
us
as
a
pattern
of
Reformation
,
who
had
first
obtained
it
,
and
from
whom
Christianity
it selfe
was
ar
first
transmitted
to
them
.
Here
let
out
Informer
informe
himself
,
first
,
that
in
the
sense
of
the
English
Presbyterians
,
[
the
preserving
of
our
establisht
Reformation
]
is
that
article
wherin
our
obligation
to
Presbyterian
government
is
properly
included
;
and
that
the
article
of
Reformation
yet
in
fieri
,
relates
properly
to
England
.
2.
That
they
state
a
distinction
betwixt
preserving
and
reforming
as
distinct
acts
,
the
one
relating
to
our
Reformation
in
Scotland
already
obtaind
,
the
other
to
that
in
England
yet
in
fieri
,
wherin
they
check
this
mans
blunt
measuring
our
obligation
against
prelacie
first
and
principally
by
the
second
article
,
and
his
denying
our
obligation
to
preserve
Pretbyterian
government
containd
in
the
first
,
and
his
blunt
confounding
the
obligation
of
the
two
articles
,
to
give
some
shadduw
of
his
fancyed
contradiction
which
he
would
fasten
upon
us
,
viz.
[
That
we
are
bound
against
all
Episcopacie
in
the
first
article
,
and
yet
the
second
can
admit
of
some
.
]
For
as
we
have
before
answered
,
so
Mr
Crofton
tells
him
here
again
,
that
the
acts
and
objects
are
different
.
The
preserving
of
the
Reformation
,
government
and
discipline
of
this
Church
(
which
we
see
he
holds
to
be
Ptesbyterian
government
,
according
to
our
two
books
of
discipline
,
and
opposit
to
diocesan
prelacie
as
such
)
is
a
different
act
and
object
,
from
these
of
extirpating
Prelacie
out
of
the
Church
of
England
.
And
thirdly
,
that
with
Mr
Crofton
,
and
the
English
Presbyterians
,
it
is
no
such
paradox
as
this
man
afterwards
endeavours
to
perswade
us
,
that
the
Covenant
obligeth
them
to
Reforme
England
according
to
our
pattern
,
which
we
see
they
hold
to
be
the
Scripture
pattern
.
For
Mr
Crofton
tells
his
Adversary
that
our
factum
was
to
be
their
Fieri
,
and
our
acquired
good
in
point
of
government
,
the
measure
of
their
good
to
be
obtaind
,
and
that
the
good
they
were
to
obtain
(
according
to
the
Covenant
)
was
the
same
with
ours
,
and
tells
him
in
terminis
and
expresly
,
that
our
pattern
is
in
the
first
article
prefixed
,
to
which
they
are
to
be
conformed
.
From
what
we
have
said
out
of
Mr
Crofton
touching
his
sense
of
the
Covenant
,
and
the
sense
of
the
English
Presbyterians
,
who
adhere
thereunto
,
it
is
evident
that
it
strikes
against
all
prelacy
including
the
priority
and
power
of
diocesan
Bishops
and
Arch-Bishops
;
That
prelacy
disputed
against
by
Gerson
Bucer
in
his
dissertations
de
Gub.
eccl.
Didoclavius
in
his
Altare
Damascenum
.
Cartwrights
Exceptions
.
Paul
Baines
his
Diocesans
tryall
.
Smectymnuus
.
Mr
Pryn
in
his
publick
and
positive
challenge
for
th●…
unbishop●…g
of
Timothy
and
Titus
,
cited
by
Crofton
,
pag.
83.
as
unanswerable
pieces
.
Yea
all
Bishops
whose
office
and
authority
is
such
as
Mr
Crofton
(
to
use
his
own
expression
)
might
not
stand
up
a
Peer
to
them
in
officiall
power
,
tho
a
simple
Presbyter
;
so
that
our
Informer
is
quite
out
in
telling
us
that
in
their
sense
the
Covenant
is
reconcilable
to
our
prelacy
,
and
strikes
only
against
that
of
England
.
Again
,
Mr
Crofton
in
the
Analepsis
,
(
pag.
129.
)
answering
the
charge
of
Ambiguity
put
upon
that
clause
of
[
the
best
reformed
Churches
]
tells
the
Masters
of
Oxford
,
that
the
sense
is
[
in
endeavouring
the
reformation
of
England
,
the
word
of
God
shall
be
our
rule
,
and
the
best
reformed
Churches
our
pattern
.
]
Wherein
he
clearly
asserts
with
us
,
that
the
obligation
of
the
Covenant
,
reaches
the
extirpation
of
whatever
Prelacie
is
found
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
:
But
so
it
is
that
the
Apostolick
Churches
(
as
we
shall
finde
Mr
Crofton
here
assert
)
owned
no
Bishops
but
such
as
he
might
stand
up
a
Peer
unto
,
so
that
the
Scripture
rule
,
and
by
consequence
the
Covenant
according
thereunto
,
strikes
against
,
and
cuts
of
all
Prelacy
of
Diocesian
Bish:
of
whatever
Goverment
doth
admitt
of
any
Church
officers
,
above
Presbyters
.
And
in
his
sense
they
are
oblidged
to
reduce
Englands
prelacy
or
hierarchy
,
to
a
compleat
presbyterian
parity
.
The
Scripture
makes
(
with
Mr
Crofton
)
the
Bishop
and
presbyter
meerly
Synonima
;
So
that
no
prelacy
wherein
a
distinction
is
admitted
,
can
consist
with
the
Covenant
in
his
judgment
;
nor
can
any
glossings
of
men
prejudge
this
rule
,
and
the
obligation
resulting
from
this
clause
to
extirpate
Prelacy
foot
and
branch
.
Our
Informer
might
have
seen
this
his
notion
further
refuted
by
the
Author
of
that
peice
intituled
[
The
case
of
the
accommodation
examined
,
pag.
39.
40.
]
who
shews
that
in
so
farre
as
England
had
attained
we
might
close
with
them
in
a
particular
Oath
,
for
extirpating
an
evill
discovered
,
and
yet
for
a
further
advance
,
rest
upon
the
more
general
tyes
so
surely
cautioned
,
till
God
should
give
further
light
—
so
that
the
engadgement
of
both
parties
expresly
only
to
extirpat
that
species
,
did
no
way
hinder
the
setting
up
of
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
rejecting
of
all
prelacy
to
be
Covenanted
unto
under
the
General
provisions
—
That
,
it
was
aggreeable
to
truth
and
righteousness
for
us
to
concurre
,
with
that
Church
convinced
of
evills
,
but
not
so
enlightened
as
to
remedies
,
in
Covenanting
against
the
evills
in
particular
,
and
also
to
endeavour
a
reformation
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
and
by
vertue
of
this
general
oblidgement
,
become
bound
to
make
a
more
exact
search
anent
the
lawfullnes
or
unlawfullness
of
things
,
not
so
fully
clear
in
the
time
of
entering
into
the
Oath
,
and
after
the
discovery
to
reject
what
seemed
tolerable
.
So
that
no
hesitation
among
them
,
doth
hinder
England
and
Scotlands
respective
obligations
to
extirpate
all
episcopacy
as
contrary
to
that
doctine
which
is
according
to
godliness
.
What
inconsistency
will
the
Informer
shew
us
in
this
,
that
one
nation
vow
adherence
to
its
owne
establishment
in
point
of
reformation
and
Church
Government
,
and
likewise
vow
assistance
of
another
nation
in
the
removal
of
a
corruption
therein
,
tho
the
removall
will
not
amount
to
such
a
compleatness
of
reformation
at
first
,
as
will
be
every
way
like
unto
this
establishment
,
both
nations
being
notwithstanding
oblidged
respective
,
under
generall
clauses
to
make
this
reformation
compleat
.
The
Informer
next
tells
us
,
that
it
is
doubted
by
the
learned
,
whither
in
the
first
Article
there
be
any
obligation
to
maintain
presbyterian
Government
.
His
first
reason
is
,
because
there
is
no
express
mention
of
presbyterian
Government
therin
,
but
only
of
our
reformed
religion
in
Doctrine
,
Worship
,
Discipline
,
and
Government
.
Ans.
this
reason
of
the
Seasonable
case
which
he
hath
borrowed
,
is
very
insignificant
.
Our
Church
,
after
long
wrestling
being
recovered
from
corruptions
both
in
Doctrine
and
Worship
,
which
Prelates
had
introduced
,
and
her
Discipline
and
Government
according
to
the
Scripture
pattern
set
up
,
in
Presbyteries
,
synods
,
and
Assemblies
,
and
all
the
priviledges
of
these
her
courts
,
authorized
and
establisht
both
by
civill
and
ecclesiastick
constitutions
and
laws
,
will
any
doubt
(
but
the
sceptick
who
will
dispute
that
snow
is
not
white
)
that
the
discipline
then
reformed
and
establisht
,
is
in
that
oath
sworn
to
be
maintained
.
He
may
als
well
alledge
that
it
is
not
the
doctrine
and
worship
then
established
,
which
we
Covenant
to
preserve
,
as
to
doubt
of
the
government
,
since
this
reformation
then
established
,
takes
in
all
the
three
together
,
and
in
the
same
sense
.
Besides
his
Master
the
Seasonable
Casuist
,
grants
that
there
was
then
in
Scotland
no
such
officers
,
as
are
enumerate
in
the
2d
article
,
but
an
establisht
reformed
government
was
then
existent
.
Now
dare
any
of
these
new
absolvers
or
resolvers
say
,
that
it
was
not
Presbyterian
government
,
or
that
this
was
not
the
sense
of
the
imposers
of
that
oath
.
His
2d
reason
is
,
that
Independents
took
that
Covenant
,
and
had
a
hand
in
wording
that
article
,
that
it
might
not
import
any
particular
forme
of
government
.
—
That
the
words
import
no
one
forme
of
government
,
but
with
this
proviso
,
as
reformed
.
The
Seasonable
case
said
this
already
,
to
which
the
Apologist
returned
answer
That
the
government
of
this
Church
at
that
time
being
Presbyteriall
(
as
he
acknowledged
)
there
could
be
no
other
government
understood
,
then
what
was
then
existent
,
established
and
reformed
.
That
to
say
Indendepents
understood
it
of
their
government
,
will
no
more
reflect
upon
the
Covenant
,
then
upon
the
Scripture
it self
,
which
Independents
do
alledge
will
plead
for
their
government
.
Next
,
I
would
ask
this
man
,
why
may
not
the
same
insignificant
quirk
be
also
objected
as
to
the
doctrine
,
and
worship
,
viz.
that
only
the
doctrine
and
worship
with
this
proviso
as
reformed
,
but
not
the
then
established
doctrine
,
and
worship
,
is
understood
in
that
article
,
and
so
sectaries
may
lurk
under
this
generall
also
.
Thus
he
may
alledge
that
no
engadgement
or
oath
in
relation
to
his
Majesties
authority
will
binde
,
except
his
name
and
Sirname
be
in
it
,
because
some
may
entertaine
a
chimera
of
their
own
under
his
Majesties
general
titles
.
Alas
!
what
ridiculous
conceits
are
these
.
The
Doubter
next
objects
[
that
the
English
parliament
,
who
together
with
our
Scots
Commissioners
imposed
that
oath
,
did
by
[
the
reformed
government
]
understand
Presbytrie
which
was
then
settled
here
,
and
that
therefore
we
are
to
understand
the
oath
in
their
sense
who
imposed
it
,
whatever
Independents
think
.
]
He
answers
,
by
denying
that
the
English
parliament
understood
the
1.
article
of
Presbyterian
government
,
for
then
they
would
have
thought
themselves
bound
to
reforme
England
according
to
our
pattern
,
but
on
the
contraire
in
anno
1647
they
toid
our
Commissioners
,
that
they
could
never
finde
Presbytrie
necessary
by
any
divine
right
,
and
charged
them
with
Superciliousness
in
judging
that
there
is
no
other
lawfull
Church
government
,
but
what
they
call
so
,
and
with
misinterpreting
the
article
anent
Church
government
.
This
the
Seasonable
case
also
said
before
him
,
and
this
hungry
casuist
catches
up
his
cibum
praemansum
,
but
could
not
see
the
answer
returned
to
this
in
the
Apology
.
To
this
I
say
first
,
that
the
Parliament
of
England
tendered
not
that
oath
to
us
,
nor
is
their
sense
therof
,
principally
to
be
eyed
by
us
,
as
in
his
mould
of
the
objection
and
answer
,
he
seems
to
suppose
.
The
parliaments
of
both
Kingdomes
imposed
the
oath
upon
their
own
subjects
,
framed
by
the
consent
of
both
according
to
their
own
condition
,
and
exigence
;
so
that
we
are
to
look
mainly
to
the
procedour
and
sense
of
our
Church
and
state
,
for
a
discovery
of
the
genuin
sense
and
meaning
of
that
oath
.
Now
it
is
most
evident
that
the
designe
of
our
Church
and
state
in
framing
and
imposing
of
this
oath
,
was
to
establish
and
preserve
our
Church
government
then
in
being
,
which
,
he
who
denyes
to
have
been
Presbyterian
,
in
its
compleat
formes
,
and
courts
,
he
may
deny
any
thing
.
2.
We
told
him
alreadie
,
that
whatever
defection
or
liberty
of
glossing
any
might
be
guilty
of
,
yet
the
words
and
clauses
of
the
Covenant
,
as
to
that
1.
article
,
are
clear
and
abundantly
significant
,
and
will
admit
of
no
evasion
.
And
in
relation
to
the
total
extirpation
of
prelacie
out
of
that
Church
where
it
was
existent
,
the
2d
Article
,
is
as
clear
and
convincing
.
And
therefore
whither
they
lookt
upon
themselves
as
oblidged
to
follow
our
pattern
yea
or
not
,
we
have
proved
that
they
stood
oblidged
,
both
by
that
particular
enumeration
in
the
2
Article
,
and
also
in
the
more
generall
clauses
mentioned
,
to
extirpate
Prelacie
root
and
branch
.
This
man
will
make
a
meer
Proteus
of
oaths
,
if
their
sense
and
obligation
must
vary
,
turne
ambulatory
or
ambiguous
,
according
as
men
do
shift
or
turne
aside
.
We
told
him
of
Dr
Sandersons
rule
,
anent
the
import
of
the
words
of
an
oath
,
in
their
genuin
sense
in
reference
to
its
obligation
,
whatever
liberty
men
may
take
to
glosse
,
or
interpret
,
which
is
the
judgement
of
all
sound
Casuists
.
3.
Dare
he
say
,
that
ever
the
parliament
of
England
denyed
,
that
de
facto
Presbyterian
government
was
compleatly
established
in
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
or
will
he
make
them
so
irrationall
as
to
deny
this
necessary
consequence
,
that
therefore
the
1.
Article
of
the
Covenant
doth
clearly
oblidge
this
Church
to
its
preservation
as
the
reformed
Government
then
existent
;
and
if
his
consequence
cannot
but
be
admitted
,
surely
whither
they
looked
on
themselves
as
oblidged
to
follow
our
pattern
yea
or
not
they
held
no
sense
of
this
article
contrary
to
our
own
sense
,
nor
denyed
our
obligation
to
maintain
our
established
Presbyterian
Government
.
And
besides
,
they
never
denyed
their
obligation
to
reforme
the
Church
of
England
according
to
the
Scripture
pattern
;
and
that
of
the
best
reformed
Churches
,
in
conformity
to
that
pattern
.
And
that
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
and
other
Churches
where
Presbyterian
Government
was
existent
,
were
such
,
was
and
is
the
sense
and
acknowledgement
of
the
reformed
Churches
themselves
,
as
from
their
confessions
we
have
made
appear
.
For
confirming
this
further
(
because
the
Informer
hath
told
us
frequently
of
MrCrofton
)
let
us
heare
how
he
will
bespeak
him
in
this
point
.
In
that
piece
intituled
[
The
fastening
of
S
Peters
Fetters
pag.
40.
]
He
tells
the
Oxford
men
of
the
Church
of
Scotlands
Philadelphian
purity
—
in
delivering
in
writting
,
and
excercising
in
practice
that
sincere
manner
of
Government
whereby
men
are
made
partakers
of
salvation
,
acknowledged
by
Mr
Brightman
on
Apocalyps
3.
and
the
Apology
to
the
Doctors
of
Oxford
,
and
of
Beza's
epistle
79
to
Mr
Knox
,
exhorting
him
to
hold
fast
that
pure
Discipline
which
he
had
brought
into
Scotland
,
together
with
the
Doctrine
.
And
(
pag.
41.
)
he
cites
the
corpus
confess
.
(
pag.
6.
)
Where
the
collector
layes
down
this
as
the
ground
of
that
Churches
purity
of
doctrine
,
and
54
years
unity
without
Schisme
[
that
the
Discipline
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
as
it
is
prescribed
in
the
word
of
God
,
was
by
litle
and
litle
received
,
and
according
to
that
Discipline
,
the
Government
of
the
Church
disposed
so
near
as
might
be
]
which
he
prayes
may
be
perpetually
kept
by
the
King
&
Rulers
of
the
church
.
These
English
Non-conformists
,
Beza
,
the
Author
of
the
syntagma
,
in
Croftons
sense
,
and
himself
together
with
them
,
thus
clearly
avouching
Presbyterian
government
,
which
Mr
Knox
introduced
,
to
have
been
the
government
of
this
Church
since
the
reformation
,
and
which
King
Iames
also
owned
.
For
after
he
hath
told
us
in
the
same
page
of
Arundel
,
Hutton
,
and
Matthews
,
three
English
Arch-Bishops
,
their
approving
the
order
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
he
tells
the
same
Oxford
men
of
the
joy
which
King
James
profest
in
the
assembly
1590
that
he
was
born
to
be
a
King
of
the
sincerest
Church
in
the
world
.
Again
(
pag:
39.
)
he
makes
mention
of
this
Churches
two
books
of
discipline
,
as
the
great
badge
and
Test
of
her
government
;
and
in
answere
to
the
Oxford
mens
exception
against
that
article
of
the
Covenant
,
which
binds
to
preserve
the
discipline
and
government
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
[
viz.
that
they
were
not
concerned
in
,
and
had
litle
knowledge
of
that
government
]
he
tells
them
,
that
he
wonders
how
an
university
conversing
in
all
books
,
could
profess
they
had
no
knowledge
of
these
books
.
So
that
in
Mr
Crostons
sense
and
in
the
sense
of
the
Presbyterian
covenanters
in
England
,
the
government
engadged
unto
in
that
article
,
is
that
platforme
of
Presbyterian
government
contained
in
these
2
books
of
discipline
,
which
adversaries
themselves
do
grant
to
comprehend
an
intire
frame
of
Presbyterian
government
.
Again
(
pag.
141.
)
he
gathers
from
the
tenor
of
the
Kings
coronation
oath
at
Scone
,
that
the
royall
assent
was
given
unto
Presbyterian
government
in
pursuance
of
the
obligation
of
the
solemne
league
and
Covenant
,
and
that
,
in
his
Majesties
most
publick
capacity
as
King
of
great
Britain
,
France
and
Ireland
,
for
himself
and
Successors
:
and
asserting
clearly
the
equity
of
the
obligation
,
he
asks
the
learned
in
law
[
whither
the
royall
assent
by
such
expressions
publickly
made
knowne
(
as
here
it
was
unto
acts
and
ordinances
of
parliament
in
his
other
dominions
to
be
past
here
anent
)
be
not
sufficient
to
make
an
act
of
parliament
a
perfect
and
compleat
law
by
the
equity
of
the
statute
33.
Hen.
3.
21.
&c.
]
So
that
Mr
Crofton
clearly
asserts
our
obligation
to
Presbyterian
government
to
be
contained
in
the
Covenant
,
and
to
reach
all
his
Majesties
dominions
.
For
he
tells
us
in
the
preceeding
page
,
that
to
all
such
as
apprehend
the
constitution
of
England
to
be
Merum
imperium
,
wherein
the
King
hath
supremam
Majestatem
,
it
is
evident
that
his
Majesties
ratifying
the
Covenant
thus
,
hath
rendred
it
nationall
.
Again
Timorcus
(
pag.
70.
)
asserts
that
the
parliament
who
imposed
the
Covenant
(
anno
1648.
)
sent
propositions
to
the
King
wherein
was
demanded
the
utter
abolishing
of
episcopacie
.
Which
is
point
blanck
cross
to
the
character
of
that
piece
obtruded
by
the
Informer
,
and
doth
evidently
demonstrat
(
compared
with
these
passages
of
Mr
Crofton
)
that
the
whole
body
of
Presbyterian
covenanters
in
England
,
both
imposers
and
takers
,
parliament
and
people
,
understood
that
article
of
Presbyterian
government
.
The
Doubter
here
poorly
grants
[
that
England
and
Scotland
did
not
understand
that
article
in
the
same
sense
,
but
alledgeth
that
since
our
Church
understood
it
of
Presbytry
,
we
are
bound
to
it
in
that
sense
.
]
Upon
this
he
assumes
,
That
it
will
not
follow
that
we
are
bound
to
it
in
the
sense
of
our
Church
and
state
,
but
rather
that
in
relation
to
government
it
is
with
out
sense
,
since
the
imposers
themselves
were
not
aggreed
as
to
its
meaning
.
Ans.
we
have
already
made
it
good
,
both
from
the
sense
and
scope
of
the
national
Covenant
,
the
judicial
interpretation
and
application
of
it
to
our
former
prelacie
expres●…ie
,
the
nations
universall
taking
it
so
,
and
the
authorizing
thereof
both
by
King
and
parliament
,
as
well
as
by
the
recommendation
of
the
assembly
,
from
the
total
extirpation
of
prelacy
,
and
setting
up
Presbyterian
government
in
all
its
courts
,
in
consequence
hereof
,
that
that
article
of
the
solemne
league
which
relates
to
the
preservation
of
the
then
existent
Reformation
in
doctrine
,
worship
,
discipline
,
and
government
,
cannot
without
extreme
impudence
be
distorted
to
any
other
sense
,
then
a
preservation
of
the
Presbyterian
government
then
existent
.
Especially
the
league
being
framed
and
entered
into
by
us
,
for
our
further
security
in
relation
to
what
we
had
attained
.
And
this
being
the
article
framed
by
the
Church
and
state
of
Scotland
at
that
time
,
and
this
being
also
their
scope
and
designe
,
discovered
in
their
treaties
with
England
,
when
that
Covenant
was
entered
into
,
I
dare
appeal
this
mans
conscience
upon
it
,
whither
ever
any
demurre
here
anent
,
or
any
other
sense
of
this
article
,
was
offered
by
the
English
when
the
nations
first
entered
into
this
oath
?
or
whither
,
the
imposers
thereof
in
Scotland
,
would
have
engaged
in
that
league
with
the
English
,
upon
any
other
termes
then
these
,
and
in
this
their
sense
of
that
1.
article
.
Thinks
the
Informer
that
if
any
such
thing
had
been
muttered
in
the
first
transaction
of
this
business
,
that
the
English
did
not
look
upon
the
Presbyterian
government
as
the
reformed
government
of
this
Church
,
that
the
Scots
nation
would
have
transacted
with
whem
in
this
league
?
Nay
,
when
(
as
Timorcus
tells
us
)
it
was
debated
branch
by
branch
,
phrase
by
phrase
in
the
convention
house
,
in
the
parliament
,
in
the
assembly
of
divines
,
was
there
ever
such
a
notion
as
this
of
our
Informer
started
,
that
by
the
reformed
government
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
Presbyterian
government
was
not
to
be
understood
?
in
a
word
,
dare
he
deny
that
the
godly
conscientious
Ministers
and
people
of
England
,
did
in
the
sense
of
this
oath
,
and
even
in
imitation
of
the
Scottish
,
or
rather
the
Scripture
patterne
,
plead
for
,
and
had
begun
to
set
up
Presbyterian
government
,
and
are
closs
to
their
principles
to
this
day
.
But
he
adds
,
that
it
is
irrationall
to
say
we
are
bound
to
it
in
the
sense
of
the
Church
and
State
of
Scotland
,
because
they
were
but
a
part
of
the
Imposers
and
the
least
Part.
Ans.
I
told
him
already
that
in
relation
to
the
engadgers
in
Scotland
they
were
the
proper
imposers
,
the
authority
of
the
respective
rulers
of
both
nations
,
in
relation
,
to
their
own
subjects
being
first
and
immediately
to
be
lookt
unto
,
and
their
sense
&
scope
therein
to
be
mainly
eyed
,
and
each
Nation
being
properly
and
immediatly
judges
,
as
to
their
own
national
end
in
this
stipulation
.
Thinks
this
man
,
that
the
then
representatives
of
Church
and
State
,
did
eye
any
other
end
as
to
Scotland
,
then
the
preservation
of
the
reformation
in
Doctrine
,
Discipline
,
Worship
and
Government
,
as
at
that
time
therein
establisht
.
Moreover
,
the
sense
and
scope
of
the
article
it self
being
convincingly
inclusive
of
Presbyterian
Government
,
it
can
admit
of
no
other
glosse
without
manifest
distortion
,
and
frustration
of
the
imposers
designe
therein
.
Next
he
tells
us
,
that
suppose
Presbytery
were
meant
in
the
1
Article
,
yet
the
2d
will
admitt
some
episcopacie
.
What
poor
stuffe
is
this
.
Suppose
the
Article
of
extirpation
relating
only
to
England
and
Ireland
,
would
comport
with
some
episcopacie
(
which
the
Informer
hath
not
yet
proved
)
what
hath
that
to
do
with
Scotland
?
Or
how
can
that
enervate
our
engadgement
to
preserve
the
reformation
as
then
establisht
in
Doctrine
,
Worship
,
Discipline
,
and
Government
?
Because
in
relation
to
the
extirpating
of
Englands
Prelacy
after
the
reformation
in
Scotland
is
compleated
and
sworn
to
,
we
are
to
bear
with
the
English
Church
in
some
remaines
of
Prelacy
,
till
God
give
further
light
,
must
we
therfor
be
oblidged
or
allowed
according
to
the
sense
and
scope
of
this
Oath
to
corrupt
or
raze
the
Fabrick
of
that
establisht
reformation
,
and
bring
in
again
prelacy
into
that
Church
out
of
which
it
had
been
totally
eradicate
?
Nay
,
this
is
too
dull
inadvertancie
.
As
for
what
he
adds
that
Presbytery
is
not
inconsistent
with
any
kinde
of
prelacie
.
I
answer
that
the
presbytery
establisht
and
sworn
to
be
maintained
in
Scotland
,
is
,
and
Beza
is
so
farre
from
disowning
this
,
that
(
as
we
heard
)
he
exhorteth
John
Knox
to
keep
that
Church
and
house
of
God
clean
of
prelacy
,
as
he
loved
the
simplicity
of
the
Gospel
.
CHAP.
IV.
The
grounds
,
upon
which
the
Informer
undertakes
to
prove
that
the
obligation
of
the
Covenant
ceaseth
,
although
its
oblidging
force
for
the
time
past
were
supposed
,
examined
at
large
.
As
also
his
reasoning
upon
Numb
.
30.
Wherein
his
begging
of
the
question
,
his
contradicting
of
Dr
Sanderson
and
other
Casuists
,
and
manifold
inconsistencies
are
made
appear
.
OUR
Informer
having
spent
his
Master
pieces
,
and
the
cheife
products
of
his
invention
,
or
rather
of
those
who
have
gone
before
him
,
upon
this
difficult
task
of
reconciling
the
Covenant
to
Prelacy
,
doth
next
(
as
a
liberall
bold
disputer
)
undertake
to
loose
the
Covenant
,
even
upon
supposall
of
its
pre-existent
obligation
against
it
.
And
therefore
making
his
Doubter
tell
him
[
that
he
bears
off
the
acknowledgement
of
anyobligation
against
episcopacie
,
either
in
the
national
,
or
solemne
league
,
lest
he
fall
under
the
charge
of
perjurie
]
.
In
answer
to
this
he
will
suppose
that
episcopacy
is
abjured
in
both
Covenants
,
and
yet
undertake
to
defend
that
they
arenot
perjured
who
now
submit
to
prelacie
.
The
Doubter
thinks
this
strange
Doctrine
,
and
so
do
I.
Because
[
to
swear
against
episcopacie
and
yet
acknowledge
it
is
to
do
contrary
to
their
Oath
.
]
To
this
doubt
he
returns
a
large
resolution
,
but
still
follows
up
the
Seasonable
case
closs
,
for
fear
of
miscarrying
.
And
first
,
he
begins
with
a
threefold
partition
,
either
prelacy
(
saith
he
)
is
an
unalterable
necessary
Government
of
divine
or
Apostolick
warrand
,
or
it
is
sinfull
and
contrary
to
the
Apostolick
Government
,
or
thirdly
of
a
middle
nature
,
neither
commanded
nor
forbidden
,
but
left
to
Christian
prudence
as
found
expedient
to
be
used
or
not
.
Here
I
must
stope
him
a
little
,
and
minde
the
reader
,
that
we
did
upon
the
first
Dialogue
,
disprove
this
indifferent
Proteus-Prelacie
,
as
a
monster
to
Scripture
,
since
the
Scripture
condescending
so
far
as
to
its
institution
of
officers
,
ordinances
,
Lawes
,
censures
;
and
(
as
we
heard
himself
acknowledge
)
setting
down
all
substantialls
of
Church
Government
,
prelacie
must
of
necessity
be
either
consonant
or
dissonant
therunto
,
and
by
consequence
necessary
or
finfull
,
commanded
or
forbidden
.
So
that
he
is
to
be
limited
to
the
first
two
,
and
any
supposal
anent
the
indifferencie
of
presacy
,
is
but
his
petitio
prnicipii
;
and
the
gratification
of
his
adversary
for
further
clearing
of
this
question
:
now
proceed
we
.
If
it
be
the
Apostolick
Government
derived
from
their
times
to
all
ages
of
the
Church
,
he
hopes
we
will
grant
that
no
Oath
oblidges
against
it
.
This
I
willingly
grant
to
him
,
but
what
then
?
Why
,
we
must
not
cry
out
perjurie
till
what
he
hath
offered
on
this
head
be
solidly
answered
.
Let
this
bargaine
stand
,
I
hope
I
have
made
his
Scripturae
pretences
,
appear
to
be
vaine
,
and
proven
the
contrariety
of
that
prelacie
now
established
,
both
to
the
Scripture
and
pure
antiquity
,
and
till
he
hath
answered
what
is
offered
upon
this
point
,
we
may
impute
perjury
to
him
by
his
own
acknowledgment
.
What
next
,
what
if
it
be
sinfull
?
Then
he
sayes
we
need
not
plead
the
Covenant
obligation
.
No
?
may
we
not
plead
the
Covenant
obligation
against
Schisme
,
heresie
,
and
profanness
?
May
not
the
Oath
of
alledgance
be
pleaded
against
treason
,
because
before
this
Oath
treason
is
a
sin
?
Said
he
not
already
that
the
Baptismall
vow
is
a
superadded
obligation
,
though
the
matter
it self
doth
binde
?
did
not
the
Oath
and
Covenant
(
Neh.
8.
)
containe
an
abjuration
of
many
sins
,
against
which
the
people
stood
before
preoblidged
?
But
he
adds
,
its
true
a
supervenient
Oath
makes
the
obligation
the
stronger
.
Right
,
why
then
may
not
we
plead
that
which
makes
it
stronger
?
Especially
against
this
man
and
his
fellows
,
who
have
such
a
mighty
faculty
of
resolving
and
absolving
all
S
Peters
fetters
.
Sure
they
had
need
of
Double
nets
who
would
catch
a
Proteus
.
Then
he
tell
us
,
That
the
ablest
champions
for
Presbytrie
dar
not
assert
episcopacie
to
be
unlawfull
.
What
champions
are
these
that
prove
it
to
be
contrary
to
Scripture
,
and
yet
dar
not
assert
it
to
be
unlawfull
?
Sure
they
are
very
faint
disputants
.
We
heard
that
Beza
(
whom
our
Informer
will
sure
call
a
champion
for
Presbytery
)
called
episcopacy
dia●…olicall
and
the
egg
out
of
which
Antichrist
was
hatched
.
Was
not
that
near
the
march
of
calling
it
unlawfull
?
But
how
will
he
now
absolve
us
?
Why
,
it
must
be
indifferent
,
neither
lawfull
nor
unlawful
,
and
then
the
question
is
with
him
,
if
we
could
by
our
own
Oath
,
make
it
absolutely
and
in
every
case
unlawfull
,
so
that
we
can
never
after
submit
unto
it
.
He
adds
,
that
we
are
mistaken
if
we
think
that
an
Oath
against
a
thing
indifferent
will
in
every
case
bind
.
Here
I
shall
only
tell
him
that
since
all
his
resolving
skill
goes
upon
this
supposition
,
he
should
have
travelled
to
Utopia
with
this
resolution
,
since
we
do
suppose
and
have
proven
Prelacie
to
be
unlawfull
,
and
so
are
not
in
the
least
concerned
in
what
he
saith
upon
this
point
:
Since
he
is
still
arguing
ex
ignoratione
elenchi
.
But
let
us
see
how
he
will
absolve
us
upon
this
supposition
,
which
he
must
in
pity
be
gratified
with
,
before
he
can
draw
forth
his
weapons
.
Our
Informer
still
stricks
hand
,
with
the
Seasonable
case
and
the
Surveyer
,
telling
us
first
,
that
the
oath
ceases
to
bind
,
if
the
thing
sworn
against
,
be
a
matter
wherein
our
superiours
have
power
to
command
us
,
they
by
their
authority
given
them
of
God
,
may
require
obedience
of
us
in
any
thing
lawfull
,
and
so
may
in
that
particular
,
command
us
to
do
or
use
what
we
have
sworn
against
,
it
being
a
thing
in
it self
lawfull
,
and
in
this
case
our
oath
ceases
to
binde
.
Ans.
this
simple
notion
,
by
our
Informer
poorly
propounded
hath
no
taste
in
it
,
and
cannot
reach
our
case
,
even
though
he
had
won
over
that
insuperable
mountain
of
the
unlawfullness
of
prelacy
,
and
had
proven
,
or
his
adversary
had
granted
it
,
to
be
indifferent
,
for
1.
his
supposition
runs
thus
.
That
episcopacy
is
indifferent
to
be
used
in
the
Church
or
not
as
it
shall
be
found
expedient
.
Now
,
I
beseech
him
,
who
is
the
proper
judge
,
what
frame
of
Church
government
best
sutes
her
condition
?
is
not
the
Church
representative
,
to
whom
is
intrusted
the
power
of
the
keys
?
by
what
warrand
will
he
bring
in
the
Magistrate
primo
instanti
to
alter
and
set
up
Church
government
as
he
thinks
fit
,
even
granting
it
were
indifferent
?
he
sought
at
first
but
a
grant
that
prelacy
was
indifferent
,
but
ere
he
can
produce
one
reason
for
his
point
,
he
must
have
a
further
grant
of
Erastianisme
,
and
that
the
Magistrate
is
the
proper
competent
immediat
judge
in
matters
ecclesiastick
.
Who
can
stope
the
mouth
of
this
hungry
cause
of
his
,
that
must
have
multiplied
concessions
of
the
adversary
,
and
yet
cannot
subsist
,
but
starves
with
its
own
weakness
when
all
is
done
.
For
2dly
,
although
this
were
also
granted
,
what
will
he
say
in
this
case
,
wherein
the
superiour
hath
bound
and
engadged
himselfe
with
the
same
Oaths
,
vows
,
and
bonds
that
the
subject
is
tyed
with
,
and
hath
solemnly
vowed
to
God
against
such
a
frame
of
Government
?
Sure
this
will
tye
up
his
hands
if
we
may
beleeve
the
maxime
asserted
by
Dr
Sanderson
and
other
Casuists
that
juramentum
tollit
libertatem
even
in
a
thing
indifferent
.
Had
we
not
the
ratification
of
the
Nationall
Covenant
with
the
band
and
explication
against
the
Scots
Prelacie
,
in
plain
Parliament
by
King
Charles
the
first
,
under
his
hand
writing
1641
?
Did
not
the
King
who
now
is
in
the
Year
1650
and
—
51
,
swear
and
subscribe
both
this
oath
,
and
the
solemn
league
and
Covenant
,
and
gave
all
imaginable
assurances
for
upholding
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
in
opposition
to
Prelacy
?
suppose
he
had
power
to
command
in
this
matter
,
sure
his
commanding
power
is
tyed
up
,
when
he
hath
vowed
and
Open'd
his
mouth
unto
God
,
and
lifted
up
his
hand
to
the
most
high
,
That
Prelacy
shall
never
be
allow'd
within
his
dominions
,
far
less
commanded
.
Whatever
power
God
hath
given
to
Magistrates
over
their
subjects
,
sure
he
hath
given
them
no
power
to
loose
themselves
from
his
oath
and
vow
upon
them
is
.
Thirdly
,
it
is
too
laxe
a
principle
,
to
hold
that
in
every
thing
,
in
it self
indifferent
,
the
Magistrates
power
reaches
to
supercede
or
loose
,
the
obligation
of
an
oath
or
vow
of
the
subject
.
For
a
subjects
freedome
and
liberty
,
as
in
that
capacity
,
and
the
Magistrats
authority
,
being
coordinate
,
as
the
subjects
liberty
must
not
justle
with
the
Magistrat's
lawfull
Command
,
suited
to
the
ends
of
government
,
so
neither
must
the
Command
of
the
Magistrate
incroach
upon
this
reserved
liberty
of
the
subject
,
who
hath
many
things
in
his
own
power
and
without
the
reach
of
any
lawfull
command
of
the
Migistrate
.
A
Subject
,
and
a
slave
,
are
quite
distinct
things
.
God
restrained
&
set
bounds
to
the
power
of
Kings
,
and
Magistrates
whom
he
set
over
his
people
,
so
that
they
might
not
command
such
and
such
things
.
Therefor
in
what
things
soever
,
the
exercise
of
a
subjects
liberty
,
crosses
not
the
designe
and
end
of
the
Magistrates
power
exprest
in
Scripture
,
his
vow
is
without
the
reach
of
the
Magistrates
suspending
or
loosing
power
.
Naboth
would
not
give
Ahab
his
Vineyard
,
no
not
for
money
.
What
if
a
man
in
a
parentall
capacity
,
interpose
a
vow
as
to
his
childe
in
reference
to
some
occupation
or
inheritance
,
which
are
supposed
,
before
th●…s
vow
,
to
be
things
indifferent
?
Sure
the
Magistrates
suspending
power
will
not
reach
this
vow
.
This
will
be
clear
,
if
it
be
considered
,
That
the
preservation
of
the
Subjectes
liberty
,
is
one
of
the
great
ends
of
the
Magistates
Authority
.
The
Second
case
wherein
the
Informer
tellsus
,
that
ane
Oath
in
things
indifferent
binds
no●…
,
is
when
the
thing
sworn
is
so
altered
in
its
nature
,
that
it
becomes
sinfull
and
cannot
be
lawfully
performed
.
He
tells
us
that
Casuists
say
,
That
cessat
juramenti
obligatio
cum
res
non
permanent
in
eodem
statu
Ans.
This
other
case
generally
byhim
propounded
here
,
shall
be
considered
&
spoken
to
,
when
we
shall
see
how
hereafter
he
explaines
and
applyes
it
.
Therefore
we
shall
in
this
place
dismiss
it
with
one
word
,
That
Prelacy
is
now
the
same
,
and
worse
thn
formerly
,
And
therfor
the
premised
maxime
cannot
reach
his
Conclusion
in
the
least
.
His
Third
case
wherein
he
tells
us
,
that
the
Oath
in
things
indifferent
ceaseth
to
bind
,
is
,
when
it
is
impeditivum
majoris
boni
,
which
he
sayes
the
Seasonable
case
and
the
survey
of
Naphtali
,
do
apply
to
this
Oath
.
And
how
he
applyes
it
we
shall
after
hear
,
He
tells
us
,
they
do
prove
;
that
supposing
Episcopacie
lawfull
,
though
i●…
were
meant
in
the
Covenant
,
none
should
think
themselves
bound
to
stand
out
against
it
,
our
Superiours
having
commanded
us
to
obey
and
submit
to
that
government
.
And
that
he
solidly
repells
what
is
brought
by
the
Apologie
or
Naphtali
to
the
contrary
.
But
how
insignificantly
either
he
,
or
these
new
Casuists
,
do
loose
the
Covenant
upon
this
Pretence
,
hath
already
in
part
,
and
shall
yet
further
appear
.
What
a
laxe
Adiaphorist
is
this
,
who
by
his
new
divinity
,
first
takes
this
great
duty
of
vowing
or
swearing
quite
away
;
For
,
no
Oaths
must
be
pleaded
in
things
necessary
,
in
this
man's
judgment
,
They
canno
in
things
that
are
sinfull
or
unlawfull
have
place
,
and
so
all
the
subject
thereof
must
be
things
lawfull
;
and
for
this
,
there
needs
no
more
to
make
all
Oaths
and
vows
evanish
,
but
a
command
from
the
superiour
,
and
then
they
are
gone
.
Secondly
,
he
makes
the
Magistrat's
posteriour
and
supervenient
command
,
no●…only
loose
all
his
subjects
from
the
obligation
of
what
is
lawfully
sworn
,
but
also
himself
from
his
personall
Oath
:
Though
he
hath
sworn
and
vowed
never
so
deeply
,
he
hath
no
more
to
do
but
to
make
a
Law
against
it
,
and
then
the
Oath
,
as
impeditivum
boni
,
ceasethto
bind
either
himselfe
or
his
subjects
.
Thirdly
,
he
makes
all
the
reserved
liberty
of
the
subject
(
which
Government
is
for
preservation
of
)
a
meer
nullity
and
Chimaera
,
so
as
this
liberty
it selfe
,
or
any
vow
or
Oath
in
things
which
are
properly
within
it's
sphere
,
evanishes
at
every
arbitrary
command
of
the
powers
.
Hence
a
subjects
liberty
resolves
into
a
meer
nothing
or
slavery
.
Fourthly
,
thus
the
Judgement
of
all
Churches
in
Brittain
and
Ireland
under
this
Oath
,
must
in
relation
to
the
expediency
of
this
supposed
lawfull
Episcopacy
,
and
its
present
suitableness
to
her
edification
,
be
at
the
meer
beck
of
this
arbitrary
command
of
the
civill
power
,
as
the
sole
and
proper
judge
of
this
matter
.
And
so
.
First
,
the
Magistrate
is
not
only
the
immediatjudge
of
all
ecclesiastick
Government
,
or
what
is
most
suitable
to
the
Churches
State
and
edification
in
point
of
Government
.
But
2dly
,
all
judgement
of
discretion
is
taken
away
from
the
people
of
God
,
in
relation
to
this
matter
of
so
high
importance
,
and
their
acting
in
faith
consequently
,
in
this
supposed
obedience
.
So
that
men
are
made
absolutly
Lords
over
their
consciences
.
Yea
3dly
,
all
regard
to
the
eshewing
the
offence
of
the
weak
,
and
the
Scripture
Rules
in
relation
to
their
scandal
,
and
stumbling
,
are
made
void
;
the
meer
command
of
the
powers
determining
that
matter
,
in
the
principles
of
this
Informer
.
Yea
Moreover
,
all
our
Christian
libetry
in
things
indifferent
,
which
Christ
hath
purchased
with
his
precious
blood
,
and
which
we
are
commanded
so
much
to
hold
fast
,
is
close
swallowed
up
,
so
that
both
judgement
&
practise
,
in
matters
wherein
God
hath
given
a
liberty
,
are
tyed
unto
,
and
only
regulable
by
,
the
arbitrary
command
of
the
powers
:
And
what
monstruous
absurdities
these
are
,
the
meanest
capacity
may
judge
.
As
for
what
he
adds
here
,
that
an
Oath
about
matters
not
sinfull
,
is
alwayes
to
be
understood
with
this
restriction
,
[
so
long
as
lawfully
I
may
]
which
the
matter
thereof
requires
,
because
the
taker
is
under
prior
and
greater
obligations
(
viz
obedience
to
his
superiour
and
the
like
)
then
that
of
the
Oath
in
a
thing
indifferent
,
and
therefor
when
the
prior
obligation
crosseth
this
latter
of
the
Oath
,
its
obligation
must
cease
.
Ans.
This
prior
obligation
the
Informer
makes
relative
to
the
Magistrats
command
interposing
,
which
according
to
his
laxe
and
unrestricted
supposalls
,
makes
all
Oaths
no
stronger
then
a
threed
touched
with
the
fire
,
and
when
applyed
to
our
case
,
is
utterly
impertinent
,
because
;
first
,
there
are
things
in
their
own
nature
indifferent
,
yet
within
the
sphere
of
the
subjects
reserved
liberty
;
and
Consequently
not
within
the
reach
of
any
lawfull
command
of
the
Magistrat
,
nor
of
any
anterior
obligation
,
to
that
of
the
Oath
by
further
consequence
;
and
that
the
matters
in
debate
are
not
such
,
he
hath
not
proved
.
2ly
,
The
Magistrate
himselfe
hath
by
his
own
Oath
(
in
this
case
)
superseded
and
tyed
up
any
right
of
commanding
,
which
the
Informer
may
suppose
he
had
.
3ly
,
upon
both
these
grounds
,
the
performance
of
this
great
engadgement
,
can
never
justle
with
any
lawfull
command
of
the
Magistrat
.
And
by
further
Consequence
,
4ly
,
There
is
no
greater
or
prior
obligation
in
this
case
lying
upon
the
Swearer
,
from
the
Magistrat's
right
,
to
breake
or
cut
short
the
obligation
of
this
vow
.
All
which
is
yet
further
convincingly
clear
,
if
it
be
considered
,
that
this
great
supposition
of
the
lawfulnes
or
Indifferency
of
Prelacy
(
which
is
the
grand
Topick
bearing
the
weight
of
his
Argumentation
)
is
but
begged
by
him
,
and
as
an
almes
,
given
by
his
Adversary
.
But
the
contrariety
of
Episcopacy
to
the
Scripture
,
which
we
have
alreadie
proved
,
being
once
supposed
,
it
followes
,
that
there
is
an
obligation
Prior
to
all
Oaths
,
lying
both
upon
King
and
subjects
for
it's
Extirpation
,
but
which
is
much
more
strengthened
by
the
Supervenient
Oaths
and
vows
of
God
upon
them
,
for
this
great
end
.
The
Informer
adds
further
,
that
our
obligation
to
our
Superiours
,
is
Gods
tye
—
our
Oath
a
knot
of
our
own
casting
,
and
that
when
two
duties
at
once
seeme
to
require
performance
,
and
we
cannot
get
them
both
satisfyed
,
the
lesser
should
give
way
to
the
greater
.
Ans.
1.
The
same
God
who
hath
enjoyn'd
obedience
to
Rulers
,
hath
reserved
the
subjects
liberty
,
and
Christian
liberty
,
and
by
his
authority
salv'd
and
authorized
Oaths
and
vows
which
are
within
the
compass
of
that
reserv'd
liberty
,
so
the
last
knot
is
of
Gods
casting
as
well
as
the
first
.
And
such
Alexander-like
absolvers
or
Cutters
as
our
Informer
and
his
fellowes
,
will
find
that
they
are
hewing
at
divine
cords
,
when
the
curse
due
to
perjury
shall
enter
into
their
houses
and
soules
,
if
they
repent
not
.
2ly
,
Hence
in
this
case
and
question
under
debate
,
our
obedience
to
the
Magistrat
(
especially
upon
our
true
supposition
of
the
unlawfullness
of
Prelacy
,
and
of
the
Oath
against
it
,
lying
upon
the
Magistrat
himself
)
is
sinfull
;
and
so
the
comparison
is
betwixt
duty
,
and
sin
,
not
a
greater
and
lesser
duty
,
which
this
man
must
grant
is
ever
to
be
preferred
.
And
besides
,
the
Informers
supposition
,
that
this
Oath
is
a
meer
voluntary
deed
of
our
own
,
which
had
so
full
a
ratification
of
the
Magistrates
Authority
,
is
among
the
rest
of
his
gratis
supposita
and
Beggings
of
the
question
,
which
we
must
send
back
to
him
with
a
lash
,
untill
it
be
return'd
with
a
due
Testimonall
of
better
proof
then
of
his
Ipse
dixit
.
3ly
,
Even
upon
his
own
supposition
,
Dr
Sanderson
will
tell
him
,
that
any
law
made
against
an
Oath
,
which
is
but
spontaneous
,
if
the
law
be
alternative
,
to
obey
or
suffer
,
the
Oath
will
bind
against
the
active
part
,
and
oblige
not
to
obey
the
power
in
that
supervenient
command
or
Law
,
which
is
contrary
even
to
the
privat
spontaneous
Oath
,
de
Iur
Promis
.
Prel
.
Sect.
9.
But
a
fortiori
much
more
will
this
oblige
not
to
obey
that
Law
,
if
the
Oath
be
not
only
spontaneous
,
but
hath
been
fortifyed
by
the
Legislative
power
,
yea
and
vow
of
the
Superior
himself
,
who
Pretends
to
loose
it
by
his
after-Law
.
4ly
,
Whereas
he
alledges
,
Gods
putting
us
under
the
commands
of
the
powers
in
this
case
,
and
his
freind
Dr
Burnet
in
this
Argument
,
tells
us
that
[
our
Oath
being
a
voluntary
deed
of
our
own
(
as
he
gratis
supposeth
with
the
Informer
)
cannot
prejudge
the
commands
of
our
superiours
,
which
are
Gods
own
immediat
commands
.
]
They
should
know
(
as
Timorcus
long
since
Informed
them
Chap.
6.
sect.
35.
)
That
the
Topick
of
this
Argument
being
,
The
dominion
of
the
superiour
over
the
Inferiour
,
if
the
command
or
Law
be
the
exercise
of
a
dominion
in
things
wherin
he
hath
no
dominion
,
the
Oath
will
bind
against
such
lawes
.
This
man
and
his
fellows
are
still
talking
of
the
prior
obligation
of
obedience
to
the
Magistrat
,
but
they
must
know
that
the
Magistrats
dominion
in
this
point
must
be
instructed
by
a
Patent
from
God
the
supreme
Legislator
,
before
we
can
acknowledge
it
.
And
if
our
Oath
interferre
with
the
exercise
of
a
dominion
which
is
without
its
due
sphere
,
sure
it
interferres
with
no
prior
obligation
which
God
hath
lay'd
upon
us
.
Even
Azorius
(
Mor.
Quest.
l.
11.
cap.
6.
)
will
tell
him
,
that
an
Oath
will
bind
Contra
mores
jure
civili
institutos
,
if
the
divine
Law
be
in
any
thing
crossed
thereby
.
Nay
,
Casuists
,
even
such
as
Abbas
,
Silvester
,
Azorius
,
Molina
,
Lessius
,
Leyman
,
Sanohes
,
Swares
,
do
grant
.
That
an
Oath
will
bind
against
any
civill
Law
,
if
it
oblige
ad
paenam
non
ad
culpam
necessario
,
to
punishment
,
and
not
necessarly
to
sin
.
And
further
most
of
them
admit
the
binding
force
of
Oaths
against
the
Laws
or
commands
of
superiours
,
ubi
materia
legibus
opposita
sine
peccato
fieri
potest
,
where
the
matter
of
the
Oath
,
which
is
contrary
to
the
lawes
,
may
be
performed
without
sin
it
being
non
contra
jus
naturale
aut
divinum
,
that
is
,
not
against
the
Law
of
nature
or
the
divine
Law
.
See
Timorcus
ubi
supra
.
5ly
,
Even
putting
episcopacie
in
the
category
of
things
indifferent
,
this
Oaths
obligation
against
it
,
will
countervaile
&
oversway
our
obligation
to
obey
the
Magistrate
,
and
submit
to
his
laws
,
In
such
a
case
,
wherin
it
is
found
inexpedient
for
the
Church
,
and
particularlie
for
this
Church
,
as
by
its
apparent
dreadfull
effects
is
evident
;
such
as
the
desolation
and
wasting
of
this
Church
,
the
spreading
of
poperie
and
Arminianism
,
the
Casting
out
of
many
of
the
godlie
Ministry
,
the
fixed
division
therin
,
the
endless
Confusions
and
broiles
,
and
therby
the
wide
door
opened
to
all
Popish
invasions
&c.
For
since
the
Magistrats
simple
Command
cannot
determine
what
Government
is
expedient
or
inexpedient
for
the
Church
,
this
must
be
supposed
that
Prelacie
is
best
,
before
the
Command
can
be
,
so
much
as
supposed
Lawfull
,
els
the
Magistrat
may
injoyne
an
Hundred
Oaths
this
year
in
such
and
such
things
as
he
calls
expedient
,
and
null
them
all
the
next
year
,
though
himself
be
engadged
therin
,
upon
pretence
of
inexpediency
of
the
Matter
,
because
of
occurring
circumstances
,
which
will
make
mad
work
of
Oaths
,
and
hang
them
all
at
the
Magistrats
sic
volo
sic
jubeo
,
as
to
their
obligation
.
It
s
true
that
the
greater
duty
(
as
is
clear
Math.
9.
13.
)
counter-balances
the
less
,
but
I
Pray
,
shall
the
meer
will
and
Command
of
the
power
,
determine
the
greater
dutie
?
and
be
the
sole
and
supreme
rule
to
determine
the
Conscience
,
as
to
the
expediency
of
a
thing
hic
&
nunc
.
And
though
(
as
he
sayes
)
every
positive
precept
oblidge
not
ad
Semper
.
Yet
he
must
acknowledge
,
first
,
that
it
oblidges
semper
,
and
though
not
as
to
the
act
,
yet
as
to
the
eshewing
the
Contrary
therof
.
And
Secondly
,
to
act
semper
,
except
when
Gods
command
superseds
it
,
as
to
other
duties
in
their
seasons
.
So
that
till
he
clear
this
in
the
point
of
prelacie
,
and
that
the
renouncing
of
our
Covenant
,
and
presbyterian
Government
at
the
Magistrats
Command
,
is
in
our
case
the
greatest
duty
,
this
rule
makes
against
him
.
The
Doubter
,
as
to
his
first
rule
,
anent
the
authority
of
superiours
interveening
,
objects
,
that
its
hard
to
say
that
mans
authority
can
loose
the
Oath
of
God
,
since
in
this
Case
we
must
say
,
that
we
have
opened
our
mouth
unto
God
,
and
cannot
go
back
]
.
To
this
he
answers
.
1.
That
the
law
of
God
in
the
5th
Command
layes
the
first
and
Primarie
obligation
upon
us
to
obey
our
superiours
,
which
Command
we
cannot
bind
up
our selves
from
obeying
.
Ans.
1.
the
same
God
who
gave
that
Command
,
did
by
the
third
Command
oblidge
both
superiours
and
inferiours
,
to
be
a
ware
of
taking
his
name
in
vain
,
and
therfor
not
to
presume
to
break
their
Oaths
and
vows
in
any
Lawfull
matter
,
unlesse
insuch
Cases
as
himself
the
blest
and
supreme
Lawgiver
,
excepts
;
which
he
hath
not
yet
letten
us
see
as
to
this
Oath
,
wherin
both
superiours
and
inferiours
have
entered
,
and
therby
oblidged
themselves
to
God
against
what
he
pleads
for
.
So
that
Gods
reserved
Supremacie
,
and
Dominion
,
which
(
to
use
his
own
argument
against
him
)
is
the
primarie
and
fundamentall
tye
,
upon
which
this
5.
Command
is
bottomed
,
and
according
to
which
our
obedience
therto
must
be
Regulat
,
will
cut
short
the
obedience
to
the
superiour
in
this
case
,
wherin
we
cannot
obey
him
in
the
Lord
,
and
without
violating
our
fealty
and
alleadgeance
to
the
God
of
Gods
,
and
wronging
his
suprem
dominion
.
2ly
,
In
this
same
5.
Command
,
God
hath
limited
the
Power
of
superiours
,
and
tied
them
under
many
bonds
of
duties
to
their
subjects
or
inferiours
,
which
,
in
none
of
their
Commands
they
must
transgress
,
and
if
they
do
,
their
Commands
oblidge
not
Inferiours
to
obey
.
Now
,
that
this
Loosing
the
obligation
of
these
Oaths
is
in
our
case
an
encroachment
upon
the
subjects
right
and
reserved
Libertie
,
as
well
as
christian
Libertie
,
and
an
encroachment
upon
Gods
sovereign
right
,
is
above
Cleared
.
Next
he
sayes
,
this
were
a
way
to
frustrat
the
superiour
of
all
obedience
,
and
every
man
might
pretend
,
I
have
sworn
against
such
a
thing
commanded
,
therfor
I
cannot
do
it
.
Thus
privat
persons
might
prelimit
themselves
from
obeying
in
everie
thing
.
Ans.
in
our
case
there
is
no
such
hazard
,
for
the
superiour
hath
prelimit
Himself
by
his
own
oath
,
and
this
will
not
prelimit
him
upon
such
a
pretence
,
from
obedience
in
any
thing
that
is
Lawfull
,
or
which
falls
within
the
Compass
of
his
Power
As
a
Magistrate
and
is
suitable
to
the
great
ends
of
his
Power
,
to
say
,
that
he
cannot
Arbitrarly
loose
people
from
a
Lawfull
Oath
,
sworn
also
by
himself
.
But
on
the
contrary
,
this
pretended
Informer
his
doctrine
herein
prelimtes
and
cuts
short
Subjects
Libertie
,
and
Christian
Libertie
,
and
Libertie
of
Conscience
,
subjecting
it
,
and
all
Gods
rules
theranent
,
all
scripture
Rules
of
Expediency
and
Edification
,
and
all
Oaths
and
vows
superadded
to
matters
subordinat
to
these
ends
,
unto
the
Magistrats
arbitrary
disposal
and
laws
,
which
is
a
prelimitation
equally
if
not
more
dangerous
.
Our
Informer
in
the
next
place
for
proof
of
this
his
doctrine
,
sends
the
Doubter
to
Numb.
30
:
where
(
he
sayes
)
the
husband
or
parent
is
vested
with
a
Power
to
null
and
make
void
the
vow
of
the
wife
or
daughter
,
and
by
Proportion
the
King
,
who
is
Pater
patriae
,
hath
the
same
authority
.
Ans.
it
will
be
a
harder
task
then
this
man
can
well
mannage
to
bring
in
the
King
here
within
the
Compass
of
the
father
and
husbands
right
,
as
to
this
absolving
Power
.
For
first
,
the
Magistrats
Power
is
far
different
from
the
Marital
and
Parental
,
and
the
relation
betwixt
King
and
subject
is
nothing
so
strait
,
as
betwixt
husband
and
wife
,
parent
and
Children
,
the
one
being
natural
,
the
other
Political
,
the
one
changeable
,
the
other
not
.
A
man
may
chuse
to
Live
under
what
Magistrat
he
pleases
,
but
the
woman
cannot
cast
off
her
husband
,
nor
the
Child
shake
off
his
relation
and
dutie
to
the
father
.
Besides
,
subjects
set
up
their
Magistrats
and
Limite
them
:
But
so
it
is
not
as
to
the
Marital
and
Parental
relations
.
The
husbands
authority
flows
not
from
the
wife
her
donation
,
nor
the
parents
from
the
Children
.
So
that
a
parallel
argument
can
hardly
be
drawen
from
the
Power
of
husbands
and
parents
,
supposed
in
this
text
,
in
relation
to
Oaths
and
vows
of
the
Children
and
wife
,
to
that
of
the
Magistrat
in
relation
to
his
subjects
.
2ly
,
in
the
beginning
of
that
Chap.
the
Lords
way
of
Laying
down
this
great
Sanction
touching
vows
,
seems
to
exclude
the
Magistrat
from
this
absolving
Power
.
For
after
the
propounding
of
the
Law
touching
the
keeping
of
voluntary
Oaths
and
vows
,
viz.
that
the
person
vowing
shall
not
break
nor
profane
his
Word
as
the
Hebrew
signifies
,
but
do
according
to
all
that
Proceeds
out
of
his
mouth
.
1.
The
Case
of
the
wife
and
the
Daughter
not
foris-familiat
,
is
Gods
great
and
only
exception
(
exprest
in
the
Text
)
from
his
own
rule
,
and
Law
,
touching
the
strick
observation
of
voluntarie
Lawfull
vows
.
So
that
,
the
rule
and
Law
seems
to
reach
all
other
Cases
,
as
to
free
vows
,
except
only
this
.
2ly
,
in
the
Beginning
of
the
Chap.
we
find
that
Moses
spoke
this
to
the
Rulers
and
heads
of
the
tribes
,
but
the
text
is
silent
as
to
his
applying
of
this
exception
anent
the
father
and
husbands
Power
in
absolving
vows
,
unto
these
heads
&
Rulers
,
which
should
have
been
especially
intimat
to
them
.
Hence
it
may
be
probaby
Concluded
that
the
Rule
and
Law
touching
the
observation
of
vows
,
stands
fast
in
all
other
Cases
except
these
here
expresly
excluded
,
by
the
Great
Lawgiver
.
So
that
ere
his
argument
can
reach
us
,
he
most
give
in
Sufficient
proof
that
the
Magistrat
stands
vested
with
this
Power
,
and
falls
within
the
Compass
of
this
exception
,
in
relation
to
his
subjects
.
Not
to
detain
him
here
in
tasking
him
to
prove
,
that
this
Judicial
statute
,
as
others
of
the
like
nature
,
doth
belong
unto
the
Christian
Chùrch
.
But
in
the
second
place
,
Granting
that
the
Magistrat
is
here
meant
,
it
will
never
speak
home
to
his
Point
,
but
much
against
him
,
for
1.
the
dominion
of
the
Superiour
being
the
ground
of
this
discharge
,
wherin
the
husband
and
Parent
have
Power
,
if
the
matter
of
our
vow
be
found
such
as
is
excepted
from
the
Magistrats
dominion
,
the
Informer
must
grant
that
this
text
will
not
reach
our
Case
.
And
supposing
the
matter
,
antecedaneously
unto
the
vow
,
to
fall
under
divine
Commands
,
this
is
evident
beyond
exception
.
But
because
he
beggs
our
concession
,
that
it
was
before
indifferent
,
I
adde
,
if
it
be
within
the
Limits
of
our
reserved
Libertie
as
free
subjects
,
or
of
our
Christian
Libertie
,
it
s
still
on
both
grounds
,
beyond
the
reach
of
his
dominion
,
and
consequently
excluded
from
this
exception
,
and
the
vow
must
stand
and
oblidge
according
to
the
Grand
precept
here
set
down
;
so
that
a
hundred
discharges
of
the
Magistrat
will
never
touch
it
.
We
heard
him
acknowledge
,
that
by
[
discipline
of
this
Church
]
in
the
nationall
Covenant
,
the
substantialls
of
Government
is
understood
,
and
that
consequently
it
binds
therunto
;
So
he
must
acknowledge
that
our
solemn
Covenant
will
inviolably
bind
to
this
divine
Frame
of
Government
,
&
no
earthlie
power
can
loose
therfrom
,
no
more
then
from
Scripture
institutions
.
And
Doctor
Featlie
acknowledgeth
that
people
may
Covenant
,
without
their
Superiours
,
to
fulfill
Gods
Law
.
Now
,
give
us
all
Scripture
Church
officers
,
and
their
Rules
of
Government
,
&
Prelacie
shall
be
quickly
gone
,
So
that
upon
his
concession
that
the
national
or
solemn
league
do
reach
the
substantialls
of
Government
,
or
what
is
necessary
for
the
ends
of
Government
set
down
in
Scripture
,
it
will
amount
to
that
which
we
plead
for
;
and
he
must
grant
it
falls
not
under
the
Magistrats
Dominion
,
and
that
his
argument
from
this
text
is
lost
.
2dly
,
this
dissent
which
looses
the
vow
,
must
be
both
ane
open
dissent
,
and
also
presentlie
in
the
verie
day
he
heares
of
it
.
Qui
sero
se
noluisse
significat
putandus
est
aliquando
voluisse
.
That
is
,
he
that
declares
a
late
dissent
,
may
be
presumed
sometimes
to
have
given
his
consent
,
saith
Dr
Sand.
de
jur
.
prom
.
This
he
cannot
say
as
to
our
King
.
3ly
,
It
most
be
constant
,
the
dissent
suspending
,
but
not
loosing
the
obligation
.
The
oblidging
vertue
being
naturall
,
and
inseparable
to
the
vow
(
as
Dr
Sand.
tells
us
de
jur.
prom
.
pag.
3.
Sect.
10.
)
when
ever
the
consent
comes
,
the
obligation
returns
.
Now
have
not
our
King
and
Rulers
consented
unto
,
and
ratefied
all
our
vows
both
in
the
nationall
,
and
solemn
league
and
Covenant
?
4ly
,
This
consent
of
the
superiour
once
given
,
can
never
he
retracted
by
a
dissent
again
.
Whither
it
be
before
or
after
,
he
can
never
make
it
void
,
as
the
Text
doth
clearlie
hold
out
.
See
Sand.
16.
Prel
.
7.
Sect.
6.
Now
have
not
both
the
nationall
and
solemn
League
,
the
Consent
&
vows
of
all
our
superiours
ratifying
the
same
.
So
that
this
text
every
way
pleads
for
the
obligation
therof
;
for
this
their
consent
,
once
given
,
they
can
never
revoke
,
far
less
their
Oath
and
vows
,
but
the
vows
of
the
inferiours
,
are
thereby
rendered
for
ever
valid
;
as
Casuists
in
setting
down
these
rules
doe
grant
,
so
Aquinas
,
Filucius
(
Tract.
25
cap.
9.
)
Azor.
(
Moral
.
inst.
lib.
11.
cap.
10.
)
Sanches
(
lib.
3.
Cap.
9.
)
Amesius
(
cas.
lib.
4.
cap.
22.
Quest.
11.
)
Sand.
(
Juram
.
Prom.
Prel
.
4.
Sect.
16.
)
But
the
Doubter
objecting
[
this
consent
and
ratification
of
our
superiours
,
which
therefore
they
cannot
make
void
.
]
He
answers
,
that
by
comparing
the
12.
and
15.
verses
it
appears
,
that
after
the
husband
hath
by
silence
confirm'd
his
wifes
vow
,
yet
he
hath
a
power
of
voiding
it
again
,
and
she
is
exonered
of
her
vow
,
and
bound
to
obey
her
husbands
Commands
.
Ans.
Although
this
were
granted
(
as
the
Text
stands
in
clear
contradiction
to
it
)
that
the
husband
might
null
the
vow
,
after
he
hath
confirmed
it
by
a
silence
or
tacit
confirmation
,
yet
it
will
not
follow
that
his
nulling
power
will
hold
,
after
he
hath
given
not
onlie
a
formall
consent
positive
,
but
also
solemnlie
vowed
and
bound
his
soule
to
the
Lord
,
in
the
same
vow
,
which
is
most
evidentlie
our
case
.
Have
we
not
the
solemn
vows
,
subscriptions
and
Oaths
of
both
King
and
Rulers
,
concurring
with
the
vows
of
the
subjects
in
this
case
?
How
then
shall
they
loose
their
own
vows
.
2ly
,
this
wilde
gloss
is
expresly
cross
to
Dr
Sanderson
,
and
other
Casuists
,
their
sense
of
this
case
and
text
as
we
heard
,
who
hold
that
if
once
the
superiour
hath
either
tacitly
or
expressly
,
precedaniously
or
subsequently
consented
,
he
can
never
by
his
dissent
again
either
discharge
from
the
Oath
or
(
so
much
as
)
suspend
the
obligation
of
it
.
Dr.
Sand.
saith
(
16.
Prel
.
7.
Sect.
6.
)
it
s
a
true
rule
,
quod
semel
placuit
amplius
displicere
non
debet
,
what
once
in
this
case
hath
pleas'd
the
superiour
,
ought
never
to
displease
;
Gods
Word
declaring
it
established
for
ever
.
If
he
hath
consented
(
saith
the
Dr
)
either
before
or
after
,
be
can
never
afterwards
take
away
its
obligation
.
3.
He
makes
the
text
contradict
it self
,
for
(
ver.
7.
)
upon
the
husbands
tacit
consent
,
and
holding
his
peace
in
the
day
he
heard
his
wifes
vow
,
the
Lord
declares
that
her
vow
shall
stand
,
&
the
bond
wherewith
she
bound
her
soule
shall
stand
.
And
(
vers.
14.
)
The
husbands
holding
his
Peace
,
establishes
her
vows
and
confirms
them
.
Now
then
,
God
having
declaire
that
the
vow
stands
,
is
confirmd
,
and
established
as
soule-bond
upon
their
soules
,
by
this
consent
tacit
or
expresse
how
shall
it
be
null
,
and
not
stand
,
by
ane
after
dissent
?
Sure
[
to
stand
]
is
here
opposed
unto
[
not
to
stand
]
upon
the
termes
of
the
present
open
dissent
in
the
day
he
heard
of
it
,
which
is
the
onlie
exception
.
That
which
God
declares
to
be
confirmed
,
and
to
stand
,
upon
the
father
or
husbands
consent
,
admits
of
no
nulling
afterward
by
them
;
but
so
it
is
,
that
the
wife
or
daughters
vow
upon
the
first
consent
and
ratefication
,
stands
and
is
confirmed
,
as
a
soule-bond
:
ergo
,
it
admits
of
no
loosing
by
ane
after
dissent
.
I
prove
the
major
two
wayes
,
1.
standing
and
Confirming
here
are
opposed
,
to
nulling
and
making
void
.
And
2ly
,
this
would
make
more
Limitations
then
God
makes
,
as
to
the
Loosing
of
the
vow
;
for
there
is
no
exception
but
that
one
,
of
the
husbands
open
dissent
,
or
the
parents
,
in
the
day
he
hearts
of
it
.
This
is
the
onlie
exception
from
the
rule
in
the
2d
vers.
anent
the
binding
of
the
vow
.
But
this
mans
gloss
brings
in
another
limitation
cross
to
the
very
scope
and
express
sense
of
the
words
viz.
the
husbands
dissent
,
after
he
hath
by
a
previous
consent
ratefied
the
vow
.
That
God
admits
the
vow
to
stand
,
upon
this
express
or
tacit
consent
,
is
evident
in
the
text
.
As
for
the
reason
which
he
adds
,
viz.
That
the
wife
is
under
a
prior
obligation
to
obey
her
husband
;
it
is
absurd
and
ridiculous
,
for
will
he
carve
ou●…
ane
obligation
in
this
point
beyond
what
God
hath
so
expresly
limit
and
declard
.
This
were
to
give
the
husband
a
power
,
not
over
the
wife
onlie
,
but
over
God
himself
,
and
his
express
declarator
.
As
for
that
clause
(
ver.
15.
)
that
if
he
shall
any
wayes
make
them
void
,
after
he
hath
heard
them
,
then
he
shall
bear
her
iniquitie
.
What
a
wilde
inference
is
it
,
from
hence
to
conclude
ane
absolving
power
,
in
express
contradiction
to
the
text
,
and
the
limitations
previoussie
set
down
.
To
say
that
the
vow
cannot
be
loosed
,
unless
the
father
or
husband
declare
his
dissent
in
the
day
he
heares
of
it
,
And
that
if
he
hold
his
peace
he
hath
confirmed
it
,
and
the
bond
and
vow
shall
stand
;
And
yet
that
after
all
this
,
he
may
loose
it
by
ane
after
dissent
,
is
so
plain
a
contradiction
,
that
none
can
be
plainer
.
If
we
will
make
the
text
then
consistent
with
it self
,
the
plain
meaning
is
,
that
he
shall
bear
her
iniquitie
,
or
the
guilt
which
otherwise
would
have
Iven
upon
the
wife
or
daughter
,
if
not
hindered
in
the
performance
.
That
the
guilt
and
punishment
of
the
non-performance
shall
ly
upon
him
who
hindered
the
same
,
doth
clearlie
import
the
non-performance
of
it self
to
be
a
guilt
(
which
contradicts
his
pleading
and
argument
.
)
But
the
poor
votarie
being
hindered
,
it
lyes
upon
the
hinderer
as
I
said
.
So
that
we
strongly
inferr
from
this
,
the
binding
force
of
the
vow
,
since
the
Lord
terms
the
non-performance
a
guilt
:
as
violent
men
hindring
Ministers
to
preach
,
shall
bear
their
guilt
and
punishment
,
which
otherwise
they
were
exposed
unto
if
neglecting
this
great
work
.
All
do
know
,
what
these
Scripture-Phrases
of
bearing
his
judgement
,
bearing
his
iniquitie
,
being
partakers
of
Other
mens
sins
,
do
import
.
Which
Confirms
this
answer
.
His
comments
upon
this
phrase
are
verie
vain
[
first
he
shall
bear
her
sin
(
saith
he
)
if
a
guilt
]
what
is
that
?
bear
a
guilt
,
if
a
guilt
,
sure
a
repugnantia
in
adjecto
.
His
next
gloss
makes
the
husband
ane
expiator
of
the
guilt
because
she
did
her
dutie
in
obeying
him
,
who
revoked-his
Confirmation
upon
just
grounds
.
What
,
upon
just
grounds
contrary
to
Gods
command
?
this
is
ane
odd
exposition
.
Doth
God
give
the
least
warrand
here
to
absolve
and
null
the
vow
,
after
it
is
ratefied
by
his
previous
consent
.
Mr.
Poole
in
his
annotations
renders
thus
the
sense
of
this
15.
verse
[
after
he
hath
heard
them
&c.
]
and
approved
them
by
his
silence
from
day
to
day
,
if
now
after
that
time
spent
,
he
shall
upon
further
thoughts
dislike
and
hinder
it
,
which
he
ought
not
to
do
.
Her
non-performance
of
her
vow
shall
be
imputed
to
him
,
not
to
her
:
Where
,
as
he
doth
clearly
assert
(
with
us
)
that
her
iniquity
,
mention'd
in
the
close
of
the
verse
,
is
the
iniquity
of
the
non-performance
of
the
vow
,
which
is
imputed
unto
the
husband
,
so
,
that
he
ought
not
to
hinder
the
votarie
,
or
stop
this
performance
after
that
he
hath
confirmed
the
vow
by
silence
;
in
plain
contradiction
to
the
Informers
phantastick
glosses
and
inferences
.
Wherin
altho
he
pretend
a
concurrence
of
Interpreters
,
expounding
this
verse
of
the
husbands
Lawfull
voiding
of
the
wifes
vows
after
his
previous
confirmation
,
yet
he
hath
produced
none
of
their
names
.
The
Doubter
enquires
next
how
he
applies
his
Second
rule
,
anent
things
sworn
their
not
abiding
in
the
same
state
,
to
the
Covenant
.
He
answers
,
that
upon
supposition
that
Prelacie
is
Lawfull
,
and
abjured
in
that
Oath
,
the
great
change
now
is
,
that
Prelats
are
again
Established
,
and
submission
to
them
commanded
.
So
that
we
are
now
bound
to
obey
authoritie
herin
,
and
not
to
keep
the
Oath
.
And
this
is
verie
sutable
to
his
large
absolving
glosses
,
which
we
have
alreadie
heard
and
refuted
,
and
which
is
Likewise
removed
by
what
we
have
said
,
anent
the
matter
of
this
vow
,
which
is
not
capable
of
any
such
absolving
trade
as
is
now
set
up
.
These
mens
plagiary
faith
and
divinitie
,
makes
all
vows
no
stronger
then
straws
.
Though
the
Magistrats
and
subjects
universallie
vow
,
yet
a
Law
(
if
the
matter
be
not
absolutlie
necessarie
,
though
never
so
expedient
and
edifying
)
makes
it
ipso
facto
null
and
void
.
If
he
had
letten
us
see
any
greater
good
,
expediencie
,
or
necessitie
of
prelacie
,
then
in
keeping
this
vow
,
he
had
spoken
to
the
purpose
.
But
this
neither
he
nor
any
of
his
party
will
ever
do
.
In
a
word
this
lax
rule
as
here
interpret
by
him
,
will
inferr
many
absurdities
,
as
1.
that
the
meer
Law
looses
the
obligation
of
the
vow
and
Oath
,
though
the
matter
therof
falls
not
under
the
dominion
of
the
Ruler
.
Which
,
2ly
,
it
doth
not
if
it
be
either
expedient
or
necessarie
,
and
yet
the
meer
Law
(
with
him
)
robs
it
either
of
expediency
or
necessity
.
And
thus
,
3dly
,
mans
law
stepps
up
above
the
divine
Law
,
authorizing
the
matter
of
the
Oath
upon
the
forementioned
grounds
.
4ly
,
He
makes
the
expediency
of
the
Law
,
and
its
being
wholsome
or
no
,
cognoscible
by
no
anterior
or
superiour
Rule
,
but
its
self
,
and
the
meer
will
and
power
of
the
Magistrate
,
and
to
be
obeyed
upon
that
sole
ground
.
5ly
,
hence
the
obedience
therof
in
faith
,
is
excluded
,
and
no
acts
of
obedience
can
flow
from
spirituall
knowledge
.
The
Doubter
next
objects
[
that
his
Oath
against
Bishops
had
the
first
obligation
,
and
therfor
he
cannot
be
loosed
by
the
after
Law
.
]
To
which
he
answers
,
that
the
5th
.
command
,
and
submission
to
the
ordinance
of
man
,
had
the
first
obligation
,
and
that
obedience
to
authoritie
comes
under
the
baptismall
vow
—
that
to
say
our
Oath
will
oblidge
against
the
Magistrats
Command
to
the
Contrary
,
will
elude
the
express
precept
Ecl.
8.
2.
to
obey
the
kings
command
in
regard
of
the
Oath
of
God
Ans.
This
is
nothing
but
what
we
have
heard
,
repetitions
ad
nauseam
,
and
still
idem
per
idem
.
Our
obligation
in
the
3d
command
,
not
to
take
Gods
name
in
vain
,
and
to
keep
and
stand
to
all
Lawfull
Oaths
,
and
vows
,
unless
in
cases
which
God
himself
excepts
,
is
surly
a
verie
arlie
,
and
a
baptismall
obligation
,
prior
to
any
Law
of
the
Magistrat
,
and
such
as
no
authoritie
and
Laws
of
men
can
evacuatand
enervat
;
and
our
obedience
to
the
ordinance
of
man
,
or
the
higher
and
Lower
Powers
,
being
for
the
Lords
sake
,
that
is
upon
the
motive
of
his
authoritie
,
doth
infer
,
that
we
must
not
dare
to
cross
his
authority
,
under
pretence
of
obedience
to
the
powers
,
in
breaking
lawfull
Oaths
and
vows
which
he
has
commanded
us
to
keep
.
Sure
no
Laws
of
men
can
supersed
this
obligation
.
That
the
Oath
under
debate
is
such
,
hath
been
already
made
good
,
and
needs
not
be
here
repeated
.
As
for
that
of
Eccl.
8.
20.
It
makes
clearlie
against
him
;
the
English
annotations
having
upon
that
text
,
mentioned
the
mutuall
tye
,
oath
,
and
Covenants
betwixt
King
and
subject
,
instancing
1.
Chron.
11.
3.
do
tell
us
that
this
is
not
only
ane
enforcement
of
the
duty
of
subjects
,
but
likewise
,
that
the
clause
contains
a
limitation
,
by
which
our
obedience
to
men
is
bounded
:
And
thus
they
sense
the
precept
,
keep
the
Kings
command
,
yet
so
that
thou
do
not
violat
thine
Oath
and
obedience
due
unto
God
.
Our
service
to
the
one
(
say
they
)
must
be
such
as
will
consist
with
our
fealty
to
the
other
.
We
are
bound
to
God
and
his
service
by
Oath
and
Covenant
,
and
no
subordinat
obedience
to
others
,
must
make
us
forget
our
duty
to
him
.
Which
clearlie
crosses
this
Miss-Informers
scope
who
would
perswade
to
perjurie
and
breach
of
Covenant
with
God
,
upon
pretence
of
fealty
to
the
Magistrat
.
Mr
Poole
in
his
annotations
having
told
us
That
the
first
branch
of
the
verse
is
not
to
be
understood
universally
,
but
of
such
commands
as
do
not
crosse
the
commands
of
God
,
expones
this
Oath
of
God
mentioned
in
the
second
part
of
it
,
either
of
the
Oath
we
are
under
to
keepe
all
Gods
Laws
,
or
the
subordinat
Oath
of
fealty
and
allegiance
.
But
adds
,
that
this
also
may
be
understood
,
and
is
by
learned
Interpreters
taken
,
as
a
limitation
of
their
obedience
to
Kings
,
the
words
being
thus
rendred
,
as
the
Hebrew
(
faith
he
)
will
very
well
bear
,
but
according
to
the
Word
of
the
Oath
of
God
,
obey
the
Kings
commands
,
with
this
caution
that
they
be
agreeable
and
not
contrary
to
the
Laws
of
God
,
which
thou
art
obliged
by
thy
own
and
thy
parents
Oaths
oft
renewed
,
to
observe
in
the
first
place
.
As
for
what
he
adds
(
out
of
the
grand
case
)
anent
Iesuites
Oath
in
Rome
to
preach
in
England
Catholick
doctrine
,
and
of
a
Law
made
in
England
against
the
same
.
It
is
,
so
palbablie
impertinent
and
unsuteable
to
the
point
,
that
I
wonder
at
the
mans
confidence
in
presenting
to
the
world
such
poor
trifling
fopperies
in
so
weightie
a
matter
.
Dare
he
say
that
the
matter
of
our
vows
,
which
our
Rulers
themselves
have
taken
,
is
in
any
measure
like
to
this
.
Nay
,
doth
he
not
suppose
the
Matte●…
of
this
Oath
to
be
Lawfull
,
he
must
then
confess
this
instance
to
be
most
impertinent
.
But
the
knack
is
,
That
abstracting
from
the
unlawfullness
of
the
Matter
,
it
was
declair'd
,
that
ane
Oath
cannot
bind
against
a
Law
,
although
the
Law
be
made
even
after
the
Oath
is
taken
.
This
was
no
doubt
a
lax
determination
,
And
such
as
he
dare
no●…
himself
subscribe
unto
in
everie
case
;
what
,
an●…
Oath
cannot
bind
against
a
Law
in
universum
,
and
simply
?
what
if
the
matter
be
necessarie
,
or
falling
under
divine
Prescriptions
or
institutions
?
What
if
convincingly
expedient
in
its
circumstances
?
Will
thi●…
Law
,
yea
and
after
the
Oath
is
taken
,
overrule
th●…
divine
Law
determining
the
same
?
Well
resolve●…
Mr.
Informer
.
You
may
go
sell
absolutions
ano●…
of
a
high
rate
.
Come
we
now
to
his
third
case
,
anent
the
Oath
hindring
a
greater
good
,
then
the
performance
it
ill
amount
to
and
the
dissolution
therof
upon
that
ground
.
This
the
Doubter
thinks
[
will
furnish
people
with
a
readie
excuse
to
free
themselves
of
Oaths
,
by
alledging
that
some
greater
good
is
hindered
thereby
.
]
To
this
he
answeres
1.
That
Casuists
admit
this
rule
with
these
limitations
viz.
when
that
greater
good
is
certain
,
and
no
otherwise
attainable
,
but
by
the
discharge
of
our
Oath
,
and
a
good
to
which
we
are
pre-obliged
before
we
took
the
Oath
.
Ans.
We
shall
not
much
contend
about
these
rules
&
limitations
of
this
Maxime
in
thesi
,
or
in
the
generall
,
only
I
shall
adde
some
more
limitations
here
.
That
1.
This
greater
,
certain
,
&
no
otherwise
attainable
good
,
must
be
such
,
not
in
our
apprehension
only
,
but
according
to
the
Rule
of
the
Word
,
for
otherwise
we
are
just
where
we
were
as
to
the
hazard
of
perjurie
,
if
every
mans
[
thinks
so
]
,
or
the
Magistrats
[
arbitrarie
Laws
]
shall
be
the
only
Rule
to
determine
this
,
as
this
Informer
makes
all
resolve
thereunto
which
he
pretends
in
this
case
,
in
relation
to
that
greater
good
,
which
he
offers
in
breaking
this
Oath
.
Hence
Gregorius
Sayrus
(
clav
.
reg.
l.
5.
cap.
8.
n.
15.
)
having
determined
that
every
man
hath
a
power
to
commute
ane
oath
for
something
better
,
is
opposed
by
Silvester
and
others
,
who
say
,
that
the
Pope
must
determine
the
good
to
be
better
.
So
rationall
and
Consequent
to
their
Principles
are
even
Papists
in
this
point
.
And
must
not
Protestants
be
ashamed
to
refuse
this
limitation
,
that
the
Scripture
(
with
us
the
onlie
,
and
supreme
rule
)
must
determine
this
greater
good
.
Next
,
Timorcus
will
tell
him
,
that
the
Oath
thus
irritat
,
must
be
onlie
made
to
God
,
for
if
it
be
to
our
brother
,
and
for
his
advantage
,
we
must
have
his
consent
as
necessarie
towards
the
commutation
.
This
he
tells
us
,
is
agreed
upon
by
Casuists
,
as
well
as
the
other
limitations
.
To
these
we
adde
Dr.
Sand.
rule
(
de
jur.
prom
.
Prel
.
3.
Sect.
12.
)
that
,
precise
ob
hoc
quod
videtur
impeditivum
majoris
boni
,
obligandi
vim
non
amittit
.
Id
est
,
That
the
Oath
loseth
not
its
obliging
force
,
meerly
because
it
seems
the
bindrance
of
a
greater
good
,
unless
other
circumstances
also
concurr
(
as
usuallie
there
do
)
which
either
evince
it
unlawfull
,
or
not
oblidging
.
His
reason
is
because
in
all
cases
it
is
not
true
that
everie
one
is
oblidged
to
do
what
is
best
,
he
means
,
simpliciter
,
and
abstracting
from
the
present
circumstances
)
since
this
would
open
a
flood-gate
for
all
manner
of
perjury
.
As
for
that
limitation
(
presented
with
an
especially
as
the
main
one
)
anent
the
Oaths
hindering
the
greater
good
,
to
which
we
were
preoblidged
,
which
this
man
foists
in
,
to
make
way
for
his
nauseating
repetition
,
anent
the
Magistrats
power
,
it
may
be
alledged
that
it
is
not
consistent
with
it self
:
for
if
we
stood
Preobliged
to
this
greater
good
,
it
renders
the
Oath
ab
initio
null
,
for
the
same
cause
on
which
it
is
loosed
upon
the
prospect
of
that
greater
good
.
The
greater
obligation
(
as
he
sayes
)
still
overruling
the
lesser
,
&
ane
Oath
in
prejudice
of
a
greater
obligation
,
and
contradictorie
therto
,
can
lay
on
no
obligation
,
for
so
we
might
be
under
contradictorie
obligations
according
to
his
way
of
reasoning
about
the
Magistrats
power
.
[
I
will
have
mercie
and
not
sacrifice
]
is
one
of
his
illustrating
instances
.
So
that
the
obligation
of
the
Oath
,
according
to
his
reasoning
in
this
matter
,
was
like
unto
this
inverted
rule
,
viz.
Sacrifice
and
not
mercie
,
and
being
such
ab
initio
,
it
could
not
bind
.
I
know
(
as
Dr
Sand.
saith
)
that
which
is
abstractedly
and
simplicer
a
greater
good
,
may
hic
&
nunc
,
and
in
such
a
complex
case
become
the
lesser
,
consideratis
considerandis
all
circumstances
taken
in
.
But
this
he
admits
not
,
for
he
adds
unto
the
known
rule
anent
the
greater
and
certain
good
in
its
time
and
circumstances
,
that
other
limitation
anent
the
vower
his
being
preobliged
unto
it
,
which
can
no
otherwise
be
understood
then
in
opposition
to
the
obligation
of
the
vow
,
unless
this
his
added
limitation
be
redundant
,
or
non-sense
.
But
2dly
,
let
us
come
to
the
assumption
,
what
is
that
greater
good
,
attainable
in
breaking
this
Oath
and
vow
rather
then
in
keeping
it
.
This
he
tells
us
is
obedience
to
authority
(
that
's
the
panacea
curing
allwounds
the
universall
topick
,
and
primum
mobile
)
avoiding
of
Schisme
,
Ministers
serving
God
,
in
the
work
of
the
ministry
to
which
they
are
called
;
these
he
sayes
are
greater
and
better
goods
then
adhering
to
the
Oath
in
a
thing
indifferent
Then
he
adds
,
that
Ministers
should
consider
,
whither
is
be
better
to
lay
aside
their
Oath
,
then
their
Ministerie
.
(
Especiallie
ane
Oath
about
a
thing
indifferent
)
and
incapacitat
,
or
do
that
which
by
consequence
incapacitates
them
for
the
Ministerie
—
that
Ministers
think
that
by
their
Oath
they
are
obliged
not
to
continue
in
their
stations
,
as
matters
now
stand
,
and
yet
divines
hold
that
the
lesser
duty
gives
place
to
the
greater
,
as
David
did
eat
the
shew
bread
rather
then
starve
,
Paul
and
those
with
him
,
did
cast
their
goods
into
the
sea
&c.
In
Answer
to
this
,
we
need
not
much
enlarge
,
it
being
nothing
but
what
is
upon
the
matter
already
objected
and
answered
.
1.
If
the
Oath
,
for
its
matter
contain
important
duties
falling
under
divine
commands
,
and
unalterable
obligations
,
if
Prelacie
be
contrary
unto
divine
prescriptions
in
point
of
Government
,
&
the
disowning
of
it
consequently
be
a
standing
necessarie
duty
(
which
we
do
suppose
and
have
proved
,
and
he
cannot
disprove
)
then
this
man
himself
will
grant
that
all
this
tatle
about
the
greater
good
in
breaking
the
Oath
,
is
to
no
purpose
.
2ly
,
say
prelacie
were
but
indifferent
,
yet
upon
the
supposall
of
the
greater
expediencie
of
Presbyterian
Government
for
this
Church
then
Prelacie
,
and
upon
the
certain
supposition
of
all
the
Rulers
engadgement
in
this
Oath
and
vow
to
God
against
it
,
(
the
first
of
which
suppositions
he
hath
not
disproved
,
and
the
2d
he
cannot
deny
)
it
is
certain
,
that
both
Rulers
and
Ruled
their
keeping
the
Oath
,
is
a
far
greater
&
more
certain
good
,
then
their
breaking
it
.
3ly
,
let
Dr
Sand.
limitation
here
again
come
in
viz.
That
the
Oath
is
not
precisely
loosed
because
it
seems
to
contradict
a
greater
good
,
unless
Other
circumstances
do
also
occurr
,
which
either
evince
it
to
be
unlawfull
,
or
not
oblidging
,
and
that
it
s
not
true
that
in
everie
case
we
are
bound
to
do
what
is
best
,
that
is
unless
omnibus
pens●…is
,
and
caeteris
Paribus
,
all
circumstances
duelie
pondered
,
it
be
found
best
;
and
then
the
Question
is
whither
it
were
best
for
Rulers
or
ruled
to
keep
this
Oath
for
these
great
ends
which
he
mentions
,
than
to
break
it
.
Whither
it
be
a
greater
good
to
keep
a
Lawfull
Oath
,
though
I
suffer
under
authoritie
levelling
against
it
,
or
break
it
to
please
men
▪
or
whither
I
shall
chuse
the
evill
of
suffering
or
sinning
?
(
for
he
hath
not
yet
proved
that
the
interposing
of
the
Rulers
meer
Law
or
authoritie
,
will
make
this
Oath
unlawfull
,
&
we
have
shewed
that
Casuists
mantain
the
Contrary
.
)
Whither
peace
with
God
be
a
greater
good
in
keeping
his
Covenant
,
then
peace
with
men
and
with
the
world
in
breaking
it
?
This
Question
was
soon
resolved
with
Elias
.
The
children
of
Israel
have
forsaken
thy
Covenant
—
and
I
onlie
am
left
&c.
4ly
,
This
greater
good
,
he
acknowledges
must
be
such
,
as
is
no
Otherwise
att●…inable
then
by
breaking
the
Oath
.
Hence
the
Question
will
be
,
whither
the
Gospel
might
not
have
been
preached
,
schisme
avoided
,
and
God
served
in
the
Ministerie
of
the
word
,
by
keeping
this
Oath
and
Covenant
with
him
?
This
man
will
come
to
a
great
height
of
impudence
if
he
deny
this
.
Nay
,
if
he
deny
that
this
good
might
have
been
thus
beter
obtain'd
.
He
alledges
we
have
now
a
great
Schisme
by
Presbyterian
Ministers
departing
from
their
party
,
and
he
will
not
deny
that
many
excellent
preachers
are
Laid
aside
,
the
Magistra●…
is
displeas'd
and
disobeyed
,
all
filled
with
confusion
and
disorder
,
poperie
like
to
creep
in
&c.
Now
,
had
not
all
this
been
eshewed
by
keeping
our
Covenant
with
God
?
The
gospel
had
been
preached
by
Presbyterian
Minist●…rs
,
and
he
will
not
deny
that
all
his
party
of
Conformists
too
,
had
keeped
their
ownstations
,
this
schisme
had
been
avoided
,
and
the
Magistrat
obeyed
while
commanding
for
God
.
So
that
this
rule
everie
way
makes
against
him
.
And
in
stead
of
obtaining
a
greater
good
by
breach
of
Covenant
,
we
have
lost
the
greatest
good
,
the
gospel
and
peace
with
God
,
and
incurred
much
sin
and
miserie
.
I
know
he
will
say
that
he
speaks
upon
the
suposal
of
the
Rulers
disowning
the
Oath
,
and
Establishing
prelacie
.
But
then
I
urge
him
thus
,
1.
Since
he
cannot
but
grant
that
the
keeping
of
the
Oath
,
or
holding
fast
Presbyterian
government
,
would
have
had
the
forementioned
advantages
following
upon
it
,
shall
the
meer
pleasure
of
the
Rulers
cast
the
ballance
,
and
disprove
its
native
tendencie
sua
natura
towards
the
formentioned
effects
?
the
matter
of
the
Oath
is
still
of
it self
,
or
of
its
own
nature
,
more
productive
of
these
good
effects
;
&
Consequently
the
keeping
is
to
be
preferd
to
breaking
of
it
,
which
is
attended
with
evils
counterballancing
these
apparent
good
effects
,
which
he
imagins
to
attend
this
breach
.
2ly
,
if
the
Oath
cannot
be
commuted
or
changed
,
but
for
a
greater
good
,
and
all
these
good
effects
mentioned
,
might
have
been
better
,
&
more
certainlie
attaind
,
by
keeping
then
breaking
it
,
then
the
Rulers
commuting
the
Oath
,
or
altering
or
breaking
of
it
,
he
must
acknowledge
to
be
sinfull
upon
his
own
ground
.
Since
they
might
have
attaind
these
good
effects
of
obedience
,
preaching
the
gospel
,
and
unity
,
by
keeping
this
Oath
,
and
might
have
more
surelie
and
better
eshewed
the
forementioned
evils
then
by
breaking
it
.
And
then
,
let
him
in
the
third
place
seriously
Consider
,
whither
the
Rulers
sin
in
commutting
or
breaking
this
Oath
,
for
neither
a
greater
,
nor
more
certain
good
,
will
warrand
my
breaking
of
the
Oath
to
follow
them
in
that
sinfull
course
;
and
loose
me
from
my
obligation
.
4ly
,
It
will
hence
follow
,
that
he
playes
the
petty
sophister
here
,
in
calling
disobedience
to
the
Magistrat
,
in
this
one
point
of
a
sinfull
command
in
relation
to
this
Oath
,
(
which
on
the
formentioned
grounds
is
proved
Sinfull
)
a
disobeying
of
authoritie
.
For
he
dare
not
say
that
disobeying
a
sinfull
command
can
come
under
this
character
.
And
the
true
state
of
this
Question
is
not
,
whither
it
be
a
greater
good
,
to
obey
the
Magistrat
or
keep
ane
oath
?
but
whither
it
is
a
greater
good
in
this
particular
to
obey
him
,
in
Embracing
abjur'd
Prelacie
,
or
to
stand
to
the
Oath
;
and
the
issue
of
this
is
,
whither
it
be
best
for
the
Church
of
Scotland
to
have
or
want
Prelats
?
which
,
from
what
is
said
is
soon
determined
.
5ly
,
What
if
these
pretended
good
issues
,
be
countervaild
by
greater
evills
:
such
as
persecution
of
many
thousands
,
godlie
faithfull
Ministers
and
Professors
,
laying
waste
Gods
heritage
,
Blood
,
miserie
,
confusion
,
schisme
,
(
the
godlie
adherers
to
this
Oath
,
being
without
all
question
this
Pure
Church
)
famine
of
the
word
&c.
Nay
,
according
to
Dr
Sand.
rule
mentioned
,
where
is
the
Relaxation
of
all
parties
engadged
in
Covenant
one
with
another
,
as
well
as
with
God
?
were
not
the
Churches
of
both
nations
nay
in
all
the
three
Kingdoms
,
engadged
to
one
another
in
this
Oath
?
now
thinks
he
not
that
this
prospect
of
a
greater
good
in
breaking
this
oath
,
should
have
been
laid
to
the
eye
of
the
representative
Church
in
the
three
Kingdoms
,
in
order
to
the
change
of
government
.
And
should
not
all
parties
engadged
in
this
Covenant
,
have
dispensed
with
it
,
and
with
one
another
in
contemplation
of
this
greater
good
,
and
for
obtaining
this
better
government
?
thinks
he
that
such
a
great
question
as
this
:
What
is
this
greater
good
in
point
of
Church
Government
?
And
that
other
Question
.
Whither
such
great
and
solemn
Oaths
may
be
laid
aside
in
order
to
the
obtaining
of
it
?
Are
Finally
decided
by
the
Magistrats
Law
without
the
least
owning
the
Church
representative
?
and
besides
,
he
dare
not
say
that
all
are
bound
to
obey
the
Magistrat
in
all
things
indifferent
.
Is
not
subjection
(
by
the
acknowledgement
of
most
,
and
even
of
his
Master
the
surveyer
)
different
from
active
obedience
.
Finally
,
as
for
what
he
sayes
of
Ministers
,
the
Apologist
told
him
,
and
his
master
the
Seasonable
case
,
and
I
do
tell
him
again
,
that
God
calls
no
man
to
preach
the
gospel
by
such
ane
unlawfull
meane
as
perjurie
and
breach
of
Covenant
,
and
that
in
this
case
Ministers
suffering
for
truth
,
is
a
Confirmation
of
the
gospel
Phil.
1.
12.
That
in
deserting
and
not
preaching
,
they
are
meerly
passive
:
being
persecute
for
their
integritie
;
so
the
charge
and
guilt
of
not
preaching
lyes
upon
their
persecutors
.
Besides
,
the
state
of
the
question
in
truth
,
and
in
our
principles
importing
a
competition
betwixt
sin
and
suffering
,
and
duty
and
sin
,
not
a
lesser
and
greater
duty
,
the
folly
and
impertinency
of
his
instance
,
anent
the
lesser
duty
over-ruled
by
the
greater
(
exemplified
by
that
,
I
will
have
mercy
and
not
sacrifice
,
repeated
here
ad
nauseam
)
as
also
that
instance
of
Paul
and
those
with
him
,
their
casting
their
goods
in
the
sea
&c
,
is
most
evident
.
The
sin
and
perjurie
of
this
course
of
conformitie
,
being
our
principle
,
which
he
cannot
disprove
,
even
though
we
should
grant
all
his
pleading
here
(
which
goes
but
upon
a
begged
supposition
of
prelacies
indifferencie
,
and
the
indifferencie
of
the
matter
of
the
Covenant
)
what
a
flat
folly
is
it
,
to
tell
us
of
preferring
greater
to
lesser
duties
?
wheras
with
us
the
question
and
case
is
,
anent
Ministers
duty
when
the
Magistrat
refuseth
to
admit
to
preach
,
but
upon
sinfull
terms
;
which
one
consideration
makes
all
his
tatle
here
evanish
in
wind
.
Suppose
the
Rulers
of
a
land
discharge
all
preaching
,
but
upon
the
terms
that
Ministers
should
commit
some
horrid
act
of
wickedness
,
would
this
man
admit
any
to
plead
as
he
doth
for
doing
evill
that
good
may
come
of
it
,
and
to
tell
what
a
weightie
duty
it
is
to
preach
the
gospel
,
and
that
the
lesser
duty
of
forbearing
that
evill
commanded
,
is
overruld
by
the
greater
obligation
to
preach
,
&c.
Well
,
he
and
his
partie
(
like
the
pharisaik
teachers
,
twixt
whom
and
us
he
insinuats
a
comparison
)
are
sure
blind
Informers
and
leaders
,
and
may
be
set
to
learn
better
(
thou
that
teachest
another
teachest
thou
not self
;
)
For
they
have
vented
such
principles
anent
sacred
Oaths
,
as
some
heathens
would
be
ashamed
of
,
and
which
banishes
all
faith
out
of
the
world
.
For
what
he
adds
anent
the
Rechabites
,
when
he
shal
equiparat
the
matter
of
their
vow
,
a
thing
meerly
civil
,
relating
to
their
abstinence
from
wine
,
and
the
manner
of
their
dwelling
,
with
the
weighty
and
great
duties
of
a
Covenant
with
God
,
for
publick
and
personal
reformation
,
and
withal
prove
that
hazart
will
equally
plead
for
the
laying
aside
of
the
last
,
as
in
some
cases
it
may
warrand
a
dispensing
with
some
part
of
the
first
,
the
parallel
shall
be
admitted
,
but
till
then
,
it
must
pass
among
the
rest
of
the
Informers
gratis
dicta
.
The
Dutch
annot
.
(
on
Jer.
35.
7.
)
Shew
that
Ionadab
probably
put
this
ingadgment
on
his
posterity
,
upon
his
foresight
(
by
a
prophetick
spirit
)
of
the
judgments
and
desolations
to
come
upon
Israel
,
in
order
to
their
inoffensive
walk
,
and
for
inuring
them
to
parsimony
.
And
as
for
their
dwelling
at
Jerusalem
in
case
of
hazard
they
shew
(
on
.
11.
V.
)
that
the
Rechabits
,
laid
aside
in
this
one
thing
their
fathers
command
,
because
it
was
but
a
humane
ordinance
,
which
in
obedience
to
the
law
of
God
,
they
might
in
some
cases
wave
,
which
was
also
Ionadabs
intention
,
and
acceptable
to
God
.
And
that
in
giving
this
account
to
the
prophet
of
their
practise
in
reference
to
their
dwelling
now
at
Jerusalem
upon
the
Assyrians
invasion
,
they
do
shew
that
their
fathers
charge
,
and
their
vow
was
not
to
be
extended
to
this
case
.
So
that
in
their
sense
there
was
no
breach
of
the
vow
properly
and
strictly
taken
,
but
onely
the
laying
aside
of
a
part
of
a
humane
ordinance
,
in
case
of
extreme
hazart
,
and
this
according
to
the
nature
and
designe
of
the
vow
it self
,
and
the
first
institution
therof
.
CHAP.
V.
The
Informers
answers
to
our
Argument
for
the
Covenant
obligation
,
taken
from
the
Oath
to
the
Gibeonites
,
and
Zedikiahs
Oath
to
the
King
of
Babylon
,
weighed
.
Upon
the
first
argument
after
a
foolish
traverse
about
the
consonancy
of
the
Oath
to
the
Law
of
God
,
he
yeelds
the
cause
in
granting
that
the
Oath
did
oblige
the
first
takers
,
and
their
posterity
.
Upon
the
second
he
begs
the
question
and
admits
its
chief
scope
and
nerves
.
Likewise
his
answer
to
Psalm
.
15.
4.
His
reflection
on
the
Assembly
1638
,
and
his
argument
offered
by
way
of
retortion
anent
our
owning
of
Comissaries
though
abjur'd
in
the
Covenant
,
largly
scanned
.
THus
we
have
seen
into
what
a
fascination
and
labyrinth
of
absurd
inconsistent
notions
this
new
proctor
hath
involved
himself
,
while
endeavouring
to
loose
these
sacred
bonds
of
our
solemn
vows
and
Covenants
with
God
,
and
that
he
hath
run
cross
to
the
scripture
,
to
Cafuists
,
yea
to
himself
,
in
this
enterprise
.
We
shal
now
proceed
to
examine
what
strength
is
in
the
remnant
of
his
reasonings
upon
this
head
;
And
how
he
acquits
himself
in
his
answers
to
some
pregnant
passages
of
scripture
pleaded
for
the
Covenant
.
The
first
that
follows
in
this
dialogue
is
that
remarkable
transaction
of
Joshua
and
Israel
with
the
Gibeonites
,
largly
and
unanswerably
pressed
and
improven
by
such
as
have
written
for
the
covenant
;
which
this
man
thought
he
could
not
for
very
shame
passe
over
;
but
sure
he
had
better
done
so
,
then
to
have
made
such
a
pitifull
and
superficiall
return
.
Well
,
let
us
hear
it
.
The
Doubter
now
assaults
him
as
to
this
notion
anent
the
greater
good
in
quiting
the
Oath
,
with
that
instance
of
the
Oath
to
the
Gibeonites
,
[
whom
God
had
commanded
to
make
no
peace
with
,
but
enjyond
Israel
to
root
them
out
,
to
whom
Josua
and
the
Princes
might
have
said
,
Gods
command
Looses
us
from
our
Oath
,
and
it
will
hinder
a
greater
good
,
yet
in
that
particular
they
rather
dispensed
with
Gods
command
,
then
with
their
Oath
;
the
acceptablness
wherof
to
God
,
appeard
in
his
punishing
Saul
a
long
time
after
for
killing
these
Gibeonites
,
to
whose
predecessors
Joshua
&
the
princes
had
suorn
.
]
In
answer
to
this
,
he
runs
out
a
great
length
anent
that
transaction
,
to
infringe
this
argument
.
Which
I
shall
now
examine
.
But
before
I
enter
upon
this
,
I
would
premise
two
things
,
first
,
that
this
trifling
Informer
hath
so
moulded
our
argument
from
this
text
as
quite
to
divert
it
from
its
true
channel
and
scope
,
which
is
to
prove
the
oblidging
force
of
ane
Oath
or
Covenant
(
Lawful
upon
the
matter
)
both
upon
the
takers
,
and
their
posterity
,
notwithstanding
of
many
circumstantiall
sinfull
aberrations
from
the
divine
rule
,
in
the
manner
of
entring
into
it
.
As
is
most
evident
in
this
instance
as
I
shal
after
shew
.
And
this
man
could
not
be
ignorant
,
that
this
text
is
thus
Improven
by
Timorcus
and
Others
,
who
have
written
for
the
Covenant
,
and
this
argument
,
and
improvement
of
the
text
which
he
presents
,
is
but
a
man
of
straw
of
his
ownupsetting
.
Secondly
,
that
we
are
not
concerned
in
order
to
the
evincing
the
premised
truth
for
the
proof
wherof
we
adduce
this
text
,
peremptorly
to
determine
this
question
,
whither
this
Oath
did
contradict
Gods
positive
Law
,
and
how
far
any
piece
or
circumstances
of
the
divine
precepts
anent
the
destruction
of
the
Cannanites
,
making
no
leagues
with
them
,
justles
with
this
Covenant
and
Oath
,
and
are
found
over-ruled
by
its
oblgation
:
for
our
argument
stands
good
and
intire
,
tho
we
abstract
from
any
positive
determination
in
this
point
.
So
that
in
tracing
our
Informers
extravagant
discourse
in
answer
to
this
objection
of
his
own
moulding
,
we
shal
rather
discover
the
slippery
grounds
he
walks
upon
,
and
the
inconsistencies
wherin
he
is
involved
by
his
answers
,
and
confident
assertion
of
the
Oaths
conformity
to
the
divine
Law
,
then
positively
to
resolve
and
determine
any
thing
in
this
debate
,
which
this
man
hath
no
less
ridiculously
handled
,
then
impertinently
brought
in
.
But
to
the
point
.
First
,
he
wonders
that
we
make
use
of
this
argument
to
prove
the
obligation
of
our
Oath
against
Bishops
.
But
sure
it
is
ane
argument
verie
Sutable
,
if
ane
Oath
into
which
Joshua
and
all
Israel
were
cheated
,
ane
Oath
to
heathens
,
and
which
had
at
Least-wise
a
verie
apparent
inconsistencie
with
Gods
command
,
to
root
out
these
Canaanites
,
and
not
to
pitie
or
spare
them
,
is
found
so
highly
obligatorie
,
and
even
binding
the
posterity
,
how
much
more
the
nations
Covenanting
with
God
,
and
with
one
another
for
publick
and
personall
reformation
.
But
he
sayes
,
That
we
mistake
this
place
.
Why
so
?
First
,
if
we
think
Ioshua
was
forbidden
upon
any
termes
to
make
a
Covenant
with
these
Canaanites
,
but
to
root
them
all
out
,
and
yet
because
of
this
Oath
spared
them
,
then
(
he
sayes
)
we
run
in
a
most
wild
and
gross
opinion
.
Severe
censure
!
why
so
,
what
is
that
opinion
?
that
ane
Oath
(
saith
he
)
can
bind
against
a
command
of
God
,
whither
it
be
a
morall
or
particular
Command
,
it
s
all
one
.
So
that
as
we
said
before
,
that
ane
Oath
can
bind
against
commands
of
men
in
authority
,
now
we
go
a
greater
length
,
in
making
them
bind
againste
Commands
of
God
.
But
I
answer
,
first
,
that
there
was
a
command
of
God
to
cut
off
these
Canaanites
,
without
pitying
or
sparing
them
,
I
hope
he
will
not
deny
,
and
if
he
do
,
it
is
easie
to
be
produced
,
Exo.
23.
32
,
33.
Exo.
34.
12.
Deut.
7.
2.
Nay
more
,
Gods
command
herein
was
so
peremptory
,
that
where
he
appointed
his
people
to
tender
peace
to
other
cities
,
before
they
proceeded
to
destroy
them
,
there
is
ane
exception
made
(
as
Iackson
observes
upon
Joshua
9.
7.
)
of
the
cities
of
Canaan
Deut.
20.
15
,
16.
thus
shalt
thou
do
unto
all
the
cities
which
are
very
far
off
from
thee
,
which
are
not
of
the
Cities
of
these
nations
.
But
of
the
cities
of
the
People
which
the
Lord
thy
God
hath
given
thee
for
ane
inheritance
,
thou
shall
save
alive
nothing
that
breatheth
.
To
this
place
Jackson
points
us
to
clear
this
matter
.
2ly
,
It
s
as
evident
that
these
Gibeonites
had
their
saftie
from
this
Oath
and
Covenant
.
For
upon
this
we
have
the
judgement
of
all
the
princes
of
the
congregation
,
(
Josh.
9.
19.
)
in
determining
that
question
about
their
saftie
,
we
have
sworn
unto
them
by
the
Lord
,
therfor
we
may
not
touch
them
,
because
of
the
Oath
which
we
sware
unto
them
.
Yea
more
,
when
many
hundered
yeares
after
,
the
injury
of
Saul
is
mentioned
in
slaying
them
,
the
ground
of
their
right
to
Live
and
dwell
among
the
Lords
people
,
rather
then
the
other
Canaanites
,
is
attributed
expresly
and
solely
to
this
Oath
;
2.
Sam.
21.
2.
Now
the
Gibeonites
were
not
of
Israel
but
of
the
Amorites
,
and
the
children
of
Israel
had
sworn
unto
them
,
and
Saul
sought
to
slay
them
,
wherfor
David
said
what
shall
I
do
for
yow
.
Now
the
command
being
so
express
to
cutt
them
off
,
and
upon
the
other
hand
,
their
saftie
being
first
and
last
attributed
so
clearlie
to
the
Oath
,
that
which
this
man
calls
a
wilde
and
gross
opinion
,
he
must
either
impute
to
the
Scripture-account
of
this
matter
,
or
resolve
and
accommodat
this
difficulty
,
which
he
is
(
in
maintaining
the
Scriptures
authority
)
oblidged
unto
as
well
as
we
.
3ly
,
that
which
he
calls
a
wilde
and
gross
opinion
,
is
the
Judgement
of
Learnd
Divines
,
particularly
of
Jackson
,
who
upon
the
twenty
vers.
of
that
9
of
Joshua
,
having
moved
this
objection
,
that
what
the
Princes
sware
was
against
the
express
command
of
God
,
who
had
often
enjoind
to
destroy
all
these
Canaanites
.
Returns
this
answer
.
That
though
one
Oath
or
vow
doth
not
bind
men
for
doing
of
any
thing
that
is
absolutely
unlawfull
,
yet
in
this
case
it
was
not
so
,
because
the
charge
which
God
gave
for
slaying
the
inhabitants
of
the
Land
,
was
a
particular
command
,
and
so
far
only
to
bind
their
consciences
,
as
it
might
be
obeyed
without
any
breach
of
the
morall
Law
,
as
in
Rahabs
case
it
is
also
evident
.
But
,
here
they
could
not
obey
that
command
of
God
concerning
their
destroying
all
the
Inhabitants
of
Canaan
,
without
perjurie
,
which
is
against
the
Law
and
light
of
nature
—
he
adds
,
that
their
perjurie
would
have
given
great
occasion
to
the
enemies
of
Gods
people
to
blaspheme
—
So
that
(
saith
he
)
there
lay
a
strong
bond
upon
the
consciences
of
the
Israelites
,
though
they
were
deluded
by
the
Gibeonites
.
Now
I
think
the
account
of
this
difficulty
exhibit
unto
us
here
by
this
learnd
divine
,
may
make
him
ashamed
of
his
assertion
in
this
point
,
&
we
may
retort
his
objected
absurditie
thus
,
if
the
morall
Laws
obligation
in
opposition
to
perjurie
,
stood
against
and
counter-ballanced
a
particular
command
of
God
in
this
matter
,
much
more
will
the
force
and
obligation
of
ane
Oath
,
in
a
matter
of
far
greater
importance
,
stand
good
against
any
positive
Laws
and
statutes
of
men
.
And
if
even
Gods
positive
Particular
command
,
could
in
this
case
ground
no
dispensation
with
their
Oath
,
but
God
would
rather
dispense
with
the
particular
command
,
than
with
it
,
how
much
more
absurd
must
he
be
,
who
pretends
a
dispensation
with
,
and
a
nulling
of
,
such
selemn
Sacred
Oaths
and
vows
to
God
as
we
are
under
,
and
in
such
weighty
matters
,
upon
the
arbitrary
commands
of
men
,
especially
men
under
the
same
Oaths
themselves
.
In
the
premised
distinction
of
Mr
Jackson
,
the
Informer
might
have
discovered
the
folly
of
his
bold
unrestricted
assertion
;
no
Oath
can
bind
against
a
comand
,
no
not
a
particular
command
.
For
Jackson
distinguishes
(
which
this
man
admits
yea
and
positively
asserts
)
betwixt
that
which
is
simply
and
absolutely
unlawfull
,
and
that
which
is
unlawful
only
upon
the
ground
of
a
particular
positive
precept
,
which
in
some
circumstantiat
cases
may-come
to
justle
with
the
absolutly
binding
moral
Law
,
as
in
the
instances
adduced
by
the
Informer
himself
is
evident
.
4Ly
,
His
own
rule
anent
the
lesser
obligation
over-ruled
by
the
greater
or
Prior
,
will
plead
for
this
,
and
his
instances
,
of
Mercie
and
not
Sacrifice
,
of
Paul
and
those
with
him
,
their
casting
the
goods
into
the
sea
,
Davids
eating
the
shew-bread
to
keep
from
starving
,
do
confirme
the
answers
above
set
down
.
For
here
particular
positive
precepts
,
are
overruled
by
the
greater
and
Prior
morall
obligations
of
the
6th
Command
anent
self
Preservation
.
What
absurditie
then
is
there
in
this
assertion
,
that
the
great
morall
precept
of
Not
taking
Gods
name
in
vain
,
did
over-rule
a
particular
positive
precept
?
Doth
he
not
here
see
Gods
great
morall
Commands
(
in
the
premised
instances
)
binding
against
lesser
positive
precepts
.
And
when
he
saith
that
whither
the
command
be
morall
or
particular
which
the
Oath
binds
against
,
all
is
one
as
to
his
fancied
absurditie
,
he
discovers
ignorance
,
and
inconsistency
with
himself
,
for
in
all
his
formentioned
instances
,
moral
precepts
do
overrule
positive
,
particular
and
lesser
precepts
.
And
why
shall
not
also
the
great
morall
command
anent
not
taking
Gods
name
in
vain
,
over-rule
that
positive
and
particular
precept
anent
the
staying
of
these
Gibeonites
,
and
far
more
our
solemn
vows
,
the
present
statutes
of
men
.
Sure
,
he
will
never
be
reconciled
with
himself
here
,
or
assigne
a
disparity
.
Hence
Iackson
having
said
that
the
bond
of
this
Oath
lay
strongly
upon
the
consciences
of
the
Israelites
to
observe
it
,
though
they
were
deluded
by
these
Gibeonites
,
addeth
that
in
this
the
Rule
holds
good
,
I
will
have
mercie
and
not
Sacrifice
,
and
from
his
own
argument
concludes
that
which
he
here
denyes
.
So
that
this
case
of
the
Gibeonites
(
according
to
Jacksons
solution
of
this
difficulty
,
and
that
sense
of
this
scripture
followed
by
him
and
Other
learned
divines
)
strongly
repells
his
rule
,
from
the
hindrance
of
a
greater
good
to
loose
the
Covenant
,
especially
since
this
greater
good
doth
with
him
still
resolve
into
obedience
of
mens
Laws
.
Had
not
the
Israelites
this
ground
more
strongly
to
plead
against
the
keeping
of
their
Oath
to
these
Gibeonits
,
since
not
only
they
were
cheated
into
it
(
and
dolus
aufert
consensnm
say
Casuists
)
but
it
seemd
to
hinder
a
farr
greater
good
viz
,
the
obeying
of
Gods
express
command
to
root
them
out
;
yet
Joshua
&
the
Princes
knew
not
this
new
knack
for
loosing
Oaths
.
But
the
interposing
the
sacred
name
of
God
in
ane
Oath
,
was
with
them
so
weighty
a
matter
,
that
it
overruled
all
these
pretences
.
Thus
we
have
seen
how
he
acquits
himself
as
to
his
first
charge
of
[
a
mistake
of
this
place
]
and
that
what
he
calls
a
gross
and
wilde
opinion
,
is
the
sense
of
the
scripture
embraced
by
learnd
divines
and
consonant
to
his
own
pleading
;
so
that
in
this
charge
he
discovers
too
bold
ignorance
.
What
more
hath
he
to
say
?
he
tells
us
2ly
,
that
we
are
mistaken
if
we
thank
,
that
Ioshua
had
no
warrand
to
make
peace
with
any
of
the
Canaanites
,
but
was
commanded
without
once
treating
with
them
,
to
root
them
all
out
:
because
in
Deut.
20.
10.
he
is
commanded
to
proclaim
peace
indefinitly
to
any
citie
he
came
to
fight
with
,
the
Canaanites
not
excepted
.
Ans.
How
can
this
man
say
that
the
Canaanites
are
not
excepted
,
from
that
offer
of
peace
there
injoyned
,
when
as
he
doth
not
so
much
as
offer
to
answer
to
these
pregnant
circumstances
of
the
text
,
pleaded
by
Iackson
and
Others
to
prove
the
contrary
.
For
,
after
the
Lord
hath
commanded
them
to
proclaim
peace
to
a
city
before
they
assauted
it
,
there
is
(
verse
15.
)
a
limitation
.
Thus
shalt
thou
do
unto
all
the
cities
which
are
very
far
off
from
thee
,
which
are
not
of
the
cities
of
these
nations
(
viz:
who
were
devoted
to
destruction
)
therfor
in
the
16.
vers.
after
the
Lord
hath
thus
ridd
marches
,
as
to
the
Canaanites
they
get
this
precept
,
But
of
the
cities
of
these
people
which
the
Lord
thy
God
doth
give
thee
for
ane
inheritance
thou
shalt
save
alive
nothing
that
breatheth
.
Can
any
restriction
and
exception
be
more
peremptory
?
and
that
we
may
know
,
who
these
are
who
are
thus
excepted
from
mercy
,
and
from
these
offers
of
peace
mentioned
,
the
17.
ver.
clears
it
.
But
thou
shalt
utterly
destroy
them
,
namely
the
Hittites
,
and
the
Amorites
,
the
Canaanites
,
and
the
Perizites
,
the
Hivites
and
the
Iebusites
,
as
the
Lord
thy
God
hath
commanded
thee
.
This
additional
motive
of
Gods
command
is
here
remarkably
inserted
;
which
is
the
more
remarkable
if
compared
with
the
2.
of
Sam.
21.
2.
The
Gibeonites
were
not
of
Israel
but
of
the
Amorites
,
and
the
Children
of
Israel
had
sworn
to
them
.
When
the
spirit
of
God
,
is
reminding
us
of
this
story
in
pointing
at
Sauls
guilt
,
we
are
first
told
that
they
were
of
the
Amorites
,
a
people
devoted
to
destruction
by
Gods
command
,
but
excepted
from
the
rest
that
were
destroyed
,
upon
the
ground
of
this
Oath
,
and
upon
this
ground
solely
.
Jackson
upon
this
passage
,
holds
that
the
offer
of
peace
,
is
not
to
be
understood
of
any
city
of
Canaan
upon
these
grounds
,
first
,
because
they
were
expresly
charged
utterly
to
destroy
the
inhabitants
of
Canaan
,
to
the
end
they
might
dwell
in
their
room
and
might
not
be
ensnard
by
their
dwelling
among
them
;
and
secondly
,
we
do
not
read
that
ever
Joshua
tendered
peace
to
any
of
the
cities
,
tho
it
be
mentioned
as
a
strange
thing
,
and
a
signe
of
Gods
hardning
their
hearts
,
that
never
any
of
those
people
,
did
of
their
own
accord
crave
peace
,
save
the
Gibeonites
Josh.
11.
19.
—
Yet
we
never
find
that
there
was
peace
profered
them
,
and
it
seems
that
the
Gibeontes
did
therefore
seek
it
by
craft
,
because
Otherwise
they
saw
it
would
not
be
granted
them
;
and
3dly
,
it
is
expresly
noted
as
a
fault
in
the
Israelites
,
Judges
1.
28.
that
they
put
the
Canaanites
to
tribute
,
and
did
not
utterly
drive
them
out
.
Hence
he
concludes
,
that
this
is
only
to
be
understood
of
such
cities
as
they
should
besiege
that
were
not
of
the
land
of
Canaan
.
And
upon
the
15.
vers
.
Thus
shalt
thou
do
unto
all
the
cities
which
are
very
far
off
from
thee
,
which
are
not
of
the
cities
of
these
nations
,
He
adds
,
but
these
must
neither
have
peace
offered
them
,
nor
must
their
women
and
little
ones
and
cattell
be
spared
when
their
cities
are
taken
by
force
;
for
the
following
reason
(
saith
he
)
doth
manifestly
exclude
them
from
both
these
favours
(
citing
vers.
18.
)
That
they
teach
you
not
to
do
after
all
their
abominations
&c.
Sure
it
had
become
this
Magisteriall
Informer
to
ponder
these
reasons
ere
he
had
obtruded
upon
us
his
bold
and
inconsiderate
assertions
in
this
point
.
The
Dutch
Annot
:
on
this
15.
vers.
expresly
assert
that
the
cities
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
are
excluded
from
offers
of
peace
,
because
the
Lord
had
commanded
them
to
be
banned
(
that
is
devoted
to
destruction
)
as
is
related
in
the
sequel
.
Mr
Poole
upon
this
10.
vers.
asserts
that
this
seems
to
be
understood
not
of
the
cities
of
the
Canaanites
,
as
is
manifest
from
vers.
16
,
17
,
18.
who
were
under
ane
absolute
sentence
of
utter
destruction
,
Ex.
23.
32
,
33.
Deut
7.
1
,
2.
Whence
they
are
blam'd
that
made
any
peace
or
league
with
them
,
Judges
2.
2.
but
of
the
cities
either
of
other
nations
who
injur'd
or
disturbed
them
,
or
commenced
war
against
them
,
or
aided
their
enemies
,
or
oppressed
their
friends
and
allies
or
of
the
Hebrews
themselves
,
if
they
were
guilty
or
abettors
of
Idolatry
or
apostacy
from
God
,
or
of
sedition
or
rebellion
against
authority
,
or
of
giving
protection
and
defence
to
capital
offenders
.
Citing
Gen.
14.
Judges
20.
2.
Sam.
20.
The
English
annot.
upon
this
10.
vers.
do
also
assert
that
this
offer
of
peace
is
not
to
be
understood
of
the
cities
of
Canaan
,
for
they
were
to
be
more
severly
dealt
withal
vers.
16
,
17.
and
for
shewing
them
more
favour
Israel
is
blam'd
Judg.
1.
28.
but
of
cities
without
the
land
of
promise
vers
15.
So
that
our
Informer
is
here
runnig
crosse
to
the
plain
sense
&
scope
of
the
text
,
and
the
current
of
Interpreters
.
But
he
adds
,
that
there
was
a
difference
betwixt
these
Canaanites
and
the
nations
a
far
off
in
relation
to
this
allowance
of
peace
to
them
.
First
,
it
was
to
be
upon
the
termes
of
relinquishing
their
idolatry
,
yeelding
up
their
Lands
,
and
becoming
servants
.
That
therfor
leagues
with
them
are
forbidden
,
they
reserving
their
heathnish
worship
.
But
where
will
he
shew
us
this
restriction
,
or
difference
in
Scripture
?
non
est
distinguendum
ubi
lex
non
distinguit
.
We
have
seen
Gods
peremptory
precepts
to
cut
them
off
,
to
save
alive
none
that
breatheth
of
these
excepted
cities
and
nations
.
We
find
also
peremptory
commands
to
make
no
leagues
with
them
,
no
not
for
civill
commerce
,
as
they
might
with
other
heathens
afar
off
,
Exo.
23.
32
,
33.
—
thou
shalt
make
no
Covenant
with
them
—
they
shall
not
dwell
in
thy
land
,
as
these
Gibeonites
were
permitted
;
so
Exo.
34.
12.
Deut.
7.
2
we
have
the
same
precepts
renewed
.
Now
,
where
is
this
exception
,
as
to
these
leagues
?
it
lyes
upon
him
as
the
affirmer
to
prove
and
instruct
this
limitation
,
which
he
here
affirms
,
out
of
the
text
.
God
who
gives
the
law
must
himself
also
give
the
exception
.
And
this
man
must
be
charged
with
malapert
intruding
into
what
he
hath
not
seen
,
in
presuming
to
put
in
his
exceptions
,
unless
he
can
instruct
them
,
which
yet
he
hath
not
done
.
I
confess
God
who
is
above
the
Law
might
allow
an
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
certain
cases
,
especially
such
as
this
anent
their
Oath
,
but
looking
to
his
own
precept
we
find
no
such
exception
from
it
.
2ly
;
he
sayes
,
there
was
this
difference
betwixt
them
and
other
nations
,
that
if
they
refused
peace
,
they
were
to
be
worse
dealt
with
then
any
other
city
that
was
not
of
the
Canaanites
,
because
(
Deut.
20.
16
,
17.
)
in
ease
of
their
refusal
,
nothing
was
to
be
saved
alive
while
,
other
cities
were
but
to
lose
the
lives
of
the
Males
only
.
vers
.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
Now
,
the
violence
which
he
offers
here
unto
the
text
,
is
obvious
to
any
that
but
reads
it
.
For
after
that
(
ver.
10.
)
the
lord
hath
laid
down
this
Law
in
generall
,
anent
their
proclaiming
peace
to
a
city
before
they
assault
it
,
and
showen
(
in
the
11.
ver.
)
That
if
the
city
yeeld
,
they
shall
be
tributaries
—
(
vers.
12
,
13.
)
God
injoyns
that
if
the
city
refuse
peace
,
every
male
must
be
cut
off
—
and
(
ver.
14.
)
the
Women
,
little
ones
,
and
the
cattel
must
be
saved
,
and
its
spoile
taken
.
Then
(
vers.
15.
)
to
ridd
marches
,
and
to
shew
whom
all
these
prescriptions
relate
unto
,
and
whom
not
.
The
lord
adds
—
thus
shalt
thou
do
unto
all
the
cities
which
are
very
far
off
from
thee
which
are
not
of
the
cities
of
these
nations
.
And
then
(
as
I
said
)
in
relation
to
them
the
severe
command
followes
(
16.
ver.
)
but
of
the
cities
of
these
nations
which
the
Lord
thy
God
gives
thee
,
thou
shall
save
alive
nothing
that
breatheth
.
And
that
these
excepted
cities
and
people
may
be
known
they
are
particularly
named
as
in
above
expressed
.
He
sayes
,
in
the
case
of
their
refusall
,
nothing
was
to
be
left
alive
,
and
they
were
to
be
worse
deal
;
with
than
others
,
who
refused
peace
,
who
were
to
lose
the
males
only
.
Wheras
the
text
appeares
express
,
that
the
Law
anent
offering
peace
,
and
dealing
thus
according
as
it
was
accepted
or
refused
,
did
not
belong
to
them
at
all
,
but
that
they
are
very
clearly
and
peremptorly
excepted
from
it
.
As
for
his
long
confused
parenthesis
here
foisted
in
anent
the
difference
betwixt
the
peace
and
a
league
,
and
that
Ioshua
first
made
a
league
with
the
Gibeonites
,
but
knowing
them
to
be
Canaanites-brake
it
,
because
contrary
to
the
command
of
God
(
citing
Josh.
9
,
21
,
22
,
23.
)
and
meerly
allowed
them
a
peace
.
It
is
fl●…tly
contradictory
to
the
text
,
for
(
vers.
15.
)
it
is
said
,
he
made
peace
with
them
and
made
a
league
with
them
(
and
this
league
was
)
to
let
them
live
,
and
the
Princes
of
the
congregation
sware
unto
them
.
Lo
here
is
the
Identity
of
the
peace
and
league
,
and
the
designe
and
contents
of
it
[
to
let
them
live
.
]
The
Dutch
annot.
upon
15.
v.
[
the
princes
of
the
congregation
sware
to
them
]
tell
us
,
that
they
ratified
by
Oath
that
which
Joshua
had
promised
them
,
viz.
that
they
should
remain
alive
.
The
English
annot.
in
stating
the
question
and
difficulty
concerning
the
contrariety
of
this
transaction
to
Gods
command
,
express
it
thus
,
whither
Ioshua
in
making
peace
with
them
,
and
the
Princes
in
confirming
it
by
Oath
,
did
Lawfully
or
not
.
And
speak
to
the
Lawfulness
,
or
unlawfulness
of
both
Ioyntly
without
any
distinction
,
but
make
no
exception
in
the
least
of
the
league
as
if
distinct
from
the
peace
confirmed
by
Oath
,
which
certainly
in
statingthe
question
they
would
have
expresly
excluded
,
had
they
imagined
any
such
distinction
.
That
Joshua
keept
the
peace
and
the
league
,
and
that
this
league
&
peace
was
to
let
them
live
,
is
accordingly
set
down
in
the
same
termes
when
the
Princes
ratefied
it
;
and
all
along
where
the
peace
is
mentioned
,
The
Oath
(
and
by
consequence
the
league
which
was
therby
confirmed
)
is
proposed
as
its
ground
.
They
smote
them
not
because
they
had
sworn
by
the
Lord
(
18.
vers.
)
And
(
vers.
19.
)
the
Princes
determine
they
must
not
touch
them
,
because
they
had
sworn
to
them
.
And
(
20.
vers
.
)
we
will
let
them
live
lest
wrath
be
upon
us
because
we
have
sworn
unto
them
.
And
(
vers.
21.
)
the
Princes
said
to
the
People
let
them
live
—
as
they
had
promised
unto
them
.
Lo
all
along
the
Oath
is
most
consciencioussly
observed
,
and
that
as
accessory
unto
,
and
confirming
this
whole
transaction
,
both
the
peace
and
league
,
the
,
scope
and
sum
wherof
is
still
expressed
thus
[
to
let
them
live
.
]
As
the
text
makes
no
distinction
,
betwixt
the
peace
and
league
in
this
ratefication
,
so
the
intendment
therof
is
never
extended
byond
their
life
and
saftie
first
or
last
.
How
then
can
this
man
say
that
Joshua
brake
the
league
,
since
the
termes
therof
were
to
let
them
live
(
ver.
15.
)
which
is
acknowledged
by
the
Princes
&
faithfully
performed
.
The
league
and
peace
and
Oath
here
are
still
one
,
and
fall
under
the
same
consideration
as
consonant
,
or
dissonant
to
the
command
;
if
the
peace
was
contrary
to
the
command
so
was
the
Oath
,
and
if
the
league
was
contrary
to
the
command
so
was
the
Oath
also
.
For
it
is
most
evident
,
that
the
text
speakes
of
the
peace
and
league
indiscriminatim
or
without
distinction
in
relating
this
transaction
,
and
of
the
Oath
as
accessory
both
unto
the
one
and
the
other
;
so
that
the
Oath
was
unlawfull
,
if
either
the
peace
or
league
was
unlawfull
,
and
if
either
was
broken
the
Oath
was
broken
,
and
Joshua
and
the
Princes
were
perjured
:
Wheras
the
text
records
their
faithfull
performance
of
the
Oath
as
ratefying
all
that
transaction
.
But
it
is
no
strang
thing
to
see
men
so
notoriously
blotted
with
perjury
seek
precedents
in
scripture
Saints
if
they
could
finde
them
.
But
this
instance
will
stand
in
judgement
against
them
if
they
repent
not
.
Whereas
he
saith
,
that
Ioshua
brake
the
league
as
contrary
to
the
command
of
God
when
he
knew
them
to
be
Canaanites
,
giving
this
as
a
reason
why
he
allowed
them
a
peace
only
.
It
is
such
a
flat
contradiction
to
the
text
,
and
to
it self
,
as
none
can
be
more
plain
.
For
according
therunto
Joshua
could
not
break
this
league
without
breaking
his
Oath
which
confirmed
it
,
and
could
break
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
,
and
allow
them
a
peace
.
Since
this
peace
was
the
import
both
of
the
league
and
Oath
,
and
all
that
the
Scripture
mentions
as
their
demand
of
Joshua
,
was
peace
and
their
life
,
and
nomore
;
and
this
all
along
Joshua
and
Israel
keept
,
and
precisely
because
of
the
Oath
.
As
any
who
reads
the
text
may
see
.
The
Dutch
Annotations
upon
Josh.
9.
15.
expone
that
branch
that
relates
to
the
Princes
swearing
thus
,
that
they
ratified
by
Oath
that
which
Joshua
had
promised
them
,
viz
,
that
they
should
remain
alive
.
Wherin
,
as
they
clearly
hold
that
the
Oath
was
accessory
to
this
whole
transaction
,
so
they
make
it
intirely
to
terminate
in
this
that
they
should
have
their
life
.
And
upon
2.
Sam.
21.
1.
Where
Sauls
guilt
in
slaying
these
Gibeonites
is
mentioned
,
they
paraphrase
it
thus
,
that
it
was
contrary
to
the
promise
made
to
them
&
ratefied
by
Oath
.
Josh.
I.
15
,
18.
And
whereas
we
are
put
in
minde
in
the
2.
ver.
that
[
the
Gibeonites
were
not
of
Israel
But
of
the
Amorites
]
—
they
paraphrase
it
thus
,
that
they
were
remaining
of
the
heathen
nations
whom
God
had
commanded
to
destroy
—
and
the
other
clause
of
the
verse
wherein
we
are
put
in
minde
[
that
Israel
had
sworn
to
them
and
Saul
is
said
to
have
sought
to
slay
them
in
his
zeal
]
they
paraphas●…
it
thus
,
that
it
was
irregular
fained
zeal
whereby
he
thought
to
mend
what
Joshua
and
other
godly
Governours
,
according
to
his
opinion
had
neglected
or
ill
done
,
but
it
was
directly
against
the
Oath
made
by
Gods
name
,
by
his
special
providence
,
for
which
thing
God
was
now
greatly
provocked
,
as
by
this
pleague
upon
the
land
,
&
Gods
answer
appeareth
.
Wherein
,
how
evidently
they
stand
in
opposition
to
this
mans
glosses
and
pleading
upon
this
head
,
is
obvious
to
themeanest
reflection
since
onely
for
thatOath
they
charge
guilt
on
Saul
.
The
English
annotations
upon
(
ver.
18.
)
say
,
that
abstracting
from
the
Princes
Oath
it
had
been
cruelty
to
have
slain
them
seeing
they
had
violat
a
lawfull
Covenant
.
Now
how
this
aggrees
with
this
mans
gloss
of
[
Joshuas
breaking
the
league
,
as
contrary
to
the
commandment
]
let
any
judge
.
Jackson
thus
senses
ver.
23.
—
the
curse
,
which
God
had
pronounced
upon
the
people
of
this
land
requires
that
you
be
cut
off
as
well
as
the
rest
,
yet
because
of
the
Oath
which
we
have
taken
this
curse
shall
be
upon
you
in
bondage
and
not
in
death
.
His
next
instance
to
prove
his
supposed
limitation
of
Gods
command
to
destroy
the
Canaanites
is
that
of
Rahab
her
being
spared
Josh
6.
17.
Which
clearlie
crosses
his
pleading
&
argument
here
;
for
1.
the
spies
upon
very
strick
terms
state
their
Oath
:
and
told
Rahab
not
only
that
if
she
should
make
the
least
discovery
of
their
business
,
but
likewise
that
if
she
or
her
friends
,
even
so
much
as
one
of
them
,
were
out
of
the
house
when
the
city
was
taken
;
this
Oath
should
not
reach
them
,
whatever
submission
she
had
made
.
And
2dly
,
All
Joshuas
ground
when
he
commands
the
spies
to
secure
her
and
her
friends
,
is
their
Oath
:
they
are
commanded
to
bring
out
the
Woman
,
[
as
they
sware
to
her
]
and
for
no
other
reason
.
3ly
.
I
pray
,
what
saved
her
friends
and
her
relations
as
well
as
her self
from
this
common
destruction
?
Surely
,
they
made
no
peace
nor
any
such
submission
as
this
man
supposeth
necessary
to
exeem
them
from
the
commanded
destruction
,
nor
was
there
any
assurance
the
spies
could
have
touching
them
,
and
therefore
they
could
not
be
upon
any
other
ground
saved
,
but
because
included
in
this
Oath
.
Besides
,
what
power
had
these
two
men
to
transact
a
peace
without
Joshuas
advice
and
knowledge
?
the
ground
of
,
their
transacting
with
her
,
is
their
necessity
,
and
the
Womans
offer
of
their
saftie
.
Now
I
retort
his
argument
here
against
him
;
to
prove
that
they
were
spared
upon
other
terms
then
the
Oath
,
he
adduceth
this
instance
of
Rahabs
preservation
upon
the
submission
mentioned
,
viz.
her
making
and
accepting
of
peace
,
and
hence
concludes
that
she
(
and
by
consequence
the
Gibeonites
)
together
with
her
friends
,
were
saved
upon
other
terms
,
then
meerly
upon
the
Oath
,
and
that
abstracting
from
it
Israel
was
obliged
to
save
them
.
But
one
might
argue
thus
,
if
Rahabs
friends
(
at
least
)
might
have
been
Lawfully
cut
off
upon
the
ground
of
Gods
command
to
cut
off
the
Canaanites
who
made
or
accepted
no
terms
of
peace
,
and
were
only
saved
by
the
spies
Oath
,
then
the
Oath
(
according
to
the
Informers
own
principles
)
did
bind
in
opposition
to
a
positive
precept
to
cut
off
the
Canaanites
:
but
so
it
is
,
that
upon
the
ground
of
this
Oath
only
her
friends
wer
spared
,
as
this
man
cannot
deny
:
ergo
,
the
Oath
did
bind
here
in
opposition
to
a
positive
precept
.
He
dare
not
say
that
her
friends
were
proselyts
,
or
did
in
the
least
directly
or
indirectly
submit
.
Nay
for
any
thing
that
the
spies
knew
they
might
be
as
cursed
heathens
as
were
in
all
Jericho
(
for
what
was
Rahab
her self
before
God
extraordinarly
touched
her
heart
)
and
consequently
by
Gods
positive
precept
devoted
to
destruction
with
the
rest
.
Yet
this
Oath
,
made
even
to
another
for
them
,
yea
an
Oath
which
had
a
seeming
extortion
of
fear
in
the
spies
hazard
,
saved
and
exeemd
them
from
this
stroak
&
curse
,
so
that
in
this
case
himself
must
confess
that
the
Oath
did
bind
in
opposition
to
the
positive
precept
.
And
this
one
clear
Scripture
instance
seemes
enough
to
prove
the
point
that
the
Oath
did
over-rule
a
particular
,
positive
precept
,
though
all
that
he
sayes
of
the
Gibeonites
were
admitted
.
He
adds
,
that
it
is
evident
,
from
Iosh.
11.
19.
that
if
other
cities
in
Canaan
,
had
submitted
,
as
Gibeon
,
Ioshua
might
have
spared
them
.
I
answer
;
the
Text
sayes
that
de
facto
they
made
no
peace
,
and
that
God
hardened
their
hearts
that
they
might
come
against
Israel
and
fall
.
But
this
will
be
too
weak
to
bear
the
weight
of
his
conclusion
that
Ioshua
might
have
spared
them
all
.
For
1.
How
can
this
consist
with
the
plain
positive
command
as
to
their
utter
off
cutting
(
often
renewed
)
and
with
Gods
promise
of
giving
Israel
their
inheritance
,
to
spare
them
all
.
For
the
Psalmist
tells
us
,
that
he
did
drive
out
the
heathen
with
his
hand
and
planted
his
people
,
he
did
afflict
the
people
and
cast
them
out
.
Psal.
44.
2.
And
Psal.
78.
54
,
55.
He
brought
them
to
the
border
of
his
Sanctuary
,
even
to
this
mountain
which
his
right
hand
had
purchas'd
.
He
cast
out
the
Heathen
also
before
them
,
and
divided
them
an
inheritance
by
line
,
and
made
the
tribes
of
Israel
to
dwell
in
their
tents
.
Hence
as
they
were
frequently
enjoyn'd
to
cast
them
out
least
they
should
become
a
snare
to
them
Exod.
23.
33.
Deut.
7.
16.
Ex.
34.
12.
So
Israels
sparing
them
when
they
were
planted
in
that
land
is
frequently
reprehended
as
their
great
guiltiness
Judges
1.
27
,
29
,
30
,
31
,
33.
And
Judges
2.
1
,
2.
Upon
which
ground
the
Lord
threatens
as
a
punishment
that
he
will
not
drive
them
out
:
But
that
they
shall
be
thorns
in
their
sides
.
And
this
threatning
we
find
execute
,
and
the
same
very
guiltiness
presented
as
the
cause
of
it
,
viz.
That
they
did
not
destroy
the
nations
concerning
whom
the
Lord
commanded
them
.
Psal.
106.
34
,
35.
which
confirmes
this
assertion
;
and
therefore
this
historicall
clause
in
that
passage
of
Joshua
,
is
to
be
expounded
in
correspondence
with
the
plain
and
positive
command
,
which
we
have
already
seen
clear
.
2ly
.
Jackson
upon
that
19.
ver.
[
there
was
not
a
city
that
made
Peace
with
Israel
&c.
]
tells
us
,
that
this
is
added
as
a
reason
why
the
wars
with
the
Canaanites
lasted
so
long
—
because
the
Inhabitants
did
obstinately
stand
out
—
and
attempted
not
to
procure
conditions
of
peace
save
only
the
Gibeonites
—
Which
is
far
from
coming
up
to
his
scope
and
designe
.
For
it
is
one
thing
to
say
that
de
facto
●…he
wars
lasted
long
—
because
none
offered
to
yeeld
but
Gibeon
,
and
another
thing
to
say
that
Ioshua
was
not
oblidged
nor
commanded
to
cut
off
any
but
those
who
thus
warred
and
resisted
.
Which
will
be
the
more
weighty
,
if
it
be
considered
in
the
third
place
,
that
as
in
the
command
to
cut
them
off
,
no
such
restriction
appeares
,
but
upon
the
contrary
the
Canaanites
are
excepted
from
mercy
,
so
we
do
not
find
that
Joshua
offered
terms
of
peace
(
as
this
man
alleadges
he
was
obliged
)
unto
any
of
these
that
were
cut
off
,
but
assaulted
them
as
those
whom
God
had
devoted
to
be
destroyed
,
in
obedience
to
his
holy
,
though
severe
command
,
As
we
heard
Jackson
hath
observ'd
.
This
will
be
more
clear
,
(
and
therin
the
Informers
adversary
might
puzle
him
)
If
we
shall
again
reflect
upon
the
remarkable
circumstances
of
that
transaction
with
the
Gibionites
.
In
the
6.
ver.
of
that
9.
of
Joshua
,
they
propose
the
matter
thus
,
we
are
come
from
a
far
country
,
therefore
make
a
League
with
us
.
Whatever
they
had
understood
of
Gods
command
to
cut
off
the
Cananites
,
this
surelie
was
a
strong
argument
with
Joshua
.
Now
remark
the
answer
in
the
7.
ver.
the
men
of
Israel
said
peradventur
ye
dwell
among
us
,
and
how
shall
we
me
make
a
league
with
you
.
Sure
their
offering
terms
of
peace
and
submission
,
might
have
stopped
this
question
and
demurre
according
to
his
opinion
,
who
holds
that
upon
their
submitting
to
terms
of
peace
,
They
might
have
been
spared
and
even
incorporat
among
Gods
people
,
as
he
tells
us
from
Josh.
11.
19.
that
all
these
Canaani●…es
might
have
been
spared
,
had
they
thus
submitted
So
that
in
his
sense
their
first
offer
was
a
ground
of
peace
.
Especially
since
(
as
is
observed
by
learned
Interpreters
from
their
offer
in
the
8.
ver.
)
they
sought
peace
from
Joshua
and
Israel
upon
their
own
termes
,
and
offered
to
accept
any
conditions
proposed
by
them
.
Which
was
the
lowest
step
of
submission
.
And
when
they
further
answer
that
demurr
about
the
place
of
their
abo●…e
with
this
general
,
we
are
thy
servants
,
i.
e.
We
offer
our selves
to
thee
&
all
that
is
ours
,
which
was
enough
in
this
mans
Judgement
,
to
except
them
from
the
stroak
threatned
,
and
commanded
to
be
execute
upon
the
rest
of
the
Canaanites
.
Yet
this
doth
not
satisfie
Joshua
,
but
again
he
particularly
interrogats
them
upon
these
two
points
,
who
are
ye
?
and
next
,
from
whence
come
ye
?
This
their
free
and
general
concession
(
as
some
do
judge
)
giving
Joshua
just
cause
to
suspect
that
they
were
of
the
cursed
Canaanites
whom
he
was
to
destroy
;
and
then
they
tell
him
that
wherin
the
dolus
lay
,
we
come
from
a
far
countrey
.
Now
,
I
suppose
they
had
answered
to
these
two
Questions
thus
,
we
are
Amorites
,
and
we
dwell
here
.
Thinks
this
Informer
that
Joshua
would
have
lookt
on
himself
as
obliged
by
Gods
Law
to
transact
with
them
.
What
needed
then
his
peremptory
Interrogations
(
after
their
declared
submission
)
anent
their
stock
and
lineage
,
and
the
place
of
their
abode
?
What
needed
the
people
murmur
,
and
desire
to
cut
them
off
,
after
the
contrary
of
what
they
pretended
was
discovered
,
notwithstaning
hereof
?
Nay
thirdly
,
why
is
it
,
that
again
and
again
their
saftie
is
attributed
solely
to
the
Oath
,
without
the
least
hint
of
their
submission
as
having
any
influence
thereupon
?
Finallie
that
passage
Joshua
11.
19.
[
no
citie
made
peace
—
For
it
was
of
the
Lord
that
they
might
have
no
favour
]
seems
to
import
no
more
but
this
,
that
favour
might
have
been
shown
them
had
they
submitted
,
but
how
?
Even
by
God
the
supreme
lawgiver
(
whose
mercy
is
over
all
his
Works
)
his
dispensing
with
his
own
Law
,
and
severe
positive
precepts
,
(
as
in
the
case
of
the
Gibeonites
he
did
)
and
in
what
Method
it
seemd
best
unto
him
,
but
it
will
be
hard
to
inferr
from
this
a
limitation
of
the
precept
it self
for
the
reasons
already
given
.
So
that
all
that
seems
to
follow
from
this
passage
is
,
that
had
they
submitted
,
God
might
have
spared
them
by
a
speciall
dispensing
with
his
own
Law
,
(
For
he
will
have
mercie
and
not
Sacrifice
)
and
Joshua
upon
Gods
appointment
.
But
not
that
the
Law
it self
did
dispense
with
them
.
As
for
what
he
adds
in
further
confirmation
of
this
opinion
,
anent
Salomons
imposing
bond
service
upon
the
remains
of
these
cursed
Nations
,
and
their
posterity
afterward
,
whom
the
children
of
Israel
were
not
able
to
cast
out
(
which
,
in
ane
odd
phrase
,
he
calls
a
kindness
)
and
anent
these
Children
of
Solomons
servants
,
mentioned
Ezra
.
2.
55
,
58.
]
Jackson
will
tell
him
[
That
it
contradicts
not
the
Law
(
Deut.
7.
)
anent
utter
smiting
them
,
and
shewing
them
no
mercy
,
since
,
that
Law
may
be
meant
of
the
inhabitants
that
were
in
the
Land
at
their
entring
first
into
it
,
not
of
their
posterity
.
Especially
these
who
had
their
lives
previously
secured
.
]
Which
fully
cuts
off
his
argument
from
this
Text.
And
this
is
also
the
answer
of
Mr
Poole
and
other
learned
interpreters
upon
this
passage
.
Besides
,
that
the
Nethinims
were
probably
the
Gibeonites
issue
,
and
were
however
all
of
them
,
by
a
long
tract
of
time
Proselyts
incorporat
among
Gods
people
and
professing
the
true
religion
,
which
providentiall
title
might
abundantly
secure
their
lives
The
Dutch
Anotations
upon
Josh.
29.
27.
do
inferr
from
the
nature
and
mould
of
that
phrase
which
signifies
[
a
delivering
them
over
.
]
that
hence
it
is
thought
they
were
called
Nethinims
i.
e.
given
and
delivered
over
which
confirms
the
answer
adduced
.
However
the
person
who
should
directly
impugne
the
Informer
as
to
what
he
maintains
in
this
question
(
which
he
hath
impertinently
brought
in
without
any
ground
,
to
make
some
shift
of
answer
)
might
further
tell
him
that
this
being
but
a
practice
,
cannot
be
pleaded
against
a
rule
,
but
must
be
measured
by
it
,
which
is
a
principle
acknowledged
by
all
.
And
here
I
shall
exhibit
some
remarkable
inconsistencies
of
this
man
with
himself
upon
this
point
1.
he
supposeth
that
Joshua
and
the
princes
their
Oath
to
the
Gibeonites
stood
inviolable
as
to
this
transaction
both
now
and
herafter
;
for
he
sayes
(
page
143.
)
that
Sauls
slaying
the
Gibeonites
moved
God
to
wrath
,
because
it
was
contrary
to
Ioshuas
Oath
made
to
their
fathers
.
Now
Joshua
&
the
Princes
Oath
ratefied
all
the
Transaction
with
them
,
&
was
accessory
therunto
as
the
text
most
clearly
holds
out
,
viz.
both
the
league
and
the
peace
;
yet
he
tells
us
(
page
141.
)
that
as
soon
as
Ioshua
knew
them
to
be
Cananites
,
he
brake
the
league
as
contrary
to
the
command
of
God
,
and
consequently
his
Oath
confirming
it
according
to
his
doctrine
as
being
Likewise
contrary
to
the
command
.
2ly
,
In
that
same
page
he
tells
us
that
no
peace
was
to
be
concluded
with
the
Canaanites
,
unless
they
became
servants
&
renounced
their
heathnish
idolatries
,
and
that
with
the
same
proviso
leagues
were
discharged
with
these
Canaanites
.
Yet
immediatlie
after
he
makes
a
distinction
in
this
point
betwixt
a
peace
,
and
a
league
,
and
tells
us
,
that
Ioshua
had
first
made
a
league
with
them
,
but
when
he
knew
them
to
he
Canaanites
,
he
brake
it
as
being
contrary
to
the
command
of
God
,
and
only
allowed
them
a
peace
.
Now
both
the
peace
,
and
the
league
,
were
equally
allowed
and
commanded
upon
thir
termes
of
yeelding
up
their
Lands
,
and
relinquishing
their
Idolatrie
,
and
both
were
equally
discharged
if
they
did
not
so
,
according
to
the
series
of
his
reasoning
,
as
is
obvious
to
any
Reader
.
How
then
(
I
pray
)
could
Joshua
break
his
league
with
them
as
contrary
to
the
command
of
God
,
more
then
the
peace
,
both
which
he
holds
to
have
been
allowed
them
with
this
proviso
.
3ly
.
He
sayes
Ioshua
and
the
Princes
sware
nothing
but
what
God
commanded
(
pag.
142.
)
Now
the
text
is
most
express
that
they
sware
the
league
ver.
15.
and
Ioshua
made
peace
with
them
,
and
made
a
league
with
them
to
let
,
them
live
,
and
the
princes
of
the
congregation
sware
unto
them
.
This
league
he
sayes
Ioshua
brake
as
contrary
to
the
command
of
God
,
in
his
second
answer
;
yet
in
his
3d
answer
he
tells
us
,
that
the
Oath
contained
in
it
nothing
contrary
to
the
command
.
Again
,
he
sayes
God
commanded
to
make
no
peace
with
them
,
But
upon
the
termes
of
submission
,
relinquishing
their
idolatrie
,
and
giving
up
their
Lands
.
To
this
only
he
restricts
the
Princes
stipulation
,
as
falling
under
the
command
,
yet
acknowledges
the
command
will
include
a
league
also
upon
thir
terms
,
which
els
where
(
as
I
said
)
he
dstinguishes
from
the
peace
,
which
he
holds
was
not
to
be
allowed
them
even
upon
thir
termes
.
And
likewise
,
in
his
second
answer
he
tells
us
that
they
had
peace
only
upon
their
submission
,
without
mentioning
these
other
termes
.
Likewise
he
sayes
that
on
these
termes
he
transacted
to
spare
Rahabs
friends
,
but
where
was
this
assurance
as
to
her
friends
?
4ly
,
He
acknowledges
(
pag.
143.
)
that
Gods
wrath
for
slaying
the
Gibeonites
was
because
of
Ioshuas
Oath
,
made
to
their
fathers
.
Yet
page
108.
he
cries
out
upon
his
Doubters
assertion
anent
ane
Oath
binding
the
posteritie
,
as
a
strange
fancy
,
and
tells
us
that
Casuists
say
,
that
Iuramentum
est
vinculum
personale
,
binding
these
only
who
take
it
.
Now
wheras
this
man
wonders
much
at
our
argument
from
this
text
anent
the
Gibeonites
,
let
any
judge
whether
his
own
shattered
inconsistent
discourse
be
not
rather
an
object
of
wonder
.
But
to
proceed
,
his
third
answer
to
the
premised
argument
of
his
Doubter
,
from
this
instance
of
the
Gibeonites
,
is
that
Ioshua
did
nothing
contrary
to
Gods
command
,
which
was
to
spare
them
upon
their
submission
.
Ans.
(
Besides
what
is
touched
anent
his
inconsistency
with
himself
in
this
,
and
what
we
are
to
add
,
anent
the
impertinency
of
this
unto
the
point
,
though
granted
.
)
I
say
first
,
that
Joshua
and
the
Princes
were
bound
to
spare
them
abstracting
from
this
stipulation
and
Oath
,
is
more
then
he
hath
proved
,
and
appears
contrary
to
the
command
above
expressed
,
and
the
current
of
the
context
where
this
Oath
and
stipulation
is
set
down
;
whether
we
consider
Joshuas
peremptorie
demands
and
demurres
anent
receiving
them
to
peace
,
after
they
had
expressed
their
submission
,
or
the
Oath
its
being
again
and
again
mentioned
,
both
in
setting
down
the
stipulation
its
self
(
ver.
15.
)
and
the
reason
why
they
were
not
smitten
(
ver.
18.
)
and
the
Princes
judicial
determination
.
(
ver.
19.
)
as
the
sole
ground
of
Joshuas
and
the
Princes
obligation
to
them
,
without
the
least
hint
of
any
other
,
which
certainly
might
have
been
(
and
consequently
if
true
would
have
been
,
might
his
impugner
say
)
very
pertinently
and
strongly
pleaded
by
Joshua
and
the
Princes
,
to
quash
the
peoples
murmuring
at
the
sparing
of
them
.
2ly
,
I
might
say
,
that
this
stipulation
and
Oath
,
although
cross
to
a
particular
positive
precept
,
yet
notwithstanding
,
as
matters
here
stood
circumstantiat
,
was
consonant
to
a
generall
moral
rule
of
Gods
mercy
,
who
loves
it
better
then
Sacrifice
.
And
the
sparing
of
these
Gibeonites
was
grounded
upon
this
great
moral
precept
[
of
the
reverence
due
to
Gods
name
,
interposed
by
a
Sacred
and
Solemn
Oath
.
]
Which
answer
is
the
verie
determination
of
Joshua
and
the
Princes
in
this
matter
.
His
impunger
might
here
adde
that
it
is
utterly
improbable
,
that
in
the
Princes
determination
of
the
question
[
whether
these
Gibeonites
were
to
be
saved
,
and
the
stipulation
with
them
held
as
valid
]
their
submission
would
have
been
omitted
,
if
they
had
understood
Gods
command
with
this
limitation
,
which
is
a
doubt
that
would
much
puzle
this
Informer
to
resolve
.
His
4t
,
Ans.
is
,
that
God
was
angry
at
the
slaying
of
the
Gibeonites
,
because
it
was
contrary
to
his
command
,
to
give
them
peace
upon
their
submission
,
and
unto
Ioshuas
Oath
to
their
fathers
,
and
not
meerly
because
it
was
contrary
to
the
Oath
.
Ans.
Joshua
and
the
Princes
Oath
is
both
in
that
9.
of
Joshua
,
and
the
2.
of
Sam.
21.
mentioned
as
the
only
ground
of
their
right
to
their
life
,
without
the
least
hint
of
any
command
anent
their
having
peace
upon
their
Submission
,
which
notwithstanding
this
antiscriptural
Informer
(
who
will
be
wise
here
above
what
is
written
)
sets
in
the
first
place
,
as
the
principal
cause
of
their
right
.
When
the
reason
is
rendered
(
2.
Sam.
21.
)
why
these
Gibeonites
had
a
right
to
live
among
the
Israelites
,
though
they
were
not
of
Israel
,
but
of
the
Amorites
,
it
is
expressed
thus
,
the
children
of
Israel
had
sworn
to
them
,
and
Saul
sought
to
slay
them
.
Again
,
since
he
grants
that
God
was
angry
at
the
slaying
of
these
Gibeonites
upon
the
ground
of
Joshua
and
the
Princes
Oath
to
their
fathers
,
he
confequently
grants
that
this
Oath
,
notwitstanding
of
the
cheat
by
which
Joshua
and
the
Princes
were
brought
under
it
,
was
still
binding
and
did
oblige
the
posterity
,
which
is
the
Chief
point
that
this
instance
is
adduced
to
prove
against
him
,
as
we
shall
presently
shew
.
For
what
he
adds
after
,
it
is
not
much
noticable
.
The
reasons
of
the
English
annotations
as
touching
this
Oaths
consonancie
to
Gods
Law
,
we
are
not
in
this
point
concern'd
to
scanne
,
since
our
argument
stands
good
even
upon
their
supposition
.
As
for
these
who
say
,
that
Ioshua
and
the
Princes
Oath
,
was
contrary
to
Gods
Law
,
and
do
therfore
assert
that
it
did
not
bind
.
We
have
shown
that
as
herin
they
are
not
ours
,
so
in
this
assertion
they
clearly
cross
the
Scriptures
,
as
is
evident
from
what
is
above
touched
.
Here
we
shall
again
minde
the
Reader
for
a
conclusion
to
this
argument
and
instance
anent
the
Gibeonites
,
that
all
this
mans
clamour
,
about
the
consonancy
or
dissonancy
of
this
Oath
to
Gods
Law
,
is
out
of
the
way
,
and
never
meets
our
reasoning
from
this
passage
,
even
as
it
s
moulded
by
himself
,
so
that
we
may
without
losing
our
argument
as
to
its
main
scope
,
grant
all
that
he
sayes
anent
the
consonancy
of
the
Oath
to
the
divine
precept
about
cutting
off
these
Canaanites
,
and
that
it
did
admit
these
restrictions
which
he
speaks
of
.
But
our
argument
for
the
Covenant
is
here
twofold
1.
That
this
Oath
and
Covenant
with
these
Gibeonites
though
its
matter
were
of
a
far
lower
nature
then
our
Sacred
Covenants
,
and
vows
,
yet
did
not
only
oblidge
that
,
but
all
succeeding
generations
,
And
therefore
much
more
our
solemn
sacred
vows
,
so
solemnly
and
universally
sworn
,
and
about
the
great
concerns
of
Publick
and
personal
reformation
,
do
oblidge
all
the
posterity
.
Now
this
being
our
main
Argument
,
he
is
so
far
from
denying
it
,
that
he
grants
it
upon
the
matter
,
in
asserting
and
yeelding
unto
us
,
that
this
Oath
consonant
to
Gods
Law
,
did
bind
the
posterity
;
for
thinkes
he
that
we
doe
not
suppose
and
hold
the
matter
of
the
Covenant
to
be
consonant
to
Gods
Law
'
Why
then
wanders
he
out
of
the
way
,
while
pretending
to
answer
this
argument
,
and
pleaseth
himself
,
and
leads
his
Reader
off
the
way
with
unprofitable
talk
not
to
the
purpose
?
The
consonancy
of
our
Oath
to
the
Law
of
God
,
being
even
his
own
supposition
in
this
argument
.
2ly
.
From
this
instance
we
argue
(
as
I
said
)
for
the
binding
force
of
the
Covenant
even
upon
the
adversaries
supposition
anent
the
coaction
,
deceit
,
fear
,
or
such
like
irregularities
in
the
manner
of
entring
unto
it
,
(
which
they
use
to
make
a
great
clamour
about
)
and
from
this
text
we
conclude
that
all
these
will
not
loose
the
Oath
,
when
once
it
is
taken
.
Since
here
there
was
a
notable
cheat
whereby
Joshua
and
all
Israel
were
brought
under
this
Oath
,
taking
away
both
a
rationall
assent
of
the
Iudgment
,
and
the
free
sutable
election
of
the
will
,
quia
dolus
aufert
assensum
that
is
,
deceit
takes
away
assent
,
say
Casuists
,
Yet
all
this
did
not
irritat
this
Oath
when
taken
.
And
even
as
himself
states
the
objection
,
his
Doubter
alledges
,
that
the
pretence
or
appearance
of
a
greater
good
in
breaking
the
Oath
,
was
not
wanting
,
—
and
particularly
pleads
,
that
this
Oath
did
bind
the
posterity
.
Now
what
his
roaving
discourse
anent
the
Oaths
consonancy
to
the
Law
,
sayes
to
all
this
,
let
any
rational
man
judge
;
Since
both
his
Doubter
and
he
,
do
suppose
the
matter
of
this
Oath
lawfull
.
He
knew
that
his
stating
the
question
aright
and
speaking
to
it
,
would
have
made
the
vanity
of
his
answers
appear
,
and
therfore
he
started
this
notion
anent
the
Oaths
binding
against
a
precept
,
that
tossing
it
a
little
upon
his
forked
pen
,
the
unwarrie
Reader
might
beleeve
,
he
had
return'd
a
full
answer
to
this
argument
:
Whereas
he
but
beats
the
air
in
ane
airie
discourse
out
of
the
way
,
and
yeelds
the
cause
when
he
hath
done
.
Next
he
sayes
,
we
use
to
plead
Zedekiahs
breach
of
Oath
to
the
King
of
Babylon
,
which
the
Lord
was
so
much
displeased
with
.
But
how
,
and
to
what
scope
we
plead
that
text
,
he
durst
not
set
down
,
nor
put
into
the
mouth
of
his
Doubter
any
formall
argument
from
it
;
Which
if
rightly
propounded
,
he
knew
well
his
cause
would
quickly
fall
before
it
.
This
man
could
not
be
ignorant
how
Timorcus
,
and
others
,
improve
this
text
,
viz.
that
Zedekiah
who
was
of
the
Kings
seed
,
the
son
of
Josiah
(
Ezek.
17.
13.
)
had
ane
Oath
put
upon
him
by
the
King
of
Babylon
anent
his
,
and
the
Kingdoms
fealty
and
subjection
to
him
(
2
Chron
36.
13.
)
after
he
had
overrunn
the
land
,
and
made
prisoner
Jehoiachin
his
Brother
,
and
keept
Zedekiah
himself
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
,
and
as
a
prisoner
—
yet
for
the
breach
hereof
(
Exek.
17.
)
he
is
threatned
with
the
losse
of
all
.
Shall
he
break
the
Covenant
and
be
delivered
—
as
I
live
saith
the
Lord
surely
my
Oath
and
Covenant
that
he
hath
broken
even
it
will
I
recompence
upon
his
head
.
And
in
the
midst
of
Babylon
he
shall
die
.
Here
was
ane
Oath
,
forced
upon
a
prisoner
,
and
a
King
of
Judah
,
and
upon
the
matter
inconsistent
with
Israels
Laws
,
made
that
the
Kingdom
might
be
base
,
yet
the
breach
of
it
was
thus
terribly
revenged
:
Therfore
much
more
dreadfull
is
the
breach
of
our
solemn
vows
,
whose
matter
is
of
such
high
importance
,
and
their
end
so
excellent
,
and
the
power
imposing
so
native
and
Lawfull
&c.
What
sayes
he
to
this
Argument
?
he
tells
us
,
that
the
Iews
were
commanded
to
submit
to
the
King
of
Babylon
(
Ier.
27.
6.
&c.
)
so
that
the
breaking
of
the
Oath
was
disobedience
to
Gods
command
.
But
who
denyes
this
,
and
what
doth
this
arguing
reprove
?
doth
not
his
Doubter
and
himself
also
suppose
the
matter
of
the
Covenant
to
be
consonant
to
Gods
command
.
But
how
takes
he
away
these
nerves
,
and
t●…ckling
points
of
this
instance
and
argument
for
the
Covenant
.
1.
That
this
Oath
was
forced
upon
him
as
a
prisoner
.
2ly
,
taken
by
Zedekiah
out
of
fear
.
3ly
,
had
a
very
apparent
Inconsistency
with
a
greater
good
,
viz.
to
free
Gods
Church
and
people
from
a
heathen
slavery
.
4ly
,
was
cross
to
many
standing
Laws
of
Israel
,
yet
neither
the
force
of
this
heathen
Invader
,
in
imposing
this
Oath
,
nor
the
fear
and
bondage
of
this
King
of
Israel
when
he
did
take
it
,
nor
the
apparent
inconsistency
of
its
matter
with
a
greater
good
,
and
its
certain
inconsistency
with
the
standing
Laws
of
Israel
,
did
loose
the
Oath
when
taken
,
nor
exeem
the
breaker
of
it
from
wrath
and
Judgement
.
And
all
this
because
it
was
upon
the
matter
warrantable
,
and
allowed
of
God
,
as
we
hold
the
Covenant
to
be
.
And
therfore
neither
force
,
fear
,
bondage
,
the
greater
apparent
good
in
breaking
it
,
nor
the
inconsistency
of
it
with
our
present
Laws
,
none
of
all
these
pretences
(
we
say
)
will
loose
the
Oath
of
our
Covenant
,
the
matter
of
it
being
warranted
of
God
,
and
of
such
high
importance
as
is
said
.
Sure
it
is
obvious
to
any
that
this
answer
of
his
,
sayes
nothing
to
the
antecedent
or
consequent
of
this
argument
for
the
Covenant
,
nor
touches
it
in
the
least
.
The
Doubter
objects
next
[
the
mark
of
the
blessed
man
(
Psalm
15.
4.
vers
.
)
swearing
to
his
own
hurt
and
not
changing
.
]
In
answer
to
which
this
Informer
grants
,
that
in
many
things
a
man
may
swear
to
his
hurt
and
not
change
.
This
is
sound
,
and
in
so
far
he
must
grant
,
that
the
Oath
may
hinder
many
goods
and
yet
not
for
all
that
be
violat
.
And
in
recompence
of
this
concession
I
readily
yeeld
to
him
,
that
ane
Oath
will
not
bind
to
a
mans
hurt
in
every
thing
,
as
to
take
away
his
own
life
.
And
that
such
ane
Oath
binds
only
to
repentance
,
as
being
iniquitatis
vinculum
.
But
what
will
he
say
to
this
argument
which
he
makes
his
Doubter
here
mutter
out
?
Why
,
when
it
hurts
(
saith
he
)
those
in
authority
and
peoples
soules
,
it
will
not
bind
.
True
,
but
how
doth
the
keeping
of
the
Covenant
hurt
peoples
soules
,
or
these
in
authority
?
we
read
much
in
Scripture
of
the
hurt
that
breach
of
Covenant
hath
brought
upon
both
these
.
But
how
a
peoples
keeping
Covenant
with
God
wrongs
either
their
soules
or
these
in
authority
,
we
would
gladly
hear
.
Dare
he
say
that
every
disobedience
to
the
command
of
Rulers
,
impeaches
their
authority
?
or
that
peoples
want
of
the
means
and
ordinances
of
life
,
is
to
be
imputed
to
Godly
suffering
ministers
,
whom
for
keeping
Gods
Covenant
they
have
chased
away
from
their
flocks
&
families
?
As
for
familie
hurt
,
or
in
relation
to
things
of
this
life
,
ther
's
no
question
but
that
ane
Oath
in
many
cases
will
bind
notwithstanding
therof
;
Which
is
the
Judgement
of
all
Interpreters
.
But
now
the
Doubter
having
spent
all
his
arguments
,
hath
only
one
poor
General
left
,
viz.
that
we
are
tender
of
Oaths
.
To
this
he
answers
first
,
by
acknowledging
,
that
we
ought
to
be
considerate
before
we
enter
into
ane
Oath
.
Very
true
,
and
had
we
all
been
so
,
there
had
not
been
so
many
contradictory
and
ungodly
Oaths
,
standing
upon
record
against
Scotland
,
as
this
day
there
are
.
Withall
he
sayes
,
we
should
be
well
advised
before
we
thinke
our selves
discharged
of
an
Oath
.
And
no
doubt
if
he
and
his
party
had
advised
this
better
with
God
,
with
his
word
,
with
sound
Casuists
,
and
their
own
consciences
,
they
had
not
upon
such
poor
grounds
as
we
have
seen
,
first
perjured
themselves
,
and
pleaded
for
others
doing
the
like
.
But
yet
(
saith
he
)
to
think
we
cannot
be
at
all
discharged
of
an
Oath
,
in
a
thing
not
necessary
,
is
to
be
more
tender
then
we
ought
to
be
.
True
:
but
not
to
take
every
matter
of
an
Oath
for
not
necessary
,
which
he
may
have
the
confidence
to
call
so
,
but
cannot
prove
it
,
and
not
to
admit
every
ground
of
discharge
as
lawfull
,
which
such
Adiaphorists
as
he
may
pretend
,
is
to
be
no
more
tender
then
we
ought
to
be
.
But
here
,
our
Informer
will
reach
a
blow
again
at
the
Assembly
1638
,
because
of
their
loosing
Ministers
,
who
entred
by
the
former
Prelats
,
from
their
Oaths
to
them
.
But
where
is
his
discretion
and
tenderness
,
who
objects
this
as
a
fault
of
that
assembly
,
and
yet
dare
not
exhibit
,
nor
offer
to
scanne
their
grounds
mentioned
in
their
act
,
in
reference
to
these
engadgements
?
wherein
,
because
that
Prelacy
is
condemned
in
the
word
(
and
consequently
the
matter
of
these
Oaths
,
)
and
likewise
found
contrary
to
the
priviledges
and
reformation
of
this
Church
,
to
maintain
which
,
the
se
Prelats
themselves
who
exacted
such
Oaths
,
stood
engadged
,
and
such
like
grounds
,
they
prove
them
to
be
Materially
sinfull
,
iniquitatis
vincula
,
and
from
the
beginning
null
or
never
obliging
,
and
do
not
pretend
(
as
he
)
to
loose
from
Oaths
antecedently
lawfull
and
binding
.
Besides
,
Prelats
being
removed
,
this
Oath
supposing
their
existing
power
and
office
,
was
ipso
facto
null
and
void
,
as
the
souldiers
military
Oath
to
the
captain
upon
the
disbanding
of
the
armie
,
and
so
its
root
was
plucked
up
.
Sublata
causa
tollitur
effectus
.
Sublato
relato
tollitur
Correlatum
.
So
that
he
gets
but
a
Wound
to
his
cause
,
in
kicking
thus
against
the
pricks
.
But
he
tells
us
,
that
he
will
come
yet
nearer
with
an
other
argument
,
and
so
he
had
need
,
for
the
preceeding
have
never
yet
come
near
our
cause
nor
his
designe
.
Well
what
is
this
?
Commissaries
(
he
saith
)
were
abjured
in
the
Covenant
,
as
officers
depending
upon
the
abjured
bierarchy
,
yet
we
ownd
them
,
before
Bishops
were
restored
,
and
why
may
not
he
,
the
abjured
Bishops
also
.
But
will
he
suffer
a
Reverend
father
Bishop
Lighton
to
answer
for
us
,
and
shew
him
the
disparity
of
our
Commissariot
(
a
meer
civil
administration
,
influenced
and
authorized
by
superiour
civil
Governours
,
as
a
part
of
the
politicall
constitution
of
the
Kingdom
)
with
a
Church
office
.
In
his
first
letter
anent
the
Accommodation
,
printed
in
that
piece
entituled
,
The
case
of
the
accommodation
examined
,
he
will
tell
him
,
that
though
we
have
the
name
of
Commissaries
yet
they
excercise
not
any
part
of
Church
discipline
.
Which
he
sets
down
,
expresly
to
distinguish
them
from
the
Commissaries
abjur'd
in
the
2d
Article
of
the
Covenant
.
Now
,
the
difference
of
this
owning
our
Commissaries
in
Scotland
,
from
owning
and
swearing
fealty
to
the
Bishop
as
a
Church
officer
,
in
all
his
Spirituall
usurpations
,
is
so
palpable
,
that
any
may
see
the
impertinency
of
this
instance
even
in
Bishop
Lightons
Judgement
.
Moreover
,
we
abjure
in
the
Covenant
all
Ecclesiastical
officers
depending
upon
that
hierarchy
.
But
will
he
dare
to
say
that
the
Commissary
,
whose
administration
is
properly
Civil
,
and
when
the
Covenant
was
taken
had
not
the
least
dependance
upon
a
Prelat
,
was
an
Eclesiastical
officer
depending
upon
that
hierarchy
.
Surely
the
meanest
capacity
may
discover
the
vanity
of
this
argument
.
The
Doubter
objects
this
,
[
that
the
Commissaries
did
not
then
depend
upon
the
Bishops
,
and
therfore
might
be
ownd
as
not
contrary
to
the
Covenant
.
]
To
this
he
answers
,
that
upon
this
ground
of
a
non-dependance
upon
Bishops
,
we
might
have
ownd
a
Dean
at
that
time
,
or
a
Bishop
,
as
having
no
dependance
upon
an
Arch-bishop
;
and
that
he
cannot
see
why
any
member
of
the
hierarchy
under
the
highest
,
might
not
have
been
owned
and
retaind
on
this
ground
,
as
well
as
the
Commissary
.
Ans.
The
disparity
is
manifest
to
any
of
Common
sense
;
the
Dean
sua
natura
is
an
Ecclesiastick
officer
,
and
the
very
office
denotes
a
relation
unto
,
and
Ecclesiastick
dependance
upon
a
prelat
,
in
spirituall
administrations
:
so
that
Prelacie
being
laid
aside
,
and
the
hierarchy
smoothed
to
Presbyterian
Parity
and
Government
,
the
Dean
is
a
meer
Chimaera
,
and
so
is
the
diocesan
Bishop
,
and
can
no
more
subsist
,
the
basis
and
fountain
of
his
very
office
qua
talis
,
or
as
such
,
being
removed
and
extinct
.
But
the
Commissary
(
a
civil
officer
and
Magistrat
)
his
administration
,
of
its
own
nature
civill
,
depends
upon
,
and
is
regulat
by
,
superiour
civil
Rulers
,
and
so
in
that
case
subsists
intirely
as
a
part
of
the
civil
Government
,
where
prelacie
is
abolished
;
and
can
no
more
be
scrupled
at
,
because
a
prelat
did
somtime
usurpe
an
authority
over
that
office
,
then
the
office
of
the
Lord
high
Chancellour
,
or
any
other
civil
office
of
state
,
and
inferiour
offices
theron
specially
depending
,
because
somtime
a
Prelat
was
Chancellour
,
and
usurped
authority
in
these
matters
,
ought
to
be
disowned
or
scrupled
at
upon
this
account
.
2ly
,
He
sayes
,
this
answer
comes
near
to
what
he
said
before
,
anent
the
English
divines
who
hold
,
only
that
complex
frame
to
be
abjured
in
the
2d
article
,
which
consists
of
all
the
officers
there
enumerat
.
Ans.
1.
It
is
more
then
he
hath
proved
,
that
the
English
divines
do
owne
(
even
sigillatim
or
apart
)
all
these
officers
,
or
looke
upon
themselves
as
only
obliged
against
that
complex
frame
consisting
of
all
the
officers
enumerat
in
that
article
.
We
heard
before
out
of
Timorcus
(
whom
Bishop
Lighton
in
that
letter
,
and
the
Informer
himself
cites
,
as
holding
that
our
Prelacie
is
consistent
with
the
Covenant
,
and
whom
they
appeal
unto
in
this
debate
)
that
they
disowne
all
Prelacie
,
where
one
single
person
exerciseth
sole
power
in
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
,
all
Prelacie
beyond
a
Proestos
,
and
particularly
the
name
and
thing
of
Arch-Bishops
,
Bishops
,
Deans
,
Chapters
,
Arch
Deacons
.
Timorcus
in
the
7.
Chap.
adds
,
—
all
Bishops
not
Chosen
by
the
clergie
and
people
—
all
Bishops
who
act
by
Deans
,
prebends
,
and
exercise
their
power
by
Chancellours
,
Commissaries
&c.
Doth
not
the
article
it self
abjure
,
all
ecclesiastical
officers
depending
on
that
hierarchy
.
So
that
though
we
did
come
near
to
what
they
say
in
this
answer
,
we
come
never
a
whit
nearer
him
.
2ly
,
we
told
him
already
that
the
Commissaries
office
is
properly
Civil
,
though
usurped
upon
by
the
Prelat
,
so
that
when
purged
from
this
usurpation
,
and
running
in
the
channell
of
a
meer
civil
administration
,
influenced
and
authorized
by
Superiour
civil
Governours
,
as
a
part
of
the
political
constitution
of
the
kingdom
,
it
falls
not
within
the
compass
of
an
Ecclesiastical
officer
depending
on
the
hierarchy
,
by
his
own
Confession
,
and
Bishop
Lightons
.
How
then
was
the
owning
of
him
before
the
introduction
of
Prelacie
,
contrary
unto
the
Covenant
.
But
because
he
suffered
not
his
poor
Doubter
to
tell
him
that
the
Commissary
,
besides
that
in
our
late
times
,
he
did
not
depend
upon
the
Bishop
,
is
really
and
upon
the
matter
with
us
a
Civil
,
not
a
Church
officer
,
he
thinks
to
surprise
him
with
a
third
answer
.
That
now
the
Comissaries
do
actually
depend
upon
the
Bishops
,
yet
we
scruple
not
,
nor
decline
their
Courts
and
authority
,
and
if
we
decline
them
not
(
as
according
to
our
Principles
we
are
oblidged
)
how
are
we
free
of
perjury
?
and
if
we
can
acknowledge
a
Commissary
notwithstanding
the
Covenant
,
why
may
not
he
also
a
Bishop
.
Ans.
What
poor
tatle
is
this
?
we
told
him
already
that
the
Commissariot
is
of
it self
a
lawfull
Civil
administration
,
not
ane
Ecclesiastical
function
,
and
the
prelats
usurped
authority
cannot
render
this
civill
office
unlawfull
.
Wheras
the
dicoesan
Bishops
office
,
is
a
pretended
Ecclesiastical
function
,
and
in
its
very
nature
a
gross
corruption
,
and
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
,
as
is
above
cleared
.
Which
disparity
is
palpable
to
any
that
will
but
open
their
eyes
.
Do
we
abjure
any
Civil
courts
or
officers
in
that
article
?
are
they
not
termd
expresly
Ecclesiastical
officers
who
are
there
abjured
:
Nay
,
doth
not
Timorcus
tell
us
that
in
England
the
Commissaries
exercise
a
power
in
Church
discipline
by
a
delegation
from
the
Bishop
.
And
doth
not
Bishop
Lighton
deny
this
to
be
competent
to
our
Commissaries
here
.
For
in
that
passage
of
the
letter
now
cited
,
he
sayes
we
have
nothing
but
the
name
of
Commissaries
,
he
means
in
respect
of
these
in
England
,
who
exercise
ecclesiastical
discipline
under
the
Bishops
.
Didoclavius
pag.
458.
Cites
Cowellus
in
Interprete
,
about
the
office
of
the
Bishops
Commissary
in
England
,
speaking
thus
,
Commissarij
vox
Titulus
est
Ecclesiasticae
Iurisdictionis
(
saltem
quousque
commissio
permittit
)
in
partibus
Diocesios
a
primaria
Civitate
tam
Longe
dissitis
ut
Cancellarius
subditos
ad
principale
consistorium
Episcopi
citare
non
potest
&c.
That
is
,
that
Commissary
in
England
is
a
title
of
Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction
so
faras
his
commssion
will
allow
in
places
which
are
so
far
remote
from
the
cheif
city
of
the
diocess
,
that
the
Chancellour
without
great
molestation
cannot
cite
them
to
the
Bishops
cheif
court
.
Didoclavius
tells
us
(
ubi
supra
)
that
according
to
the
Statutes
of
England
,
the
Chancellour
is
the
Bishops
principal
officiall
,
&
the
Commissary
the
Bishops
foraneous
officiall
.
To
conclude
,
1.
The
Bishops
power
as
to
Civills
,
and
their
deputation
of
this
their
power
to
Chancellours
is
a
most
gross
usurpation
,
Contrary
to
the
Scripture
,
which
forbids
the
Minister
to
entangle
himself
with
things
of
this
life
.
Our
Lord
himself
would
not
so
much
as
be
an
arbiter
in
a
civil
Cause
.
Paul
speaking
of
the
ministerial
duties
,
saith
who
is
sufficient
for
these
things
.
The
Apostles
must
Give
themselves
continually
to
the
Word
.
Cartwright
against
the
Rhemists
upon
2.
of
Tim.
2.
4.
Proves
that
pure
antiquitie
Knew
nothing
of
prelats
thus
medling
,
citing
Jerome
(
super
Sophon
.
cap.
1.
)
who
expounds
that
place
against
Ministers
medling
in
Secular
affaires
.
And
Cyprian
,
who
applies
this
place
against
one
who
took
upon
him
to
be
executor
of
a
Testament
:
Lib.
1.
Epist.
9.
concil
.
Carthag
.
4.
Cap.
20.
Apostol.
can
.
(
Can.
6.
)
Seculares
Curas
non
Suscipite
.
Likewise
Ambrose
,
who
affirmes
that
Worldly
Government
is
the
weakning
of
the
priest
.
(
Lib.
5.
Epist.
33.
)
Smectimnuus
(
pag.
32.
Sect.
10.
)
cites
concil
.
Hispall
.
2.
Cyprian
Epist.
28.
against
this
deputation
of
prelats
power
to
Chancellours
,
Commissaries
&c.
and
Brings
in
Bishop
Dounham
aknowledging
(
Defens
.
Lib.
1.
)
that
in
Ambrose
time
and
a
good
while
after
,
which
was
about
the
year
400.
till
presbyters
were
wholly
neglected
,
the
Bishops
had
no
ordinaries
,
vicars
,
Chancellours
,
Commissaries
,
that
were
not
Clergie
men
.
But
this
restriction
they
affirme
to
be
a
meer
blind
,
and
Challeng
him
to
shew
any
such
under-officers
of
Bishops
in
those
times
.
So
that
they
hold
this
to
be
one
main
point
of
difference
betwixt
their
Bishops
,
and
the
primitive
Bishops
.
2dly
,
in
England
,
not
only
hath
the
Commissary
a
Civil
administration
under
the
Bishop
,
but
hath
Likewise
power
of
Spiritual
censures
,
and
a
great
part
of
the
Bishops
ecclesiastical
administration
,
committed
unto
him
both
over
Ministers
and
others
;
such
as
suspension
,
deposition
,
excommunication
:
See
Didoclav
.
(
pag.
464
,
465.
de
officialibus
)
Cartwright
(
2.
repl
.
part.
2.
pag.
69.
)
who
shews
that
the
prelats
not
only
exercise
Tyrrany
themselves
over
the
Church
,
but
bring
it
under
subjection
to
their
very
Servants
,
yea
their
Servants
Servants
such
as
Chancellours
,
Commissaries
&c.
3ly
,
it
is
clear
that
since
the
reformation
we
never
had
in
Scotland
such
Commissaries
;
but
our
Law
and
practice
since
that
time
,
and
since
Popish
Prelacies
were
dissolved
,
hath
much
reduced
them
to
the
state
&
Quality
of
other
civil
officers
,
whose
administration
of
its
own
nature
depends
upon
superiour
civil
officers
.
For
this
we
have
(
as
I
said
)
Bishop
Lightons
own
Confession
,
that
we
have
but
the
name
of
Commissaries
here
,
who
have
nothing
to
do
with
Church
discipline
;
Only
their
civil
power
is
invaded
again
by
the
Prelats
.
4ly
,
B
Lighton
and
this
Informer
do
both
plead
,
that
its
only
the
officers
enumerat
in
the
2d
Article
of
the
Covenant
,
and
the
Commissaries
as
then
moulded
&
Existent
in
the
Church
of
England
,
that
this
Oath
oblidges
against
.
And
so
according
to
their
Principles
and
pleading
,
our
Commissary
here
,
so
vastly
discrepant
from
theirs
,
falls
not
within
the
compass
of
the
Covenant
abjuration
.
Hence
finally
,
the
owning
of
the
Commissary
in
his
Lawfull
civil
administrations
,
can
be
no
acknowledgement
,
either
,
1.
of
the
English
Commissaries
Power
,
which
he
hath
not
.
Nor
2dly
,
of
the
Prelats
usurpation
upon
this
civil
office
;
no
more
then
the
simple
using
of
our
civil
Laws
,
and
the
ordinary
civil
courts
during
Cromwells
usurpation
,
was
a
homologating
the
wickedness
therof
,
which
this
man
will
not
dare
to
assert
.
An
usurper
may
be
in
titulo
,
and
such
submission
and
improvement
of
the
civ●…l
power
invaded
by
him
,
as
doth
acknowledge
the
providentiall
Title
,
and
his
being
possessed
of
the
power
de
facto
,
and
having
as
they
use
to
say
jus
in
re
,
or
actual
providential
possession
therof
,
If
there
be
no
active
concurrance
towards
his
Establishment
,
is
,
as
to
civills
,
free
of
any
guilt
of
the
usurpation
,
and
will
import
no
acknowledgement
of
the
usurper
his
Pretended
jus
.
Which
is
the
Judgement
of
all
sound
divines
and
Casuists
.
But
the
case
is
far
different
as
to
our
Informers
deriving
his
deputed
Ecclesiastical
Ministery
or
spiritual
authority
from
the
Bishop
;
because
,
1.
the
Prelats
office
it self
is
a
gross
usurpation
,
contrary
to
the
Scripture
,
so
is
not
the
Commissaries
office
.
2dly
,
the
Pelats
usurped
possession
of
unlawfull
power
over
the
Church
,
which
is
Christs
Kingdom
,
cannot
give
him
so
much
as
a
providentiall
Title
;
and
therfore
all
acknowledgement
therof
is
unlawfull
.
Thirdly
,
his
submission
to
prelacy
as
now
it
stands
Circumstantiat
,
is
an
acknowledgement
both
of
the
possession
,
and
jus
,
which
this
man
will
not
deny
,
and
this
is
far
dictinct
,
from
an
act
which
doth
but
indirectly
acknowledge
the
usurpers
possession
.
So
that
his
Conformity
is
ane
express
acknowledgement
and
owning
of
a
gross
encroachment
upon
Christs
Kingdom
(
his
Church
)
which
is
toto
Coelo
different
,
from
acknowledging
a
possession
de
facto
of
,
and
a
Providential
title
unto
,
a
part
of
the
civil
administration
of
the
Kingdoms
of
the
world
,
which
are
mutable
.
And
as
for
a
testimony
against
this
usurpation
,
I
suppose
that
had
the
people
of
God
disowned
these
civil
courts
,
upon
this
ground
of
the
Covenant
obligation
,
his
party
,
for
the
preceeding
reasons
,
had
signally
cried
out
against
it
,
as
an
AnaBaptistical
rejecting
of
Lawfull
civil
Government
,
more
then
he
doth
upon
this
Pretence
,
alledge
a
homologating
of
Prelacie
,
in
this
acknowledgement
.
But
however
,
we
say
,
that
the
people
of
God
their
notour
and
standing
testimony
against
Prelacie
it self
as
now
Established
,
doth
sufficiently
reach
this
among
other
its
usurpations
,
although
this
piece
of
civil
Government
be
eatenus
or
in
its
own
nature
and
as
such
,
owned
as
formerly
.
But
now
our
Informer
charges
us
with
another
breach
of
Covenant
,
upon
the
ground
of
schisme
,
which
he
sayes
,
we
are
carrying
on
in
opposition
to
the
peace
and
liberty
of
this
Church
,
which
Christ
has
bequeathed
to
her
in
legacie
.
This
heavy
charge
we
would
gladly
know
how
he
will
instruct
,
and
because
he
cannot
stay
to
discuss
that
point
in
this
dialogue
,
we
will
therfor
supersed
our
enquiry
here
,
and
pass
over
to
his
third
dialogue
,
and
Examine
therin
the
grounds
of
this
accusation
,
which
we
doubt
not
to
discover
,
to
be
as
Irrational
,
as
these
examined
in
the
preceeding
Dialogues
.
A
Confutation
Of
the
Third
DIALOGUE
,
Upon
the
point
Of
SEPARATION
.
Wherein
upon
exhibiting
the
true
state
of
the
Question
,
the
practise
of
adhering
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
,
and
denying
of
a
subjection
to
Conformists
as
the
lawful
Pastours
of
this
Church
,
from
whom
Gods
people
are
bound
to
receive
the
ordinances
,
is
vindicat
from
the
charge
of
a
sinfull
Schismatick
separation
,
the
true
and
solid
grounds
of
this
practise
offered
,
and
the
Informers
arguments
against
it
,
fully
answer'd
.
CHAP.
I.
The
question
stated
and
cleard
,
from
our
Churches
state
before
,
and
since
the
introduction
of
Prelacy
,
the
different
condition
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
Conformists
▪
Separation
in
many
cases
not
Schisme
.
The
Informers
groundless
suppositions
.
Arguments
presented
and
prosecuted
at
some
length
,
whereby
this
practise
is
acquit
of
the
charge
of
a
sinfull
separation
,
and
discovered
to
fall
under
Scripture
precepts
and
obligations
as
duty
.
THE
state
of
the
Question
in
the
third
Dialogue
,
is
anent
sinfull
separation
and
Schism
;
whether
the
people
of
God
be
guilty
of
it
in
adhering
to
such
Ministers
as
contend
for
our
Reformation
,
rather
then
Curats
or
Conformists
;
And
whether
they
stand
in
this
case
of
our
Church
)
oblig'd
to
adhere
to
the
one
or
the
other
,
as
their
true
Pastours
,
from
whom
they
are
to
receive
the
gospel
ordinances
,
and
to
whom
they
owe
subjection
,
reverence
,
and
obedience
accordingly
.
This
state
of
the
Question
our
Informer
cannot
in
the
least
pick
a
quarrel
at
,
it
being
most
suitable
unto
his
pleading
,
which
is
all
along
grounded
upon
this
supposition
,
that
conformists
do
stand
in
a
Ministerial
relation
to
this
Church
,
and
professours
therein
:
from
which
he
concluds
peoples
obligation
to
adhere
unto
them
,
as
their
only
true
,
and
proper
Pastours
.
And
in
correspondence
to
this
principle
and
inference
,
doth
universally
and
absolutely
fasten
the
charge
of
intrusion
and
Schism
upon
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
people
,
as
to
their
respective
acts
of
preaching
,
and
hearing
in
their
present
state
and
circumstances
So
that
if
we
can
overturn
this
his
grand
topick
,
&
fortify
the
antithesis
therof
,
he
must
grant
that
all
his
reasoning
in
this
Dialogue
falls
to
the
ground
.
For
clearing
this
let
us
take
a
litle
view
,
first
,
of
our
Church
of
Scotland
her
case
at
Prelacies
introduction
.
2ly
,
of
her
present
case
.
3dly
,
of
the
different
grounds
which
the
Presbyterian
and
Prelatick
partie
plead
upon
,
for
the
peoples
adherence
.
4thly
,
on
whose
side
the
separation
stands
.
Schism
is
a
sinfull
separation
from
a
Church
,
with
whom
,
&
in
what
acts
we
are
bound
to
adhere
.
So
that
when
this
Question
is
cleared
,
who
are
that
Church
to
which
we
stand
under
obligations
to
adhere
,
it
will
go
far
to
clear
this
debate
.
First
,
As
to
the
state
of
our
Church
at
Prelacies
Introduction
,
I
shall
l●…y
down
these
three
suppositions
in
relation
to
the
matter
of
fact
.
First
,
that
our
Church
from
the
infancie
of
her
Reformation
,
together
with
popry
rejected
Prelacy
,
and
in
her
National
capacitie
,
and
in
her
supreme
Judicatories
disowned
it
as
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
,
as
a
piece
of
Antichrists
wicked
Hierarchy
:
And
in
her
National
capacitie
abjured
the
same
often
,
solemnly
,
and
universally
.
This
hath
been
already
clear'd
upon
the
preceeding
Dialogue
.
2ly
.
Presbyterian
Government
hath
been
look't
on
by
our
Church
,
as
the
only
Government
of
the
Church
appointed
by
Christ
in
Scripture
,
and
as
the
hedge
of
her
reformed
Doctrine
.
Nay
the
owning
of
it
hath
been
the
great
badge
and
Criterion
,
to
try
her
true
members
;
the
subscribing
the
books
of
Discipline
,
and
the
nationall
Covenant
of
old
,
and
the
solemn
league
of
late
,
with
engadgements
of
adherence
to
Presbyterian
Government
,
have
been
the
ordinary
door
of
entry
into
her
Ministry
.
This
,
as
to
mater
of
fact
,
is
clear
and
undeniable
.
3ly
,
Our
Church
hath
Judicially
condemned
E●…astianisme
,
and
Ministers
their
state
offices
,
and
appointed
Judicially
the
censuring
of
the
opposers
of
this
her
establishment
as
scandalows
,
Assembly
38.
Sess.
16
:
17.
Confirmed
and
renewed
in
Assembly
39.
So
Assembly
40.
Sess
5.
In
the
2d
place
,
as
to
our
Church
her
present
condition
,
these
things
are
clear
and
undeniable
.
1.
That
all
the
legall
right
of
the
late
work
of
Reformation
is
removed
in
the
act
rescissory
.
2.
Presbyterian
Government
is
raz'd
,
and
the
Church-Government
monopliz'd
in
the
Arch
Bishops
and
Bishops
,
obtruded
upon
this
Church
:
And
the
right
and
liberties
of
Presbyters
and
all
our
former
Church-Judicatories
is
removed
and
taken
away
.
3ly
,
Ane
arbitary
and
Erastian
Prelacy
is
set
up
in
opposition
,
both
unto
our
Churches
intrinsick
power
of
Government
,
and
likewise
her
particular
frame
of
Presbyterian
Government
.
4.
All
her
vowes
and
great
Oaths
both
in
the
National
Covenant
,
as
explaind
An.
1638.
And
in
the
solemn
League
against
Prelacie
,
and
for
maintaining
her
reformation
,
are
disown'd
,
raz'd
,
and
cassat
,
as
far
as
legall
enactings
can
reach
.
5.
Ane
express
bad●…e
is
appointed
as
to
both
Ministers
and
people
their
owning
this
course
of
defection
,
and
disowning
the
late
reformation
viz.
ministers
submitting
to
Erastianism
and
Prelacy
and
owning
their
new
courts
;
and
peoples
hearing
their
vi●…ars
and
substitutes
,
for
the
same
scope
in
th●…
rulers
diclaird
designe
.
6.
Ministers
betwixt
three
and
four
hundred
disown
,
and
stand
in
opposition
to
this
course
,
and
a
great
part
and
body
of
the
professours
of
this
Church
have
likewise
disownd
the
same
,
&
stood
their
ground
.
Hence
upon
what
is
said
,
it
followes
in
the
7th
place
,
that
ane
ax
is
laid
to
the
root
of
her
reform'd
Doctrine
,
Worship
and
Government
;
The
great
hedge
thereof
is
removed
,
viz:
her
solemn
vows
:
and
beside
,
her
doctrinall
principles
anent
the
Antichrist
and
his
Hierarchy
,
the
Churches
intrinsick
power
of
Government
,
Christian
libertie
,
the
unlawfulness
of
significant
ceremonies
in
Gods
Worship
;
her
Doctrine
anent
Justification
,
the
Imperfection
of
obedience
,
Christs
certain
,
determinat
,
and
full
satisfaction
for
sinners
,
in
opposition
to
the
Socinian
and
Arminian
errors
;
The
morality
of
the
Sabbath
&c.
are
opposed
by
this
innovating
prelatick
partie
.
And
next
,
for
her
Worship
(
beside
what
corruptions
are
already
introduced
,
and
others
pleaded
for
,
as
the
perth
Articles
&c.
)
It
is
,
upon
the
matter
,
subjected
to
mens
arbitrary
impositions
;
And
our
National
Covenant
and
Conf●…ssion
is
disownd
,
ae
stricking
against
popish
corruptions
,
and
also
our
late
confession
as
asserting
the
above-mentioned
Doctrine
&
principles
.
And
for
Government
,
the
Curats
are
meer
slaves
of
Prelats
,
in
all
their
meetings
by
his
negative
voice
,
and
the
Prelats
themselves
are
but
the
Magistrats
creatures
.
And
thus
as
our
late
consession
is
disownd
in
relation
to
several
doctrinal
points
of
Christian
libertie
,
moralitie
of
the
Sabath
,
free
election
,
&c
so
likewise
in
relation
to
its
principles
as
to
Church
Gobernment
,
and
Christs
appointing
Officers
,
lawes
,
and
censures
,
as
head
of
his
Church
,
his
not
giving
the
keys
to
the
civill
Magistrat
&c.
Wherein
our
prelatick
party
are
come
so
great
a
length
that
the
late
theses
from
St
Andrews
an.
81
,
daines
that
Assembly
of
Divines
whose
confession
is
authorirized
by
the
generall
Assembly
of
this
Church
,
with
no
other
name
then
that
of
a
conventicle
.
8ly
,
Our
Churches
case
is
now
worse
then
when
prelacy
was
introduced
by
King
James
.
The
Limitations
of
Erastianism
by
the
Act
of
Parliament
An.
1592.
in
relation
to
her
priviledges
concerning
heads
of
religion
,
heresy
,
excommunication
,
and
censures
,
clear
this
.
Next
,
Church-Judicatories
were
not
discontinued
,
but
sat
upon
their
old
ground
;
and
Prelats
were
restored
by
Parliament
to
their
civil
dignities
only
.
Hence
9ly
.
It
s
clear
that
this
pure
Presbyterian
Church
hath
been
meerly
passive
as
to
all
these
innovations
lately
introduced
;
her
true
representatives
or
lawfull
Assemblies
never
having
consented
to
this
course
of
conformity
,
as
appears
by
the
Assembly
38.
Their
act
anent
these
meetings
,
at
Linlithgow
1606
;
at
Glasgow
1610.
at
Aberdeen
1616.
At
St
Andrews
1617.
at
Perth
1618.
Which
consented
to
Prelacie
;
All
which
meetings
they
demonstrat
to
be
contrary
in
their
frame
and
constitution
,
to
the
priviledges
of
this
Church
.
And
at
prelacies
late
erection
Presbyterian
Judicatories
and
Synods
were
preparing
a
Iudicial
Testimonie
,
before
they
were
raisd
.
So
that
the
voice
of
our
lawful
Assemblies
is
still
heard
in
opposition
to
this
course
;
&
since
Prelacies
erection
we
have
never
had
so
much
as
a
shadow
of
ane
Assembly
&c.
For
the
3d
point
,
viz.
the
different
grounds
which
the
Presbyterian
and
prelatick
party
(
and
this
man
particularly
)
do
plead
upon
,
for
the
peoples
adherence
;
take
it
shortly
thus
,
the
prelatists
do
plead
first
,
that
they
are
Ministers
,
and
in
that
relation
to
this
Church
.
2lv
.
That
corruptions
in
administrators
will
not
(
according
to
our
own
principles
)
warrand
separation
from
ordinances
.
3ly
,
they
plead
order
,
and
union
,
which
(
they
allege
)
is
broken
by
peoples
withdrawing
.
These
are
the
cheif
topicks
they
insist
on
.
On
the
other
hand
Presbyterian
Ministers
plead
for
disowning
them
according
to
the
forementioned
state
of
the
question
,
first
,
from
this
that
the
body
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
&
professours
adhering
to
our
Churches
reformation
,
principles
,
and
priviledges
,
are
the
pure
genuine
Church
of
Scotland
,
tho
now
fled
into
a
wilderness
;
whose
voice
we
are
called
to
hear
as
her
true
Chiidren
.
2ly
,
that
this
course
of
conformity
is
a
meer
intrusion
on
this
Church
,
and
invasion
of
Christs
Kingdome
,
prerogatives
and
ordinances
,
subjecting
the
lawes
,
officers
and
censures
of
his
Church
unto
men
,
exauctorating
&
putting
in
officers
without
his
warrand
;
that
Prelats
,
and
their
deputes
consequently
,
have
no
right
to
officiat
as
Ministers
in
this
Chuich
.
Since
both
the
one
and
the
other
are
arrand
intruders
upon
the
same
,
and
promoters
of
this
Schismatick
destroying
course
of
defection
.
3ly
,
that
our
Churches
divine
right
and
claim
to
her
priviledges
stands
fast
,
notwithstanding
the
present
encroachments
and
invasions
thereof
;
and
her
Childrens
obligation
of
adherence
to
the
same
accordingly
.
4ly
,
That
hence
it
followes
,
because
of
the
nature
and
tendency
of
this
course
of
defection
,
that
all
are
obliged
to
keep
themselves
free
from
the
least
accession
to
it
,
and
therefore
to
disown
Curats
;
both
as
maintaining
principles
contrary
to
the
principles
and
doctrine
of
this
Church
,
and
as
standing
in
a
stated
opposition
to
her
,
&
likewise
as
the
obiects
of
her
censure
,
if
she
were
in
capacity
to
draw
her
sword
.
That
the
people
of
God
have
both
corrupt
doctrine
to
lay
to
their
charge
,
beside
the
corruption
Worship
;
and
also
their
going
out
from
the
fellowship
of
this
Church
,
and
leading
the
people
away
from
our
vowed
reformation
&c.
In
the
4th
place
,
to
come
to
clear
ths
great
point
on
whose
fide
the
separation
stands
,
let
us
premise
these
things
.
1.
Every
separation
is
not
sinfull
,
even
from
a
Church
which
hath
the
essentialls
,
yea
and
more
then
the
essentialls
,
a
man
may
go
from
one
Church
to
another
without
hazard
of
separation
.
But
further
,
in
these
cases
separation
is
not
schism
.
I.
It
if
be
from
those
(
tho
Never
so
many
)
who
are
drawing
back
,
and
in
so
far
as
drawing
back
,
from
whatever
peice
of
duty
and
integrity
is
attaind
.
For
this
is
still
tobe
held
fast
,
according
to
many
scripture
comands
,
as
we
shall
shew
.
So
Elias
when
Gods
Covenant
was
forsaken
,
was
as
another
Athanasius
;
(
I
,
and
I
only
am
left
)
in
point
of
tenacious
integrity
.
2ly
,
if
we
separat
in
that
which
a
Nationall
Church
hath
commanded
us
as
her
members
to
disown
by
her
standing
acts
,
and
authority
,
while
those
from
whom
we
separat
own
that
corruption
.
4.
If
Ministers
their
supposed
separation
be
ane
officiating
as
they
can
have
access
,
after
a
National
Churches
reformation
is
overturnd
,
and
they
persecute
from
their
watchtowers
by
these
overturners
.
For
in
this
case
the
persecuters
separat
from
them
,
and
chase
them
away
.
4.
There
is
a
Lawfull
forbearance
of
union
and
complyance
with
noto
ious
backsliders
,
in
that
which
is
of
it self
sinfull
,
or
inductive
to
it
,
which
is
far
from
separation
strictly
taken
;
The
commands
of
abstaining
from
every
appearance
of
evill
,
and
hating
the
garment
spotted
with
the
flesh
,
do
clearly
include
this
.
5.
Many
things
will
warrand
separation
from
such
a
particular
Minister
or
congregation
,
which
will
not
warrand
separation
from
the
Church
National
;
nor
infer
it
,
by
Mr
Durhams
acknowledgment
(
on
scandal
pag.
129.
)
For
if
scandals
become
excessive
,
he
allowes
to
depart
to
another
congregation
.
6.
There
is
a
commanded
withdrawing
from
persons
and
societies
even
in
worship
;
the
precepts
,
to
avoid
them
that
cause
divisions
and
offences
contrary
to
the
received
Doctrine
,
Rom.
16.
17.
to
come
out
from
among
the
unclean
&
be
separat
.
2
Cor.
6.
17
to
cease
from
instruction
that
causes
to
erre
from
ehe
words
of
knowledge
,
Prev
.
19.
27.
to
save
our selves
from
the
untoward
generation
.
Act.
2.
40
,
will
clearly
import
this
by
consequence
.
2dly
,
This
charge
of
sinfull
separation
which
they
put
on
Gods
people
supposes
many
thigs
which
must
be
proved
,
as
first
,
that
the
Prelats
and
their
adherents
,
are
the
only
true
organick
Church
of
Scotland
,
which
is
denyed
;
her
frame
and
constitution
being
such
as
it
said
;
surely
the
Ministers
and
professours
adhering
to
her
reformation
must
be
the
true
Church
of
Scotland
tho
the
lesser
number
,
as
they
should
have
been
,
if
this
prelatiok
defection
had
been
intirely
popish
.
These
souldiers
who
keep
the
Gen●…rals
orders
are
the
true
army
,
not
the
deserters
of
the
same
.
Either
the
Church
in
this
Nation
as
lately
reformd
&
constitute
,
and
to
whose
constitution
many
Conformists
vowed
adherence
,
was
not
the
true
organick
protestant
Church
of
Scotland
,
or
this
partie
,
whose
constitution
,
Principles
,
Doctrine
&
practice
,
are
point
blank
contrary
therunto
,
is
not
.
2.
It
supposed
that
there
is
no
lawfull
use
of
ordinances
among
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
as
persons
who
have
no
Lawfull
call
to
officiat
in
this
case
.
Hence
this
man
pleads
for
disowning
them
universally
and
absolutely
;
but
we
affirm
they
are
Ministers
standing
in
that
relation
to
this
Church
,
and
under
the
obligation
of
Christs
comand
to
officiat
,
which
Conformists
have
not
yet
disproved
4.
He
supposes
that
every
thing
which
may
be
expedient
as
to
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
order
of
a
Church
,
when
enjoyning
her
full
peacable
constitution
,
will
equally
oblidge
in
her
broken
and
persecute
condition
,
when
a
prevailing
backsliding
party
is
in
her
bosome
.
Now
;
scripture
and
reasen
will
disprove
this
:
circumstances
of
order
must
give
place
to
important
duties
in
extreme
necessity
as
this
is
:
the
scattered
officers
of
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
,
went
every
where
preaching
the
gospel
(
Act.
8
,
)
so
did
Ministers
in
the
beginning
of
the
Reformation
.
4.
It
is
supposed
that
our
change
is
only
as
to
government
:
and
such
only
as
was
in
King
Iames
time
,
both
which
we
have
showen
to
be
false
.
5.
He
takes
for
granted
that
their
personal
faults
who
are
conformists
,
and
a
supposed
pullution
of
the
worship
therby
,
is
our
ground
of
non-union
;
and
that
our
granting
them
to
have
the
essence
of
a
Ministeriall
call
,
and
that
their
scandals
will
not
pollute
the
worship
,
will
infer
the
hearing
of
them
in
this
our
case
,
which
is
also
false
.
For
even
upon
this
supposition
,
we
are
not
bound
to
owne
them
no
more
then
ane
ingraind
Schismatick
,
obtruded
forcibly
by
a
party
of
the
congregation
upon
the
rest
of
the
people
,
might
be
ownd
on
this
ground
.
6
This
man
begs
the
question
in
supposing
that
the
constitution
and
frame
of
the
Prelacy
now
establish't
,
is
the
same
with
that
of
the
ancient
Church
,
for
he
often
tels
us
that
we
would
have
separat
from
the
ancient
Church
,
upon
the
same
grounds
for
which
we
disown
Conformists
.
Whereas
we
have
shewed
the
difference
of
our
prelacy
from
theirs
in
many
points
.
That
our
prelats
both
as
Diocesian
&
Erastian
,
are
wholly
discrepant
from
the
ancient
Bishops
.
7.
He
takes
it
for
granted
,
that
Ministers
who
disown
this
course
of
backsliding
their
relation
to
their
flocks
is
cut
off
,
in
the
present
posture
of
our
Church
,
and
that
the
Prelats
and
their
substituts
,
(
the
Curats
)
are
the
onely
proper
representative
Church
of
Scotland
,
who
accordingly
have
onely
the
lawfull
power
and
exercise
of
the
keyes
as
to
either
admission
or
censure
of
Ministers
.
A
principle
alwayes
disowned
by
our
Church
.
See
Protesters
no
subverters
(
pag.
96.
)
Rutherfoords
due
right
of
Presbyt
.
[
pag.
430.
431.
]
Altare
Damasc.
(
pag.
23.
)
8.
He
supposes
that
its
unlawfull
in
this
our
case
to
officiat
,
ren●…tente
Magistrat●…
;
that
this
very
violence
and
the
present
Lawes
will
render
Ministers
officiating
unwarrantable
[
pag.
205.
]
which
is
a
great
mistake
,
for
the
Magistrat
cannot
loose
from
the
pastoral
relation
which
he
gave
not
,
ejusdem
est
constituere
&
destituere
.
A●…esmedull
.
[
cap.
30.
thes.
14.
And
hence
the
Ministers
relation
to
the
Church
Nationall
stands
,
tho
he
restrain
the
exercise
thereof
in
any
one
place
;
and
consequent
ly
the
tyes
and
commands
to
officiat
;
so
that
disobeying
the
Magistrats
command
not
to
officiat
,
is
no
disobedience
to
his
lawful
authority
.
Nay
Apollonius
thinks
that
the
divine
relation
of
a
Minister
to
this
Church
,
tho
banisht
from
his
native
country
,
doth
stand
.
Ius
Majestatis
circasacra
part.
1.
pag.
331.
(
9.
)
He
still
supposes
that
,
what
will
not
exse
,
or
of
it self
plead
for
disowning
the
hearing
of
the
gospel
,
or
of
a
Minister
simpliciter
,
will
plead
nothing
in
this
our
case
for
disowning
Conformists
.
The
mans
weakness
,
personal
faults
,
not
lecturing
&c.
are
not
of
themselves
sufficient
to
cut
us
off
from
hearing
absolutely
.
But
tho
this
be
granted
,
we
have
the
pure
genuine
Church
of
Scotland
,
and
her
faithful
Ministry
to
adhere
unto
,
and
over
and
above
these
grounds
mentiond
,
conformists
schismatick
practice
,
and
corrupt
Doctrine
to
lay
to
their
charge
,
which
will
make
this
ground
in
our
case
very
weighty
and
preponderating
;
and
this
the
Informer
himself
must
grant
,
for
he
will
not
say
that
such
like
pretences
or
arguments
in
our
case
,
were
valid
as
to
the
owning
of
Nonconformists
and
des●…rting
of
Curats
.
Moreover
he
will
grant
,
that
Presbyterian
Ministers
might
Lawfully
be
heard
,
if
Conformists
were
not
standing
in
their
way
.
Now
so
the
case
is
in
relation
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
pleading
;
for
that
none
of
these
things
which
he
mentions
were
valid
to
infer
peoples
disowning
of
Conformists
,
were
there
no
other
Ministers
in
Scotland
,
and
if
this
Church
had
universally
,
both
Ministers
and
people
faln
into
this
cou●…se
of
backsliding
,
will
be
readily
granted
;
But
without
any
advantage
to
his
cause
,
as
is
evident
.
To
these
many
discoveries
of
his
begging
the
question
in
this
debate
,
our
plea
and
arguments
will
be
clearer
if
we
add
a
short
view
of
our
suppositions
in
this
case
and
question
.
Such
as
1.
our
principle
of
the
unlawfulness
of
prelacie
.
2.
The
binding
force
of
our
covenants
.
3.
Our
Churches
divine
tight
to
her
Reformation
and
priviledges
once
establisht
.
4.
that
this
is
a
case
both
of
defection
,
and
persecution
.
5.
of
competition
betwixt
Ministers
&
professours
contending
for
our
Reformation
,
and
a
party
of
backsliders
overturning
it
.
6.
The
tendency
of
this
course
of
Prelatick
defection
,
to
raze
our
Reformation
;
and
that
if
not
prevented
;
it
will
end
in
propery
.
7.
That
Presbyterian
Ministers
relation
to
this
Church
,
and
their
obligation
to
duty
founded
upon
that
relation
,
is
not
extinguished
but
subsists
notwithstanding
of
the
present
violence
and
persecution
,
which
they
with
their
weeping
mother
are
exposed
unto
.
Having
premised
these
things
,
from
what
is
said
we
may
draw
forth
at
length
the
great
state
of
the
question
thus
,
whether
,
when
the
Reformation
of
a
National
Church
in
Doctrine
,
worship
,
discipline
and
government
,
is
by
a
backsliding
party
overturnd
,
and
a
course-carryed
on
to
raze
it
,
God
having
left
a
considerable
body
of
Ministers
&
professours
,
who
stand
in
opposition
to
that
course
,
and
are
in
their
capacities
testifying
against
it
,
are
these
Ministers
and
professors
who
preach
and
hear
in
opposition
to
that
course
,
or
the
complying
Ministry
and
hearers
,
the
scismaticks
?
This
being
clearly
the
state
of
this
question
,
we
shall
offer
these
arguments
to
fortifie
our
principle
of
disowning
conformists
in
this
our
case
,
and
denying
a
subjection
to
them
as
the
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
and
adherence
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
,
and
acquit
this
principle
and
practise
from
the
Informers
charge
of
sinfull
separation
.
1.
Whoever
of
the
two
partiss
adhere
unto
the
true
genuine
Church
,
owning
her
constitutions
,
authoritie
and
priviledges
,
its
certain
the
contrary
party
must
be
the
schismaticks
;
here
it
must
be
seen
who
are
the
first
departers
,
who
have
first
broken
the
hedge
,
who
have
first
disownd
and
opposed
the
Covenants
,
the
Government
,
the
sound
and
pure
doctrine
of
this
Church
,
in
complyance
with
persecuters
,
surely
they
and
they
only
are
the
schismaticks
.
Had
not
this
invasion
been
made
upon
our
Church
and
her
priviledges
,
what
would
have
been
her
Judgement
of
the
present
principles
and
practices
of
Conformists
in
any
of
her
Lawfull
courts
?
would
they
not
have
been
judged
censurable
as
the
worst
of
Schismaticks
?
Now
,
what
is
the
difference
here
,
except
,
that
this
party
makes
the
greater
number
;
but
will
this
take
away
the
charge
of
schism
?
suppose
a
party
of
notorious
schismaticks
should
cry
ou●…
upon
such
as
withdraw
from
them
as
schismaticks
,
were
not
this
a
ridiculous
charge
;
and
Just
so
is
that
of
Conformists
in
this
case
.
2.
Every
schism
supposes
ane
obligation
of
adherence
to
that
Church
from
which
the
separation
is
made
.
Now
then
,
let
him
prove
ministers
obligation
to
joyn
into
this
Prelatick
course
(
without
which
they
will
not
admit
them
to
officiat
)
and
disprove
our
prior
obligations
to
opposeit
;
or
else
Ministers
obligation
to
preach
,
and
peoples
consequently
to
hear
in
opposition
to
this
course
of
defection
,
will
stand
good
on
the
old
grounds
,
and
all
the
scripture
comands
(
founded
on
Pastours
of
this
Church
their
Ministerial
relation
)
to
set
the
trumpet
to
their
mouth
,
and
give
a
Ministerial
testimony
against
this
defection
,
and
peoples
obligation
to
hear
and
take
warning
,
will
press
and
plead
for
that
which
he
calls
schism
and
a
sinfull
separation
.
3.
Hence
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
professors
are
in
this
their
practise
never
toched
,
by
all
his
arguments
and
defences
,
but
these
are
weapons
in
their
hands
against
him
and
the
conforming
party
.
1.
Whereas
he
pleads
the
essence
of
the
ministeriall
call
,
which
conformists
lay
claim
unto
,
Presbyterian
Ministers
answer
,
that
Nonconforming
Ministers
have
this
,
that
they
are
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
and
have
a
better
right
to
officiat
as
her
true
pastours
then
Prelatists
.
And
if
this
will
not
plead
for
hearing
Non-conformists
,
why
shall
this
argument
be
thought
valide
for
hearing
Curats
?
is
not
the
same
way
from
Athens
to
Thebes
,
and
from
Thebes
to
Athens
?
if
his
concession
touching
the
essence
of
their
Ministerial
call
,
will
not
(
with
him
)
infer
hearing
Non-conformists
,
because
of
their
supposed
schism
:
Ergo
a
fortiori
it
will
not
infer
the
hearing
of
Curats
,
who
really
are
such
.
2.
he
pleads
that
corruptions
,
and
failings
in
administrators
,
or
even
some
corruptions
in
ordinances
,
will
not
infer
disowning
of
Ministers
.
Why
then
pleads
he
for
disowning
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
ordinances
adminis
red
by
them
,
to
whom
this
is
so
clarly
applicable
.
3ly
,
he
pleads
union
.
But
let
him
say
,
what
was
the
order
and
union
of
this
Church
before
these
innovations
?
was
it
ane
union
under
Prelacie
,
Erastianism
,
and
persurious
breach
of
Covenant
;
was
not
our
Churches
Reformation
in
doctrine
,
worship
,
discipline
and
Goverment
,
a
beautiful
order
and
union
?
Now
who
broke
this
?
supppose
we
should
Plead
union
,
against
his
withdrawing
Presbyterian
professours
from
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
will
he
owne
this
pleading
?
or
not
rather
disowne
it
,
because
he
thinks
our
union
is
schismatical
;
well
,
so
we
hold
and
do
prove
the
prelatick
union
to
be
:
&
therefore
untill
he
disprove
our
charge
against
his
party
,
this
pleading
is
null
.
4.
Divines
,
do
tell
us
(
particularly
Timorcus
chap.
7.
page
32.
)
that
a
sinfull
separation
which
falls
within
the
compass
of
schism
,
is
from
the
communion
of
a
Church
as
walking
according
to
the
divine
rule
;
otherwise
,
if
the
Churches
deviation
specially
be
great
,
there
is
no
fear
of
any
guilt
by
schism
in
departing
from
it
;
and
hence
infers
,
that
unless
absolvers
can
instruct
that
prelacy
is
juris
divini
,
disowning
and
abjuring
it
cannot
be
schismatical
.
Moreover
this
man
himself
grants
,
that
schism
in
its
ordinary
acceptation
,
is
taken
for
a
causless
separating
,
and
that
where
communion
with
a
Church
cannot
be
held
without
sin
,
in
that
case
separation
is
necessary
.
Now
then
if
we
can
prove
,
that
our
non
union
is
not
causless
,
and
that
communion
cannot
be
held
with
Conformists
(
in
our
case
and
circumstances
)
without
sin
,
we
are
not
Schismaticks
by
his
oun
confession
.
To
clear
then
this
great
point
of
the
sinfulness
of
owning
them
in
their
demanded
conformity
;
we
offer
these
considerations
.
1.
Owning
them
and
subjecting
our selves
to
their
Ministry
as
the
Pastours
of
this
Church
,
hath
a
palpable
breach
of
Covenant
in
it
as
the
case
now
stands
,
for
all
along
we
must
suppose
its
binding
force
,
and
that
there
is
a
considerable
body
of
Ministers
&
professours
contending
for
it
,
and
that
the
question
is
,
to
which
of
the
parties
contending
we
are
bound
to
adhere
,
and
that
according
to
our
principles
anent
its
binding
force
,
and
the
unlawfulness
of
Prelacie
,
which
this
man
cannot
disprove
.
The
owning
of
them
in
the
manner
above
expressed
is
a
breach
of
Covenant
many
wayes
.
specially
as
this
man
pleads
for
it
,
with
a
totall
disowning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
their
Ministry
.
In
this
case
it
is
a
resiling
from
what
we
have
attain'd
in
point
of
reformation
,
contrary
to
the
first
article
,
wherein
we
are
bound
to
maintain
purity
of
worship
and
Doctrine
as
then
establisht
.
Now
their
preaching
is
for
the
most
part
consisting
of
corrupt
doctrine
contrary
to
our
Reformation
?
And
their
prayers
have
severall
petitions
with
which
we
cannot
joyn
,
such
as
for
prospering
Prelats
and
their
courses
;
Not
to
speak
of
the
abrogating
the
lecture
,
repeating
of
the
creed
at
baptism
,
singing
a
set
forme
of
conclusion
,
or
what
innovations
in
worship
are
introduced
.
Again
,
this
is
a
concurience
with
promoters
of
this
course
of
backsliding
,
and
a
suffering
our selves
to
be
withdrawen
from
our
union
engadged
unto
,
and
a
denyall
of
suteable
assistance
to
faithfull
Ministers
contending
for
the
Covenant
against
backsliders
,
all
which
are
contrary
to
the
other
articles
thereof
.
This
will
be
specially
clear
,
if
it
be
further
considered
.
That
1.
The
body
of
presbyterian
Ministers
being
ejected
,
if
disown'd
in
the
manner
and
extent
pleaded
for
by
this
Informer
,
the
presbyterian
interest
,
and
our
Reformation
according
to
the
Covenant
,
will
be
extinct
,
sold
and
betrayed
.
2.
Hearing
Curats
and
peoples
subjecting
themselves
to
their
Ministry
as
the
Pastours
of
this
Church
.
is
by
the
Rulers
required
as
a
direct
badge
and
Test
of
owning
Erastianism
and
prelacie
,
in
opposition
to
the
Covenant
&
work
of
Reformation
:
So
that
its
a
case
of
confession
,
now
to
adhere
to
a
faithfull
Ministry
contending
for
it
.
3.
Ther
's
no
other
way
to
exoner
our
consciences
before
God
and
the
World
,
and
Declare
our
nonconformitie
to
this
course
of
backsliding
,
but
by
this
practice
,
there
is
no
getting
of
wrongs
redrest
,
or
corruptions
in
the
Ministry
removed
.
Thus
the
Apology
pag.
272.
4.
We
are
in
the
Covenant
engadged
against
Indifferency
,
in
this
great
work
of
Reformation
,
and
is
not
this
the
way
to
fall
into
it
more
and
more
.
5.
We
engadge
that
we
shall
endeavour
,
that
this
work
of
Reformation
shall
remain
inviolable
to
posterity
.
But
what
memory
shall
the
posterity
have
of
this
work
if
prelats
and
curats
be
thus
submitted
unto
?
6.
We
engadge
opposition
in
our
capacity
to
all
prelatick
malignant
enemies
of
the
Lords
worke
and
interest
;
but
how
is
it
performd
when
we
thus
strengthen
their
hands
,
in
their
avowed
opposition
therunto
.
7.
How
assist
we
and
Defend
in
this
common
cause
of
Religion
and
liberty
,
such
as
enter
into
this
league
,
when
we
thus
Divide
from
our
suffering
brethren
,
wound
and
offend
them
and
shake
off
a
faithfull
Covenant-keeping
Ministry
.
8
How
maintain
we
our
reformed
Doctrine
,
worship
,
and
union
,
when
thus
owning
false
prophets
,
and
the
instruction
that
causeth
to
err
from
the
words
of
knowledge
,
and
such
as
cause
Divisions
and
offences
contrary
to
the
Doctrine
we
have
Learnd
.
Prov.
19.
27.
Rom.
16.
17
,
18.
9.
How
maintain
we
the
priviledges
of
our
Church
and
her
Reformed
Government
?
when
owning
intruding
prelats
and
their
creatures
as
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
and
disowning
her
true
Ministers
,
now
taking
her
by
the
hand
.
This
practice
is
ane
approving
of
Curats
call
and
mission
,
rather
then
that
of
presbyterian
Ministers
,
which
no
man
will
deny
to
be
contrary
to
the
Covenant
.
Next
,
owning
and
adhering
to
Curats
in
this
our
case
,
and
according
to
our
principles
,
hath
an
accession
to
much
guilt
otherwise
,
such
as
.
1.
The
owning
of
a
palpably
blasted
,
and
Disowning
a
palpably
sealed
Ministry
.
2
A
high
reflection
on
the
sufferings
of
many
Godly
upon
this
ground
.
3.
A
shutting
of
our
eyes
against
Ministerial
Discoveries
of
the
sin
and
duty
of
the
time
.
4.
A
casting
of
our selves
on
tentations
of
greater
complyance
.
5.
A
breaking
of
fellowship
with
these
that
are
contending
for
Gods
worke
and
denying
a
sympathy
with
them
,
yea
a
trampling
on
their
blood
which
has
been
shed
on
this
ground
.
6.
A
disowning
the
Ministeriall
authority
,
and
tearing
the
commission
of
Christs
faithfull
Ambassadours
,
and
depriving
our selves
of
the
blessing
and
benefit
of
their
Labours
&c.
5.
This
practice
of
denying
a
Subjection
to
the
Ministry
of
Conformists
,
and
of
our
Rulers
demanded
conformity
therin
unto
the
present
course
of
defection
,
will
be
found
to
fall
under
great
scripture
obligations
,
such
as
1.
The
obligation
of
persevering
in
integrity
,
and
holding
it
fast
.
Colos.
1.
23.
Heb.
10
:
23.
Psal.
25.
21.
Supposing
prelacy
unlawfull
,
and
the
binding
force
of
the
Covenants
in
reference
to
all
the
work
of
reformation
as
it
stood
establisht
,
this
practice
is
clearly
cross
to
the
premised
obligation
,
both
as
ane
acknowledgement
of
prelacy
and
Erastiani
me
,
and
also
as
a
Disowning
of
faithfull
Ministers
.
2.
The
obligation
of
keeping
at
the
greatest
Distance
from
sin
,
exprest
Jude
23.
1
Thess.
5.
22.
1
Tim.
5.
22.
will
infer
Disowning
Curats
in
this
case
.
1.
All
Direct
,
or
interpretative
consent
to
sin
,
is
here
Discharged
.
2.
A
practice
otherwise
lawfull
,
will
on
this
ground
become
inexpedient
hic
&
nunc
.
We
must
not
eat
in
the
case
of
offence
,
tho
we
may
freely
eat
all
meats
Rom.
14.
14.
1
Cor.
10.
25.
Now
on
the
forementiond
Suppositions
,
the
owning
of
Curats
hath
an
accession
to
their
sin
,
beyond
that
of
ane
apearance
or
a
touch
,
It
being
both
a
Deserting
the
presbyterian
Ministry
,
and
a
badge
of
conformity
to
Erastian
prelacy
,
and
all
the
corruption
and
defection
of
the
time
,
which
is
therby
advanc'd
&
promoted
,
't
is
also
in
this
case
of
competition
,
a
deliberat
adherence
to
the
prelatick
rather
then
presbyterian
interest
.
3.
The
great
obligation
of
a
testimony
to
truth
and
Duty
,
exprest
Heb.
10.
23.
Mat.
10.
32.
will
plead
for
this
practice
,
All
truth
must
be
avowed
,
&
practically
avowed
.
We
must
walk
circumspectly
,
or
exactly
as
the
Word
imports
,
&
we
must
avow
truth
&
duty
on
the
greatest
hazard
;
even
the
smallest
mater
is
great
,
when
a
testimony
is
concernd
in
it
,
were
it
but
the
circumstance
of
an
open
window
,
Daniel
durst
not
ommit
it
upon
the
greatest
hazard
.
And
as
this
testimony
must
be
full
,
so
must
it
also
be
constant
.
Demas
shame
is
,
that
the
aflictions
of
the
gospel
made
him
forsake
the
Apostle
after
great
appearances
for
Christ
,
and
embrace
this
present
world
.
And
beside
,
whatever
truth
or
duty
is
opposed
,
that
becomes
the
speciall
object
of
this
testimony
.
Hence
Ministers
and
Professours
in
their
capacity
are
called
to
contend
for
this
Work
of
Reformation
;
and
Ministers
silence
as
to
a
Ministerial
testimony
against
this
course
of
backsliding
,
and
people's
disowning
them
,
and
adhering
to
Conformists
,
is
so
palpably
cross
therunto
,
as
nothing
can
be
more
.
4.
This
practice
is
inferd
from
the
scripture
obligation
,
to
guard
against
the
slumbling
and
offending
our
brethren
,
exprest
2
Cor.
6.
3.
Math.
18.
6.
1
Cor.
10.
32.
Here
is
Discharged
any
Dictum
vel
factum
quo
alius
deterior
redditur
,
saith
Polanus
.
Whatever
practice
gives
occasion
of
our
brothers
sinning
,
of
calling
truth
in
question
,
of
acting
with
a
Doubting
conscience
,
or
which
weakens
his
plerophory
or
assurance
,
is
here
discharged
.
And
neither
the
lawfulness
nor
Indifferency
of
the
thing
it self
,
nor
mens
Authority
commanding
it
,
Nor
the
weakness
,
yea
or
wickedness
of
those
in
hazard
to
be
stumbled
,
will
warrand
the
Doing
of
that
out
of
which
offence
arises
.
Paul
Declares
all
meats
lawfull
,
yet
will
not
eat
in
case
of
offence
1
Cor.
10.
25.
1
Cor.
8.
13.
This
Declaring
of
the
lawfulness
of
that
practice
,
is
equivalent
to
any
civill
Declarator
or
Law
which
alters
not
the
nature
of
scandal
.
Paul
will
not
have
the
weak
stumbled
Rom.
14.
1
,
2
,
3.
1
Cor.
8.
11
,
12.
Nor
give
occasion
to
the
malicious
who
desired
occasion
2
Cor.
11.
12.
Now
owning
of
Curats
as
the
case
is
now
circumstantiat
doth
harden
them
in
their
apostacy
,
and
hath
a
tendency
to
wound
the
peace
of
the
godly
who
dare
not
owne
them
,
or
may
provoke
them
to
act
against
their
light
;
and
therefore
unless
owning
them
could
be
proved
a
necessary
duty
,
as
matters
now
stand
,
the
premisd
scripture
obligation
will
infer
it
to
be
sinfull
.
5.
disowning
conformists
will
clearly
follow
from
the
scripture
obligation
,
to
turn
away
from
seducers
,
and
such
as
turn
aside
from
Gods
way
.
2
Tim.
3.
1.
The
apostle
having
given
a
large
Induction
of
evills
adhering
to
these
in
the
last
dayes
,
putting
among
the
rest
of
their
black
Theta's
,
Covenant
breaking
,
concludes
his
discovery
with
this
grand
precept
(
ver.
5.
)
from
such
turn
away
.
We
must
beware
of
false
prophets
,
the
concision
,
and
of
such
as
walk
not
according
to
the
received
ordinances
,
Math.
7.
15.
Rom.
16.
17.
Philip.
3.
2.
2
Thess.
3.
6.
Christs
sheep
do
flee
from
the
stranger
,
and
hear
not
his
voice
.
Iohn
.
10
,
27.
1.
All
promoters
of
wayes
contrary
to
the
simplicity
of
the
gospel
,
are
here
commanded
to
be
eschewed
.
2.
We
must
know
and
discover
such
by
their
fruits
and
practicall
unfaithfulness
,
as
well
as
false
Doctrine
,
Mat.
7.
16.
compared
with
2
Tim.
3.
These
that
practically
act
the
foxes
Cant.
2.
15.
are
to
be
taken
away
,
and
consequently
eschewed
,
the
saints
must
be
fortifyed
against
these
that
ly
in
wait
to
deceive
,
God
disowns
these
that
make
sad
the
hearts
of
the
godly
and
strengthen
the
hands
of
evill
doers
.
Ezek
13.
22.
such
as
stand
not
in
his
counsel
Ier.
33.
22.
&
cause
people
to
err
by
their
lies
and
lightness
.
Ier.
26.
32.
Now
upon
the
forementiond
suppositions
its
clear
that
Conformists
are
leading
aside
from
our
Reformation
,
opposing
the
principles
&
priviledges
,
of
this
Church
;
they
are
Covenant
breakers
from
whom
we
are
to
turn
away
;
they
are
speaking
peace
to
the
wicked
,
and
healing
the
wound
slightly
,
and
are
ruling
with
force
and
rigour
Ezek.
34.
4.
1
Pet.
5.
3.
Witness
their
present
violence
.
6.
This
practice
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
officiating
in
opposition
to
this
course
,
and
peoples
adherence
to
their
Ministry
,
is
inferr'd
from
the
scripture
obligation
of
many
terrible
charges
and
adjurations
laid
upon
Ministers
,
in
reference
to
a
faithfull
diligence
in
their
Ministerial
function
,
and
a
suteable
Ministerial
testimony
concerning
the
sin
and
duty
of
the
time
,
which
is
necessarly
inclusive
of
their
peoples
reciprocal
diligence
,
in
attending
their
Ministry
,
and
their
obedience
and
faithfull
adherence
accordingly
.
They
are
commanded
to
cry
aloud
and
shew
the
people
their
sin
Isa.
58.
1.
and
as
they
would
not
have
the
blood
of
souls
upon
them
,
to
give
faithfull
warning
touching
sin
and
duty
,
and
their
peoples
case
and
hazard
,
especially
in
times
of
great
sin
and
judgement
,
when
God
is
terribly
pleading
his
controversy
with
them
Ezek.
3.
17.
hence
they
are
enjoyned
to
be
instant
in
season
and
out
of
season
,
reproving
,
rebuking
and
exhorting
with
all
long
suffering
and
Doctrine
2
Tim.
4.
1.
And
as
faithfull
watchmen
on
Ierusalems
walls
,
never
to
hold
their
peace
day
nor
night
till
she
be
establisht
,
and
made
a
praise
in
the
earth
Isa.
62.
6.
to
fulfill
and
make
full
pro●…fe
of
their
Ministry
Colloss
4.
17.
And
as
these
comands
in
order
to
Ministerial
diligence
,
do
singularly
oblige
herunto
in
this
case
,
so
the
scripture
woes
and
threatnings
thundered
against
Ministers
negligence
and
unfaithfulness
,
are
very
convincing
and
awakening
.
See
Ezek.
chap.
3.
and
chap.
13.
5.
6
:
Hence
on
the
forementiond
suppositions
it
clearly
followes
.
1.
That
Ministers
are
oblidged
to
be
constantly
instant
in
season
and
out
of
season
,
in
their
Ministerial
testimony
against
this
course
of
defection
.
2.
This
case
of
defection
and
persecution
ampliats
and
extends
this
duty
to
all
to
whom
they
can
have
access
,
as
the
scattered
preachers
Acts.
8.
Went
every
where
preaching
the
gospel
,
after
that
persecution
that
arose
about
Stephen
.
3.
This
Ministerial
testimony
upon
the
forementioned
grounds
,
must
be
levelled
at
all
the
corruptions
of
the
times
,
and
all
the
branches
and
degrees
of
our
defection
.
4.
The
duty
and
obligation
of
the
people
of
God
,
is
reciprocall
and
commensurable
therunto
.
And
if
hearing
Curats
and
disowning
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
be
not
inconsistent
with
this
great
obligation
,
let
any
Iudge
.
6.
That
part●…
in
a
Reformed
Church
,
which
having
overturnd
her
Reformation
,
hath
shut
out
,
laid
aside
,
and
persecute
away
sound
adherers
therunto
both
Ministers
and
professours
,
and
will
not
admit
Ministers
to
officiat
,
but
upon
the
sinfull
terms
of
complyance
with
their
way
,
cannot
charge
the
sound
party
with
schism
in
standing
where
they
were
,
&
owning
and
prosecuting
their
respective
duties
,
as
Ministers
and
flocks
,
in
opposition
to
these
overturners
and
backsliders
.
For
this
would
justify
the
most
ingraind
schism
that
ever
was
heard
of
;
Now
so
the
case
is
here
,
for
all
Presbyterian
Ministers
are
cast
out
,
and
they
and
all
sound
professours
adhering
to
them
persecute
,
unless
they
will
retract
their
principles
,
and
conform
to
prelacie
.
Ministers
,
in
taking
up
a
new
tenour
and
exercise
of
their
Ministry
in
a
precarious
servile
dependence
upon
Erastian
prelacy
,
headed
and
influenced
by
a
meer
civil
papacy
;
And
people
,
in
subjecting
themselves
to
the
Ministry
of
the
servile
deputes
of
Erastian
prelates
,
as
a
badge
of
their
hearty
complyance
with
,
and
submission
unto
,
this
blasphemous
supremacy
,
and
consent
to
the
overturning
of
the
pure
constitution
and
reformation
of
this
Church
.
So
that
the
Presbyterians
their
plea
is
an
owning
of
duty
against
Schismaticks
disowning
it
.
Do
not
our
Divines
tell
the
Romanists
on
this
ground
,
that
they
have
seperat
and
persecute
us
away
from
them
,
and
that
therefore
the
schism
lyes
upon
themselves
,
not
on
us
:
So
the
case
is
here
.
Let
this
man
say
,
what
would
have
been
the
judgement
of
our
Church
in
any
of
her
former
judicatories
,
anent
a
party
owning
such
principles
as
Conformists
do
,
and
persecuting
or
casting
out
all
that
oppose
them
,
and
dare
not
concurr
in
their
course
of
backsliding
in
overturning
the
sworn
Reformation
of
this
Church
;
I
dare
appeal
to
the
Informer
himself
,
if
such
would
not
have
been
judged
censurable
as
the
worst
of
Schismaticks
.
And
he
can
assigne
nothing
now
to
turn
or
cast
the
scale
,
no
ground
of
disparity
,
unless
he
place
it
in
this
,
that
prelatists
are
the
greater
number
,
and
have
the
civil
power
on
their
side
.
And
if
this
pityfull
plea
will
carry
it
,
the
Romanists
have
long
since
outweighed
the
protestant
Churches
in
this
debate
,
which
this
man
will
not
for
very
shame
admit
.
7.
This
practice
of
adhering
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
disowning
Curats
,
hath
nothing
of
the
ingredients
of
schismor
,
sinfull
separation
from
this
Church
,
included
therein
,
as
matters
now
stand
,
and
as
the
question
is
stated
on
the
forementioned
hypotheses
.
Which
will
appeare
in
these
cleare
positions
in
the
point
of
schism
(
which
are
evident
in
their
own
light
)
being
applyed
and
brought
home
to
our
present
case
.
1.
Schism
is
a
starting
out
from
under
due
relations
to
a
Church
and
from
her
Ministry
,
and
duties
accordingly
.
But
in
this
our
case
,
and
practise
under
debate
,
Ministers
and
professours
are
pursuing
the
duties
of
their
respective
relation
to
this
Church
,
as
it
stood
reformed
and
establisht
before
these
innovations
,
and
the
Apostat
prelatick
party
are
doing
the
contrary
.
2.
In
a
sinfull
Schismatick
separation
,
it
is
alwayes
supposed
that
the
withdrawing
,
is
from
those
who
are
holding
the
communion
of
the
true
Church
,
otherwise
we
lose
the
basis
and
fundation
of
all
sound
definitions
of
schism
.
But
here
the
persecute
party
are
owning
the
Reformation
of
this
pure
Church
against
a
party
of
separatists
,
who
have
broken
her
order
,
union
,
and
National
vows
;
and
who
are
also
censurable
by
all
her
standing
acts
.
3.
In
a
proper
Schismatick
separation
,
the
principles
and
practice
of
these
from
whom
the
separation
is
made
,
are
supposed
to
be
subservient
to
that
Churches
union
,
right
establishment
,
and
for
maintaining
her
communion
;
but
to
separat
from
those
whose
principles
and
practice
is
a
stated
opposition
(
and
in
so
far
as
an
opposition
)
to
her
purity
and
Reformation
,
is
to
maintain
her
true
union
and
communion
,
and
not
sinfully
to
separat
from
it
.
The
Assumption
as
to
this
practice
under
debate
,
might
be
cleard
by
a
large
induction
of
particulars
.
If
we
take
a
view
of
the
two
parties
(
Presbyterian
and
prelatical
)
their
carriage
in
relation
to
this
Church
:
It
will
be
evident
,
1.
In
general
.
That
Conformists
their
principles
and
practice
,
is
a
direct
impeachment
of
our
establisht
reformation
,
and
that
Presbyterians
are
maintaining
and
adhering
to
the
same
.
2.
Conformists
do
avowedly
disowne
and
abjure
our
Covenants
,
Presbyterians
adhere
unto
and
owne
the
same
.
3.
Conformists
are
breaking
and
dissipating
our
Churches
establisht
order
and
union
,
Presbyterians
are
in
this
practice
contending
for
both
;
the
one
party
is
wounding
our
Church
both
by
persecution
and
reproach
,
the
other
is
taking
her
by
the
hand
,
endeavouring
her
help
and
comfort
in
this
her
deep
distresse
,
and
so
the
Covenant
obliges
to
disowne
the
first
,
and
adhere
to
the
second
.
4.
The
one
is
censurable
by
her
,
the
other
deserves
her
praise
.
Now
can
there
be
any
question
in
this
,
to
which
of
these
parties
people
are
obliged
to
adhere
according
to
the
principles
of
our
Reformation
.
In
the
4th
place
,
In
a
sinfull
separation
as
to
communion
in
worship
,
it
must
be
supposed
,
the
worship
of
that
Church
ownd
and
establisht
therein
,
because
a
party
innovating
herein
,
as
well
as
innovating
in
doctrine
and
government
contrary
to
that
which
is
establisht
,
are
hactenus
,
and
ipso
facto
(
in
this
their
practice
,
and
upon
this
very
ground
)
schismaticks
both
in
their
worship
and
government
.
Therefore
to
disowne
them
therein
can
be
no
schism
;
for
this
would
involve
a
palpable
contradiction
,
that
these
withdrawers
in
this
same
practice
,
and
in
the
same
respects
and
circumstances
therof
,
were
Schismaticks
and
not
Schismaticks
.
Now
prelatists
their
doctrine
is
new
and
odd
,
and
not
the
voice
of
this
Church
.
And
their
worship
,
(
over
and
above
the
corruption
adhering
to
it
)
is
the
worship
of
an
innovating
party
,
and
contrary
to
our
Churches
establisht
order
.
And
therfore
to
disowne
them
therein
is
no
sinfull
separation
from
this
Church
her
fellowship
and
worship
,
while
existing
in
her
sound
and
purer
part
,
and
opposing
these
innovations
.
5.
In
Schismatick
separation
,
the
rent
is
made
in
the
bowels
of
the
true
and
genuine
Church
.
So
that
when
a
schism
and
rent
is
stated
betwixt
a
godly
Ministry
contending
for
a
pure
Churches
Reformation
,
against
an
apostat
party
of
the
Ministry
:
the
sound
professours
stand
preobliged
to
adhere
unto
,
and
strength●…n
the
sounder
part
,
upon
this
very
ground
of
holding
the
union
and
communion
of
that
pure
Church
against
these
backsliders
;
supposing
they
will
rent
and
ruine
her
,
if
not
opposed
:
and
so
the
case
is
here
.
The
union
and
order
of
this
Church
,
is
already
broken
by
the
prelatick
innovators
and
backsliders
,
and
by
them
only
;
so
that
upon
the
supposal
of
this
fixed
schism
,
the
people
of
God
must
adhere
to
the
sound
Church
and
Ministry
.
And
in
this
extreme
necessity
,
the
lesser
obligation
as
to
parochial
order
,
must
give
place
to
the
greater
duties
of
preserving
and
maintaining
the
Churches
union
and
reformation
,
when
a
course
is
carried
on
tending
to
ruine
it
.
6.
Every
sinfull
separation
is
,
from
the
fellowship
of
a
Church
either
in
her
Ministry
,
lawfull
courts
,
or
Worship
and
ordinances
,
according
to
the
various
relations
,
state
and
condition
of
Separatists
,
whether
Church
officers
or
others
.
But
in
this
our
case
,
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
professours
separat
in
none
of
these
respects
from
the
genuine
Church
of
Scotland
.
1.
Ministers
separat
not
from
her
courts
;
for
none
of
her
lawful
courts
are
now
publickly
own'd
or
existent
.
2.
People
separate
not
from
her
Worship
,
as
it
stood
reformed
and
vowed
unto
,
when
they
owne
the
ordinances
dispensed
by
her
true
pastours
,
for
that
only
is
the
true
Worship
of
this
Church
.
Nor
3.
from
her
Doctrine
,
and
a
due
subjection
to
her
faithfull
pastours
in
the
Lord
:
And
therefore
neither
from
the
fellowship
of
her
faithful
Ministers
and
professours
.
Where
is
then
the
Schism
?
Since
both
the
Doctrine
,
Worship
and
Government
of
this
true
Church
are
ownd
,
and
backsliders
and
Schismaticks
only
(
and
as
such
)
are
disownd
.
7.
Schism
supposes
that
these
whom
we
withdraw
from
,
are
such
to
whom
we
are
under
obligation
to
adhere
:
for
it
is
a
breach
of
union
,
which
is
cemented
and
conglutinate
by
the
obligations
and
duties
of
those
who
are
concerned
to
hold
it
fast
;
So
that
where
the
obligation
to
the
duty
in
subserviency
to
this
union
cannot
be
demonstrate
,
to
be
incumbent
upon
such
and
such
persons
,
and
in
such
acts
,
By
whom
and
wherein
this
union
is
to
be
upheld
,
the
charge
of
Schism
upon
these
acts
,
which
are
supposed
to
violat
that
union
,
evanishes
and
falls
to
the
ground
.
But
if
the
person
(
tho
a
Minister
supposed
)
from
whom
the
separation
is
made
,
wants
that
which
immediatly
grounds
this
obligation
of
owning
h●…m
hic
&
nunc
,
as
the
case
stands
circumstantiat
,
in
that
respect
withdrawing
or
non-union
can
be
no
Schism
,
for
else
the
most
ingraind
Schismaticks
might
be
owned
;
the
Informer
himself
must
of
necessity
admit
this
,
for
otherwise
he
will
crosse
and
cut
the
sinews
of
all
his
pleading
and
arguments
which
he
presents
in
this
Dialogue
for
disowning
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
this
our
case
,
for
I
am
confident
that
out
of
this
circumstanciat
case
he
will
grant
that
it
is
no
breach
of
any
of
his
rules
or
reasons
to
hear
them
.
That
[
they
are
Ministers
]
and
[
are
preaching
faith
and
repentance
]
that
[
they
have
a
lawfull
Ministeriall
call
and
ordination
&c.
]
All
these
he
thinks
will
plead
nothing
,
as
the
case
is
now
circumstantiat
,
for
adhering
to
them
,
because
of
that
in
their
present
condition
,
which
outweighs
all
this
,
and
looses
peoples
obligation
to
owne
them
,
which
he
thinkes
is
no
Schism
but
duty
:
Now
,
let
our
Informer
turn
the
tables
;
if
there
be
first
that
in
Curats
present
state
,
which
preponderats
as
to
our
disowning
of
them
now
,
tho
all
that
he
pleads
as
to
their
ordination
,
and
ministerial
call
were
granted
,
it
s
no
Schism
in
this
our
case
to
disowne
them
according
to
his
own
principles
and
pleading
in
this
point
.
2.
He
must
grant
that
denying
to
hear
hic
&
nunc
,
and
in
such
a
complex
case
,
is
different
from
a
denying
to
hear
simpliciter
,
or
disowning
such
a
mans
Ministry
simpliciter
,
or
absolutely
,
as
he
will
grant
that
out
of
this
case
Presbyterian
Ministers
might
be
heard
,
and
that
disowning
them
is
not
simpliciter
a
disowning
a
true
Ministry
or
Church
,
or
them
as
Ministers
;
So
that
its
this
case
of
competition
with
Conformists
,
which
with
him
casts
the
ballance
.
Hence
as
matters
now
are
stated
and
circumstantiat
,
and
upon
our
principles
and
premised
Hypotheses
,
he
must
grant
there
is
that
in
conformists
case
,
which
hic
&
nunc
will
loose
our
obligation
to
receive
the
ordinances
from
them
as
the
ministers
of
this
Church
,
which
is
the
white
in
the
marke
wherat
all
his
arrows
are
shot
.
Such
as
1.
that
we
are
preobliged
by
a
lawful
Oath
to
extirpat
and
disowne
them
.
2.
That
they
are
promoters
of
a
Prelatick
designe
to
ruine
our
Reformation
.
3.
That
they
have
avowedly
disownd
our
Covenants
,
and
that
we
are
commanded
by
the
overturners
of
our
Covenanted
Reformation
,
to
hear
them
as
a
badge
of
our
renouncing
it
;
and
concurring
in
this
course
of
backsliding
.
4.
That
they
are
intruders
,
and
not
entring
in
at
the
door
,
and
in
the
way
and
order
of
this
Church
;
That
they
are
violently
thrusting
out
,
and
persecuting
her
faithfull
Pastours
,
that
they
perjuriously
renounce
a
call
from
the
people
,
and
ordination
by
the
Presbyterie
.
All
which
grounds
he
must
either
grant
will
supersede
our
obligation
to
owne
conformists
hic
&
nunc
according
to
our
principles
,
or
quite
his
plea
and
pleading
as
to
the
disowning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
.
8.
He
pleads
in
the
close
of
the
preceeding
Dialogue
,
that
the
covenant
abjures
Sel
isme
.
Now
let
us
stand
to
this
Decision
;
the
Informer
will
not
be
dissatisfyed
if
I
shall
borrow
one
of
his
topicks
,
and
shoot
ane
arrow
from
his
own
bow
;
I
would
offer
then
to
him
this
syllogisme
.
That
Schism
which
he
pleads
against
is
a
Schism
abjured
in
the
Covenant
:
but
disowning
Conformists
in
their
present
state
&
circumstances
,
&
refusing
to
be
subject
to
them
as
the
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
is
not
a
schism
abjur'd
in
the
Covenant
;
Ergo
,
&c.
The
assumption
I
prove
thus
.
If
the
disowning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
their
present
state
and
circumstances
,
and
withdrawing
from
them
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministerial
function
and
their
Ministerial
testimony
against
prelacy
and
for
the
Covenant
,
be
that
schism
which
is
abjurd
therin
then
a
refusing
to
be
subject
to
Curats
(
against
whom
they
are
testifying
as
the
Covenant
breakers
,
and
upholders
of
prelacy
)
ad
not
owning
them
as
the
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
cannot
be
that
scism
.
Unless
he
will
mak
this
scism
,
such
a
Janus
as
will
cast
a
maligne
condemning
aspect
upon
both
the
contending
parties
,
and
bring
adherers
unto
either
of
the
two
,
under
this
imputation
.
But
so
it
is
that
disowning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
,
is
condemned
in
the
Covenant
as
schism
this
we
have
already
made
appear
,
it
being
a
disowning
of
that
establisht
order
and
union
of
this
Church
which
therin
we
do
swear
to
maintain
,
and
a
schismatical
withdrawing
from
her
faithfull
Ambassadours
and
others
contending
for
the
ends
of
the
Covenant
,
to
adhere
unto
whom
,
and
keep
up
an
union
wi●…h
them
herein
,
the
Covenant
layes
upon
us
an
express
obligation
,
putting
the
imputation
of
schismatick
division
,
and
detestable
indifferency
upon
the
contrary
practice
.
Ergo
,
upon
the
whole
it
follows
evidently
,
that
the
owning
of
Conformists
which
he
pleads
for
in
this
Dialogue
(
viz.
subjection
unto
,
and
receiving
ordinances
from
them
as
the
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
and
denying
this
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
)
is
abjurd
in
the
Covenant
as
Schismatical
.
CHAP.
II.
The
Informers
charge
of
internal
and
external
Schisme
,
put
upon
Non-conformists
:
●…f
impeaching
the
Churches
constitution
,
and
her
practice
in
point
of
Worship
for
more
than
a
1000
Years
,
examind
.
His
argument
from
Rom.
14.
Heb.
10.
25.
answered
,
and
retorted
upon
him
.
His
answer
to
the
argument
taken
from
the
command
of
seeking
the
best
gifts
,
considered
.
As
also
his
argument
from
ancient
canons
,
from
the
Act
of
the
Assembly
1647.
from
the
reciprocal
tye
betwixt
a
Minister
and
his
flock
,
to
fortify
his
charge
of
Schism
,
repell'd
.
HAving
thus
cleard
our
question
and
plea
,
&
fortified
our
practice
with
these
arguments
;
We
come
now
to
examine
the
grounds
on
which
this
new
Casuist
imputes
sinfull
separation
to
us
therein
,
We
acknowledge
the
evil
of
Schism
upon
these
Texts
mentioned
by
him
,
which
might
have
caused
sad
reflectings
on
himself
and
his
party
,
who
are
guilty
of
divisions
and
offences
contrary
to
our
received
ordinances
,
and
the
doctrine
of
this
Church
:
And
so
are
lashed
by
that
Scripture
Rom.
16.
17.
And
who
would
have
have
us
saying
I
am
of
this
or
that
Rabbi
or
Prelat
,
contrary
to
1
Cor.
1
:
12.
It
's
they
who
have
disownd
a
spirituall
pure
unity
with
this
pure
Church
,
and
are
seeking
a
perjurious
union
in
departing
from
God
,
contrary
to
that
precept
Ephes.
4
:
3.
And
are
so
far
from
esteeming
others
in
Lowliness
of
mind
better
then
themselves
,
as
we
are
enjoynd
.
Phil
2.
2.
That
their
Rabbies
trample
on
all
Ministers
;
and
their
underlings
do
most
insolently
persecute
and
despise
faithfull
Pastours
for
adhering
to
the
Reformation
,
authority
,
and
union
of
this
Church
,
against
their
innovations
.
Schism
is
no
doubt
an
evill
which
hath
much
infested
the
Church
,
and
our
Church
:
and
the
Scripture
sufficiently
discovering
the
evill
thereof
we
need
not
Cyprian
,
nor
Jeroms
elogies
anent
unity
,
to
persuaed
it
.
Only
where
he
insinuats
from
that
saying
of
Cyprian
,
which
he
mentions
.
Who
asserts
from
1
Cor.
13.
[
that
who
are
slain
in
their
Schism
,
their
inexpiable
sin
is
not
purged
by
their
blood
,
and
that
they
are
not
Martyrs
]
that
such
is
the
case
of
the
suffering
people
of
God
at
this
time
;
we
may
discern
the
cruell
venome
and
sting
of
this
mans
malice
,
for
all
the
sobriety
which
he
pretends
unto
;
I
shall
only
tell
him
,
that
as
its
more
then
he
will
be
ever
able
to
prove
,
that
the
Lords
remnant
are
guilty
of
this
sin
,
and
are
assembling
out
of
the
Church
,
when
attending
the
Ministry
of
Christs
faithfull
Ambassadours
in
this
Church
,
so
he
and
his
fellows
setting
these
murderers
upon
them
in
this
duty
,
will
(
if
they
repent
not
)
be
exposed
to
that
vengeance
which
the
cry
of
their
souls
under
the
altar
,
who
have
been
slain
for
this
their
Testimony
,
doth
plead
for
.
He
would
also
do
well
to
resolve
this
doubt
upon
Cyprians
Testimony
,
viz.
Whether
Cyprian
did
ever
hold
,
or
if
himself
will
dare
to
assert
,
that
the
blood
and
sufferings
of
the
best
of
martyrs
did
expiat
their
guilt
.
As
for
Jeroms
assertion
[
that
Schism
.
and
Heresy
,
or
some
degree
of
it
go
together
.
]
I
think
it
is
fitly
applicable
to
himself
and
fellow
Conformists
,
who
since
their
departing
from
the
unity
of
this
Church
,
and
her
sworn
Reformation
,
have
not
only
,
to
justify
their
course
vented
gross
errours
in
point
of
Oaths
,
and
otherwise
,
but
are
now
(
as
every
one
sees
)
posting
fast
to
Rome
,
in
denying
many
and
great
points
of
our
Protestant
profession
.
We
accord
to
Augustines
saying
[
that
separatists
(
as
such
)
receive
no
life
from
the
body
]
&
the
unquestionable
godliness
,
&
fellowship
with
the
Father
and
the
Son
,
to
which
many
Presbyterians
are
admitted
,
and
wherein
they
shine
,
compared
with
the
abominable
prophanity
of
the
whole
of
those
almost
that
owne
Curats
,
will
by
this
rule
declare
who
are
the
Schismaticks
,
and
separatists
from
Christs
body
.
The
comment
of
the
Thorn
which
rents
the
lili●…
Cant.
2.
2.
Is
very
suteable
to
him
,
and
those
of
his
way
,
who
have
now
of
a
long
time
rent
the
Lords
faithfull
flock
,
wounded
our
Church
,
and
taken
away
her
vail
:
esteeming
themselves
Christians
of
the
first
magnitude
,
so
he
esteems
his
most
reverend
Arch-Bishops
and
reverend
under-fathers
;
What
pitifull
preambles
are
these
.
The
Doubter
alleadges
[
that
every
separation
is
not
schism
.
]
This
(
as
we
heard
)
he
acknowledges
,
and
that
when
communion
with
a
Church
cannot
be
held
without
sin
,
separation
is
necessary
;
wherein
he
yeelds
all
that
we
plead
;
since
we
have
proved
that
in
this
our
case
,
joyning
to
their
way
and
party
is
in
many
respects
sinfull
;
and
since
he
Instances
the
protestants
plea
for
separating
from
Rome
on
this
ground
,
knowes
he
not
that
the
Papists
tell
us
such
stories
anent
union
with
the
Church
,
and
that
suffering
without
the
Church
is
no
Christian
suffering
,
to
Iustifie
their
bloody
persecutions
,
which
very
well
sutes
his
case
.
And
no
doubt
the
protestants
answer
,
viz.
[
That
we
are
in
Christs
Church
,
because
owning
his
truth
,
tho
separat
from
their
syn●…gogue
,
and
that
notwithstanding
this
pretence
,
the
blood
of
protestant
Martyrs
is
in
their
skirts
]
doth
sute
the
case
of
Presbyterians
in
relation
to
their
persecuters
.
But
the
great
charge
followes
,
viz.
That
we
are
guilty
of
as
groundless
and
unreasonable
separation
,
as
we
shall
read
of
in
any
age
of
the
Church
.
Bona
verba
!
How
is
this
made
good
?
first
,
(
saith
he
)
in
casting
off
Christian
love
which
is
heart
Schism
.
2.
He
chargeth
with
external
Schism
in
separating
in
acts
of
Worship
.
Now
what
if
we
recriminat
in
both
these
,
and
retort
this
double
charge
upon
himself
.
Have
they
not
disownd
the
Worship
of
Presbyterian
ministers
&
Professours
,
and
charged
all
to
separat
from
them
,
meerly
for
non-complyance
with
their
perjured
Prelats
?
2.
Have
they
not
for
many
years
glutted
themselves
with
their
blood
,
I
may
say
sweemd
in
it
,
upon
the
same
very
ground
of
forbearance
as
to
prelatick
complyance
,
and
endeavour
by
multiplyed
lawes
and
Acts
,
to
root
them
out
of
the
very
nation
?
Good
Sir
,
Pull
this
beam
out
of
your
own
eye
,
that
you
may
see
a
litle
clearer
in
this
point
.
But
as
to
the
first
he
sayes
,
that
we
make
difference
in
Iudgement
as
to
lesser
matters
(
Church
Government
)
a
ground
of
difference
in
affection
,
as
if
they
were
no
Christians
who
are
not
of
our
persuasion
in
these
things
,
putting
thus
lesser
points
into
our
creed
,
and
un
unchurching
and
unsancting
all
who
are
not
of
our
persuasion
therin
.
Ans.
As
to
the
first
general
charge
,
I
know
none
more
guilty
then
themselves
,
who
are
contending
with
fire
and
sword
tanquam
pro
aris
&
focis
,
for
these
their
lesser
points
,
and
with
unheard
of
rage
,
seeking
the
ruine
of
all
who
dare
not
comply
in
Judgement
and
practice
with
them
therein
.
2.
I
thinke
Christian
affection
to
their
souls
,
is
best
seen
in
opposing
and
testifying
against
their
soul-destroying
sins
.
Thou
shalt
by
any
means
rebuke
thy
neighbour
,
and
not
suffer
sin
upon
him
is
an
old
standing
rule
.
Levit.
19
:
17.
And
if
they
be
even
hated
in
so
far
as
owning
pernicious
wayes
,
it
s
no
more
then
what
David
avowes
,
Psal
139
:
21
,
22.
do
not
I
hate
them
that
hate
thee
,
I
hate
them
with
a
perfect
hatred
.
I
account
them
my
enemies
,
I
hate
the
work
of
them
that
turn
aside
,
it
shall
not
cleave
unto
me
.
3.
As
we
have
not
so
learn'd
Christ
,
to
call
every
thing
lesser
or
small
po●…nts
,
which
his
latitudinarian
party
have
the
confidence
to
term
thus
,
so
we
know
no
point
of
truth
reveald
and
commended
to
us
in
the
word
,
as
the
object
of
our
faith
and
matter
of
our
practice
,
which
should
be
keept
out
of
our
creed
,
lest
our
saith
become
much
shorter
then
the
Scripture
pattern
.
And
we
acknowledge
not
the
new
patchment
of
mens
Lawes
,
which
this
man
and
his
fellow-Conformists
have
annext
to
their
creed
,
and
which
can
pro
arbitrio
make
or
unmake
these
his
lesser
points
.
But
he
sayes
,
that
we
unchurch
and
condemn
all
Churches
in
all
ages
who
have
ownd
Bishops
,
Liturgies
,
festivals
and
oth●…r
ceremonies
—
And
if
we
make
the
removal
of
these
things
necessary
to
a
Church
,
there
hath
not
been
a
a
Church
for
above
a
1000
yeares
together
Ans.
To
make
the
last
part
of
this
argument
not
to
contradict
the
first
,
he
should
have
said
that
there
has
not
been
a
Church
without
these
things
mentioned
these
1600
years
,
but
the
man
seeing
his
first
flight
or
Rodomontade
too
fierce
;
he
did
well
to
clap
his
wings
closser
.
Upon
a
review
of
this
page
,
I
find
our
Informer
in
this
charge
playes
but
the
pityfull
Camelion
and
versipellis
:
for
finding
that
this
assertion
of
his
,
that
Christians
of
all
ages
since
Christs
time
and
in
all
places
have
own'd
Bishops
,
Liturgies
,
Festival
dayes
and
other
ceremonies
,
would
have
drawn
upon
him
the
heavy
burthen
and
task
of
a
proofe
,
he
lightens
himself
of
this
burthen
,
by
a
prudent
[
almost
]
which
in
this
point
is
very
significant
.
But
his
confining
the
liturgies
,
Festivals
,
and
other
ceremonies
within
the
compass
of
the
last
thousand
years
(
sullied
with
all
popish
abominations
)
appearing
too
simple
inadvertency
,
within
the
compass
of
two
or
three
lines
,
he
secures
it
with
a
[
much
above
.
]
But
lest
this
prove
too
broad
reckoning
,
he
instances
the
second
or
third
century
from
whence
he
sayes
,
we
beginne
our
reckoning
as
to
Bishops
,
festivals
,
liturgies
,
and
other
ceremonies
.
But
1.
why
mends
he
the
matter
so
inadvertently
,
as
to
run
in
such
a
wide
uncertainty
as
the
the
length
of
200
yeares
in
that
calculation
which
he
imputes
to
us
.
2.
I
challenge
him
to
shew
what
presbyterian
writter
did
ever
commence
the
original
of
liturgies
and
festivals
,
with
his
blind
&c.
of
other
ceremonies
(
which
will
travell
who
knowes
whither
,
and
include
who
knowes
what
)
from
the
third
,
far
less
the
second
century
.
I
affirm
that
its
more
then
he
or
any
for
him
can
prove
,
that
the
Church
hath
had
Bishops
,
liturgies
,
and
festivals
since
Christ
.
Our
writters
have
abundantly
proved
the
contrary
;
and
we
challenge
him
to
shew
either
his
Diocesan
Bishops
,
liturgies
,
or
festivals
and
the
&c.
of
his
ceremonies
,
in
the
first
Apostolick
Church
,
or
in
these
two
ages
mentioned
by
him
.
That
there
were
not
diocesan
Bishops
then
or
long
after
,
we
have
already
proved
,
and
far
less
Erastian
Prelats
.
For
holy
dayes
,
let
him
shew
by
divine
appointment
any
other
then
the
Christian
Sabath
,
in
the
Apostolick
Church
if
he
can
,
or
in
the
first
succeeding
ages
.
As
for
the
feast
of
Esther
,
it
is
acknowledged
to
have
come
in
by
custome
after
the
Apostolick
times
.
For
liturgies
,
we
assert
that
the
Apostolick
Church
and
age
knew
no
such
thing
as
set
&
impos'd
liturgies
and
formes
,
other
then
Christs
prescriptions
as
to
baptism
&
the
Lords
supper
,
and
that
they
pray'd
as
was
suteable
to
the
present
action
and
circumstances
of
time
,
place
,
and
persons
;
If
he
betake
him
to
the
liturgies
which
are
ascribed
to
Peter
,
James
,
Mathew
,
Andrew
,
Clement
,
Mark
,
Dionisius
Areopagite
,
and
other
Disciples
:
protestant
writers
will
stigmatize
him
for
embracing
that
which
they
have
abundantly
proved
to
be
counterfit
.
That
liturgies
had
no
place
for
a
long
time
in
the
Church
,
is
proved
by
clear
testimonies
;
Tertullian
(
Apol.
cap.
30.
)
shews
that
in
their
publick
Assemblies
christians
did
pray
sine
monitore
quia
de
pectore
,
that
is
,
without
a
prescription
because
from
their
heart
.
And
in
his
treatise
de
Oratione
sayes
,
that
there
are
somethings
to
be
asked
according
to
the
occasions
of
every
man
—
that
the
Lords
prayer
being
laid
as
a
fundation
,
its
lawfull
to
build
on
that
fundation
other
prayers
,
according
to
every
ones
occasion
.
Agustine
epist.
121.
tells
us
that
liberum
est
,
It
s
free
to
ask
what
was
in
the
Lords
prayer
alijs
atque
alijs
modis
,
some
times
one
way
somtimes
another
.
Likewise
Justin
Martyr
Apol.
2.
tells
us
that
he
who
Instructed
the
people
pray'd
according
to
his
ability
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
We
might
also
tell
him
of
Bishop
Andrews
success
,
or
rather
disappointment
in
seeking
an
old
Jewish
Liturgie
,
which
when
sent
to
Cambridge
to
be
translated
,
was
found
to
be
composed
long
after
the
Jews
rejection
,
so
the
Bishop
being
asham'd
,
suffered
this
notion
to
die
and
the
Liturgie
never
saw
the
light
.
See
Smectim
and
Didoclav
.
pag.
615
,
16
,
17
,
18
,
19.
&
seq.
2.
What
consequence
is
this
,
that
because
we
disowne
a
Schismatick
party
of
Innovators
introducing
these
corruptions
mentioned
:
Ergo
we
disowne
them
as
no
Churches
wherein
these
have
been
admitted
.
Must
we
bring
in
,
or
comply
with
every
corruption
once
purged
out
,
the
retaining
wherof
may
be
consistent
with
the
essence
of
a
true
Church
?
what
consequence
or
reason
is
here
?
Again
,
doth
not
he
and
all
his
brethren
stand
in
direct
opposition
to
the
order
and
government
of
the
Presbyterian
Church
of
this
Nation
,
and
unto
all
that
own
's
the
same
:
will
he
then
admit
this
consequence
that
he
unchurches
her
before
prelacie
came
in
,
and
other
reform'd
Churches
govern'd
Presbyterially
.
So
we
see
himself
must
acknowledge
this
his
reasoning
naught
.
The
Doubter
alledges
[
that
these
things
mention'd
,
are
of
later
date
then
the
Apostles
.
]
To
this
he
answers
that
Bishops
were
from
the
Apostles
time
.
The
contrary
wherof
we
have
proved
either
as
to
diocesan
or
Erastian
Bishops
,
such
as
he
means
,
yea
even
a
proestos
which
in
the
Apostolick
age
had
no
place
,
as
we
have
made
appear
.
Next
,
He
tells
us
that
Polycrates
in
the
debate
about
keeping
of
Esther
with
Victor
Bishop
of
Rome
,
alledged
Iohns
authority
.
But
how
proved
he
this
,
is
the
Question
,
not
what
he
alledged
;
surely
bare
alledging
,
as
in
other
cases
,
so
specially
in
divinity
is
bad
probation
;
Then
he
asks
,
if
we
will
hence
infer
that
they
were
no
good
christians
who
used
these
things
suppose
that
they
came
in
after
the
Apostles
times
?
I
answer
we
thinke
that
in
so
far
as
innovating
they
were
not
Sound
Christians
,
and
so
must
he
thinke
unless
he
will
be
wise
above
what
the
Apostles
have
written
;
Then
he
tells
us
,
that
from
Rom.
14.
It
appears
that
albeit
some
thought
(
he
should
say
understood
and
knew
)
that
by
their
Christian
liberty
they
were
fred
from
the
ceremoniall
Law
and
therefore
made
no
distinction
of
dayes
or
meats
yet
Paul
enjoyn'd
them
to
bear
with
the
weak
,
to
account
them
brethren
,
and
not
despise
them
,
and
the
weak
were
not
to
Iudge
the
strong
.
Ans.
1.
How
proves
he
,
that
the
points
in
controversy
viz.
prelacie
,
laying
aside
our
vows
and
Covenants
,
Erastianism
,
liturgies
,
and
festival-dayes
for
mystical
ends
and
uses
,
are
such
nothings
or
indifferent
matters
,
as
meats
or
dayes
were
at
that
time
,
wherin
pro
re
nata
the
Church
might
use
her
liberty
.
As
for
diocesan
Erastian
prelacy
,
we
have
made
its
antiscriptural
complexion
to
appear
,
so
that
it
is
not
within
the
compass
of
any
Lawfull
liberty
of
the
Church
to
embrace
or
establish
it
;
We
have
also
made
the
binding
force
of
the
Covenants
appear
,
and
that
the
laying
aside
of
them
consequently
,
is
a
horrid
guiltyness
,
which
this
liberty
can
never
be
extended
unto
.
Likewise
the
liturgies
and
imposing
of
set
formes
of
prayer
,
and
adstricting
publick
Worship
therunto
,
have
been
sufficiently
impugned
from
Scripture
and
divine
reason
,
by
several
of
the
godly
learned
,
and
discovered
to
impeach
the
spiritual
liberty
of
Gospel
Worship
.
The
holy
dayes
also
have
with
the
same
evidence
been
impugned
by
our
divines
,
who
have
proven
that
they
do
impinge
upon
our
Christian
liberty
,
are
contrary
to
the
fourth
command
enjoyning
worke
all
the
six
dayes
,
except
on
such
occasionall
fasts
and
feasts
as
are
held
out
in
the
word
,
&
likewise
are
reprobate
by
the
New
Testament
prohibitions
about
superstitious
observation
of
dayes
:
The
Jewish
dayes
being
abrogat
(
as
the
Informer
cannot
but
grant
)
how
dare
we
impose
upon
our selves
a
new
yoke
?
If
it
were
here
pertinent
to
dilate
upon
these
points
,
our
principles
herein
might
be
abundantly
fortifyed
,
and
the
truth
cleard
to
his
conviction
,
and
by
consequence
the
impertinency
of
this
parallel
argument
,
and
his
pityful
p●…
.
1.
10
principii
,
in
equiparating
the
points
now
controvered
with
these
things
which
are
the
object
of
Christian
liberty
.
The
Informers
gives
us
nothing
here
but
magisterial
dictates
.
Again
,
that
tolerance
which
the
Apostle
speaks
of
as
to
dayes
and
meats
,
relates
to
that
time
and
case
only
of
the
weak
Jews
,
when
the
ceremonies
tho
dead
were
not
yet
buryed
(
as
they
were
to
be
honourably
)
especially
while
the
temple
of
Jerusalem
stood
,
and
the
legal
worship
therein
by
Gods
providence
was
continued
.
But
as
these
observances
were
ever
discharged
to
the
Gentiles
(
except
as
to
blood
and
things
strangled
for
that
exigence
only
of
the
weak
Jews
)
so
after
when
christian
liberty
was
known
,
and
this
particular
exigence
was
over
,
and
the
ceremonies
buried
,
It
is
within
the
liberty
of
no
Church
to
unbury
them
,
or
tolerat
these
or
such
like
observances
in
others
.
Finally
this
very
text
condemns
him
,
tho
his
begged
supposition
were
granted
.
For
1.
The
eater
must
not
despise
him
that
eats
not
:
why
then
do
Conformists
pursue
Nonconformists
,
with
such
grievous
punishment
and
Lawes
?
they
not
only
despise
but
persecute
to
the
death
,
and
vilely
reproach
them
;
who
art
thou
that
judgest
another
mans
servant
?
why
then
do
they
Judge
&
censure
Nonconformists
so
highly
in
their
pulpits
and
pamphlets
(
and
the
Informer
in
this
)
as
Schismaticks
,
of
as
deep
a
dye
as
ever
the
Church
was
infested
with
?
2.
He
that
but
Doubts
is
damned
if
he
eat
,
saith
the
Apostle
.
Why
then
do
they
so
violently
press
consciencious
Doubters
to
their
way
?
3.
If
thy
brother
be
grieved
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
with
thy
meat
,
thou
walks
not
charitably
.
Why
then
are
they
so
uncharitable
as
to
grieve
Nonconformists
with
prelatick
exactions
?
if
the
Judging
and
despising
the
forbearer
be
forbidden
,
much
more
are
their
cruell
edicts
and
constraining
Lawes
,
whereby
they
burden
the
consciences
of
tender
forbearers
in
this
case
.
The
practice
of
Victor
as
to
the
Asian
Churches
,
was
no
doubt
highly
uncharitable
,
but
it
was
so
mainly
because
of
his
censuring
about
such
a
trifle
as
Esther-observation
;
&
we
see
from
this
schism
the
sad
effects
of
innovations
;
and
that
the
Churches
unity
&
peace
is
best
keept
by
adhering
to
the
simplicity
of
the
gospel
:
and
so
our
departing
from
the
gospel
simplicity
in
point
of
government
,
and
introducing
abjured
prelacy
,
is
the
chief
ground
of
the
present
schism
,
and
confusions
in
this
Church
.
But
now
followes
our
Informers
main
charge
of
external
schism
,
in
s●…parating
from
the
Churches
communion
in
word
and
sacraments
,
contrary
to
the
apostles
direction
,
Not
to
forsake
the
assemblies
Heb.
10.
25.
It
seems
(
saith
he
)
that
some
then
out
of
pride
and
singularity
for
sooke
the
ordinary
and
orderly
assemblies
of
Christians
.
Ans.
In
this
accusation
his
so
much
boasted
of
charity
is
evaporate
.
What!
No
assemblies
for
worship
in
this
Church
but
among
Conformists
;
doth
he
not
thus
unchristian
and
unchurch
all
the
Assemblies
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
professors
for
worship
?
why
persuades
he
people
to
forsake
these
Assemblies
?
and
who
now
Iudges
another
mans
servant
as
he
,
who
brands
withself-conceit
,
ignorance
,
and
schism
all
these
Assemblies
of
Nonconforming
Ministers
and
professours
,
who
dare
not
comply
with
prelats
.
Again
,
how
proves
he
that
no
assemblies
are
orderly
except
the
Prelatical
?
we
avow
our
meetings
for
worship
,
to
be
the
most
orderly
according
to
our
Churches
established
Reformation
,
and
that
their
Assemblies
are
cross
to
her
constution
,
order
,
and
union
,
both
in
respect
of
Curats
perjurious
intrusion
,
the
doctrine
which
they
deliver
,
and
their
manner
of
worship
,
which
is
cross
to
this
Churches
practice
and
appeintment
;
his
charge
of
schism
and
disorderliness
is
still
begged
,
but
not
yet
proved
;
and
orderliness
is
(
with
him
)
described
from
Church-walls
;
and
as
for
unity
,
why
have
they
east
out
hundreds
of
Ministers
from
officiating
,
because
they
durst
not
joyn
with
Conformists
,
in
their
perjur'd
course
of
defection
?
if
this
man
be
not
here self
convict
,
let
any
Judge
.
Let
him
produce
(
if
he
can
)
in
our
Assemblies
for
worship
,
that
which
is
contraire
unto
the
nature
,
constitution
,
and
worship
of
the
assemblies
mentioned
in
that
scripture
;
and
untill
this
be
,
we
may
on
better
ground
recriminat
this
charge
upon
his
withdrawing
people
from
the
Assemblies
of
Presbyterian
ministers
and
professors
.
The
Doubter
alledges
poorly
that
all
do
not
forsake
their
parochial
Assemblies
,
but
some
do
now
and
then
keep
them
.
He
Answers
,
that
tho
all
withdraw
not
in
alike
degree
,
yet
the
least
degree
is
unwarrantable
—
that
people
advance
from
step
to
step
,
that
some
after
withdrawing
from
them
,
hear
only
the
Indulged
,
or
those
who
have
still
preached
without
conformity
in
their
own
Ch●…rches
,
and
within
a
little
will
hear
none
of
them
;
that
some
hear
in
their
own
Churches
but
will
not
communicat
,
the
reason
whereof
he
cannot
understand
,
since
the
efficacy
of
Sacraments
depends
not
on
the
Minister
,
that
the
lest
degree
of
separation
makes
way
for
a
greater
—
that
Baxter
in
his
cure
of
Church
divisions
,
tells
of
some
turning
separatists
,
who
dyed
Infidels
.
Ans.
He
hath
not
yet
proved
that
the
withdrawing
which
he
mentions
,
is
a
Sinfull
Schismatick
separation
;
and
we
hope
we
have
made
the
contraire
appear
.
As
for
these
degrees
he
mentions
,
we
say
.
1.
His
cruell
uncharitablness
to
Presbyterian
Ministersis
here
very
conspicuous
,
since
he
will
not
allow
them
to
be
in
the
least
heard
or
own'd
in
their
present
case
and
circumstances
.
Certainly
to
tye
up
people
from
occasional
improvement
of
the
various
gifts
which
God
hath
bestowed
upon
his
ministers
,
even
in
a
setled
state
of
the
Church
,
and
in
her
right
constitution
,
is
cross
to
that
interest
in
one
anothers
gifts
and
graces
,
which
the
members
of
Christs
mystical
body
(
upon
the
ground
of
their
union
and
communion
with
the
head
,
and
among
themselves
)
are
priviledged
with
.
And
in
impeaching
this
the
Informer
blotes
himself
with
scismatick
uncharitablenes
of
the
deepest
dye
.
2.
As
it
s
no
strange
thing
that
in
such
a
time
of
darkness
,
desertion
,
and
defection
,
peoples
recovery
be
gradual
,
and
sometime
attended
with
Infirmities
in
the
manner
of
duties
incident
to
us
while
in
time
,
so
the
contrary
influences
of
love
to
truth
and
duty
,
and
fear
of
hazard
,
may
be
easily
productive
of
such
variety
in
the
carriage
of
poor
tender
souls
in
this
matter
.
In
a
word
,
the
Lords
supper
being
a
special
badge
of
our
union
and
communion
in
and
with
Jesus
Christ
,
It
s
no
strange
thing
that
tender
souls
scruple
to
pertake
thereof
from
men
at
so
palpable
a
distance
from
him
,
as
Conformists
,
especially
while
this
ordinance
may
be
enjoyed
more
purely
elswhere
.
He
tells
us
,
that
Schismaticks
ar
cut
off
from
the
body
,
and
receive
no
life
from
it
,
and
(
if
we
may
drawan
inference
and
retortion
from
this
assertion
)
the
people
of
God
must
judge
Conformists
to
be
such
.
For
these
effects
of
separation
which
Baxter
mentions
,
we
bless
the
Lord
the
contrary
effects
of
sound
piety
,
in
many
who
were
prophane
while
owning
the
Ministry
of
Conformists
,
are
convincingly
apparent
,
since
they
separated
from
them
:
and
the
effects
of
backsliding
from
Gods
truth
,
viz.
gross
prophanity
,
or
atheisticall
Indifferency
in
the
matters
of
God
,
are
as
sadly
evident
in
those
who
having
once
own'd
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
have
return'd
to
Conformists
again
.
As
for
what
he
objects
and
answers
,
anent
some
of
their
own
party
going
to
others
then
their
own
parish-Curats
,
whom
unless
insuperable
le
ts
hinder
to
attend
their
own
parish-Church
,
he
would
have
his
fellows
not
to
owne
.
We
are
not
much
concernd
to
notice
any
further
,
then
to
tell
him
that
parvo
discrimine
refert
,
which
of
them
people
go
to
,
the
best
of
them
being
as
a
briar
,
and
the
most
uprights
as
a
thorn-hedge
,
and
all
of
them
blotted
with
such
Schismatick
opposition
to
this
Church
her
pure
constitution
and
principles
,
as
may
put
it
beyond
debate
with
tender
souls
,
(
lovers
of
truth
and
duty
)
that
they
ought
adhere
to
Christs
faithfull
ambassadours
rather
then
any
of
them
.
The
Doubter
objects
,
[
that
its
hard
to
hinder
to
go
where
we
may
be
most
edifyed
;
since
we
must
Cover
the
best
gifts
.
1
Cor.
12.
31.
]
He
answers
1.
that
the
Apostle
is
not
directing
private
Christians
,
what
gifts
in
others
to
seek
after
for
their
edification
,
but
shews
that
though
there
are
diversities
of
gifts
,
and
every
one
should
be
content
with
his
own
,
given
for
the
edification
of
others
,
yet
that
he
should
seek
after
better
,
not
in
others
,
but
in
himself
.
Ans.
Our
Informer
doth
but
trifle
and
deal
deceitfully
in
his
way
of
representing
this
,
and
some
objections
ensuing
;
for
1.
He
supposes
that
this
is
lookt
upon
in
it self
,
as
a
sufficient
ground
of
adhering
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
without
previous
consideration
of
all
the
circumstances
of
our
present
case
;
and
also
in
supposing
that
nothing
casts
the
ballance
(
in
the
Judgement
of
the
objecter
)
as
to
profiting
or
not
profiting
,
but
difference
of
gifts
;
whereas
we
grant
,
that
the
soveraign
Influence
of
Gods
Spirit
,
(
who
teaches
to
profit
)
renders
the
means
and
ordinances
effectual
to
salvation
,
whether
the
Ministers
gifts
be
great
or
small
.
2.
We
grant
,
that
tho
people
have
a
discretive
Iudgement
as
to
gifts
,
and
their
own
profiting
,
and
are
to
try
the
spirits
,
yet
in
a
setled
state
of
the
Church
,
they
are
not
to
shake
off
the
due
regulation
and
guidance
,
of
a
faithfull
Ministry
set
over
them
in
the
Lord
,
so
as
to
be
wholly
at
their
own
disposal
herein
:
since
there
is
no
Justling
betwixt
the
privat
discretive
,
and
publick
Ministerial
judgement
,
in
this
matter
.
3.
As
in
the
tryall
of
Intrants
,
not
only
the
sufficiency
,
but
suteablenes
of
gifts
for
such
a
people
,
is
to
be
eyed
.
So
when
a
faithfull
Minister
is
thus
duely
called
and
setled
,
people
are
obliged
to
owne
his
Ministry
,
by
a
due
attendance
upon
the
ordinances
administred
by
him
,
which
is
all
that
decency
,
union
,
and
order
,
and
that
act
of
our
Church
after
mention'd
,
doth
call
for
;
which
notwithstanding
cannot
be
supposed
to
exclude
all
occasional
usemaking
of
other
gifts
bestowed
upon
faithfull
Ministers
,
which
were
(
as
I
said
)
cross
to
the
communion
of
Saints
,
and
beleevers
interest
in
one
anothers
gifts
and
graces
.
But
4.
our
question
here
being
stated
upon
the
supposition
of
the
greater
part
of
this
National
Church
their
apostacy
&
defection
from
our
sworn
Reformation
,
and
a
great
part
of
Ministers
and
professors
adhering
to
their
principles
,
viz.
to
which
of
the
two
parties
on
this
supposition
people
are
to
adhere
in
worship
?
sure
the
Lords
palpable
blasting
the
backsliding
party
their
gifts
,
as
to
any
saving
success
,
and
on
the
contrary
his
as
palpable
owning
and
sealing
with
his
blessing
the
Ministry
of
his
faithfull
servants
adhering
to
his
truth
,
is
a
loud
call
(
in
this
broken
state
of
our
Church
,
and
case
of
defection
and
persecution
)
to
come
out
from
the
one
party
and
way
,
and
adhere
to
the
other
.
So
his
Doubter
in
this
and
the
next
objection
,
should
have
argued
thus
.
In
this
case
of
defection
and
overturning
of
our
Reformation
,
God
being
pleased
to
seal
with
a
palpable
blessing
on
our
souls
,
the
word
from
Ministers
adhering
to
their
principles
,
we
may
safely
look
on
this
as
a
call
from
God
to
hear
them
,
rather
then
the
prelats
perjurd
hirelings
,
whose
Ministry
we
have
found
palpably
blasted
since
they
complyed
with
●…his
course
of
perjurious
back
siding
,
and
opposition
to
Gods
work
.
In
this
case
certainly
its
an
argument
very
pungent
,
and
founded
on
that
of
Jer.
3.
31
,
32.
Where
the
Lord
threatneth
the
prophets
who
caused
the
people
to
err
by
their
lies
and
lightness
,
and
whom
he
hath
not
sent
nor
commanded
tho
they
prophesie
,
with
this
,
that
therefore
they
shall
not
profite
the
people
at
all
.
So
the
Argument
going
upon
the
supposition
of
our
Churches
broken
and
persecute
state
;
and
a
competition
betwixt
a
faithfull
Ministry
,
and
a
party
of
Schismatick
Innovators
,
and
overturners
of
our
Reformation
,
will
infer
nothing
against
our
Churches
setled
order
under
Presbyterian
government
,
nor
the
assemblies
act.
1647.
presupposing
the
same
;
and
it
s
not
meerly
the
gifts
,
but
Gods
saving
blessing
attending
the
same
,
which
is
the
ground
of
this
argument
,
and
that
practice
pleaded
for
,
thereby
.
Now
as
to
his
answer
,
It
s
palpable
that
it
meets
not
this
argument
in
the
least
,
and
besides
his
exclusive
gloss
is
very
impertinent
,
viz.
because
we
are
to
seek
the
best
and
edifying
gifts
f●…r
our selfs
in
our
siation
,
therefore
we
are
not
to
seek
the
best
in
others
also
.
What
consequence
is
this
?
Sure
the
Informer
will
not
deny
simpliciter
,
that
people
are
to
seek
after
the
most
edifying
Minister
,
and
this
will
follow
on
the
very
ground
of
our
edification
,
which
we
are
to
design
in
seeking
the
best
gifts
,
in
and
for
ourselves
.
Nay
,
the
one
is
the
great
mean
subservient
to
the
other
;
a
faithfull
edifying
Ministry
is
Gods
Method
for
winning
to
the
best
gifts
for
my self
;
and
therefore
as
a
mean
leading
to
this
end
,
fals
within
the
compass
of
this
command
,
to
seek
and
Covet
the
best
gifts
.
So
a
greater
then
he
,
Voetius
,
concludes
it
a
duty
to
seek
the
best
edifying
Ministry
,
on
this
ground
De
politeia
Eccles.
pag.
52.
And
likewise
on
these
Scriptures
,
Luk.
8
,
18
:
1
Thess.
5.
22.
And
removes
objections
to
the
cotraire
.
His
2d
answer
is
,
That
the
Apostle
is
there
pressing
unity
,
and
not
to
despise
the
meanest
gifts
,
more
then
the
meanest
member
,
and
to
avoid
Schism
verse
25.
Ans.
Then
it
followes
,
that
in
the
sense
of
this
precept
,
which
we
have
explain'd
,
seeking
the
best
gifts
,
is
consistent
with
unity
,
and
avoiding
Schism
,
and
consequently
in
this
our
case
,
it
s
no
wayes
inductive
to
schism
,
but
consistent
with
a
due
esteem
of
the
meanest
gifted
Minister
who
is
faithfull
,
to
withdraw
from
scandalous
innovators
,
who
have
already
fixt
a
Schism
in
this
Church
,
by
opposing
her
sworn
reformation
,
order
,
and
unity
.
Nay
as
matters
now
stand
,
this
is
the
surest
way
to
keep
our
Churches
union
and
integrity
;
Since
this
their
course
has
such
a
clear
tendency
to
the
ruine
of
her
Reformation
and
pure
constitution
,
in
doctrine
,
Worship
,
discipline
and
Government
,
as
is
above
clear'd
.
His
3d
Answer
is
,
that
edification
is
to
be
sought
in
an
orderly
way
,
not
in
a
way
that
marrs
the
Churches
peace
—
and
that
though
our
sense
of
this
generall
direction
were
granted
,
it
s
thus
to
be
understood
.
Ans.
Let
our
sworn
establisht
Reformation
,
its
principles
,
rules
,
and
design
,
sit
in
Judgement
and
determine
,
who
are
greater
enemies
to
this
Churches
peace
and
order
,
they
or
we
.
Was
not
this
Church
priviledged
with
a
beautifull
order
of
Government
,
pure
Gospel-Worship
,
and
sound
doctrine
,
before
Prelacy
was
introduced
?
Well
then
,
the
way
to
this
Churches
true
peace
,
Union
,
and
order
,
must
be
in
opposing
their
pretended
order
,
who
are
letting
in
the
enemies
,
and
have
broken
her
walls
and
hedge
.
Many
of
them
said
and
swore
that
the
Presbyterial
Government
of
this
Church
,
was
a
beautifull
order
,
unto
which
since
they
stand
in
opposition
,
they
are
the
most
orderly
,
who
disowne
them
.
As
for
that
which
he
adds
,
of
peoples
neglecting
Ministers
set
over
them
in
the
Lord
,
he
must
prove
that
Conformists
are
such
Ministers
,
who
are
both
scandalous
for
the
far
greatest
part
in
their
carriage
,
having
no
visible
badge
of
the
Lords
call
,
and
do
owne
principles
,
and
carry
on
a
designe
point
blank
contraire
to
our
reformation
,
have
left
the
peoples
conduct
,
in
the
way
of
truth
,
given
up
all
their
Ministeriall
authority
to
abjured
prelacy
,
and
make
it
their
work
to
destroy
,
and
waste
the
Lords
vineyard
.
Tho
it
were
granted
that
they
had
been
so
set
over
people
,
yet
since
they
are
tracing
wayes
of
Schism
,
and
innovations
condemned
by
our
Church
,
Christs
flocks
cannot
owne
,
or
be
subject
to
them
,
as
their
soules
spiritual
guides
,
they
being
men
that
have
corrupted
the
Covenant
of
Levi
,
and
made
many
stumble
at
the
Law
:
And
besides
since
that
complyance
(
in
subjection
to
conformists
,
and
disowning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
)
which
he
doth
here
plead
for
,
is
in
very
deed
a
despising
faithfull
Ministers
set
over
their
flocks
by
the
Lord
,
and
standing
in
a
Ministeriall
relation
to
them
;
and
whom
consequently
the
Lords
people
are
called
to
honour
and
obey
,
this
same
reason
whereby
he
would
persuade
to
adhere
to
the
conforming
party
,
pleads
more
strongly
against
them
.
And
his
rule
aftermentioned
not
to
do
evill
that
good
may
come
of
it
,
will
conclude
that
we
should
not
under
pretence
of
keeping
parochiall
order
,
or
for
eviting
confusion
,
deprive
our selves
of
the
blessing
of
the
Ministry
of
Christs
faithfull
Ambassadours
,
to
adhere
unto
whom
in
this
case
we
are
under
so
many
obligations
.
As
for
the
Canons
after'cited
by
him
,
against
Ministers
receiving
these
of
another
congregation
to
the
Worship
,
We
say
,
that
according
to
the
Informer
himself
its
clear
that
such
rules
of
decency
and
order
,
are
not
calculat
for
every
meridian
,
every
time
and
case
of
the
Church
:
extraordinary
cases
must
have
suitable
remedies
,
and
circumstances
of
parochial
order
,
cannot
in
this
case
be
pleaded
,
when
our
main
order
of
Government
is
already
destroy'd
,
and
a
persecuting
party
is
in
our
Churches
bosome
,
tearing
out
her
bowels
;
when
a
besidged
city
hath
within
her
walls
a
party
of
professed
defendants
betraying
her
to
the
enemie
,
they
are
the
most
orderly
and
faithfull
watchmen
who
resist
them
,
and
run
to
the
posts
which
they
have
betrayed
.
Again
,
should
the
many
Ministers
now
persecute
(
let
us
suppose
they
are
residing
in
the
bounds
)
plead
parochial
order
,
for
their
parishes
adhering
to
them
,
and
disowning
their
Curats
incumbent
,
the
Informer
will
not
say
,
that
parochial
order
,
will
plead
for
owning
them
in
this
case
.
Or
in
the
case
of
conforming
Ministers
turning
enemies
to
Prelats
,
and
by
consequence
Schismaticks
in
his
account
,
he
will
grant
that
the
people
(
whom
we
will
suppose
they
are
breaking
off
from
the
union
of
the
Prelatick
Church
)
ought
not
to
owne
them
,
but
were
concern'd
to
go
else
where
to
hear
.
Now
,
the
case
being
so
with
us
this
argument
by
his
own
confession
,
cannot
now
have
weight
until
all
that
we
plead
against
them
on
this
ground
,
be
answered
.
Next
,
he
cites
the
Act
of
the
Assembly
1647.
Against
them
who
withdraw
usually
from
the
Worship
in
their
own
congregation
,
except
in
urgent
cases
made
knowen
unto
,
and
approven
by
the
Presbytery
.
Concluding
,
that
therefore
they
thought
not
this
a
fit
method
of
edification
,
&
that
this
act
was
made
to
prevent
Schism
.
But
had
he
set
down
the
narrative
of
that
act
,
it
might
have
coverd
him
with
blushes
,
and
would
expose
him
to
the
censure
of
every
Reader
;
for
it
is
grounded
upon
the
then
compleat
establishment
of
the
work
of
Reformation
,
this
Churches
comely
order
of
Presbyterian
Government
then
exercised
,
her
Presbyterian
unity
and
peace
,
the
purity
and
liberty
of
the
Gospel
ordinances
then
righly
enjoyed
.
But
what
will
this
say
to
the
present
case
of
defection
and
persecution
,
wherein
the
faithful
Ministry
are
thrust
from
their
flocks
,
and
that
work
raz'd
dare
he
say
this
assembly
did
intend
to
stretch
their
act
to
such
a
case
as
this
,
or
to
stop
Ministers
from
officiating
in
such
a
distrest
&
destroyed
condition
of
our
Church
Suppose
this
case
had
been
stated
in
that
Assembly
,
What
if
Presbyterian
Government
shall
be
razed
,
Prelac●…e
erected
,
the
Covenant
and
the
work
of
Reformation
overturned
and
disowned
by
a
number
of
Ministers
,
while
a
stedfast
body
of
the
Ministry
stands
against
them
,
shall
this
act
reach
the
people
in
relation
to
their
faithfull
Pastours
,
ejected
perjur'd
intruders
?
I
dare
refer
it
to
this
man
himself
to
say
to
it
,
what
their
resolution
would
have
been
,
and
if
they
would
have
concluded
it
the
people's
duty
to
adhere
to
these
destroyers
in
that
case
,
rather
then
the
faithfull
contenders
for
the
work
of
Reformation
.
In
the
7th
Article
of
their
directions
for
family
Worship
past
that
same
day
,
they
suppose
this
Church
to
be
then
blest
with
peace
and
purity
;
and
therefore
do
except
from
the
compass
of
these
directions
,
the
case
of
corruption
and
trouble
,
wherein
they
say
,
many
things
are
commendable
,
which
are
not
otherwise
tollerable
;
And
dare
he
say
that
they
would
not
call
this
such
a
case
.
He
makes
the
Doubter
yet
again
poorly
except
,
[
that
men
have
different
gifts
]
which
is
here
a
meer
nauseating
repetition
,
to
fill
up
idle
pages
.
Upon
this
our
Informer
very
discreetly
and
charitably
tells
us
,
that
we
can
litle
judge
of
an
edifying
gift
,
and
do
call
railing
at
Bishops
,
or
at
the
civil
powers
,
and
a
tone
in
the
voice
so
.
Just
as
Dr
Burnet
said
before
in
in
his
roaving
Dialogues
.
What
is
the
Judgement
of
Gods
people
as
to
edification
,
and
the
evidence
of
the
Masters
presence
with
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
preaching
to
his
people
,
depends
not
on
this
Character
,
it
being
comprobat
by
clear
proofs
,
and
sufficiently
notour
to
such
as
can
spiritually
taste
and
discern
.
But
he
will
offer
some
considerations
about
diversity
of
gifts
,
and
edification
by
them
,
which
is
to
no
purpose
;
since
our
plea
is
not
meerly
grounded
upon
the
gifts
of
preachers
whether
Conformists
or
others
;
but
abstracting
from
this
,
we
say
first
,
there
is
much
more
then
meer
gifts
,
yea
and
an
edifying
gift
,
requisit
to
ground
a
peoples
owning
a
Minister
hic
&
nunc
,
or
in
every
circumstantiat
case
,
as
their
pastour
:
what
if
he
be
in
a
schismatick
course
?
what
if
he
be
violently
thrust
in
,
and
hath
shut
out
their
Lawfull
pastour
standing
in
that
relation
to
them
,
to
whom
by
this
mans
concession
they
owe
special
subjection
,
reverence
and
obedience
in
the
Lord
?
(
for
this
we
will
find
him
hereafter
plead
)
are
the
people
bound
in
this
case
to
owne
the
Intruder
,
because
of
his
gift
?
Nay
he
will
not
say
it
.
Now
the
case
is
Just
so
with
us
.
2.
We
told
him
that
our
case
is
a
case
of
competition
betwixt
the
betrayers
and
destroyers
of
our
Reformation
,
and
a
faithfull
Ministry
adhering
to
,
and
contending
for
it
:
so
that
its
this
great
Ministerial
qualification
of
faithfullness
,
(
opposit
to
Curats
●…reachery
)
beside
Presbyterian
Ministers
gifts
,
and
Gods
blessing
attending
the
same
:
and
the
Curats
intrusion
,
unfaithfulness
,
destructive
principles
,
and
design
in
their
officiating
(
besides
their
insufficiency
,
prophanity
,
and
blasted
gifts
)
which
determine
us
in
this
matter
;
and
the
Lords
call
consequently
that
for
our
edification
,
and
to
prevent
our
Church
her
ruine
,
and
our
perishing
in
their
sin
,
we
come
out
from
among
them
and
be
separat
,
as
we
would
come
out
of
Babylon
to
which
their
party
is
runing
post
:
so
that
all
he
saith
here
,
may
be
granted
without
prejudice
to
our
cause
.
But
let
us
hear
his
considerations
anent
edification
and
gifts
;
first
,
(
saith
he
)
all
Ministers
have
not
alike
gifts
,
therfore
we
must
not
undervalue
the
lowest
1
Cor.
12.
I
told
him
our
quarrel
is
not
meerly
gifts
,
&
a
man
may
be
hic
&
nunc
disown'd
,
and
yet
no
undervaluing
of
his
gifts
,
which
the
Informer
must
either
grant
,
or
contradict
all
that
he
intends
in
this
pamphlet
.
For
I
ask
him
,
what
if
I
plead
this
for
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
whom
for
all
their
excellent
and
edifying
gifts
he
and
his
party
will
not
owne
,
and
whom
be
is
in
this
pamphlet
striving
might
and
main
tanquam
pro
●…ris
and
focis
,
to
get
universally
disown'd
by
all
professours
in
Scotland
?
why
quarrells
he
with
the
Almighty
(
to
use
his
own
expression
)
in
undervaluing
their
gifts
,
and
would
teare
their
commission
?
I
know
our
Informer
will
say
that
they
are
disorderly
,
and
so
disowning
them
,
is
no
despising
their
gifts
.
Well
then
,
he
grants
that
men
of
excellent
gifts
may
be
hic
&
nunc
or
in
some
cases
disown'd
,
and
no
hazard
of
this
undervaluing
and
despising
their
gifts
,
or
quarrelling
with
the
Almighty
,
&
so
the
rebound
of
his
own
blow
in
this
retortion
strikes
his
argument
stark
dead
;
and
he
must
grant
that
the
question
is
,
which
of
the
two
contending
parties
,
have
best
right
to
officiat
as
Ministers
in
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
according
to
her
principles
and
Reformation
?
and
according
thereto
it
will
not
be
difficult
to
determine
who
are
the
most
orderly
&
to
be
heard
,
&
the
disorderly
have
no
reason
to
complain
.
2.
He
sayes
we
must
not
think
the
meanest
gifts
,
useless
.
But
he
must
grant
that
men
may
sinfully
render
them
useless
,
as
he
alleges
Presbyterian
Ministers
do
and
we
prove
that
conformists
do
so
.
3.
He
tells
us
that
the
best
gifts
cannot
work
without
the
spirit
,
and
that
to
do●…e
on
gifts
,
is
to
idolize
men
,
as
those
1
Cor.
1.
3.
Then
he
tells
us
,
how
Zanchius
was
offended
with
that
frenchman
of
Geneva
,
who
said
he
would
leave
Paul
,
should
be
come
there
,
and
hear
Calvine
.
But
what
will
this
arguing
reprove
?
must
they
be
stigmatiz'd
as
Idolizers
of
men
and
gifts
,
who
will
not
Idolize
abjur'd
prelacy
,
and
perjur'd
apostats
,
and
in
owning
them
while
wasting
and
destroying
a
purely
reform'd
Church
,
discountenance
a
faithfull
Ministry
contending
for
her
reformation
,
and
signally
bless'd
therein
?
surely
his
instance
anent
Zanchius
,
may
be
well
apply'd
to
such
as
will
hear
none
but
Curats
,
and
wholly
disowne
Presbyterian
Ministers
;
Again
,
if
the
best
gifts
cannot
work
without
the
spirit
,
and
the
spirit
works
ordinarly
and
best
with
those
who
entertain
him
,
and
as
having
their
senses
exercised
,
habitually
wait
for
his
breathings
in
duty
,
what
hope
is
there
that
profane
men
,
and
greivers
of
the
spirit
in
walking
contraire
to
God
,
his
people
,
way
and
interest
,
(
as
are
most
Conformists
)
should
have
the
spirits
seal
attending
their
Ministry
.
What
more
?
He
tells
us
4.
That
sometimes
the
spirit
will
act
with
the
mean
gifts
more
then
the
greater
as
Peter
Acts
2.
is
found
to
have
converted
more
in
one
sermon
,
then
we
read
that
our
Lord
himself
did
,
tho
he
spoke
as
never
man
spoke
.
That
Christ
〈◊〉
complain'd
of
small
success
,
Isa.
49.
4.
&
53.
1.
&
upbraided
people
for
unbelief
Math.
11.
21
,
22
,
23.
Ioh.
5.
40.
—
that
after
the
sermon
on
the
mount
we
read
not
that
many
were
converted
tho
they
were
astonisht
—
that
the
Centurions
faith
was
commended
above
that
of
Israel
:
and
from
the
east
and
west
many
will
sit
down
with
Abraham
while
the
children
of
the
kingdom
are
cast
out
.
Ans.
1.
He
must
grant
that
this
argument
,
taken
from
the
spirits
working
great
things
by
smal
means
,
will
not
plead
for
owning
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
to
whom
many
of
his
Scioli
Rabbies
impute
weakness
of
gifts
,
because
they
think
that
aliunde
or
upon
other
grounds
,
such
Ministers
are
not
in
this
case
to
be
heard
.
Well
then
let
him
take
home
his
argument
as
insufficient
,
untill
he
prove
that
hic
&
nunc
Conformists
are
to
be
heard
rather
then
Nonconformists
,
and
prove
his
groundless
suppositions
above
mentioned
(
wherein
he
begs
the
question
)
and
disprove
our
true
suppositions
above
also
rehearsed
,
or
this
argument
will
signify
Just
nothing
.
2.
For
his
Instances
,
as
this
man
would
be
sober
in
such
comparisons
,
so
we
must
tell
him
ther
's
a
great
difference
betwixt
little
,
&
no
success
,
a
Ministry
with
small
effects
;
and
a
Ministry
palpably
blasted
as
to
any
saving
issue
;
and
betwixt
sincere
designing
of
success
,
and
mourning
over
the
want
of
it
,
making
it
a
complaint
(
as
our
Lord
wept
over
Jerusalems
impenitency
and
disobedience
)
and
the
Ministers
designing
himself
,
and
no
such
thing
,
and
wanting
this
impression
mentioned
.
Sure
as
it
will
be
hard
for
him
to
point
us
to
any
of
their
constant
hearers
who
have
been
converted
by
their
Ministry
,
so
it
will
be
as
hard
to
point
out
any
of
their
preachers
,
who
have
the
peoples
spiritual
profit
for
their
design
,
or
their
unprofitableness
as
their
burden
&
complaint
to
God
.
And
since
both
these
are
conspicuous
in
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
It
s
quickly
resolved
which
of
the
two
are
standing
in
Gods
counsel
,
and
travelling
in
birth
to
beget
souls
by
the
gospel
,
and
to
have
Christ
formed
in
them
.
But
he
would
have
us
praying
for
Conformists
,
and
laying
aside
prejudice
.
Ans.
I
think
we
are
Indeed
called
to
lay
aside
prejudice
at
their
persons
,
and
to
pray
for
their
repentance
;
but
to
pray
for
a
blessing
on
their
Ministry
,
who
are
in
such
direct
opposition
to
the
Lords
people
,
work
,
and
Interest
,
were
a
mocking
of
God
,
and
hardning
them
in
their
sin
,
and
consequently
hearing
and
receiving
the
ordinances
from
them
as
the
Ministers
of
this
Church
were
a
strenghtening
of
their
hands
in
their
disobedience
.
Beside
,
will
he
allow
people
upon
their
praying
for
Presbyterian
Ministers
to
hear
them
?
I
trow
not
,
then
it
seems
▪
laying
aside
prejudice
and
praying
for
Curats
,
may
consist
with
not
hearing
them
.
His
next
childish
objection
put
into
the
mouth
of
his
Doubter
[
that
tho
some
withdraw
all
will
not
]
is
not
worth
the
noticing
.
It
were
good
for
our
Church
all
her
members
did
so
understand
their
duty
and
obligatons
,
as
to
deny
that
subjection
to
Conformists
which
he
pleads
for
.
And
that
such
pastours
as
they
who
destroy
but
feed
not
,
had
no
flocks
:
For
they
have
not
brought
back
the
straying
,
nor
heal'd
the
sick
&c.
But
he
tells
us
,
he
hath
proved
that
none
ought
to
withdraw
.
How
insignificant
his
preceeding
proofs
are
,
hath
been
discovered
,
and
if
his
ensueing
be
no
better
,
It
s
certain
that
Successus
defuit
ausis
,
and
that
he
hath
overshote
his
marke
,
in
this
undertaking
.
The
Doubter
enquires
next
[
what
obligation
lyes
on
him
,
to
be
an
ordinary
hearer
in
his
own
congregation
.
]
In
answer
to
which
the
Informer
tells
us
first
,
of
our
obligation
showen
by
him
to
maintain
union
,
and
of
the
Acts
of
the
ancient
Church
,
and
our
own
.
Which
I
have
already
answered
.
Next
,
he
tells
us
,
of
the
reciprocal
obligation
betwixt
a
Minister
and
his
congregation
which
cannot
be
so
easily
broken
;
the
Minister
is
to
labour
diligently
and
faithfully
,
among
the
people
of
his
charge
Ezek.
33.
8.
Heb.
13.
17.
the
people
of
his
charge
are
to
attend
his
Ministry
to
esteem
him
highly
,
and
love
h●…m
for
his
works
sake
Mal.
2.
7.
1
Thes.
5.
11
,
12.
Heb.
13.
17.
He
asks
how
we
obey
this
charge
,
when
we
disowne
,
discountenance
,
and
turn
our
backs
upon
our
Ministers
,
and
will
not
receive
the
Law
from
their
mouth
.
Ans.
That
there
is
a
reciprocall
tye
betwixt
a
Minister
and
his
flock
,
is
easily
acknowledged
:
but
the
Informer
forgot
the
main
and
necessary
point
here
(
to
make
this
weapon
strike
home
,
and
the
argument
run
straight
without
a
byass
)
viz.
What
makes
up
this
tye
according
to
the
Scripture
pattern
.
This
he
should
have
condescended
upon
,
and
made
it
good
in
the
case
of
Conformists
,
and
then
his
arguing
had
been
pertinent
,
and
formidable
to
the
Non-Conformists
.
But
what
will
this
poor
general
say
,
that
there
is
a
reciprocal
tye
betwixt
a
Minister
and
his
flock
,
while
he
hath
not
made
appear
,
what
is
the
Scripture
foundation
and
basis
of
that
tye
,
&
but
begs
the
question
in
the
application
thereof
to
his
case
.
I
suppose
a
Presbyterian
Minister
should
plead
this
to
warrand
his
officiating
among
his
people
,
in
opposition
to
the
Curat
incumbent
,
that
the
people
are
bound
to
owne
him
as
their
Minister
,
because
of
this
reciprocal
●…ye
:
That
the
Scripture
obligations
(
mentioned
by
the
Informer
)
lyes
on
him
to
be
faithfull
and
diligent
,
which
while
he
is
endeavouring
(
according
to
his
duty
,
founded
on
his
relation
to
his
people
)
the
people
are
therefore
bound
to
attend
on
his
Ministrie
to
esteem
him
,
love
him
,
receive
the
Law
from
him
,
and
and
not
to
discountenance
nor
discourage
him
by
withdrawing
to
another
.
Now
let
this
man
shew
what
he
will
answer
to
this
pleading
,
and
his
argument
will
quickly
evanish
before
his
own
answer
;
If
he
say
that
the
tye
is
loosed
,
let
him
instruct
what
that
is
which
has
in
this
case
loosed
it
.
Sure
neither
the
Magistrates
violence
,
nor
Prelatick
censures
,
according
to
our
Principles
,
and
the
Doctrine
of
sound
divines
,
when
this
case
is
truely
stated
.
And
if
this
divine
tye
stand
,
what
will
he
say
?
Will
it
not
1.
follow
(
according
to
him
,
)
that
a
Minister
may
be
under
a
standing
tye
to
his
people
,
and
they
to
their
Minister
,
and
yet
the
people
for
all
this
may
not
be
obliged
to
hear
him
but
another
hie
&
nunc
,
and
that
warrantably
,
without
hazard
of
disobedience
to
these
Scriptures
;
and
then
he
hath
with
his
own
hand
cut
the
throat
of
his
bare
generall
argument
from
the
reciprocal
tye
.
Sure
in
some
cases
the
tye
may
stand
,
and
yet
the
actuall
reciprocal
exercise
,
or
obligation
to
the
exercise
of
duties
may
be
hic
&
nunc
warrantably
suspended
in
very
many
supposable
cases
as
of
Physicall
impediments
in
the
people
and
Minister
,
hostile
invasion
,
Pestilence
,
Imprisonment
&c.
2.
If
the
tye
or
relation
do
stand
,
and
likewise
all
things
which
do
immediatly
dispose
to
the
exercise
of
duty
,
then
the
Prelatical
incumbent
is
in
this
case
an
intruder
,
and
not
to
be
own'd
.
For
I
suppose
he
will
not
say
,
that
a
Presbyterian
Minister
might
lawfully
officiat
in
his
own
Parish
,
after
the
Curat
is
setled
there
,
for
this
would
quite
cross
the
scope
of
his
Argument
.
Now
the
Question
betwixt
the
two
competitors
is
,
which
of
them
hath
the
prior
lawfull
,
and
standing
tye
?
will
he
dare
to
deny
,
that
Presbyterian
ministers
had
this
;
and
since
he
cannot
shew
how
it
is
loosed
,
nor
prove
it
to
be
loosed
,
this
argument
will
militat
not
for
him
,
but
against
him
.
Next
,
as
for
what
he
cites
out
of
Mr
Durham
on
Revel.
pag.
105
:
106.
anent
this
tye
,
It
is
still
extra
oleas
,
and
nothing
correspondent
to
his
purpose
,
untill
he
instruct
that
which
is
the
basis
and
foundation
of
this
Relation
in
the
case
of
Conformists
,
which
he
neither
doth
nor
offers
to
do
.
Mr
Durham
speaks
of
a
special
delegation
from
Christ
,
of
his
speciall
warrand
and
appointment
to
such
a
man
to
treat
with
such
a
flock
.
Now
sure
this
most
be
instructed
from
his
Word
and
Testament
,
as
to
Curats
,
before
he
can
from
this
make
any
shew
of
Argument
.
For
Presbyterian
ministers
do
upon
better
ground
lay
claim
to
this
special
appointment
in
relation
to
their
flocks
,
upon
which
conformists
have
intruded
:
yet
this
man
thinks
these
ministers
are
not
to
be
owned
.
And
since
this
deputation
and
appointment
is
,
with
Mr
Durham
,
the
foundation
of
the
duty
betwixt
minister
and
people
,
it
must
be
cleard
from
the
word
in
the
case
of
Conformists
,
before
this
passage
of
Mr
Durham
will
afford
any
patrociny
to
his
cause
.
Then
he
tells
us
,
Tha●…
Mr
Durham
holds
that
this
obligation
is
not
founded
on
meer
voluntary
consent
.
Well
let
him
mark
this
,
and
then
he
must
acknowledge
,
that
it
s
not
meerly
the
Curats
gaping
consent
for
the
fleece
and
filthy
Lucre
,
nor
the
peoples
blind
consent
,
that
will
make
them
Ministers
of
these
Congregations
where
they
officiat
.
What
is
it
then
that
founds
this
relation
?
The
Scipture-commands
(
saith
Mr
Durham
)
1
Thes.
5.
12.
Know
them
that
labour
among
you
and
are
over
you
in
the
Lord
.
Heb
13.
14.
Obey
them
that
have
the
rule
over
you
,
and
submit
your
selves
,
for
they
watch
for
your
souls
as
they
that
most
give
account
,
&c.
But
will
this
man
deny
that
Mr
Durham
speaks
upon
the
supposition
of
the
Minister
his
having
the
Ministerial
call
and
mission
according
to
the
rule
of
the
Word
,
to
ground
his
pleading
these
Scripture
commands
,
and
his
special
commission
to
such
a
people
:
And
that
he
look't
upon
the
Presbyteries
mission
,
and
ordination
,
and
the
peoples
call
,
together
with
due
qualifications
,
and
the
visible
evidences
of
Christs
call
in
the
person
thus
admitted
,
as
the
foundation
of
this
special
relation
to
such
a
flock
,
according
to
the
Scripture
pattern
,
and
the
order
and
Government
of
this
Church
then
established
.
I
durst
pose
his
conscience
upon
the
truth
of
this
;
and
whether
Mr
Durham
did
ever
dream
of
a
speciall
relation
to
a
flock
in
this
Church
,
resulting
from
a
Prelates
mission
in
a
Method
of
perjury
,
in
opposition
to
our
Covenant
and
sworn
reformation
,
without
the
mission
and
ordination
of
a
Presbytry
,
or
the
peoples
call
,
and
in
a
way
of
intrusion
upon
the
charges
of
faithfull
Ministers
violently
thrust
out
by
persecuting
Prelats
,
the
men
thus
obtruded
being
for
most
part
such
as
have
nothing
that
may
ground
a
reasonable
or
charitable
construction
of
them
,
that
they
are
sent
of
God
,
but
palpable
evidences
of
the
contrary
,
While
in
the
mean
time
the
faithfull
Ministers
are
willing
to
cleave
to
their
flocks
,
and
the
flocks
to
them
?
If
he
say
that
all
the
Ministers
he
pleads
for
are
not
such
.
I
Answer
,
he
makes
no
limitation
of
this
Argument
,
but
pleads
the
foremention'd
Scriptures
,
and
Mr
Durham's
Testimony
universally
,
and
tells
us
in
the
next
page
,
that
Mr
Durham
binds
the
people
fast
to
the
Ministers
of
their
own
congregations
by
this
discourse
,
he
means
to
the
Ministry
of
all
the
Conformists
.
As
for
that
passage
of
Mr
Durham's
Testimony
after
cited
by
him
anent
the
Sympathy
betwixt
Ministers
and
flocks
,
and
the
reckoning
that
will
be
made
in
relation
to
mutuall
duties
.
We
think
it
pleads
very
strongly
for
that
Sympathy
that
ought
now
to
be
betwixt
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
their
flocks
,
which
Conformists
have
usurped
upon
,
and
the
mutuall
performing
of
duty
to
each
other
upon
all
hazards
,
in
opposition
to
the
Curats
intrusion
.
And
if
Paul
aggreaged
particularly
the
Gentiles
slighting
and
grieving
him
,
by
his
particular
delegation
to
them
,
which
was
,
even
as
to
the
Apostle
himself
,
by
the
imposition
of
the
h●…ds
of
the
Presbytry
Act.
13.
13.
Presbyterian
Ministers
delegation
to
their
flocks
,
which
was
in
this
manner
,
must
needs
stand
,
and
may
be
much
better
pleaded
upon
this
ground
then
that
of
Curats
Who
are
sent
to
flocks
by
Prelats
as
their
own
underlings
,
and
have
nothing
like
Pauls
delegation
in
their
mission
.
So
that
Mr
Durhams
arguments
,
and
the
Scriptures
cited
by
him
,
are
so
far
from
tying
congregations
to
conformists
,
as
this
man
alleages
,
that
they
tye
them
to
their
own
faithfull
Presbyterian
pastours
,
and
by
consequence
to
disowne
prelats
and
their
intruding
hirelings
,
as
none
of
the
lawfull
Pastours
of
this
Church
.
I
might
here
add
that
the
account
of
the
Pastours
duty
,
and
the
ground
of
the
people's
subjection
and
obedience
exhibit
to
us
in
these
scriptures
which
he
mentions
,
doth
sufficiently
exclude
their
party
from
any
claim
therunto
.
What
?
do
they
hear
Gods
word
and
warn
the
people
from
him
,
who
are
generally
so
ignorant
of
his
word
walking
contrary
to
it
themselves
,
and
hardning
others
in
rebellion
against
him
?
are
they
watching
for
souls
as
they
that
must
give
account
?
who
are
loving
to
sleep
and
slumber
;
and
dare
not
say
most
of
them
,
that
ever
they
enquird
at
any
soul
how
it
is
betwixt
God
and
them
?
do
their
lips
keep
knowledge
,
who
have
departed
out
of
the
way
,
and
caused
many
stumble
at
the
Law
?
are
they
labouring
and
admonishing
as
to
sin
and
duty
,
who
are
ringleaders
in
a
course
of
defection
?
Sure
if
the
duties
of
subjection
,
reverence
,
and
obedience
,
suppose
such
characters
of
Ministers
,
and
such
qualifications
as
are
here
exprest
,
people
are
hereby
abundantly
discharged
from
such
subjection
and
obedience
as
to
Conformists
,
who
are
so
palpably
destitute
of
these
qualifications
.
So
that
the
Informer
falls
utterly
short
of
his
intended
advantage
by
this
citation
of
Mr
Durham
,
and
the
scriptures
therin
mentioned
do
wound
his
cause
t●…
death
,
and
cut
the
sinews
of
his
reasoning
.
This
man
is
so
unhappy
as
to
fall
still
by
the
rebound
of
his
own
arguments
,
and
the
scripture-weapons
(
which
in
pleading
for
this
cause
will
never
be
found
the
weapons
of
his
warfare
)
wounds
him
every
time
he
handles
them
:
which
as
it
hath
before
,
so
it
shall
presently
appear
further
,
in
some
more
of
his
arguments
and
answers
upon
this
point
,
which
we
now
present
.
CHAP.
III.
The
Doubters
argument
from
Curats
not
entring
by
a
call
from
the
people
,
and
that
passage
Acts
14.
23.
cleared
and
improven
.
The
Informers
exceptions
upon
the
terme
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fully
examined
,
and
the
peoples
right
in
the
call
of
Pastours
cleared
therfrom
.
His
reasonings
about
Patronages
,
and
the
prelatick
ordination
,
and
peoples
disowning
of
Scandalous
Ministers
not
censured
.
As
also
his
great
argument
from
Math.
23.
1.
and
the
owning
of
the
Temple-worship
,
scanned
and
retorted
upon
him
.
Mr
Durham
in
this
point
pleads
nothing
for
the
Informer
.
His
answers
and
reasonings
anent
the
charge
of
Introsion
examined
.
Our
Informer
upon
this
point
of
separation
(
which
he
holds
to
be
his
fort-royal
in
the
present
differences
)
having
plyed
his
Doubter
with
offensive
weapons
,
will
needs
shew
his
skill
and
just
dealing
in
acting
the
defendant
for
some
time
.
But
I
doubt
that
his
defensive
armour
and
answers
shall
be
found
as
thin
and
penetrable
in
this
debate
,
as
his
impugning
weapons
are
bluntand
pointless
.
Well
,
this
fair
disputant
,
will
hear
some
of
our
arguments
against
the
owning
of
Conformists
,
but
be
sure
they
must
be
of
his
own
mould
and
digesting
,
for
these
can
best
suit
the
design
of
that
pretty
piece
of
pageantry
,
which
he
is
acting
in
this
pamphlet
.
The
first
argument
which
his
Doubter
offers
,
is
[
their
not
entring
by
a
call
from
the
people
as
all
Ministers
should
(
citing
Act.
14.
23.
)
but
by
a
presentation
from
the
patron
.
]
In
answer
to
this
,
he
spends
some
discourse
upon
that
text
,
which
we
shall
examine
.
But
to
clear
this
point
the
more
fully
,
I
will
premise
three
things
.
1.
That
the
people
have
a
divine
right
to
call
their
pastou●…
,
we
proved
before
in
the
9th
argument
against
Episcopacy
,
and
from
other
scripture-grounds
beside
this
,
although
it
be
a
weighty
ground
also
,
unto
this
we
refer
the
reader
.
2.
That
upon
supposal
of
this
divine
rule
and
pattern
of
a
Ministers
Lawfull
call
,
it
doth
clearly
follow
,
that
the
patronages
are
a
corruption
,
rendring
the
Ministers
call
in
this
respect
maimed
,
and
not
so
consonant
to
scripture
as
it
ought
to
be
.
3.
Though
it
be
granted
that
a
Minister
presented
by
the
Patron
,
and
not
called
by
the
people
,
hath
the
essence
of
the
Ministerial
office
,
and
might
in
some
cases
be
owned
as
a
Minister
,
yet
this
will
plead
nothing
for
the
owning
of
Curats
as
the
case
is
now
circumstantiat
:
Because
1.
It
s
certain
that
according
to
the
principles
and
reformation
of
this
Church
,
as
establisht
before
these
innovations
,
a
Ministers
entry
by
imposition
of
the
hands
of
the
Presbytery
,
without
the
usurping
Prelate
,
and
by
the
call
of
the
people
without
the
Patron
,
is
the
more
pure
and
scriptural
way
of
entry
into
the
Ministry
;
and
moreover
the
only
way
of
entry
own'd
and
authorized
by
her
supreme
Indicatories
,
and
by
consequence
its
most
suitable
to
Presbyterian
principles
,
when
there
is
a
competition
betwixt
the
one
and
the
other
,
and
Ministers
thus
Lawfully
called
,
are
violently
ejected
by
men
reestablishing
prelacy
,
and
patronages
,
formerly
cast
out
and
vowed
against
,
that
people
do
adhere
to
their
faithfull
pastours
rather
then
these
Innovators
and
intruders
;
which
will
be
convincingly
clear
,
if
it
be
also
considered
particularly
,
that
as
prelacy
&
allits
corruptions
&
usurpations
now
existent
and
introduced
,
were
fully
removed
and
abjured
by
this
Church
,
so
laick
patronages
in
speciall
were
upon
most
weighty
grounds
removed
by
the
parliament
1649.
in
correspondence
to
our
Churches
declarator
as
appears
in
the
Narrative
of
their
39.
act
.
viz.
The
sense
of
the
obligation
lying
upon
them
,
both
by
the
National
and
solemn
league
&
covenant
,
by
many
deliverances
and
mercies
from
God
,
&
by
the
latesolemn
engadgement
to
duties
,
to
preserve
the
doctrine
and
to
maintain
and
vindicat
the
liberties
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
—
to
advance
the
work
of
Reformation
—
and
considering
that
patronages
&
persentations
of
Kirkes
is
an
evill
and
bondage
under
which
the
Lords
people
&
Ministers
of
this
land
have
long
groan'd
.
That
it
hath
no
warrand
in
Gods
word
,
but
is
founded
only
on
the
Canon
Law
,
that
it
is
a
popish
custom
brought
into
this
Church
in
time
of
ignorance
&
superstition
,
that
its
contrary
to
the
2d
book
of
discipline
,
wherein
upon
solid
grounds
it
s
reckon'd
among
abuses
that
are
desired
to
be
reformed
,
and
Contrary
to
several
acts
of
general
assemblies
,
prejudicial
to
the
liberty
of
the
people
,
and
planting
of
Churches
,
to
the
free
call
and
entry
of
Ministers
to
their
charge
&c.
This
act
the
parliament
1662
did
ranverse
among
other
pieces
of
our
Reformation
:
Ordaining
all
Ministers
that
entered
since
49.
to
have
no
right
to
the
benefice
,
till
they
obtain
a
presentation
from
the
Lawfull
Patron
,
and
collation
from
the
Bishop
.
Now
upon
supposal
of
the
Covenant
obligation
,
and
our
engadgement
therein
to
separat
from
any
corruption
contrary
to
our
Reformation
,
to
give
a
testimony
to
that
work
,
to
with-draw
from
backsliders
,
is
there
any
doubt
but
that
people
are
oblidged
(
upon
these
grounds
)
to
adhere
to
that
body
of
faithful
Ministers
,
who
are
standing
to
our
principles
and
sworn
Reformation
(
whereof
these
points
mentioned
are
one
main
piece
)
rather
then
such
as
have
turn'd
aside
to
this
course
of
perjurious
defection
.
Sure
our
obligations
mentioned
do
every
way
include
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
&
exclude
Conformists
.
Presbyterian
Ministers
are
maintaining
the
peoples
right
and
liberty
to
call
their
pastour
,
Conformists
are
selling
away
this
peice
of
her
reformation
&
liberty
,
and
thus
crossing
the
scripture-pattern
,
the
first
are
adhering
to
this
Churches
vowes
(
and
people
are
obliged
to
owne
these
Ministers
that
are
pursuing
the
ends
)
the
other
are
casting
them
away
&c.
Again
3.
all
the
motives
mentioned
in
the
premised
act
of
parliament
,
and
in
our
Churches
publick
acts
in
opposition
to
patronages
,
and
prelatick
usurpations
in
a
Ministers
entry
,
are
still
binding
and
in
force
,
according
to
our
principles
,
as
the
Informer
will
not
for
very
shame
deny
,
and
he
must
admit
this
supposition
since
in
this
point
he
professeth
to
argue
against
us
upon
our
own
principles
,
and
so
what
did
then
engadge
to
restore
this
peice
of
our
Churches
libertie
and
Reformation
,
the
same
doth
now
bind
to
adhere
therunto
,
and
consequently
to
owne
the
Ministers
that
contend
for
this
Reformation
rather
then
the
backsliders
and
deserters
thereof
.
4.
This
man
dare
not
assert
,
that
the
granting
conformists
to
have
the
essence
of
a
Ministerial
call
,
will
in
every
case
infer
the
conclusion
of
hearing
them
,
or
that
the
granting
a
Minister
to
have
this
,
is
the
only
&
adequat
ground
which
will
in
all
circumstantiat
cases
make
hearing
necessary
.
For
1.
What
if
he
be
violently
obtruded
by
a
part
of
the
congregation
upon
the
previously
call'd
Minister
his
labours
,
to
whom
the
people
stand
oblig'd
to
adhere
?
Again
2.
What
if
he
be
promoting
a
Schismatick
course
,
setting
up
an
altar
against
an
altar
(
as
some
of
these
men
tell
us
in
their
Pamphlets
)
will
a
people
cross
their
principles
as
to
his
having
the
essence
of
a
Ministeriall
call
,
if
they
refuse
to
follow
him
in
that
Schismatick
course
?
Nay
he
will
not
say
it
.
3.
What
will
our
Informer
answer
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
plea
for
peoples
adherence
to
them
upon
their
lawful
call
,
mission
,
and
entry
to
their
charges
?
will
this
infer
a
necessity
of
the
people's
owning
them
,
and
deserting
conformists
?
If
it
will
not
(
as
he
must
here
say
,
or
yeeld
the
cause
)
then
he
must
confess
,
that
acknowledgment
of
the
essence
of
Curats
call
,
will
not
absulutely
plead
for
hearing
them
untill
before
the
Scripture
barr
,
and
by
the
constitutions
and
reformation
of
this
Church
,
they
can
prove
their
claim
to
be
better
then
that
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
to
officiat
as
her
true
Pastours
,
which
will
be
ad
Kalendas
Graecas
;
&
whatever
he
can
pretend
here
,
as
to
disowning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
their
administrations
,
notwithstanding
of
their
having
a
lawfull
call
,
and
pastoral
relation
to
this
Church
,
will
be
easily
retorted
upon
himself
,
and
abundantly
counterballanced
by
that
which
in
the
case
of
conformists
may
be
pleaded
to
supersede
,
and
stop
the
peoples
owning
of
them
in
this
circumstantiat
posture
of
our
Church
.
So
that
the
state
of
the
question
here
being
this
,
whether
Ministers
ordained
by
Bishops
,
and
presented
by
Patrons
,
or
those
who
are
ordained
by
the
Presbytry
,
and
called
by
the
people
,
have
best
right
to
officiat
in
this
Church
,
as
her
Pastours
,
according
to
the
Scripture
rule
,
her
reformation
and
principles
,
and
to
be
own'd
or
disownd
by
the
people
accordingly
.
The
decision
will
be
very
easy
and
favourable
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
exclusive
of
all
his
fraternity
.
And
whatever
he
doth
here
alledge
anent
P●…esbyterian
Ministers
schism
,
intrusion
,
or
disorder
,
will
be
easily
retorted
upon
himself
,
reputando
rem
in
universum
&
ab
initio
.
Or
tracing
matters
to
their
true
originals
.
But
now
what
sayes
our
Informer
to
this
argument
of
his
Doubter
,
as
he
slenderly
propones
it
to
make
it
foordable
.
1.
He
tells
us
that
sundry
whom
we
refuse
to
hear
,
entred
by
the
peoples
call
.
But
tho
it
were
granted
that
such
might
be
heard
,
who
are
but
a
few
,
how
will
this
plead
for
all
the
rest
,
and
loose
his
Doubters
argument
as
to
them
?
2.
we
told
him
that
it
s
not
the
want
of
the
peoples
call
,
simply
and
abstractedly
from
the
circumstances
of
our
case
,
that
we
ground
upon
in
disowning
them
,
no
more
then
it
is
Presbyterian
Ministers
want
of
an
Episcopal
ordination
which
he
pleads
simply
as
the
ground
of
disowning
them
:
But
our
ground
is
their
standing
all
of
them
in
a
direct
stated
opposition
to
the
Reformation
,
union
,
and
order
of
this
Church
,
and
driving
on
an
interest
and
design
tending
to
overturn
it
,
and
by
consequence
being
lyable
to
her
highest
censures
;
and
likewise
their
persecuting
and
opposing
faithful
Ministers
contending
for
her
Reformation
.
3.
All
those
who
he
alledges
entered
by
the
peoples
call
,
havng
by
their
conformity
to
this
Prelacy
and
Erastianism
,
disowned
their
first
entry
in
this
manner
,
and
obtained
presentation
from
Patrons
,
and
collation
from
prelats
,
according
to
their
new
acts
and
orders
,
are
now
of
the
same
stamp
with
the
rest
,
as
to
their
principles
and
carriage
,
and
consequently
the
peoples
disowning
them
upon
the
fore-mentioned
grounds
in
this
our
case
,
falls
under
the
same
obligations
with
their
disowning
others
,
and
the
rather
because
their
apostacy
is
an
aggravation
of
their
guilt
.
But
now
what
sayes
our
Informer
to
this
text
Acts.
14.
23.
which
is
brought
by
his
Doubter
to
prove
the
peoples
right
in
the
election
of
Pastours
.
He
grants
,
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
borrowed
from
the
custom
used
in
some
of
the
ancient
Greek
states
,
where
the
people
signifyed
their
election
of
Magistrats
,
by
the
stretching
forth
of
their
hands
,
because
the
word
so
signifies
.
Well
,
what
then
hath
he
to
quarrell
at
in
this
argument
,
for
the
peoples
right
in
the
call
of
Ministers
from
this
text
?
1.
He
tells
us
that
Doctor
Hamond
and
other
Criticks
shew
,
that
the
word
is
oftenused
by
writters
to
express
the
action
of
one
single
person
,
as
it
s
taken
by
Luke
Acts
10.
41.
Speaking
of
Gods
chusing
or
appointing
,
So
that
the
word
is
not
necessarly
to
be
underst●…od
of
the
action
of
many
chsiung
by
snffrages
.
Ans.
That
the
Greek
Word
in
its
ordinary
and
constant
acceptation
doth
import
,
and
is
made
use
of
to
signify
a
chusing
by
suffrages
,
and
lifting
up
or
extending
the
hands
,
Presbyterian
Writers
have
proven
from
a
full
consent
of
Criticks
,
Interpreters
,
and
the
best
Greeck
authors
.
The
Syriack
version
shewes
that
the
word
is
not
to
be
understood
of
the
Apostles
ordination
of
Elders
,
but
of
the
Churches
election
of
Elders
in
rendering
the
text
thus
,
Moreover
they
made
to
themselves
,
that
is
,
the
disciples
mentioned
in
the
former
verse
,
made
to
themselves
,
(
for
such
as
were
made
,
were
not
Elders
or
Ministers
to
Paul
&
Barnabas
,
but
to
the
multitude
of
the
disciples
)
in
every
Church
while
they
were
fasting
with
them
&
praying
,
&
commending
them
&c.
Which
election
could
not
be
but
after
the
Grecian
form
by
the
Churches
lifting
up
,
or
stretching
out
of
hands
,
thus
Mr
Gillesp.
Misc.
quest.
page
9.
Who
also
cleares
this
from
Criticks
and
Interpreters
asserting
this
sense
of
the
word
.
He
shews
that
where
Iulius
Pollux
hath
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
lib.
2.
cap.
4.
Gualther
and
Wolf
S●…berus
render
it
manuum
extensio
,
and
that
Budaeus
interprets
the
word
plebiscitum
,
suffragium
,
H.
Stephanus
,
manum
porrigo
.
Because
(
he
saith
)
they
did
in
giving
votes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
thence
the
word
came
to
be
used
,
for
scisco
,
decerno
,
●…reo
.
Iustin.
Martyr
.
Quest.
&
Resp.
ad
orthod.
Resp.
ad
quest.
14.
distinguishes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
of
a
different
signification
.
Arrias
Montanus
in
his
lexicon
,
doth
interpret
this
word
manum
elevare
,
eligere
,
creare
Magistratum
per
suffragia
.
Again
2.
The
manner
of
election
among
the
grecians
clears
this
metaphore
,
&
signification
of
the
word
.
Demosth.
Cicero
and
others
make
this
appear
;
they
had
a
phrase
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
omnium
suffragijs
,
obtinet
,
and
another
phrase
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
no
man
gives
a
contrary
vote
.
The
approving
votes
,
in
chusing
Grecian
Magistrats
in
the
theatre
,
was
by
holding
up
,
or
stretching
forth
of
hands
.
See
page
10.
11.
12.
Where
this
is
learndly
and
at
large
made
good
.
3.
This
is
also
made
good
from
the
ordinary
method
wherin
the
scriptures
do
express
the
setting
apart
of
Church
officers
to
their
sacred
functions
,
which
is
by
the
Churches
election
and
consent
,
see
1
Cor.
16.
3.
2
Cor.
8.
19.
1
Tim.
3.
7.
Acts
1.
23
,
26.
and
13.
3.
and
15.
22.
And
since
the
holy
ghost
doth
here
intend
by
Luke
to
express
the
manner
of
the
establishment
of
Elders
,
it
is
utte●…ly
improbable
that
the
churches
suffrage
should
be
here
omitted
.
4.
Protestant
writers
draw
the
Churches
suffrage
in
election
of
Ministers
,
from
this
word
,
Magd.
Cent.
1.
lib.
2.
cap.
6.
Zanch.
in
4.
precept
.
So
Beza
,
Bullinger
decad
.
5.
Serm.
4.
Iunius
contrav
5.
lib.
cap.
7.
Gerard.
Tom.
6.
pag.
95.
Danaeus
1
Tim.
5.
Wallaeus
in
his
treatise
quibusnam
competit
vocatio
pastorum
.
Cartwright
,
against
the
Rhemists
,
objecting
(
with
our
Informer
)
That
in
scripture
this
word
signifies
imposition
of
hands
,
answereth
,
That
its
absurd
to
imagine
,
that
the
holy
Ghost
by
Luke
speaking
with
the
tongues
of
men
,
and
to
their
understanding
should
use
a
word
in
that
signification
,
in
which
it
was
never
used
before
his
time
,
in
any
writter
holy
or
profane
.
For
how
could
he
be
understood
(
saith
he
)
if
using
the
note
and
name
,
he
had
fled
from
the
signification
whereto
they
used
it
,
therefore
unless
he
purposed
to
write
what
none
could
understand
or
read
,
it
must
needs
be
that
as
he
wrote
,
so
he
meant
election
by
voices
.
Then
he
proves
this
from
Oecumenius
the
greek
scholiast
,
from
the
Greek
Jgnatius
,
and
tells
us
,
there
were
proper
words
to
signify
the
laying
on
of
hands
,
had
the
holy
ghost
intended
this
,
and
that
its
absurd
to
thinke
that
Luke
▪
who
straitneth
himself
to
keep
the
words
of
the
seventie
Interpreters
,
when
he
could
have
uttered
things
in
better
terms
then
they
did
,
should
here
forsake
the
phrase
wherewith
they
noted
the
laying
on
of
hands
,
being
most
proper
and
natural
to
signify
the
same
.
Next
,
As
for
what
he
objects
from
Acts
10.
41.
had
he
been
sincere
or
diligent
in
this
debate
,
he
might
have
found
that
the
above
mentioned
learned
Presbyterian
writer
with
others
doth
here
tell
him
first
,
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
used
there
,
is
not
the
same
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
but
is
as
it
were
a
preventing
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
a
prior
designation
.
2.
That
its
atribute
to
God
metaphoric●…
or
improperly
,
shewing
that
in
the
council
of
God
,
the
Apostles
were
in
a
manner
elected
by
voices
in
the
trinity
,
which
he
clears
by
that
parallel
Gen.
1.
Let
[
us
]
make
man
.
Adding
,
that
this
hinders
no
more
the
proper
signification
of
the
word
,
when
applyed
to
men
,
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ascribed
to
God
can
prove
,
that
there
's
no
change
in
men
,
when
they
repent
,
because
there
is
none
in
God
.
The
Informers
2d
answer
is
,
That
Greek
writers
do
ordinarly
use
this
word
to
signify
ordaining
a
person
to
a
charge
,
without
voices
and
suffrages
.
And
that
here
it
s
so
to
be
understood
,
he
proves
from
this
,
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
are
said
to
do
this
work
exprest
by
this
Greek
word
,
and
not
the
people
;
That
we
will
not
say
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
elected
Ministers
to
these
Churches
,
which
were
to
yeeld
the
question
.
That
therefore
our
translation
reads
it
,
they
that
is
Paul
and
●…arnabas
,
ordained
them
elders
&c.
they
pray'd
and
commended
them
to
the
Lord
;
So
that
it
was
not
the
action
of
the
people
,
but
of
Paul
and
Barnabas
.
Ans.
All
this
is
nothing
but
his
petio
principii
and
what
is
answered
already
1.
That
this
word
signifies
ordinarly
the
ordaining
of
a
Person
to
a
charge
without
votes
and
suffrages
,
is
most
false
,
and
contrary
to
the
sense
of
the
word
in
Greek
authors
contrary
to
the
Scripture
acceptation
of
the
word
,
&
to
sound
divines
as
we
have
heard
.
And
to
this
may
be
here
added
(
which
is
also
the
observation
of
the
above
mentioned
learn'd
writters
)
that
we
find
extraordinary
Officers
in
the
Apostles
times
not
put
into
their
functions
without
the
Churches
consent
,
hence
we
may
conclude
,
that
far
less
ought
there
to
be
an
intrusion
of
ordinary
Ministers
without
their
consent
.
Paul
&
Silas
were
chosen
of
the
whole
Church
to
their
extraordinary
delegation
,
Acts.
15.
22.
Pauls
company
were
chosen
by
the
Church
2
Cor.
18.
19.
The
Commissioners
of
Corinth
were
approved
by
the
Church
1
Cor
16.
3.
Matthias
an
Apostle
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
simul
suffragiis
electus
est
,
as
Arrias
Montanus
turn's
it
,
was
together
chosen
by
suffrages
,
viz.
of
the
120
Disciples
.
2.
How
prove's
he
that
Paul
and
and
Barnabas
did
this
work
exprest
by
this
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
we
told
him
that
the
Syriack
version
understands
it
of
the
Disciples
.
Mr
Gillespy
(
lococitato
)
proves
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
here
to
be
rendred
ipsis
not
illis
,
shewing
that
Pasor
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
renders
Acts
14.
23.
quumque
ipsis
per
suffragia
creassent
presbyteros
;
so
saith
he
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
he
proves
because
the
Greeks
use
the
one
word
sometimes
for
the
other
,
as
he
clears
from
Scripture
parallels
.
So
he
thus
senseth
the
verse
and
context
,
the
Churches
of
Lystra
,
Iconium
and
Antioch
,
after
chusing
of
Elders
who
were
also
solemnly
set
apart
with
prayer
and
fasting
,
were
willing
to
let
Paul
and
Barnabas
go
from
them
to
the
planting
and
watering
of
other
Churches
,
and
commended
them
to
God
to
open
to
them
an
effectu●…ll
door
,
Eph.
6
▪
18
,
19.
or
for
their
saftie
and
preservation
Luk.
23.
46.
Again
,
what
inconsistency
with
our
sense
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
will
it
be
,
if
all
that
is
mentioned
in
the
23.
verse
be
taken
as
joint
acts
of
Paul
&
Barnabas
,
and
of
the
Churches
together
with
them
,
viz.
That
they
all
concurr'd
in
making
them
Elders
by
suffrage
,
and
in
prayer
and
fasting
,
and
commending
themselves
to
the
Lord
.
3.
How
proves
he
,
that
the
relative
[
they
]
in
our
translation
is
referred
to
Paul
and
Barnabas
only
,
rather
then
the
Churches
?
sure
,
this
is
a
blind
proof
,
and
(
as
we
use
to
say
)
a
Baculo
ad
angulum
;
they
ordain'd
elders
:
Ergo
Paul
and
Barnabas
only
ordain'd
by
Imposition
of
hands
;
since
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
it
s
resolved
by
the
learned
,
cannot
hardly
in
propriety
of
speech
import
laying
on
of
hands
in
ordination
,
which
was
proper
to
Paul
and
Barnabas
;
and
the
Septuagint
whom
Luke
followes
,
expressing
the
laying
on
of
hands
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Our
Informer
must
acknowledge
this
from
the
sequel
of
his
own
reasoning
,
for
he
tells
us
,
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
could
not
elect
Ministers
,
very
true
,
and
therefore
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
in
its
native
acceptation
signifies
election
by
suffrage
,
as
he
hath
acknowledged
,
must
relate
to
the
people
;
Since
there
could
be
no
hand-suffrage
betwixt
Paul
and
Barnabas
4.
Giving
and
not
granting
that
this
was
an
act
of
Paul
and
Barnabas
;
distinct
from
the
Churches
suffrage
,
our
argument
stands
good
and
this
will
not
in
the
least
yeeld
the
question
as
this
man
foolishly
imagines
;
for
to
read
it
thus
,
Paul
and
Barnabas
ordained
elders
by
suffrage
,
is
all
one
with
this
,
that
they
ordained
such
to
be
elders
as
were
chosen
by
the
Chuch
.
The
people
declared
by
hand-suffrage
whom
they
would
have
to
be
Elders
,
and
Paul
and
Barnabas
ordained
them
Elders
:
As
the
Consul
who
held
the
court
among
the
Romans
,
created
new
Magistrats
,
that
is
,
did
receive
the
votes
and
preside
in
the
elections
.
Since
(
as
I
said
)
the
hand-suffrage
cannot
in
any
propriety
of
speech
relate
to
Paul
and
Barnabas
alone
.
See
Calvines
Institut.
lib.
4.
cap.
53.
paragr.
15.
and
Mr
Gillesp.
ubi
supra
,
who
further
tells
us
,
that
this
may
be
either
an
action
of
the
Church
only
,
as
the
Syriack
makes
it
,
or
a
joint
action
both
of
the
Churches
and
of
Paul
and
Barnabas
,
as
Iunius
makes
it
,
or
an
action
of
Paul
and
Barnabas
in
this
sense
,
that
they
did
constitute
elders
to
the
Churches
by
the
Churches
own
voices
,
in
all
which
senses
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
stands
good
for
us
.
To
which
we
may
add
,
that
Calvine
renders
the
word
cu●…
suffragiis
creassent
,
when
the
had
made
by
votes
.
Adding
,
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
ordained
Ministers
to
the
Churches
,
for
they
did
preside
over
,
and
moderat
the
people's
election
.
Presbyteros
dicuntur
eligere
Paulus
&
Barnabas
an
soli
hoc
privato
officio
faciunt
quum
potius
rem
permittunt
omnium
sugragiis
:
Ergo
in
Pastoribus
creandis
libera
fuit
populi
electio
,
sed
ne
quia
tumul●…uose
fieret
,
praesident
Paulus
&
barnabas
quasi
Moderatores
.
That
is
,
Paul
and
Barnabas
are
said
to
ebuse
Elders
,
but
do
they
this
solely
and
by
themselves
,
and
do
not
rather
remit
this
to
the
suffrages
of
all
,
therefore
in
the
making
of
Pastours
the
people
had
a
free
election
and
choise
,
but
left
any
thing
should
be
done
tumultuously
Paul
and
Barnabas
do
preside
as
Moderatours
.
So
he
sayes
we
are
to
understand
the
decree
of
the
Council
of
Laodicea
,
which
seemed
to
inhibit
the
people's
elections
.
The
Dutch
Annot.
upon
this
passage
do
tell
us
,
that
this
was
a
custome
among
the
Greeks
in
chusing
their
Magistrats
,
that
the
people
by
lifting
up
their
hands
give
to
understand
their
voting
,
so
it
seems
that
from
thence
this
custome
was
also
used
in
the
primitive
Church
,
that
the
setting
forth
of
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
being
done
by
Apostles
or
those
that
were
sent
by
them
for
this
purpose
,
was
approved
by
the
Church
by
the
lifting
up
of
their
hands
;
which
use
long
continued
in
the
Church
;
as
the
Ecclesiastick
histories
testify
.
And
having
told
us
that
others
understand
this
of
imposition
of
hands
(
which
they
set
down
as
the
secondary
and
less
probable
opinion
)
they
add
that
this
also
was
done
with
consent
of
the
church
as
appears
by
the
fasting
and
praying
which
was
done
by
the
whole
Congregation
,
and
was
also
done
in
this
chusing
of
the
Elders
,
referring
to
1
Tim.
5.
17.
Acts
10.
41.
upon
which
passage
they
shew
,
that
the
Greek
word
in
Acts
14.
23.
signifies
properly
by
lifting
up
of
hands
to
choose
or
ordain
,
and
is
here
used
concerning
the
choosing
of
ordinary
Ministers
by
the
suffrages
of
the
Church
,
to
which
this
extraordinary
choosing
of
Apostles
is
here
opposed
,
as
being
done
by
lifting
up
or
stretching
forth
of
Gods
hand
alone
.
Upon
Acts.
6.
6.
where
mention
is
made
of
laying
on
of
hands
,
they
tells
us
,
that
as
this
was
usual
in
blessing
Gen.
48.
14.
in
sacrifices
Lev.
1.
4.
and
in
installing
into
offices
Numb.
27.
18.
Deut
34.
9.
So
the
Church
(
pointing
at
the
Apostolick
Churches
practice
)
in
investiture
of
Ministers
,
did
thus
dedicate
them
to
God
his
service
,
and
used
thus
to
wish
his
blessing
1
Tim.
5.
22.
The
English
annot.
upon
this
text
under
debate
do
shew
,
that
the
word
signifies
making
of
such
a
choise
,
as
was
made
or
confirmed
by
lifting
up
of
hands
,
to
signify
suffrages
or
consent
,
and
having
told
us
of
the
general
signification
of
the
word
in
reference
to
ordination
or
appointing
chap.
10.
41.
they
add
,
that
the
Syriack
reads
the
text
thus
,
[
and
they
appointed
to
them
Elders
in
every
Congregation
.
]
Whence
they
collect
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
did
not
all
alone
in
ordaining
&
Church-government
;
other
Christians
shew'd
their
consent
or
approbation
of
the
persons
who
were
ordained
Elders
by
lifting
up
their
hands
;
as
very
wee
l
knowing
,
of
what
behaviour
they
had
been
among
them
:
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
(
say
they
)
to
disallow
by
some
act
,
election
,
or
decree
.
Adding
,
that
Suidas
interprets
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
his
Interpreter
renders
electio
,
delectus
,
per
suffragia
confirmatio
,
populi
totius
consensus
,
an
election
,
choosing
,
a
confirmation
by
voices
,
consent
of
all
the
people
.
Let
our
Informer
here
observe
1.
That
the
choosing
of
Ministers
by
suffrage
,
and
consent
of
the
Church
,
is
imported
and
held
out
in
this
passage
under
debate
,
in
the
consentient
judgment
of
Interpreters
,
and
that
this
greek
word
,
as
in
its
ordinary
,
so
its
special
acceptation
in
this
place
,
will
clearly
infer
so
much
,
whatever
authority
in
ordination
and
election
as
to
Paul
and
Barnabas
,
and
of
Ministers
consequently
,
the
circumstances
of
this
text
will
bear
out
and
infer
.
2.
That
this
interest
of
the
people
in
the
election
and
call
of
Ministers
is
comprobate
by
the
judgement
and
consentient
practice
of
the
ancient
Church
,
as
the
history
therof
doth
verify
.
3.
That
that
passage
Act.
10.
41.
doth
(
in
their
sense
)
nothing
invalidate
this
right
of
the
people
,
held
out
in
this
text
,
the
one
place
speaking
of
an
immediat
choosing
by
God
,
the
other
of
mediat
and
ordinary
by
men
,
the
one
,
pointing
at
ordination
and
appointing
of
the
Apostles
to
their
office
in
a
general
sense
,
the
other
of
the
special
or
specifical
mould
of
the
call
and
election
of
Ministers
.
4.
That
this
right
and
interest
of
the
people
in
Ministers
call
,
as
it
is
founded
upon
the
ancient
practice
and
unrepealed
priviledge
of
Gods
Church
under
the
old
Testament
,
so
it
hath
besides
this
,
and
such
like
instances
,
and
exemplary
recommendations
of
the
new-testament
,
a
constant
moral
warrand
of
the
peoples
knowledge
anent
the
case
and
behaviour
of
their
spiritual
guides
.
His
3d
answer
to
this
text
is
,
That
if
we
understand
it
of
a
hand
suffrage
we
lose
by
it
.
Why
so
?
because
we
give
advantadge
to
the
Independents
for
popular
election
of
Ministers
wherea
;
we
give
this
power
not
to
all
the
people
,
but
to
the
session
.
And
he
tells
us
,
that
therefore
understanding
Presbyterians
have
forborn
to
pressthis
text
.
Ans.
1.
We
have
proven
that
a
congregational
Eldership
is
Iuris
divini
,
&
that
by
consequence
this
election
strictly
taken
must
be
their
priviledge
,
See
9
Argument
against
Prelacy
on
the
1.
Dialogue
.
Who
these
understanding
Presbyterians
are
,
who
do
not
understand
this
place
as
warranding
the
people's
interest
in
the
election
&
call
of
Ministers
,
the
Informer
hath
not
given
us
an
account
,
since
his
Doubter
is
none
of
them
,
and
if
he
mean
the
Authors
of
jus
divinum
Ministerii
Evangelici
,
he
will
finde
that
they
do
clearly
assert
this
truth
(
propos.
1.
)
so
as
it
do
not
exclude
the
due
right
of
Ministers
herein
.
See
pag.
127.
and
129.
And
the
Assembly
of
divines
in
their
directory
for
ordination
of
Ministers
4.
Branch
,
do
require
the
people's
consent
and
approbation
,
as
necessarily
antecedaneous
to
the
ordination
.
Besides
,
could
the
Informer
be
ignorant
that
there
are
several
other
weighty
Scripture
grounds
&
arguments
pleaded
by
our
writters
to
fortify
this
right
of
the
people
;
why
did
he
not
then
put
these
also
into
the
mouth
of
his
Doubter
,
and
give
us
an
account
of
his
own
,
and
his
Episcopal
Masters
'
skill
in
dissolving
them
?
Moreover
tho
it
were
granted
,
that
all
here
did
concurr
in
this
suffrage
where
no
Eldership
was
yet
constitute
(
as
Mr
Gillespy
Judgeth
probable
miscell
.
pag.
14.
)
it
will
nothing
infringe
the
power
of
the
Eldership
in
Churches
constitute
,
there
being
a
vast
difference
betwixt
the
modus
rei
,
in
Churches
constitute
,
and
these
in
fieri
or
that
are
to
be
constitute
.
Again
2.
We
told
him
that
the
word
imports
a
judicial
suffrage
by
extending
of
hands
,
and
that
in
commitiis
,
among
courts
,
senats
,
and
representatives
of
the
people
,
as
in
the
Roman
senate
,
in
which
the
Consuls
presided
.
And
that
among
the
Greeks
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
the
Magistrat
created
by
suffrages
,
in
the
courts
solemnly
held
for
that
purpose
.
That
the
Roman
senate
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
Chrysostome
saith
,
which
Doctor
Potter
expones
,
made
their
Gods
by
suffrage
(
Charity
mistaken
page
145.
)
Again
,
supposing
Elderships
here
existent
,
this
phrase
may
be
well
referr'd
to
the
people
,
as
importing
their
consent
and
approbation
,
reserving
still
to
the
Eldership
their
Juridical
suffrage
,
and
decisive
vote
in
election
.
Mr
Gillespy
(
ubi
supra
)
clears
this
,
shewing
that
in
Athens
it selfe
the
people
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
when
they
did
but
like
well
the
persons
nominated
,
as
when
a
Thesaurer
offered
some
to
be
surety
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whom
the
people
shall
approve
.
This
he
proves
from
Demosth.
advers.
Timocr
.
from
which
oration
he
makes
it
good
,
that
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Assembly
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
court
of
Iudges
,
are
plainly
distinguished
so
far
,
that
they
might
not
be
both
upon
one
day
;
and
that
tho
the
people
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
yet
not
they
but
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
judges
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
ordain
or
appoint
a
Magistrat
.
In
a
word
,
we
give
in
this
mater
[
the
Ministers
call
]
the
suffrage
and
election
to
the
Eldership
(
I
mean
in
a
Church
constitute
)
and
the
consent
(
which
is
distinct
from
the
decisive
voice
as
the
learned
acknowledge
,
Gamachaeus
in
primam
2dae
ou●…
of
Thomas
quest.
15
shewes
this
)
to
the
whole
people
,
and
the
formal
authoritative
mission
,
and
imposition
of
hands
,
making
the
man
a
Minister
,
and
giving
him
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
who
had
it
not
before
,
to
the
Presbytery
,
according
to
the
Scripture
pattern
;
which
is
toto
coelo
different
from
the
Independents
principles
in
this
point
.
If
any
object
that
the
giving
the
suffrage
and
election
of
Ministers
to
the
Eldership
,
excluding
the
people
,
makes
the
breach
greater
betwixt
the
Independents
and
us
then
needs
,
it
being
sufficient
to
clear
us
from
their
principles
,
that
we
allow
not
either
to
the
Eldership
or
congregation
,
the
formal
authoritative
mission
and
imposition
of
hands
.
And
that
our
arguments
upon
this
head
seems
to
give
to
the
people
not
onely
consent
,
but
suffrage
in
election
.
I
shall
desire
first
,
that
Mr
Gillespies
answer
be
considered
(
Miscell
.
page
24.
)
to
an
objection
about
our
homologating
with
Independents
in
this
point
.
Who
sayes
that
in
this
point
of
election
we
do
not
homologate
with
them
,
who
give
to
the
collective
body
of
the
Church
(
women
and
children
under
age
onely
excepted
)
the
power
of
decisive
vote
or
suffrage
in
elections
,
we
give
the
vote
onely
to
the
Eldership
or
Church
representative
,
so
that
they
carry
along
with
them
the
consent
of
the
major
or
better
part
of
the
congregation
.
So
that
he
makes
the
attributing
of
this
decisive
voice
&
suffrage
in
elections
,
unto
the
people
,
to
be
down
right
Independency
&
the
march
stone
of
their
difference
from
us
.
He
tells
us
afterward
,
that
the
consent
and
knowledge
belongs
to
the
whole
Church
without
which
Ministers
may
not
be
intruded
,
&
the
counsel
and
deliberation
,
(
which
is
distinct
from
this
consent
)
to
the
ablest
&
wisest
of
the
congregation
,
especially
the
Magistrates
.
But
he
distinguishes
from
both
these
the
decisive
vote
in
Court
or
judicatory
,
&
the
formal
consistorial
determination
in
the
case
of
election
,
and
this
he
sayes
,
belongs
onely
unto
,
and
consists
in
,
the
votes
of
the
Eldership
.
And
that
the
Independents
contrarily
give
the
conference
and
deliberation
to
the
Eldership
(
as
we
use
to
do
in
Comittees
)
but
the
decision
to
the
whole
Congregation
.
Adding
further
,
that
such
as
have
written
against
Independents
do
thus
state
the
difference
betwixt
them
and
us
in
this
point
,
viz.
not
whether
matters
of
great
importance
and
publick
concernment
ought
to
be
determined
with
the
peoples
free
consent
(
for
this
we
grant
)
but
whether
the
cause
must
be
brought
to
the
body
of
the
Congregation
to
give
their
voices
therin
together
with
the
officers
of
the
Church
,
citing
Laget
in
his
defence
of
Church-government
,
chap.
1.
and
Mr
Herle
Prolocutor
of
the
Assembly
of
Divines
in
that
piece
intituled
the
Independency
on
scriptures
of
the
Independency
of
Churches
page
3.
where
he
sets
down
this
forementioned
consent
to
the
Minister
who
is
to
be
chosen
,
as
that
which
we
allow
to
the
members
of
the
congregation
in
common
.
Adding
further
,
that
Independents
place
the
whole
essence
of
a
calling
in
election
,
accounting
ordination
to
be
but
a
solemnizing
of
it
,
wheras
we
place
the
potestative
mission
,
not
in
the
Churches
election
but
lawfull
ordination
.
So
that
in
the
judgement
of
these
Divines
the
reserving
to
the
Presbytry
the
formal
authoritative
mission
is
the
not
the
sole
point
of
difference
betwixt
the
Independents
and
us
,
nor
can
a
man
be
cleard
from
Independent
principles
in
their
judgement
,
who
extends
the
decisive
juridical●…
vote
in
election
beyond
the
Eldership
,
and
gives
this
decisive
,
suffrage
strictly
taken
to
the
people
Besides
,
the
absurd
and
dangerous
consequences
following
upon
this
opinion
,
allowing
the
formal
juridical
elective
suffrage
to
the
people
,
are
evident
,
such
as
1.
That
this
goes
in
some
respect
beyond
Independents
opinion
as
to
the
peoples
power
in
elective
suffrage
,
who
though
they
give
it
to
the
collective
body
,
yet
●…with
a
restriction
excluding
women
,
children
and
persons
under
age
,
not
to
every
individual
.
2.
That
this
will
inferr
that
every
point
of
government
and
every
cause
,
relating
immediatly
to
the
congregation
,
must
be
brought
to
the
multitude
or
body
of
the
people
,
to
give
their
voices
therin
together
with
the
officers
of
the
Church
,
for
upon
the
same
ground
that
the
elective
suffrages
belong
to
them
,
so
must
every
piece
of
government
.
Now
Mr
Laget
ubi
supra
expresly
states
this
as
the
Independents
principle
,
and
as
that
wherin
they
differ
from
us
3.
This
cuts
off
all
right
and
power
of
a
juridical
eldership
,
which
is
by
our
writters
asserted
and
made
good
from
the
scriptures
,
and
makes
all
their
authoritative
decisive
suffrages
,
in
this
and
other
points
of
government
,
in
reference
to
the
congregation
,
an
invasion
of
the
peoples
right
,
and
unlawfull
usurpation
of
their
power
;
for
if
this
formall
decisive
suffrage
belong
to
all
the
collective
body
jure
divino
,
how
can
they
give
it
away
?
4.
This
will
by
consequence
bring
the
collective
body
to
have
their
formal
decisive
juridical
suffrage
,
in
superiour
Church-judicatories
,
Presbytries
,
and
synods
,
in
every
point
wherin
the
congregational
eldership
and
session
have
an
immediat
interest
.
Again
,
since
consent
and
knowledge
,
is
allowed
by
our
writters
to
the
whole
congregation
,
and
deliberation
and
counsel
to
some
eminent
members
,
the
elderships
elective
suffrage
,
(
which
in
their
judgement
is
necessarly
connected
with
this
)
cannot
be
said
to
impeach
the
due
right
of
the
collective
body
of
the
congregation
in
this
point
;
unless
(
as
I
said
)
we
step
over
the
march-stone
,
and
bring
in
the
whole
collective
body
of
the
congregation
to
have
a
decisive
suffrage
in
government
.
In
a
word
,
the
scripture
arguments
,
and
other
grounds
here
hinted
,
which
do
clearly
conclude
the
people
and
congregations
right
as
to
a
call
in
general
,
will
not
infer
that
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
belonges
to
every
one
of
the
people
or
the
whole
collective
body
,
so
far
as
to
import
a
formal
decisive
suffrage
,
for
it
being
the
due
right
of
the
peoples
representatives
,
the
Eldership
(
in
whose
choise
and
election
the
people
have
a
great
Interest
,
and
to
which
they
give
a
formal
consent
)
the
congregation
doth
in
and
by
them
give
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
suffrage
,
and
what
is
proper
to
some
part
of
this
organick
body
the
Church
,
may
be
well
said
to
be
the
due
right
and
action
of
the
whole
in
a
general
sense
,
each
part
concurring
suo
modo
.
A
man
is
said
to
see
,
though
the
eye
onely
be
the
proper
organe
of
sight
,
because
the
eye
subsists
in
and
with
the
body
,
and
cannot
act
without
,
or
separated
from
it
.
So
the
people
in
a
general
sense
and
mediatly
elect
by
the
eldership
,
the
whole
collective
body
concurring
in
what
is
proper
to
them
herein
.
We
heard
from
MrGillespy
[
ubi
supra
,
]
that
among
the
Greeks
,
the
people
in
consenting
to
a
choise
of
governours
were
said
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
so
that
although
,
upon
the
supposal
of
the
divine
right
of
a
juridical
eldership
,
representing
the
congregation
(
which
right
is
abundantly
proved
from
scripture
)
the
formal
Cousistorial
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
juridical
suffrage
belongs
to
them
,
yet
the
whole
collective
body
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
manner
formerly
explained
,
stands
good
.
His
last
answer
is
,
that
if
we
think
the
peoples
election
s●…
necessary
that
none
can
be
a
Minister
without
it
,
then
we
null
the
ministry
of
the
whole
Christian
world
for
above
1000
years
upward
,
and
the
Ministry
of
this
C●…rch
ever
till
the
year
1649.
For
untill
then
patronages
were
not
taken
away
.
Ans
We
have
proved
that
the
People's
right
in
the
call
and
election
of
Pastours
is
the
pure
Scripture
pattern
continued
in
the
Church
of
God
for
diverse
ages
,
which
is
enough
to
prove
that
as
it
ought
to
be
endeavoured
after
and
established
,
by
Churches
who
would
imitat
this
pattern
of
the
Lords
tabernacle
shewed
upon
the
moun●…
▪
So
where
it
is
obtained
it
ought
to
be
held
fast
against
any
contraire
innovations
.
That
the
people's
interest
in
the
election
and
call
of
Ministers
and
teachers
had
place
from
the
Apostles
even
unto
his
own
time
in
a
good
measure
,
may
be
proven
(
besides
what
we
have
said
already
to
clear
this
)
by
a
very
unsuspect
witness
Marcus
Antonius
de
dominis
de
Repub.
Eccles.
lib.
1.
cap.
22.
Num.
10.
he
saith
,
in
electione
ministrorum
etiam
Apostolorum
tempore
&
ipsorum
instituto
,
plebem
&
totam
multitudinem
magnam
habuisse
partem
.
And
lib.
3.
cap.
3.
Num.
12.
Iam
vero
post
concilium
Nicenum
in
electionibus
eundem
prorsus
veterem
morem
perpetuo
Ecclesiam
ad
nostra
pene
tempora
servasse
,
ut
a
clero
&
popul●…
fieret
ex
patribus
ac
rebus
gestis
,
&
conciliis
&
juribus
:
ex
Romanorum
Pontificum
attestationibus
&
decretis
jam
sumo
comprobandum
.
That
is
,
that
after
the
Council
of
Nice
the
same
ancient
custome
was
own'd
to
his
times
by
the
Church
,
as
to
the
peoples
interest
in
this
election
and
call
of
Ministers
,
he
undertakes
to
prove
from
the
Fathers
,
from
history
,
and
Councils
and
Laws
,
and
the
very
decrees
of
Popes
.
In
the
Council
of
Paris
Anno
559.
There
was
such
a
decree
,
Quia
in
aliquibus
crivitatibus
consuetudo
prisca
negligitur
.
&c.
Because
the
ancient
Custome
and
decrees
of
the
Canons
are
neglected
in
some
cities
—
they
appoint
the
decrees
of
the
Canons
to
be
keept
,
and
the
ancient
Custom
,
ut
nullus
civibus
invitis
ordinetur
Episcopus
,
nisi
quem
populi
&
clericorum
electio
pleni●…ima
quaesierit
voluntate
&c.
That
none
be
ordained
a
Bishop
without
the
will
of
the
citizens
,
but
such
onely
whom
the
people
and
Clergy
shall
chuse
with
full
consent
.
That
the
people
had
a
right
to
require
,
call
and
elect
their
Pastour
in
the
ancient
Church
,
Didoclav
.
proves
from
the
Example
of
Eradius
,
Ambrose
,
Flavianus
,
Nectarius
&c.
From
pag.
3●…6
.
to
331.
shewing
that
Cyprian
saith
of
Rabbinus
that
he
was
chosen
Bishop
,
de
universae
fraternitatis
suffragio
,
lib.
1.
Ep.
2.
By
the
chose
of
the
whole
Brethren
.
From
the
Epistle
of
the
Council
of
Nice
,
to
those
of
Alexandria
,
Lybia
,
&c.
which
is
extant
with
Theodoret
Hist.
lib.
1.
cap.
9.
Where
he
shews
that
those
who
succeed
in
the
room
of
the
dead
Prelat
must
upon
these
terms
succeed
,
si
digni
viderentur
,
&
populus
eligeret
,
if
they
appear
worthy
and
the
people
shall
chuse
;
That
Chrysostom
succeeded
to
Nectarius
;
postquam
in
hoc
Clerus
&
populus
suffragia
sua
contulissent
,
after
he
was
called
and
chosen
by
the
Clergy
and
people
.
Sozom.
lib.
3.
c.
8.
That
Evagrius
was
chosen
suffragiis
,
or
by
votes
and
suffrages
,
Socrates
lib.
6
cap.
13.
That
Augustine
called
again
and
again
for
the
people's
consent
as
to
his
successour
,
Hic
mihi
v●…stra
assentatione
opus
est
.
F●…
.
11.
To
which
may
be
added
,
a
very
impartial
witness
Bishop
Bilson
(
Perpetual
Government
Chap.
15.
page
434.
)
Where
he
shewes
that
the
people
had
their
right
in
chusing
their
Pastours
.
Onely
,
to
prevent
mistake
upon
these
passages
,
we
would
take
notice
,
that
this
suffrage
here
atribute
generally
and
indiscriminatim
,
to
the
people
and
clergy
,
must
be
understood
pro
uniuscujusque
modulo
and
according
to
every
ones
capacity
,
for
the
reasons
above
rendred
.
Since
both
Ministers
right
in
ordination
,
and
also
the
right
of
a
juridicall
eldership
in
churches
constitute
in
reference
to
the
election
of
Ministers
,
hath
(
as
we
have
shown
)
a
clear
foundation
in
Scripture
and
antiquity
.
But
of
this
enough
.
2.
We
have
also
proven
that
we
are
not
concerned
,
nor
in
the
least
constrained
by
our
principles
and
practice
in
this
case
,
to
null
a
Church
or
Ministry
where
this
call
is
wanting
,
it
being
enough
for
us
,
that
the
want
of
it
is
a
corruption
rendring
a
Ministry
not
so
pure
as
it
ought
to
be
,
and
that
our
case
being
a
case
of
competition
betwixt
Ministers
holding
fast
this
piece
of
our
Covenanted
Reformation
,
and
a
party
of
Schismatick
Innovators
opposing
and
rejecting
it
,
and
turning
back
to
the
vomit
of
this
and
other
corruptions
,
after
they
have
been
seen
,
cast
out
,
and
vowed
against
:
We
are
upon
the
grounds
of
our
Reformation
and
vows
,
sufficiently
warranted
to
leave
these
innovators
,
and
adhere
to
the
faithfull
Ministry
.
3.
As
we
did
shew
that
the
granting
of
Curats
their
having
the
essence
of
a
ministerial
call
,
will
not
infer
our
hearing
and
owning
them
in
every
case
,
and
especially
in
ours
(
which
himself
must
grant
,
unless
he
fall
in
a
palpable
contradiction
)
so
it
s
more
then
he
can
prove
,
that
this
Church
of
Scotland
from
its
first
beginning
,
till
1649
had
pratronages
;
Which
being
founded
on
the
Common
law
,
and
several
ages
posterior
to
the
pure
Church
in
this
Nation
,
planted
(
as
we
heard
)
without
Prelats
by
some
of
Johns
Disciples
,
how
absurd
is
it
to
assert
that
it
had
Patronages
from
the
beginning
.
Finally
,
whatever
tollerance
of
these
corruptions
before
they
be
removed
may
be
pleaded
for
,
yet
such
as
have
embraced
them
now
,
yea
&
as
a
badge
of
owning
this
deformation
of
our
once
glorious
Church
,
are
certainly
to
be
disowned
by
all
who
would
hold
fast
their
integrity
.
For
what
he
adds
,
anent
our
owning
Presbyterian
Ministers
adhering
to
our
Reformation
,
tho
they
have
been
presented
by
Patrons
,
It
's
both
impertinent
to
the
point
and
already
answered
,
For
it
s
not
this
simpliciter
,
or
only
,
which
we
ground
upon
in
this
practice
,
as
is
often
said
,
but
the
principles
,
state
,
practice
,
and
design
,
of
Conformists
in
this
complex
case
Beside
,
who
sees
not
the
difference
betwixt
a
Minister
owning
the
principles
of
our
Reformation
,
and
disowning
this
with
other
corruptions
,
although
the
times
necessity
did
constrain
to
make
use
of
patronages
in
their
first
entry
,
when
our
Church
was
as
yet
groaning
under
this
bondage
,
and
such
as
owne
this
corruption
both
in
judgment
and
practice
after
it
is
rejected
,
and
the
Church
delivered
from
it
,
yea
and
owne
it
as
an
express
badge
of
Conformity
to
abjured
Prelacy
.
Sure
they
are
very
blind
who
see
not
the
difference
betwixt
these
.
The
Doubter
alleadges
[
that
patronages
are
abjured
in
the
Covenant
]
and
the
Informer
desires
to
see
in
in
what
place
.
But
if
he
will
open
his
eyes
and
but
read
either
our
National
or
solemn
league
,
he
will
easily
see
this
;
for
patronages
being
a
popishcorruption
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
(
as
we
have
proved
)
it
's
abjured
among
the
rites
or
Customs
brought
into
this
Church
;
without
or
against
the
word
;
And
likewise
in
being
condemned
in
the
2.
book
of
discipline
,
to
which
we
vow
adherence
as
unto
the
discipline
of
this
Church
,
it
must
be
in
that
respect
also
abjured
;
And
as
contrary
to
sound
doctrine
,
the
power
of
godliness
,
and
Government
of
this
Church
exprest
in
the
2.
book
of
Discipline
,
it
is
abjured
in
the
solemn
League
,
wherein
we
likewise
vow
adherence
to
that
discipline
.
But
(
saith
he
)
Since
patronages
were
in
use
aster
the
Covenant
,
why
was
not
this
breach
discerned
,
and
was
this
Church
perjured
all
that
time
.
Ans.
The
forecited
act
of
Parliament
shewes
that
this
corruption
had
been
long
by
this
Church
groan'd
under
,
and
long
before
that
time
declared
and
testified
against
,
both
in
the
2.
book
of
discipline
,
and
by
assemblies
thereafter
,
and
if
(
the
interposing
of
the
civill
Magistrat
being
necessary
to
remove
this
)
the
Church
still
untill
that
time
groan'd
under
this
burden
,
where
can
he
fixe
his
challenge
?
The
next
argument
of
his
Doubter
for
not
hearing
Curats
,
is
[
that
they
are
ordained
by
Bishops
.
]
To
which
he
answers
1.
That
all
whom
we
refuse
to
hear
,
were
not
ordained
by
Bishops
.
He
means
those
who
were
ordained
by
the
Presbytery
,
and
have
conformed
,
Ans.
1.
We
have
already
told
him
that
it
is
not
the
Episcopal
ordination
simply
and
abstractedly
from
our
case
,
which
is
our
ground
of
not
owning
them
,
but
the
Episcopal
ordination
of
perjured
intruders
breaking
our
union
and
reformation
,
and
ejecting
our
faithfull
Pastours
,
and
testified
against
by
our
presbyterian
protestant
Church
which
they
have
thus
intruded
upon
.
2.
We
have
told
him
that
the
concession
of
their
lawfull
ordination
for
substance
,
will
no
more
plead
for
our
owning
them
in
this
complex
case
,
then
their
concession
of
the
lawfull
ordination
of
Presbyterian
ministers
,
will
infer
an
obligation
upon
Conformists
to
owne
them
,
which
is
a
consequence
that
they
all
deny
.
And
that
they
must
grant
,
that
owning
of
the
episcopal
ordination
in
this
complex
case
,
is
different
from
a
simple
owning
of
it
,
in
relation
to
hearing
.
Even
as
Presbyterian
ministers
are
acknowledged
by
conformists
to
have
a
lawfull
ordination
for
substance
,
whom
notwithstanding
they
will
not
suffer
the
people
to
hear
.
3.
Those
who
were
so
ordained
and
have
conformed
,
having
(
as
I
said
)
eatenus
or
in
so
far
,
renounc'd
their
Presbyterial
ordination
,
and
adhering
to
the
prelatical
as
the
more
perfect
,
this
their
disowning
of
our
reformation
(
especially
aggreged
by
their
perjury
and
apostacy
)
puts
them
in
the
same
,
yea
a
worse
condition
as
to
our
hearing
them
,
then
those
that
are
meerly
ordained
by
the
prelats
.
3.
He
tells
us
,
That
on
this
ground
we
would
not
adhere
to
these
whom
Timothy
and
Titus
ordained
,
nor
would
we
have
heard
a
minister
for
many
ages
of
the
Church
;
Then
he
tells
us
of
Jeroms
,
quid
facit
excepta
ordinatione
Episcopus
,
and
that
ministers
have
now
a
hand
in
ordaining
Conformists
.
That
on
this
ground
we
would
not
have
heard
the
members
of
the
Assembly
1638.
who
were
thus
ordained
,
and
some
now
though
non-conformists
,
who
were
ordained
before
the
year
1638
by
Bishops
,
the
valitidity
of
which
ordination
is
vindicat
by
●…us
dicinum
minist
.
Ang●…ie
:
Ans.
We
have
already
proven
,
that
Episcopal
ordination
is
not
in
the
lest
warranted
by
the
Authority
of
Timothy
and
Titus
supposed
in
these
Epistles
,
but
rather
a
Presbyterial
ordination
,
which
is
the
pattern
shewed
upon
the
mount
.
2.
We
have
also
proven
that
his
prelatick
ordination
,
whereof
the
Prelat
hath
he
sole
and
proper
power
according
to
this
constitution
,
is
a
stranger
,
in
the
first
purer
ages
,
and
even
in
Jerom's
time
.
3.
We
have
also
proven
that
the
granting
of
the
essentialls
of
their
ministerial
call
who
are
ordained
by
Bishops
,
will
plead
nothing
for
owning
Curats
,
who
are
both
scandalous
and
perjured
intruders
and
have
nothing
for
the
most
part
which
may
in
the
least
ground
a
charitable
construction
that
they
were
ever
called
of
God
;
and
are
standing
in
opposition
to
a
faithful
ministry
,
by
them
excluded
and
persecute
from
their
watcthowers
,
none
of
which
can
be
said
of
the
instances
which
he
mentions
.
As
for
that
concurrence
which
he
pretends
Conformists
have
with
the
Bishops
in
ordination
of
ministers
,
it
is
according
to
our
Law
,
meerly
precarious
and
pro
forma
.
And
therefore
utterly
insufficient
to
found
his
conclusion
.
The
Doubter
objects
,
[
that
tho
some
of
them
were
ordained
by
the
Presbytery
,
yet
they
are
now
turn'd
the
Bishops
Curats
.
]
He
might
have
added
,
and
turned
court
or
Erastian-Curats
,
since
the
all
of
our
present
Conformists
authority
,
is
derived
from
the
court
and
subordinat
to
the
supremacy
,
as
is
evident
in
the
act
of
restitution
and
other
subsequents
acts
.
In
answer
to
this
he
alleadges
weakness
of
Iudgement
,
strength
of
passion
in
the
objecter
,
but
really
shews
both
in
himself
,
by
telling
us
,
that
we
may
fear
Christs
threatning
;
he
that
despises
you
despises
me
,
since
he
hath
not
yet
made
,
it
appear
that
the
men
he
pleads
for
have
a
relaion
to
this
Church
as
her
true
Pastours
,
according
to
the
principles
and
tenor
of
our
Reformation
.
Then
he
tells
us
,
that
Curat
signifies
a
cure
of
souls
.
But
the
True
Non-conformist
,
told
his
fellow
Dialogist
,
that
this
term
owes
its
invention
to
mens
vanity
,
loathing
the
lowly
Scripture
style
of
Minister
,
and
is
in
effect
nothing
but
the
issue
of
the
corrution
of
the
Churches
humility
,
and
that
what
they
pretend
herein
while
destroying
in
stead
of
feeding
,
is
like
to
stand
in
Judgement
against
them
at
the
great
day
.
For
his
next
interpretation
of
[
Curat
]
viz.
he
that
serves
the
cure
tho
not
the
Minister
of
the
place
,
but
the
substitute
of
another
,
We
owe
him
thanks
,
for
one
egg
is
not
liker
another
,
then
they
are
to
such
vicarious
substitutes
.
But
he
will
not
have
them
called
the
Bishops
Curats
,
as
if
he
were
Pastour
of
the
diocess
,
and
they
deputed
,
under
him
,
and
Bishop
(
he
saith
)
hath
such
thoughts
of
ministers
.
What
their
thoughts
are
,
is
best
seen
by
their
deeds
.
We
have
proved
that
according
to
this
frame
of
prelacy
the
Bishop
is
properly
the
sole
Pastour
of
the
Diocess
.
In
the
7.
Argument
against
Prelacy
.
The
Doubters
next
objection
is
,
[
that
they
are
perjured
persons
,
and
therefore
not
to
be
heard
.
]
He
answers
1.
That
many
of
them
never
took
the
Covenant
,
and
therefore
are
not
perjured
,
which
is
already
removed
,
when
we
did
prove
from
Deut.
29.
that
it
oblidges
even
those
who
did
not
personally
swear
.
It
s
remarkable
that
Deut.
5.
2
,
3.
God
is
said
to
have
made
a
Covenant
with
his
people
in
Horeb
,
even
with
us
(
saith
Moses
)
and
all
of
us
alive
here
this
day
.
They
were
dead
who
engadged
at
Horeb
,
and
many
there
present
were
not
then
born
.
So
Neh.
9.
38.
all
entered
into
Covenant
,
but
some
only
did
seal
it
.
Sure
the
intention
,
and
relation
of
the
Covenanters
,
and
the
matter
of
the
Oath
it self
,
will
make
it
thus
extensive
.
Next
he
sayes
,
Ministers
that
took
it
,
and
comply
with
prelacy
are
not
perjured
,
for
the
reasons
which
be
gave
in
the
last
conference
.
Which
reasons
I
have
there
answered
,
and
proved
that
there
is
nothing
in
our
case
,
which
may
in
the
least
limit
or
invalidat
its
obligation
,
and
upon
the
grounds
which
are
offered
to
evince
the
standing
obligation
of
that
Oath
,
I
do
affirme
that
they
are
perjured
.
3.
He
tells
us
,
That
scandalous
faults
tho
deserving
censure
,
yet
while
it
is
not
inflicted
,
and
the
person
not
convict
,
his
Ministry
ought
to
be
waited
upon
,
as
Iudas
who
came
cloathed
with
Christs
commission
to
preach
,
so
long
as
he
was
not
convict
,
yet
was
to
be
heard
.
Ans.
1.
He
grants
that
scandalous
faults
,
specially
of
an
high
nature
,
and
if
the
man
be
impenitent
,
do
deserve
deposition
.
Now
their
faults
are
both
scandalous
and
of
a
high
nature
,
such
as
prophanity
,
perjury
and
apostacy
,
in
all
which
they
are
most
impenitent
and
avow
the
same
;
and
as
for
their
being
convict
and
censured
,
which
he
requireth
as
needfull
for
disowning
them
,
I
answer
they
stand
upon
the
matter
convict
by
clear
scripture
grounds
,
and
by
the
standing
acts
and
Iudicial
decision
of
this
Church
in
her
supreme
judicatories
and
assemblies
,
which
have
condemned
and
made
censurable
with
deposition
their
present
principles
and
practices
,
in
opposition
to
her
vows
and
government
.
Again
,
there
is
a
great
difference
betwixt
what
ought
to
be
people's
carriage
toward
scandalous
Ministers
when
a
redress
by
Lawfull
Church
Judicatories
may
be
had
,
to
which
people
may
have
recourse
,
and
what
the
duty
of
a
people
is
in
that
case
,
wherin
a
prevailing
backsliding
party
,
and
a
persecuting
Magistrat
owne
such
Ministers
;
so
that
the
true
Church
can
have
no
access
for
censuring
and
removing
them
.
In
this
last
case
supposing
their
scandals
to
be
of
a
high
nature
,
this
inevitable
necessity
of
the
Churches
incapacity
for
present
,
may
supply
the
defect
of
a
formal
censure
(
in
the
judgment
of
some
)
and
ground
a
disowning
of
them
,
as
if
they
were
already
cast
out
,
especially
if
their
entry
be
by
perjurious
intrusion
,
and
their
profanity
and
scandals
therafter
notour
to
all
.
Now
how
applicable
this
is
to
Conformists
,
needs
not
my
paines
to
subsume
.
We
might
also
here
tell
him
that
there
are
scandals
which
are
officiall
,
rendring
the
man
coram
Deo
no
officer
,
and
that
in
case
of
their
becoming
very
atrocius
Mr
Durham
will
allow
to
depart
to
more
pure
ordinances
.
On
scandal
page
129.
Although
we
will
not
take
upon
us
to
determine
,
how
&
in
what
cases
,
during
the
Churches
incapacity
,
&
discomposed
state
,
a
Ministers
atrocious
scandals
after
his
entry
,
and
perjurious
usurpation
in
the
way
and
manner
therof
,
may
supply
the
want
of
a
formal
censure
,
yet
absolutly
to
deny
that
in
any
imaginable
case
,
whether
of
the
scandals
and
intrusion
of
the
minister
,
the
Churches
incapacity
to
censure
,
or
the
peoples
clamant
necessity
,
and
apparent
advantages
for
their
edification
otherwise
they
were
oblidged
to
own
him
still
,
and
that
nothing
but
this
declarative
sentence
,
could
loose
their
tye
,
would
,
infer
very
dangerous
consequences
obvious
to
the
meanest
reflection
.
Specialy
that
in
performance
of
supposed
duties
,
flowing
from
the
tye
and
relation
,
they
would
crosse
many
scriptur-precepts
enjoyning
the
contrary
.
Shall
Christs
sheep
follow
the
hireling
and
stranger
,
and
not
beware
of
wolves
and
false
prophets
,
strengthen
Covenant
breakers
,
and
scismaticks
,
because
a
perturbed
Church
cannot
draw
forth
her
censure
.
If
it
be
said
that
this
will
open
a
door
for
separation
,
since
every
one
displeased
,
may
pretend
that
scandals
are
of
an
highnature
.
Ans.
1.
The
sinful
abusive
pretences
of
men
,
is
a
poor
argument
to
infringe
any
truth
or
duty
.
2.
This
absurdity
may
be
retorted
in
the
other
extreme
,
and
under
pretence
of
the
mans
exterior
call
who
is
not
(
nor
can
be
in
a
Churches
disturbed
state
)
censured
,
Christs
sheep
may
(
as
I
said
)
be
given
up
to
destroying
wolves
,
the
means
and
opportunities
of
their
edification
lost
,
and
their
soules
exposed
to
most
imminent
hazard
of
perishing
.
2.
There
is
a
pure
Ministry
and
Church
free
of
their
scandalls
,
and
testifying
against
them
,
so
that
adherence
to
them
rather
then
Curats
is
only
a
non-union
to
corruption
,
or
a
scandalous
party
of
Innovators
who
have
gone
out
from
the
fellowship
of
this
Church
,
and
such
a
separation
negative
or
non-union
,
as
Mr
Rutherfoord
allowes
,
Due
right
of
Presbyt.
pag.
253
,
254.
such
as
he
sayes
was
the
carriage
of
the
faithfull
in
relation
to
the
Donatists
in
Augustines
time
,
or
a
separation
from
the
most
and
worst
part
not
the
least
and
best
part
,
as
he
there
distinguishes
,
calling
the
greatest
corrupt
part
the
Schismaticks
;
As
before
the
Jewes
came
to
blaspheme
,
there
was
no
reason
to
joyn
to
them
rather
then
the
Gospel
Church
,
planted
by
the
Apostles
,
to
which
Mr
Rutherfoord
sayes
,
converts
were
to
adhere
.
3.
We
have
heard
that
according
to
our
principles
and
the
tenor
of
our
Reformation
,
we
are
to
look
upon
them
as
Schismaticks
from
this
Church
.
So
that
upon
this
very
ground
of
holding
and
mantaining
this
Churches
purity
and
union
,
they
are
to
be
disowned
by
Gods
people
.
Our
Informer
will
grant
that
abstracting
from
a
Ministers
being
otherwise
either
censured
or
censurable
,
he
ought
not
to
be
followed
in
a
Schismatick
course
to
the
ruine
of
a
pure
Churches
union
,
but
is
ipso
facto
to
be
left
:
for
upon
this
ground
he
pleads
for
disowning
Presbyterian
Ministers
abstracting
from
their
being
any
otherwayes
censured
.
4.
Are
there
not
many
Presbyterian
ministers
neither
convict
nor
censured
,
and
whom
he
dare
not
call
scandalous
,
whose
conversation
and
walk
is
both
convincing
and
shining
,
and
such
as
discovers
that
Christ
is
in
them
,
that
they
have
the
masters
seal
and
call
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
who
have
entered
into
this
Church
by
the
door
,
and
are
standing
in
a
ministrrial
relation
to
her
,
yet
he
pleads
for
disowning
them
,
meerly
because
their
Ministry
is
cross
to
the
prelatick
union
and
order
.
So
he
must
grant
that
Ministers
may
be
disowned
on
this
ground
of
Innovating
upon
,
and
standing
in
opposition
to
a
Churches
establisht
union
and
order
,
abstracting
from
this
formal
censure
.
As
for
what
he
adds
of
Judas
,
it
s
very
impertinently
alledged
here
,
for
his
theft
and
other
wickedness
was
as
yet
secret
,
and
not
become
open
and
scandalous
,
which
excepts
him
from
the
compass
of
this
question
,
which
is
anent
Ministers
guilty
of
open
and
avowed
scandalls
,
intrusion
into
the
Ministry
,
violent
ejection
of
faithfull
pastours
,
and
persecution
of
a
pure
Church
.
None
of
which
can
be
said
of
Judas
.
But
now
followes
in
the
next
place
,
his
main
objection
and
argument
from
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
he
tells
us
,
what
great
exceptions
might
have
been
made
against
their
life
and
doctrine
,
Math.
23.
that
they
were
●…mies
to
Christ
,
neglected
Iudgement
,
mercy
and
faith
:
that
they
were
proud
hypocrites
,
and
that
tho
all
which
Naphtali
sayes
of
Conformists
were
true
(
and
all
sees
it
to
be
true
and
consequently
that
he
gives
them
no
other
characters
then
what
they
put
upon
themselves
,
and
cannot
more
be
charged
with
distemper
for
this
,
then
our
blessed
Lord
in
calling
these
Pharisees
,
serpents
and
vipers
,
or
Paul
in
calling
the
Impostours
of
whom
the
Philippians
were
in
hazard
,
dogs
,
evil
workers
,
the
concision
,
whose
God
is
their
belly
,
whose
glory
is
in
their
shame
though
they
were
(
as
these
pharisees
)
gross
in
their
lives
,
and
there
were
leaven
in
their
doctrine
,
they
were
not
to
be
disowned
,
since
altho
the
Pharisees
for
doctrine
taught
the
commands
of
men
;
and
took
away
the
key
of
knowledge
,
Christ
in
his
sexmon
on
the
mount
purged
the
Law
from
their
corrupt
glosses
,
yet
Simeon
and
Anna
turned
not
separatists
,
Ioseph
and
Mary
went
up
to
keep
the
passover
,
and
Christ
bids
bear
them
,
tho
with
a
c●…veat
〈◊〉
beware
of
their
leaven
,
and
their
ill
example
.
Here
he
also
tells
us
,
that
he
hath
no
pleasure
to
make
a
parallel
betwixt
the
Pharisees
and
our
preachers
in
long
prayers
,
and
devouring
widowes
houses
,
compassing
sea
and
land
to
make
proselytes
,
tho
we
have
given
too
much
ground
for
these
comparisons
.
Ans.
1.
To
beginne
with
this
last
invective
(
which
he
insinuats
,
and
Dr
Burnet
prosecutes
at
large
in
his
trifling
dialogues
)
If
I
should
rejoyn
that
its
a
foming
out
their
o●…
shame
,
to
make
such
comparisons
,
and
renders
them
too
like
these
wandring
stars
to
whom
this
is
attrib●…
,
It
were
no
great
overstreach
.
Dare
he
say
that
our
Lord
did
simply
condemn
long
prayers
,
because
he
condemned
making
a
shew
of
them
;
or
that
faithfull
ministers
their
travells
to
keep
poor
souls
upon
the
solid
foundation
of
our
sworn
Reformation
,
and
recover
them
from
this
plelatick
corruption
and
apostacy
,
is
to
proselyte
them
to
be
children
of
hell
?
It
may
be
with
better
ground
averred
that
prelatists
who
are
enemies
to
either
long
or
short
prayers
in
the
spirit
,
and
plead
for
dead
formes
and
lyturgies
,
and
who
have
d●…oured
not
widowes
houses
only
,
but
Gods
house
and
Church
in
this
land
,
and
who
compass
sea
and
land
to
proselyte
this
poor
Church
to
the
Synagogue
or
Rome
,
are
much
liker
these
precedents
in
the
above
mentioned
characters
.
But
2.
To
his
argument
,
The
pharisees
were
scandalous
in
their
life
,
corrupt
in
their
doctrine
,
yet
the
saints
separat
not
from
ordinances
,
and
Christ
allowed
to
hear
them
.
This
man
might
(
if
he
had
been
ingenuous
)
have
found
this
objection
solidly
answered
and
removed
by
severals
.
I
answer
1.
It
s
more
then
he
hath
proved
,
that
the
owning
of
the
Pharisees
ministry
is
here
enjoyned
,
because
1.
The
command
of
observing
what
they
enjoyned
,
will
not
necessarly
infer
this
;
we
may
observe
what
morall
Philosophers
,
or
papists
bid
us
do
under
such
like
restrictions
and
limitations
,
upon
which
people
are
enjoyned
to
observe
what
the
Pharisees
prescribed
;
we
may
observe
what
civil
Rulers
bid
us
do
,
but
not
own
them
as
teachers
.
2.
There
are
many
things
in
the
context
,
which
seem
utterly
to
repugn
to
this
inference
that
our
Lord
enjoyned
the
owning
or
attending
of
their
instructions
as
ecclesiastick
teachers
.
1.
He
bids
beware
of
their
leaven
or
doctrine
Math.
16.
12.
joyning
them
with
Sadducees
who
denyed
the
resurrection
,
and
erred
fundamentally
,
sure
not
to
hear
them
was
the
best
way
to
evite
their
leaven
,
2.
It
will
be
hard
to
prove
that
they
were
Priest
Pharisees
,
since
all
the
Pharisees
were
not
such
,
as
Nieodemus
and
Ioseph
of
Arimathea
,
who
were
civil
Rulers
,
and
consequently
any
command
to
obey
them
,
will
no
more
infer
hearing
them
preach
,
then
such
a
command
as
to
council
or
parliament
.
The
thing
commanded
is
not
hearing
them
as
teachers
,
but
only
obebienc●…
which
may
be
very
properly
enjoyned
as
to
civil
Rulers
.
3.
The
qualities
ascribed
unto
them
,
such
as
their
sitting
in
Moses
chair
,
who
was
King
in
Jesurun
,
not
Aarons
who
was
the
Piest
,
their
loving
the
chief
seats
in
synagogues
,
(
whereas
,
if
teachers
,
their
chief
seat
was
knowen
,
and
appropriat
to
them
)
their
paying
tithes
(
whereas
,
if
priests
tithes
were
payable
to
them
)
these
qualities
(
I
say
)
seem
to
import
that
they
were
not
priests
and
teachers
by
office
,
that
hearing
of
them
,
or
attending
their
ministry
as
such
,
is
enjoyned
hearing
of
and
atteding
their
Ministry
as
such
.
15.
4.
Christ
bids
let
them
alone
,
which
sounds
like
,
owne
them
not
as
teachers
.
He
calls
them
blind
leaders
of
the
blind
,
nay
he
calls
them
the
stranger
whose
voice
the
true
sheep
hear
not
,
but
rather
the
true
shepherd
Math.
15.
13
,
14
,
Joh.
10.
4
,
5.
and
such
as
shut
up
heaven
against
men
,
and
hindred
such
as
were
entring
;
all
which
seem
very
inconsistent
with
a
command
of
hearing
them
.
5
Christ
spoke
to
the
disciples
as
well
as
the
people
in
this
precept
.
Now
its
certain
that
neither
the
disciples
did
eyer
hear
them
,
nor
could
they
leave
his
Ministry
,
nor
is
it
found
that
Christ
who
came
to
fulfill
all
righteousness
,
taught
them
to
do
so
,
by
his
example
.
Finally
the
words
of
this
precept
have
for
their
scope
to
engadge
to
beware
of
the
Pharisees
infectious
evills
:
so
that
this
command
to
do
&
observe
what
they
delivered
as
sitting
in
Moses
seat
,
which
they
did
then
possess
,
is
but
by
way
of
concession
,
which
supposes
only
that
which
he
intended
shortly
to
abolish
,
and
now
would
have
improven
for
the
best
advantadge
.
2.
Granting
that
they
were
to
be
heard
,
I
deny
his
consequence
,
that
therfore
Curats
in
this
our
case
are
to
be
heard
also
;
the
cases
are
very
different
,
and
the
disparity
when
cleared
will
discover
his
consequence
to
be
naught
,
from
the
hearing
of
the
Pharisees
,
to
the
hearing
of
Conformists
.
I
offer
it
then
in
these
particulars
.
1.
These
Pharisees
Ministry
was
not
of
it self
actually
exclusive
of
,
and
a
direct
intrusion
upon
the
Ministry
of
faithfull
teachers
.
Suppose
they
had
chased
away
all
Israels
Lawfull
teachers
,
and
by
perjurious
violence
thrust
themselves
into
their
rooms
,
would
our
Lord
have
bidden
own
or
hear
them
?
If
our
Informer
say
so
he
will
contradict
himself
,
and
overturn
the
scope
of
his
reasoning
in
this
dialogue
,
for
he
thniks
that
the
ministry
of
Presbyterian
ministers
,
is
intrusion
,
and
therupon
pleads
for
disowning
and
not
hearing
them
.
2.
He
pleads
for
owning
Curats
as
Christs
ambassadours
cloathed
with
his
authority
to
deliver
his
message
,
but
Christ
doth
here
(
at
least
for
any
thing
he
hath
said
from
this
text
)
only
enjoyn
to
hear
the
Pharisees
interpretation
and
decision
of
that
nations
Municipal
or
civil
Law
,
anent
the
rules
of
external
righteousness
and
civil
policy
,
which
two
are
very
different
.
3.
Christ
having
guarded
the
Law
from
their
corrupt
glosses
,
and
the
disciples
from
their
snares
,
shewes
in
this
precept
how
to
make
the
best
advantage
of
that
dispensation
,
now
ready
to
vanish
away
,
since
he
was
shortly
to
erect
a
gospel
ministry
,
and
remove
all
that
legal
dispensation
,
and
then
none
of
them
were
to
be
heard
:
But
this
man
pleads
for
disowning
our
faithfull
sent
gospel
ministers
under
a
standing
relation
to
this
Church
,
and
the
obligation
of
Christs
standing
command
,
and
commission
to
officiat
,
and
this
in
favours
of
intruding
hirelings
usurping
their
places
,
and
opposing
these
faithfull
Ambassadours
in
their
masters
work
and
message
.
Now
who
sees
not
the
difference
betwixt
these
.
4.
They
were
not
in
a
stated
opposition
to
a
faithfull
body
of
teachers
,
acknowledged
and
owned
by
the
sound
Church
of
Israel
and
testifying
against
them
,
seeking
to
root
them
out
,
and
together
with
them
a
reformation
,
to
which
all
had
recently
vowed
adherence
.
5.
There
was
no
badge
or
Test
of
complyance
w●…b
all
their
abominations
particularly
appointed
and
enjoyned
by
the
Rulers
,
in
this
act
of
hearing
them
,
as
there
is
in
our
case
in
relation
to
the
hearing
of
Curats
,
rendring
(
as
I
said
)
the
not
hearing
them
,
and
adherence
rather
to
a
faithfull
Ministry
testifying
against
them
,
a
case
of
confession
,
especially
this
difference
will
be
apparent
,
if
our
National
vows
and
Covenant
,
expresly
obliging
to
adhere
to
these
faithfull
ministers
,
in
opposition
to
them
and
their
course
of
backsliding
,
be
duely
pondered
.
Next
,
as
for
what
he
sayes
of
Simeon
and
Anna
;
Joseph
and
Mary
,
their
attending
the
temple
Worship
at
that
time
;
as
his
argument
there
from
is
removed
by
what
is
said
,
so
to
clear
this
further
,
I
add
1.
That
its
wide
reasoning
from
the
godly
their
lawful
concurrence
with
that
Church
(
now
under
the
rust
of
old
corruptions
)
in
what
was
good
and
sound
,
to
our
deserting
a
sound
Church
and
ministry
to
comply
with
abjured
corruptions
,
and
Schismatick
innovators
,
reintroduced
after
they
have
been
cast
out
.
2.
It
s
as
wide
reasoning
,
from
their
not
separating
from
Gods
ancient
Church
upon
the
ground
of
corruptions
,
to
conclude
against
non-complyance
with
a
party
who
are
not
our
Church
(
tho
they
usurp
her
name
)
but
are
opposed
and
testifyed
against
,
by
our
true
Church
and
ministry
.
We
in
this
case
(
as
I
have
said
)
do
not
separat
from
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
her
Doctrine
,
Worship
,
or
ministry
,
but
only
from
Schismatick
backsliders
from
the
union
&
reformation
of
this
Church
.
But
in
the
case
of
these
old
saints
&
worthies
,
separation
from
the
temple
,
would
have
imported
an
absolute
separation
from
the
ministry
&
Church
of
Israel
.
In
a
word
,
the
utter
impertinency
of
all
his
pleading
in
this
argument
,
and
from
these
instances
,
appears
in
this
,
that
he
supposes
that
its
meerly
for
Conformists
personal
faults
we
disowne
ordinances
administred
by
them
,
as
if
they
were
ther●…
by
polluted
;
which
has
no
more
truth
in
it
,
then
that
its
meerly
for
Presbyterian
ministers
personal
faults
as
pulluting
the
worship
,
that
he
pleads
for
disowning
them
,
but
upon
the
grounds
of
the
present
case
and
circumstances
,
wherein
they
stand
,
he
pleads
for
disowning
Presbyterian
ministers
,
and
they
more
justly
because
of
Conformists
present
case
,
plead
for
disowning
them
,
as
is
said
and
cleard
above
.
After
this
he
cites
Mr
Durham
on
Revel.
3.
inferring
from
what
is
said
of
the
Angel
of
Sardis
and
Laodicea
,
that
a
minister
as
to
his
case
unsound
,
may
be
owned
and
esteem'd
as
such
.
But
how
impertinent
this
is
to
our
purpose
any
may
see
,
for
their
scandalous
carriage
in
their
walk
is
much
more
then
unsoundness
as
to
their
case
,
which
notwithstanding
we
acknowledge
will
not
of
it self
,
and
primo
instanti
warrand
separation
from
ordinances
in
every
case
.
But
we
have
cleared
that
we
have
much
more
to
lay
to
the
charge
of
Conformists
,
then
either
inward
unsoundness
,
or
outward
scandalls
simply
considered
;
even
their
corrupt
Doctrine
,
their
intrusion
,
their
stated
opposition
to
this
Church
her
principles
,
union
,
and
Reformation
.
As
to
what
Mr
Durham
adds
,
and
our
Informer
cites
in
relation
to
the
ordinances
their
not
suffering
derogation
in
whatsoever
hands
they
be
anent
a
due
ministerial
respect
to
the
Pharisees
tho
their
rottenness
was
discovered
by
our
Lord
:
that
Judas
was
to
be
received
as
an
Ambassadour
with
other
Apostles
—
that
God
makes
usefull
Instruments
sometimes
—
and
that
edification
doth
not
necessarly
depend
upon
the
holiness
of
the
Instrument
,
Act.
3.
12.
Matth.
7.
23.
It
s
utterly
remote
from
our
purpose
,
as
is
clear
from
what
is
said
,
for
neither
can
he
prove
that
this
practice
is
a
separation
properly
such
,
nor
doth
that
case
of
an
Improvement
of
the
pharisees
teaching
during
that
time
of
the
legall
dispensation
,
now
shortly
to
be
abolisht
,
meet
our
purpose
,
nor
the
case
of
Judas
hid
abominations
,
correspond
with
that
of
avowed
perjury
and
apostacy
from
the
vows
and
Reformation
of
our
Church
.
Nor
is
there
here
a
supposed
prior
obligation
of
adherence
to
conformists
ministry
,
preponderating
any
objection
as
to
their
scandalls
.
What
can
this
man
say
,
if
we
shall
plead
these
reasons
of
Mr
Durham
,
for
adhering
to
Presbyterian
ministers
,
viz.
that
ordinances
ought
not
to
be
despised
in
whatever
hands
they
be
,
that
even
the
pharisees
and
Judas
himself
might
be
heard
,
and
therefore
much
more
Presbyterian
ministers
of
this
Church
,
that
God
can
make
even
graceless
men
Instruments
of
good
;
that
the
efficacy
of
means
depends
not
on
the
holyness
of
the
instrument
.
Now
will
he
admit
a
conclusion
of
owning
Presbyterian
Ministers
from
these
principles
;
nay
,
he
thinks
that
maters
stand
so
with
them
because
of
their
supposed
Schism
and
disorder
,
that
for
as
applicable
as
these
things
are
to
them
,
yet
they
ought
not
to
be
heard
.
And
so
by
his
own
confession
and
pleading
this
will
conclude
nothing
for
him
,
untill
his
above
mentioned
groundless
suppositions
be
made
good
.
Now
let
me
retort
of
our
Informers
angry
Querie
here
,
how
can
they
Justifie
withdrawing
people
from
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
since
not
so
bad
as
the
scribes
and
Pharisees
,
if
they
have
either
knowledge
or
moderation
.
He
must
then
of
necessity
grant
,
if
he
will
not
contradict
himself
,
that
all
these
grounds
will
not
plead
for
hearing
in
some
cases
,
&
that
the
London
Ministers
assertion
anent
the
validity
of
the
Episcopal
ordination
for
substance
(
repeated
here
again
ad
nauseam
)
falls
utterly
short
of
proving
his
conclusion
.
Those
Ministers
do
assert
,
that
the
Presbyterian
ordination
is
the
more
pure
and
conform
to
the
scripture
pattern
,
what
will
he
then
say
to
this
conclusion
,
that
upon
this
ground
(
and
especially
because
Conformists
themselves
owne
the
validity
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
ordination
)
they
are
inconsequent
to
themselves
,
as
well
as
going
cross
to
scripture
and
sound
reason
,
in
disowning
the
ministry
of
the
Presbyterian
ministers
of
this
Church
,
and
withdrawing
people
from
hearing
them
.
Let
him
pull
out
this
beam
from
his
own
eye
,
and
his
answer
shall
easily
serve
for
us
.
The
Doubter
alledges
,
that
in
Math.
23.
[
We
are
not
bidden
hear
the
scribes
and
Pharisees
,
and
that
the
words
will
not
bear
that
.
]
He
answers
that
he
forbids
not
to
hear
as
we
forbid
to
hear
Conformists
.
Ans.
1.
We
have
seen
that
there
is
more
may
be
alledged
from
the
Scripture
as
to
a
prohibition
to
be
their
ordinary
and
constant
hearers
at
least
,
(
which
he
pleads
for
as
to
Conformists
)
then
he
can
alledge
as
to
a
command
of
hearing
.
2.
That
the
tollerance
or
allowance
of
a
hearing
of
them
during
that
shortly
to
be
abolisht
legall
dispensation
,
is
far
from
coming
up
to
his
conclusion
of
owning
curats
in
this
our
case
.
〈◊〉
.
He
answers
,
that
Mr
Durham
speaks
of
a
ministerial
respect
due
to
these
Pharisees
,
and
that
without
hearing
,
this
ministerial
respect
is
Lame
.
Ans.
Mr
Durhams
reason
anent
a
Ministerial
respect
is
in
relation
to
the
Improvement
of
their
teaching
,
&
tho
granted
in
the
greatest
latitude
he
can
imagine
,
will
not
inferr
his
conclusion
of
owning
Curats
in
this
case
as
is
already
cleared
.
Admitting
that
a
due
Ministerial
respect
,
will
infer
hearing
in
Mr
Durhams
sense
and
instance
,
yet
in
our
case
,
(
which
I
told
him
Mr
Durhams
assertion
will
not
speak
unto
)
acknowledgment
of
a
man
to
be
a
Minister
,
and
capable
of
a
Ministerial
respect
in
so
far
,
will
not
bear
this
conclusion
,
else
the
Informer
hath
in
a
clap
devoured
and
eaten
in
again
all
this
Dialogue
in
pleading
against
this
Ministerial
respect
in
hearing
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
whose
Ministerial
authority
he
acknowledges
.
2ly
,
He
answers
,
that
our
Lord
enjoyns
obedience
to
that
which
they
bid
do
,
and
that
as
sitting
in
Moses
chair
—
and
how
could
that
be
except
the
people
heard
them
teach
from
Moses
chair
—
he
that
bids
obey
a
Ministers
injunctions
from
the
word
of
God
,
consequently
bids
hear
him
deliver
his
doctrine
from
the
word
.
Ans.
We
told
him
that
for
any
thing
that
he
,
or
any
of
his
fellow
pleaders
,
have
yet
offered
from
this
text
,
these
Pharisees
might
be
civil
national
doctors
and
interpreters
of
Moses
Iudiciall
Law
,
and
of
〈◊〉
municipal
Law
,
from
his
civil
chair
,
who
was
King
in
Iesurun
,
which
will
no
more
infer
a
hearing
them
teach
and
preach
as
Church
officers
,
then
our
obedience
to
the
King
,
Council
,
parliament
and
Session
,
will
infer
that
conclusion
.
2.
His
parallels
as
to
the
command
of
obeying
a
Ministers
doctrine
from
the
word
its
inferring
an
injunction
of
hearing
him
deliver
these
doctrines
from
the
word
,
is
(
in
this
case
and
question
)
pityfull
sophistry
and
begging
of
the
question
,
in
supposing
that
these
anent
whom
this
injunction
was
given
,
were
Ecclesiastick
Ministers
,
which
he
hath
not
yet
proved
.
2.
That
teaching
from
Moses
chair
,
is
in
this
case
equivalent
to
Ministerial
gospel
teaching
and
preaching
from
the
word
of
God
,
which
he
has
not
proved
either
,
since
(
as
I
said
)
Gods
word
contained
the
Jews
municipal
Law
,
which
civil
Judges
might
in
that
capacity
deliver
and
interpret
,
in
relation
to
external
righteousness
betwixt
man
and
man
in
things
of
this
life
.
Finally
,
granting
they
were
to
be
heard
teach
and
expone
,
which
he
hath
not
yet
made
good
from
the
text
,
it
will
nothing
help
his
cause
for
the
reasons
often
given
:
so
that
the
separation
which
he
improves
this
place
against
,
being
his
groundless
supposition
alledged
but
not
proven
by
him
,
and
by
us
disproved
by
what
is
said
above
,
and
likewise
the
application
of
this
hearing
the
Pharisees
to
our
hearing
Curats
,
being
his
bare
petitio
principii
,
his
assertion
after
subjoyned
viz.
that
this
passage
will
stand
against
us
to
our
conviction
as
against
the
seperatists
in
Queen
Elizabeths
time
;
is
but
a
piece
of
his
ignorant
arrogant
confidence
;
there
being
a
vast
difference
betwixt
our
case
,
and
that
of
those
separatists
at
that
time
,
as
shall
hereafter
appear
.
And
beside
,
Presbyterian
Ministers
of
this
Church
have
much
more
to
say
from
this
text
,
for
their
people's
adhering
to
them
,
then
prelatists
can
plead
.
The
Doubter
next
alleadges
,
[
that
many
Episcopall
men
have
entered
upon
honest
mens
Labours
,
and
therefore
ought
to
be
disowned
as
intruders
.
]
He
answers
1.
That
all
are
not
such
,
that
some
Conformists
have
keep●…
their
places
they
bad
before
the
change
,
others
have
entered
in
to
the
labours
of
those
that
are
dead
and
transported
elswhere
.
Ans.
Our
Informer
doth
miserably
pinch
and
narrow
a
sinfull
intrusion
by
this
description
;
which
himself
must
acknowledge
.
For
should
a
Presbyterian
Minister
step
into
his
own
Church
upon
the
death
or
transportation
of
one
of
the
Curats
,
who
will
question
that
this
man
will
call
it
an
intrusion
according
to
his
principles
anent
the
prelatick
Church
,
and
so
he
must
acknowledge
that
notwithstanding
what
he
here
pleads
,
the
Curats
entry
is
intrusion
according
to
our
principles
;
beside
that
the
Ministery
of
those
who
have
conformed
,
and
were
Presbyterially
ordained
,
being
an
express
owning
of
the
principles
▪
practices
and
design
,
of
this
prelatick
schismatick
destroying
party
,
and
by
their
acceptance
of
collation
and
presentation
,
and
concurring
in
the
Prelats
pretended
Judicatories
,
a
ministry
compleatly
of
the
prelatick
mould
,
its
reductive
,
if
not
formaliter
,
an
intrusion
;
or
partaking
with
the
general
intrusion
and
usurpation
upon
the
pure
reformed
Ministry
and
Church
of
Scotland
,
even
as
a
state
officer
or
Magistrat
his
taking
his
office
from
Invaders
,
while
an
army
is
in
the
fields
against
them
,
doth
fully
and
fitly
denominate
him
an
Invader
in
the
exercise
thereof
,
tho
it
be
materially
the
same
office
and
imployment
which
he
had
before
.
Or
as
an
inferior
officer
in
an
army
taking
his
office
and
a
new
commission
from
an
usurping
General
,
and
other
usurping
superior
officers
,
who
are
dissolving
and
betraying
the
true
army
,
expelling
the
true
General
and
officers
contrary
to
their
first
commission
,
doth
partake
in
that
usurpation
.
Considering
the
Church
of
Scotland
as
it
stood
establisht
in
doctrine
,
discipline
,
worship
,
and
government
,
and
her
National
and
solemn
vows
,
surely
this
course
of
Conformity
is
a
most
gross
intrusion
upon
her
,
without
so
much
as
a
shadow
of
consent
;
and
so
is
all
partaking
therein
by
consequence
,
which
no
Conformist
can
acquit
himself
of
;
and
therefore
according
to
the
tenor
and
principles
of
our
Reformation
,
cannot
be
lookt
upon
as
any
of
our
true
Church
her
Sons
and
Ministers
.
But
here
our
Informer
poseth
us
with
some
great
queries
forsooth
1.
Whether
Conformists
were
active
in
utting
Presbyterian
ministers
,
or
came
in
before
they
were
out
,
and
their
places
declared
vacant
.
Ans.
Whoever
is
active
or
passive
in
outting
them
,
one
thing
is
sure
,
they
are
violently
thrust
out
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
,
and
the
rules
,
order
,
and
Reformation
of
this
Church
.
So
that
come
in
who
will
,
they
are
Intruders
.
1.
Because
they
have
come
in
upon
a
charge
to
which
faithfull
Ministers
of
this
Church
have
Christs
Keyes
and
commission
.
2.
Because
come
in
and
obtruded
by
those
who
are
ingrained
usurpers
,
thieves
and
Robbers
;
I
mean
perfidious
Prelats
(
often
abjured
and
cast
out
of
this
Church
with
detestation
)
and
not
in
the
order
of
this
Church
,
Nor
by
her
door
.
A
poor
man
is
by
a
number
of
Robbers
dispossest
of
his
house
,
they
put
in
a
seeming
neutral
,
to
keep
house
for
them
;
the
poor
owner
seeks
his
possession
,
&
complaines
of
this
usurpation
,
O
saith
the
new
tennant
and
Robbers
depute
,
I
am
no
Intruder
,
I
have
a
good
right
,
I
put
you
not
out
,
but
found
your
house
empty
.
Now
let
the
Informer
use
a
litle
honest
application
and
answer
his
weightie
Querie
.
2.
He
asks
,
why
will
those
dispossest
ministers
suffer
the
people
to
starve
,
because
they
have
slept
out
of
their
charges
.
Ans.
The
people
are
starved
&
poysoned
too
by
those
that
come
in
;
&
these
Ministers
are
concerned
upon
their
faith
to
the
great
shepherd
,
to
endeavour
what
they
can
to
save
his
lambes
from
the
wolves
,
and
give
faithfull
Ministerial
warning
of
their
flocks
hazard
.
Next
,
he
tells
us
,
though
a
minister
be
transported
against
his
will
,
yet
the
people
should
submit
to
his
successor
.
True
,
when
for
the
Churches
greater
good
,
he
is
transported
to
another
watchtower
by
her
faithfull
guides
,
and
true
Church
Judicatories
,
but
not
when
the
true
pastour
is
chased
away
by
usurping
perjured
Prelats
;
and
an
intruding
hireling
brought
in
as
their
vicar
.
It
s
this
mans
perted
self
(
to
use
his
own
phrase
here
)
that
blurrs
his
eyes
to
draw
a
similitudinar
argument
from
such
an
absimilar
instance
.
One
thing
he
did
well
to
add
as
a
proviso
,
viz
the
successors
coming
in
upon
an
orderly
or
fair
call
.
And
doth
this
man
think
that
Conformists
have
this
orderly
call
according
to
the
Reformation
and
doctrine
of
this
Church
?
Nay
,
is
he
not
disputing
against
this
call
,
and
so
if
this
be
a
necessary
condition
of
a
Ministers
Lawfull
succession
,
the
Informer
is
in
the
briers
of
a
palpable
inconsistency
near
of
kin
to
a
contradiction
.
As
for
what
he
adds
of
the
necessity
of
a
Ministry
,
and
making
the
best
of
what
we
cannot
help
in
our
superiours
,
we
say
,
that
were
the
Rulers
using
their
power
for
giving
one
Lawfull
pastour
for
another
,
and
in
the
method
of
this
Church
,
and
according
to
the
scripture
pattern
,
by
Lawfull
Church
Indicatories
,
these
reasons
would
say
something
;
but
when
they
have
overturned
the
Reformation
of
a
Church
,
and
contrary
to
that
Churches
vows
and
their
own
,
are
obtruding
abjured
prelats
,
and
a
number
of
profane
hyrelings
as
their
deputes
,
to
exclude
and
ruine
a
faithfull
Ministry
,
his
reasons
in
this
case
are
naught
,
and
speak
nothing
to
the
point
.
As
for
what
he
adds
afterward
of
Ministers
,
in
the
year
1648
ejected
for
asserting
their
duty
to
the
King
,
and
their
submitting
while
others
were
put
into
their
charges
.
I
Answer
,
he
will
never
while
he
breaths
be
able
to
prove
,
that
they
were
deposed
for
asserting
their
duty
to
the
King
,
and
not
rather
for
promoting
an
ungodly
course
tending
to
the
Kings
ruine
,
and
the
ruine
of
our
Reformation
,
and
for
other
pieces
of
their
scandalous
miscarriages
,
by
the
true
Lawfull
Judicatories
of
this
Church
.
So
that
upon
both
grounds
,
the
flocks
were
concerned
to
submit
to
such
faithfull
pastours
,
as
were
set
over
them
in
the
way
and
method
of
this
Church
,
and
according
to
the
scripture
pattern
.
His
last
answer
to
this
argument
of
his
Doubter
anent
Conformists
Intrusion
is
,
that
Presbyterian
Ministers
intrusion
,
is
from
parish
to
parish
over
the
Labours
of
all
the
Ministers
of
Scotland
,
whereas
Conformists
intrusion
(
if
it
be
so
)
is
but
over
one
parish
.
Ans.
We
told
him
before
,
that
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
notwithstanding
the
prelats
violence
and
usurpation
,
are
Ministers
of
this
Church
of
Scotland
continuing
still
in
that
relation
to
her
;
So
that
the
present
presecution
and
violence
,
as
well
as
backsliding
of
the
Prelatick
schismaticks
and
Innovators
,
warrands
their
more
enlarged
officiating
by
the
same
grounds
,
upon
which
the
presecute
officers
of
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
went
every
where
pre●…ching
the
gospel
,
and
on
the
same
ground
that
Ministers
enlarged
officiating
in
the
time
of
our
Reformation
,
was
warranted
;
to
which
this
case
of
defection
is
parallel
and
correspondent
.
So
that
their
ministerial
obligation
,
and
the
many
scripture
commands
as
to
diligence
in
their
testimony
,
Being
by
the
present
state
of
our
Church
extended
to
their
officiating
in
this
manner
,
their
Ministry
is
no
Intrusion
,
but
the
Lawfull
exercise
of
their
office
,
received
from
the
great
shephered
,
nor
is
it
upon
the
flocks
who
are
under
a
tye
and
relation
to
the
present
Incumbents
as
their
pastours
,
but
toward
poor
starved
flocks
committed
to
wolves
,
who
destroy
but
feed
not
;
and
the
Curats
pretended
Ministry
being
neither
of
Christ
,
nor
for
him
,
is
still
an
usurpation
though
over
the
smallest
flock
;
so
that
his
Instance
of
the
pyrats
word
to
Alexander
,
and
citation
of
the
Apostle's
caveat
Rom
2.
21.
is
extra
ole●…
and
reaches
himself
a
rebounding
stroke
.
For
who
(
I
pray
)
have
usurped
the
name
and
authority
of
this
Church
,
and
endeavoured
to
have
it
compleatly
moulded
in
their
way
,
and
to
extirpat
all
faithfull
Ministers
and
professors
within
the
Nation
,
is
it
not
14
usurping
Prelats
and
their
underlings
,
this
is
a
robbery
indeed
,
and
with
a
witness
.
Now
follows
another
argument
of
his
Doubter
[
that
Episcopal
Ministers
are
abjured
as
depending
upon
the
hierarchy
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
heard
without
breach
of
the
Oath
.
]
In
what
respects
the
owning
of
Conformists
,
especially
as
that
practice
is
now
circumstantiat
,
is
a
breach
of
Covenant
,
we
have
cleard
above
,
and
need
not
again
repeat
it
.
He
answers
.
1.
That
Ministers
are
not
mentioned
in
that
article
.
But
if
they
depend
upon
that
Ecclesiastical
hierarchy
as
Church
Officers
,
why
are
they
not
mentioned
.
Next
,
it
s
enough
for
our
purpose
,
that
the
owning
of
their
Ministry
as
depending
upon
prelats
,
is
in
this
our
case
abjured
.
2.
He
tellsus
,
that
dependance
on
that
hierarchy
doth
suppose
,
and
is
to
be
understood
of
a
hierarchy
,
made
up
of
all
the
officers
enumerate
in
that
Article
,
as
the
English
Presbyterians
sense
it
,
which
hierarchy
we
have
not
in
Scotland
.
This
conceit
I
have
already
confuted
,
and
proved
that
beside
this
Article
,
we
are
by
the
first
bound
to
preserve
the
establisht
Reformation
and
Government
of
this
Church
,
and
to
adhere
to
all
that
enter
into
this
Oath
,
in
the
pursuing
of
its
ends
;
and
not
to
suffer
our selves
to
be
withdrawen
from
this
Reformation
,
and
our
union
therein
by
terrour
or
persuasion
,
is
an
obligation
lying
upon
us
in
the
6.
Article
,
which
doth
abundantly
(
as
we
have
said
,
)
reach
the
disowning
of
Conformists
.
In
the
next
place
he
tells
us
,
that
to
binde
our selves
to
disowne
Ministers
depending
upon
Bishops
,
is
to
binde
our
selves
to
sin
.
I
Answer
whatever
may
be
said
of
such
an
engadgement
simpliciter
and
absolutly
considered
,
yet
certainly
to
engadge
our selves
against
the
reintroduction
of
Prelacy
into
a
pure
Church
reformed
from
it
,
and
against
all
dependers
upon
,
and
promoters
of
that
Interest
in
such
a
Church
,
in
the
capacity
of
Church
officers
,
and
eatenus
as
promoting
and
depending
upon
it
,
is
both
a
lawfull
and
necessary
engadgment
,
necessarly
flowing
from
&
dependent
upon
the
abjuration
of
prelacie
it self
.
That
Ministers
tho
faulty
may
be
heard
,
will
(
as
we
have
oft
demonstrate
)
nothing
help
his
conclusion
.
Since
he
can
not
deny
that
their
faultiness
in
some
cases
may
barr
their
being
heard
,
as
he
supposes
Presbyterian
Ministers
faults
puts
a
Lawfull
stop
in
the
way
of
people's
hearing
them
.
Then
he
tells
us
,
that
he
hath
showen
episcopacy
to
be
a
Lawfull
government
which
none
might
Lawfully
adjure
,
for
this
we
referr
the
Reader
to
what
is
answered
on
the
first
Dialogue
where
we
have
proven
the
contrary
,
and
that
it
is
a
government
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
,
which
therefore
we
were
obliged
to
abjure
.
Lastly
he
tells
us
,
that
by
this
exposition
of
the
2.
Article
we
were
bound
not
to
owne
Ministers
who
were
in
office
at
the
taking
of
the
Covenant
,
but
to
extirpat
them
since
they
depended
upon
Bishops
as
to
their
ordination
still
,
even
after
they
had
taken
the
Covenant
,
unless
they
renounced
their
ordination
received
from
Bishops
,
and
had
been
ordained
a
new
by
meer
Presbyters
,
which
they
thought
themselves
not
bound
to
do
by
the
Covenant
,
or
they
were
Ministers
without
a
true
ordination
all
that
time
,
and
then
all
their
Ministerial
Acts
were
null
since
they
proceeded
from
that
ordination
.
And
yet
(
he
sayes
)
we
never
serupled
to
hear
such
Ministers
notwithstanding
of
this
dependance
upon
Bishops
in
part
,
if
they
disowne
Bishops
for
the
future
.
Ans.
What
a
silly
knack
is
it
which
all
this
tatle
is
founded
upon
,
viz.
Ministers
who
received
ane
ordination
from
Bishops
,
or
Bishops
with
Presbyters
,
in
a
Church
upon
which
they
had
usurped
,
are
still
to
be
lookt
upon
as
Ministers
depending
upon
Bishops
,
even
after
Prelacy
is
abolished
,
and
Presbyterian
Government
established
in
that
Church
.
So
poor
a
notion
that
I
am
sure
the
least
reflection
may
discover
its
vanity
,
ordination
being
Gods
ordinance
and
appointment
,
and
the
Bishop
qua
Presbyter
being
vested
with
a
power
in
it
,
ordination
by
the
Bishop
with
Presbyters
(
tho
maim'd
in
respect
of
the
Bishop's
arrogated
power
,
which
is
a
corruption
adhering
to
it
)
cannot
by
any
good
consequence
be
said
to
depend
in
its
esse
or
nature
upon
the
Prelat
,
and
far
less
in
operari
or
esse
after
that
corruption
is
removed
and
abjured
,
and
Presbyterian
Government
set
up
.
Doth
a
souldier
or
Officers
commission
or
Military
power
slow
still
from
a
Colonel
after
he
is
disbanded
?
Nay
this
is
too
gross
inadvertency
.
Were
Zuinglius
,
Luther
,
and
other
of
our
Reformers
dependents
upon
the
papacy
or
popish
Prelats
after
their
cleaving
to
,
and
embracing
the
Reformation
?
Do
not
all
our
divines
distinguish
the
essentials
of
their
ordination
from
these
corruptions
adhering
to
it
,
and
assert
that
they
had
a
Ministry
Lawfull
for
substance
,
and
an
ordination
to
their
Ministry
,
tho
coming
to
them
through
that
impure
channell
.
This
man
Justifies
the
Pope's
plea
,
where
is
your
Ministry
(
saith
he
and
the
Romanists
)
you
have
no
Ministry
but
what
you
have
from
us
?
do
not
our
Divines
tell
them
that
the
Ministry
and
ordination
it self
being
Gods
institution
,
we
have
them
from
the
Lord
,
now
restored
and
recovered
from
their
corruptions
,
and
are
not
dependers
upon
them
for
our
Ministry
?
did
all
our
Reformers
Ministerial
acts
flow
from
the
pope
or
papal
ordination
as
such
?
Let
our
Informer
take
heed
of
this
praemunire
,
for
this
dangerous
error
which
he
hath
fallen
into
,
will
expose
him
to
the
severe
censure
of
all
protestant
Churches
.
2ly
,
Hence
Ministers
who
were
ordained
by
Prelats
with
Presbyters
concurring
,
were
no
more
bound
(
yea
less
bound
)
to
renounce
their
ordination
simply
,
then
Zuinglius
or
Luther
were
obliged
to
renounce
theirs
;
especially
since
their
ordination
was
in
a
protestant
Church
,
and
under
Prelats
owning
the
protestant
profession
(
which
our
Informers
charity
will
no
doubt
esteem
a
considerable
difference
)
and
their
not
renouncing
it
simpliciter
will
no
more
make
them
still
dependent
upon
the
Prelates
as
to
their
Ministry
,
when
prelats
are
removed
,
then
Zuinglius
and
Luther
were
dependent
upon
the
Pope
as
to
their
ordination
,
and
the
acts
flowing
therefrom
,
after
their
separation
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
or
infer
that
they
did
owe
their
baptism
to
the
Pope
,
or
the
ordination
of
the
popish
priest
who
baptized
them
,
and
were
concerned
to
be
rebaptized
.
So
that
the
popish
cause
and
interest
is
much
obliged
to
our
Informer
,
if
his
pleadings
for
our
prelacy
wil
hold
good
;
and
it
is
no
bad
omen
that
both
interests
are
thus
embarqued
together
in
this
man
and
his
fellows
reasonings
for
them
,
and
must
stand
and
fall
together
,
which
fortifies
our
hope
and
confidence
,
that
as
the
first
hath
begun
to
fall
,
so
the
other
shall
gradually
decay
,
wither
,
and
fall
with
it
.
CHAP.
IV.
The
Informers
answer
to
the
Doubters
argument
anent
separation
from
a
corrupt
Church
,
and
the
retorted
charge
of
schisme
upon
Conformists
,
examined
.
OUr
Doubt-Resolver
will
seem
ingenuous
in
offering
an
answer
to
some
chief
objections
against
the
owning
of
Conformists
,
and
therfore
puts
into
the
mouth
of
his
personat
Doubter
,
some
more
arguments
,
in
such
a
mould
as
he
supposes
is
for
his
best
advantadge
,
which
I
shal
now
consider
,
and
deal
faithfully
with
him
and
his
supposed
Doubter
,
in
presenting
these
arguments
,
(
which
he
hath
disguised
)
in
their
genuine
strength
,
and
shall
examine
his
answers
,
which
when
weighed
in
the
scripture
ballances
and
according
to
the
true
state
of
this
question
will
no
doubt
be
found
as
empty
and
insignificant
as
any
of
the
preceeding
.
The
Doubter
hath
another
argument
[
that
we
are
warranted
by
the
word
to
separat
from
a
corrupt
Church
.
]
This
objection
he
curtly
and
advantagiously
propones
,
making
his
Doubter
suppose
1.
a
confessed
separation
in
this
practice
,
from
a
Church
to
which
we
are
bound
to
adhere
,
which
this
new
advocat
has
not
as
yet
made
good
.
2.
That
any
corruptions
generally
,
or
such
as
may
denominate
a
Church
in
some
measure
corrupt
,
will
warrand
a
separation
,
which
is
a
principle
we
do
not
owne
.
We
acknowledge
a
Church
may
be
joyned
with
Lawfully
wherein
there
are
great
corruptions
,
and
this
with
Mr
Durham
and
others
on
that
subject
.
But
as
to
corruptions
,
we
say
,
if
the
contraverted
joyning
be
in
that
which
is
clear
and
necessary
duty
in
the
present
circumstances
,
there
can
be
in
this
joyning
no
stain
,
but
in
so
far
as
a
concurrence
with
that
which
is
duty
out
of
that
complex
case
,
cannot
be
performed
without
a
direct
complyance
with
,
or
stain
of
these
corruptions
,
then
a
proportioned
separation
is
needfull
in
so
far
as
suitable
to
that
exigence
;
and
yet
even
in
this
case
we
assert
that
other
duties
in
the
fellowship
with
that
same
Church
may
be
owned
:
and
that
fellowship
is
not
intirely
to
be
broken
off
(
upon
the
preceeding
ground
)
in
these
things
wherein
there
is
no
such
hazard
.
But
now
what
sayes
he
to
this
argument
,
1.
He
tells
us
,
we
are
mistaken
if
we
think
the
Bishops
a
corruption
,
and
that
this
will
not
be
granted
.
Ans.
I
hope
I
have
made
it
evident
that
they
are
a
corruption
,
and
therefore
to
be
disowned
.
The
2
answer
is
,
that
its
a
mistake
to
think
that
for
corruptions
,
and
even
great
corruptions
,
a
Church
is
to
be
separat
from
.
Then
he
tells
us
,
of
the
corrupted
of
the
Church
of
Galatia
;
that
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
an
article
of
the
creed
was
denyed
,
that
there
were
great
faults
in
the
Asian
Churches
Rev.
2.
3.
and
of
the
great
corruptions
that
were
in
the
Church
of
Israel
,
as
is
evident
in
the
books
of
the
Kings
and
Prophets
,
yet
the
people
of
God
were
not
commanded
to
separat
as
long
as
the
substance
of
the
worship
was
not
corrupted
,
as
it
was
by
Ieroboams
calves
.
Ans.
1.
What
if
Presbyterians
shall
borrow
this
argument
from
him
,
and
from
these
instances
of
not
separating
from
a
Church
,
notwithstanding
of
great
corruptions
,
shall
plead
for
all
professors
in
Scotland
their
adhering
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
this
Presbyterian
Church
,
as
having
a
worship
not
substantially
corrupted
,
whatever
other
personal
faults
,
or
corruptions
they
may
be
lyable
unto
,
that
yet
they
are
a
true
Church
as
to
the
main
,
and
that
therfore
they
ought
to
be
joyned
with
,
as
the
Churches
of
Corinth
and
Galatia
(
wherein
there
were
great
corruptions
)
were
still
adhered
to
by
professors
.
What
will
he
say
in
this
case
?
I
know
he
will
say
that
its
ridiculous
for
such
a
party
of
Schismaticks
to
call
our selves
the
Church
of
Scotland
.
But
what
if
we
return
this
answer
to
him
again
,
that
according
to
the
Reformation
and
principles
of
our
Church
(
out
of
which
Prelats
were
ejected
,
vows
against
them
universally
taken
on
,
and
Presbyterial
government
compleatly
setled
therein
)
Its
ridiculous
to
call
a
party
of
Prelats
and
their
adherents
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
or
for
them
to
usurp
her
name
,
who
have
thus
overturned
her
Reformation
.
So
that
untill
he
make
good
the
above
mentioned
hypothese
:
or
suppositions
,
viz.
that
Conformists
are
the
true
organick
Church
of
Scotland
,
that
this
our
practice
is
a
separation
properly
such
;
that
its
meerly
because
of
Conformists
personal
faults
that
we
withdraw
;
that
we
are
under
prior
obligations
to
adhere
unto
Curats
with
all
their
corruptions
rather
then
our
Presbyterian
Ministry
and
Church
,
which
is
both
free
of
them
and
contending
against
them
;
untill
these
and
such
like
suppositions
be
made
good
,
his
argument
from
the
preceeding
scripture
Iostances
as
to
joyning
with
a
Church
that
hath
corruptions
,
is
a
meet
petitio
principii
,
and
will
not
help
his
cause
in
the
least
.
Which
will
be
further
evident
if
we
consider
in
the
2d
place
,
that
the
case
of
these
Churches
and
professors
therein
was
far
from
ours
in
relation
to
corruptions
.
For
1.
The
Doctrinal
corruptions
of
Galatia
as
to
the
legal
Ceremonies
,
(
by
the
bad
influence
of
judaizing
teachers
)
tho
they
were
of
a
large
,
yet
the
Informer
will
not
prove
they
were
either
of
such
an
universal
spread
and
tincture
,
or
strengthned
by
such
an
universal
acknowledgment
,
as
to
make
the
state
of
that
Church
correspond
with
his
hypothesis
in
this
argument
.
2.
That
error
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
in
relation
to
the
resurrection
,
appears
not
to
have
been
owned
by
their
teachers
and
Church
officers
,
far
less
publickly
avowed
and
obstinatly
and
presumptuously
maintaired
by
them
or
any
considerable
number
of
hearers
,
which
makes
their
case
wide
from
ours
,
wherein
so
many
preachers
who
call
themselves
Pastours
of
this
Church
,
&
many
others
,
obstinatly
and
avowedly
maintain
our
abjured
corruptions
;
the
Church
of
Corinth
was
in
capacity
to
censure
any
handfull
that
owned
this
error
,
&
to
purge
out
this
leaven
,
but
so
is
not
our
Church
in
this
case
as
to
the
mantainers
of
Prelacy
and
its
other
corruptions
,
so
that
there
is
here
no
remedy
but
for
the
sound
part
to
keep
themselves
pure
from
their
contagious
and
destroying
course
.
The
account
of
both
these
Churches
in
the
point
of
corruptions
,
which
is
exhibit
by
Pareus
in
his
Comment.
●…n
the
1
Cor.
is
considerable
to
this
purpose
,
upon
the
12.
verse
of
the
15.
chap.
he
tells
us
that
the
Apostle
accuseth
not
them
all
,
but
some
only
,
freeing
the
rest
of
this
crime
.
Neque
enim
accusat
omnes
sed
quosdam
inter
eos
.
Reliquos
igitur
a
culpa
li●…erat
.
Neque
enim
paucorum
culp
▪
omnibus
est
imputanda
.
Therafter
he
shewes
that
some
do
judge
that
this
was
Hymen●…us
and
Philetus
,
others
,
some
of
the
Jewishs
Saduces
or
Heathen
Philosophers
who
had
instilled
this
poyson
about
the
resurrection
.
And
a
little
after
answering
Bellarmines
cavill
,
[
that
because
of
these
Churches
their
corruption
in
doctrine
,
therefore
pure
doctrine
is
not
the
marke
of
a
Church
]
as
the
Churches
of
Corinth
and
Galatia
were
without
the
faith
of
the
resurrection
,
and
sound
faith
as
to
justification
.
He
answeres
by
denying
this
assertion
.
Neque
enim
(
saith
he
)
tota
Ecclesia
Corinthiorum
negabat
resurrectionis
fidem
:
sed
aliqui
tantum
,
quos
redarguebant
alij
.
Idem
de
Galatarum
Ecclesia
sentiendum
:
qui
nec
omnes
,
nec
tam
〈◊〉
errabant
in
fundamento
,
nutabant
saltem
,
utrum
fides
Christi
ad
salutem
sufficeret
—
dicit
enim
ibidem
,
ut
&
Corinthijs
:
modicum
fermenti
fermentat
totam
mass●…m
.
Ergo
fermentum
,
non
erat
omnium
sed
aliquorum
tantum
:
a
quibus
tamen
omnibus
imminebat
periculum
,
quod
Apostolus
tentat
ab
eis
avertere
.
That
is
,
this
whole
Church
of
Corinth
denyed
not
the
resurrection
,
but
some
only
who
were
opposed
by
others
,
the
same
we
must
judge
of
the
Church
of
Galatia
,
who
did
neither
all
,
nor
so
hainonsly
err
in
the
foundation
,
but
by
the
persuasion
of
false
Apostles
were
hesitating
,
whether
the
faith
of
Christ
was
sufficient
to
salvation
,
or
if
the
circumcision
was
also
needfull
,
for
he
sayes
in
that
same
place
as
also
to
the
Corinthians
,
a
little
leaven
leaveneth
the
whole
lump
.
Therefore
this
leaven
was
not
of
them
all
but
of
some
only
,
by
whom
notwithstanding
all
were
in
hazard
,
which
the
Apostle
endeavours
to
prevent
.
The
Dutch
annot
upon
the
same
place
[
How
say
some
among
you
&c.
]
observe
that
this
error
was
not
common
of
the
whóle
Church
,
but
of
some
only
whose
names
are
not
exprest
,
as
2
Tim.
2.
17.
that
by
shaming
them
he
might
not
fright
them
from
conversion
.
And
upon
Gal.
5.
9.
they
shew
that
this
little
leaven
spoken
of
,
may
be
either
understood
of
the
false
doctrine
it self
,
or
the
men
who
promoted
this
doctrine
,
who
although
they
were
few
yet
did
much
hurt
,
—
and
therefore
were
to
be
eshewed
.
Now
,
how
disproportioned
for
extent
and
infection
,
these
corruptions
were
unto
these
of
our
Church
about
which
our
debate
is
,
is
obvious
to
the
meanest
reflection
,
and
consequently
the
Lameness
of
our
Informers
similitudinary
argument
from
the
one
to
the
other
.
Which
will
be
yet
further
evident
,
if
we
consider
.
That
3.
He
cannot
make
appear
,
that
in
any
of
these
Churches
there
was
a
formal
legal
Iudicial
enacting
authorizing
and
commanding
of
these
corruptions
,
and
endeavours
used
,
to
exclude
and
root
out
all
who
would
not
submit
to
them
,
by
Barbarous
violence
and
persecution
,
particularly
faithfull
Ministers
for
testifying
against
the
same
.
Nor
can
he
prove
that
adherence
to
these
erroneous
corrupters
in
their
Worship
,
was
appointed
and
enjoyned
as
an
express
Test
and
badge
of
owning
their
errours
,
and
renouncing
the
truth
,
and
all
the
sound
party
adhering
thereto
,
which
is
so
casting
a
difference
,
that
it
quite
invalidats
these
Instances
as
to
any
argument
against
our
practice
,
for
this
destroying
backsliding
Innovating
party
of
this
Church
have
laid
down
courses
either
to
engadge
to
a
formal
owning
of
their
corruptions
,
especially
the
faithful
Ministry
of
this
land
,
or
else
to
exterminat
and
root
them
out
&
all
sound
professours
together
with
their
Testimony
.
In
a
word
whatever
concurence
in
duty
these
corruptions
he
mentions
may
be
consistent
with
,
it
is
certain
that
the
sound
professors
were
called
to
keep
themselves
free
of
the
contagion
thereof
by
all
means
,
and
the
Church
was
to
use
all
endeavours
to
purge
out
and
rid
her self
of
these
corruptions
and
corrupters
too
if
obstinat
,
Paul
wished
they
were
cut
off
who
troubled
the
Churches
of
Galatia
,
that
is
censur'd
and
laid
aside
as
rotten
members
who
were
in
hazard
to
grangrene
the
whole
body
.
The
Officers
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
are
commanded
to
purge
out
the
old
leaven
,
since
a
litle
would
quickly
leavent
the
whole
lump
.
And
the
Apostle
reprehends
them
for
not
casting
out
the
Incestuous
man
,
&
enjoynes
the
sound
professors
in
that
Church
to
come
out
from
among
the
unclean
and
be
separat
,
as
they
exspect
to
be
received
of
God
.
And
our
Lord
reprehends
the
Church
of
Pergamus
for
not
casting
out
them
that
held
the
Doctrine
of
Balaam
,
and
the
Nicolaitans
—
and
the
Church
of
Thyatira
for
suffering
Jezabel
to
seduce
and
infect
with
scandalous
errors
and
practices
the
Lords
servants
.
Now
the
scope
of
these
precepts
will
say
,
that
when
the
case
is
so
circumstantiat
,
that
the
Church
and
sound
part
can
have
no
access
for
removing
and
censuring
destroying
corrupters
,
especially
while
by
violence
endeavouring
(
after
they
have
departed
from
a
pure
Church
her
sworn
Reformation
and
constitution
)
to
force
all
to
a
concurrence
with
them
,
or
exterminat
the
impolluted
remnant
,
that
this
sound
Church
(
I
say
)
are
to
keep
themselves
free
of
their
contagion
,
to
follow
their
duty
in
opposition
to
them
,
and
mutually
to
strengthen
one
another
therein
;
which
is
enough
to
Justifie
our
practice
in
this
case
.
In
like
manner
,
the
many
commands
of
the
Prophets
to
abstain
from
the
pollutions
of
the
time
,
and
threatnings
for
accession
thereto
,
will
by
proportion
infer
this
our
practice
mentioned
,
and
that
when
a
case
is
such
that
no
concurrence
can
be
had
with
Innovators
in
their
worship
without
the
stain
of
their
sin
,
and
when
they
are
persecuting
all
that
will
not
concur
with
them
,
a
non-union
and
forbearance
is
most
necessary
.
Had
any
corrupting
treacherous
Prophets
or
others
of
the
Church
of
Israel
in
concurrence
with
persecuting
Rulers
,
enacted
universal
complyance
with
some
gross
corruptions
,
and
ejected
all
the
faithfull
non
complying
teachers
priests
or
prophets
,
admitting
none
to
officiat
except
these
corruptions
had
been
formally
acknowledged
,
Let
any
say
what
would
have
been
the
faithfull
prophets
decision
in
this
case
,
and
whether
upon
the
same
ground
on
which
they
so
oft
dehort
from
the
least
complyance
with
any
sin
,
they
would
not
have
allowed
and
commanded
the
faithfull
prophets
and
members
of
that
Church
to
oppose
them
,
and
cleave
unto
their
respective
duties
,
and
unto
one
another
in
the
following
thereof
.
As
for
what
he
adds
,
that
there
was
then
no
command
to
separat
from
the
worship
while
it
was
not
substantially
corrupted
.
I
wonder
if
he
will
charge
a
corruption
of
the
worship
it self
,
or
in
the
substance
thereof
upon
the
duties
now
owned
and
performed
by
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
professors
,
from
whom
he
notwithstanding
thinks
its
duty
to
separat
,
so
that
untill
he
prove
(
as
I
said
)
Conformists
their
better
claim
to
officiat
as
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
then
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
this
argument
lights
heavy
on
himself
,
and
the
censures
put
upon
Novatians
and
Donatists
falls
upon
their
dividing
and
destroying
party
.
The
case
of
these
Schismaticks
being
as
far
from
ours
as
east
from
west
;
were
Novatians
or
Donatists
first
cast
out
by
a
violent
backsliding
party
for
not
concurring
in
a
course
of
backsliding
,
in
overturning
a
Churches
sworn
reformation
,
and
were
they
enjoyned
&
commanded
,
to
owne
the
course
of
these
backsliders
?
I
think
the
Donatists
&
Novatians
their
violence
against
adherers
to
the
union
of
the
true
Church
,
is
a
fit
emblem
of
the
present
practice
of
Conformists
,
how
can
this
Man
say
,
that
there
were
then
greater
corruptions
them
now
.
Can
there
be
greater
corruptions
in
government
then
a
papacy
of
the
highest
degree
,
as
is
their
premacy
and
hierarchy
?
can
there
be
greater
corruptions
in
practice
,
then
perjury
and
such
grosse
prophanity
as
Conformists
are
blotted
with
for
the
most
part
?
greater
corruption
in
principles
,
then
Popish
Arminian
errors
&c.
The
Doubter
objects
,
[
that
if
we
may
not
separat
from
a
corrupt
Church
,
what
mean
these
scripture
commands
enjoyning
separation
,
such
as
2
Cor.
6.
14
,
15
,
16.
1
Cor.
5.
11
2
Thes
3.
6
Rev.
18.
3
]
We
have
already
said
that
he
deals
deceitfully
in
making
his
Presbyterian
Doubter
assert
that
we
may
separat
from
a
corrupt
Church
in
every
case
,
but
this
we
say
,
that
in
whatever
case
,
and
in
how
far
soever
;
we
cannot
joyn
with
a
corrupt
Church
without
the
contagion
and
stain
of
its
corruptions
,
in
so
far
and
in
that
case
,
a
separation
is
necessary
,
and
falls
within
the
compass
of
these
scripture
commands
.
And
that
in
this
our
case
,
the
demanded
conformity
as
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
professors
cannot
be
yeelded
,
without
the
stain
of
prelatists
their
sin
,
is
above
cleared
.
So
that
he
needs
not
tell
us
here
,
that
every
corruption
is
not
a
sufficient
ground
of
separation
.
For
we
have
heard
our
Informer
acknowledge
that
a
Church
may
be
in
that
degree
corrupted
,
as
will
render
a
separation
warrantable
;
yea
and
necessary
.
I
could
wish
he
had
condescended
upon
that
degree
of
corruption
,
and
showen
us
here
the
maximum
quod
sic
,
&
minimum
quod
non
,
as
to
the
ground
of
this
separation
,
and
how
far
these
corruptions
may
strike
at
a
Churches
vitals
,
and
yet
her
life
and
essence
as
a
Church
subsist
.
And
here
I
would
close
in
a
litle
with
this
Man
,
and
enquire
,
that
since
a
Churches
corruptions
will
(
with
him
)
in
some
cases
render
a
separation
necessary
,
upon
what
ground
is
it
necessary
,
and
from
what
prior
principle
is
this
concluded
?
sure
it
must
be
upon
this
ground
,
left
union
with
that
Church
blott
the
soul
,
and
make
us
share
in
her
sin
.
So
that
in
this
case
,
we
are
not
obliged
to
hold
union
and
fellowship
with
her
when
it
is
infectious
,
as
is
most
clearly
imported
in
that
command
2
Cor.
6.
and
if
separation
be
upon
this
ground
allowed
,
whether
the
corruption
be
lesser
or
greater
,
eatenus
or
in
so
far
,
we
are
obliged
to
separat
,
for
Majus
&
minus
non
variant
speciem
rei
.
Next
,
I
infer
that
a
non-union
to
a
corrupt
party
who
cannot
be
called
the
Church
,
or
at
lest
whose
being
the
Church
is
magnalis
&
sub
judice
,
will
be
a
fortiori
warranted
,
and
upon
lesser
grounds
then
separation
which
supposes
an
anterior
obligation
of
union
,
and
actuall
union
out
of
this
case
,
and
abstracting
from
it
.
But
for
these
scriptures
mentioned
,
he
sayes
they
will
not
prove
our
point
,
and
to
that
of
2
Cor
6.
14.
he
answers
,
that
our
Lord
is
speaking
of
separating
from
ungodly
fellowship
with
Idolaters
,
not
of
withdrawing
from
christian
assemblies
.
But
doth
he
not
enjoyn
that
separation
because
of
the
hazard
of
Infection
by
their
sin
,
and
why
not
also
from
christian
assemblies
where
there
is
the
same
hazard
of
this
Infection
?
did
he
not
acknowledge
that
the
case
of
a
Church
or
christian
Assembly
may
be
such
,
as
will
render
even
a
separation
necessary
.
Now
if
in
this
case
the
tender
separater
should
plead
this
text
,
and
that
corrupt
Church
or
assembly
of
Christians
give
our
Informers
answer
,
viz.
that
it
pleads
only
for
separating
from
fellowship
with
Idolaters
,
not
of
withdrawing
from
christian
Assemblies
,
how
will
he
extricat
himself
,
and
reconcile
this
answer
with
his
concession
.
But
for
these
texts
1
Cor.
5.
11.
and
2
Thess.
3.
6.
he
sayes
,
they
are
meant
only
of
needless
fellowship
in
privat
converse
with
scandalous
persons
,
but
allowes
not
to
withdraw
from
the
publick
worship
because
of
the
presence
of
such
scandalous
ones
,
as
if
this
did
pollute
the
worship
,
though
it
may
be
the
fault
of
Church
guides
not
to
keep
them
back
.
Ans.
The
ground
here
is
the
same
(
and
acknowledged
by
him
)
whatever
be
the
withdrawing
which
is
more
immediately
enjoyned
,
viz.
lest
their
fellowship
prove
contagious
,
scandalous
or
in
any
measure
sinfull
,
&
so
if
fellowship
with
a
Church
in
her
Assemblies
be
thus
infectious
,
these
scriptures
do
enjoyn
a
separation
upon
the
same
ground
;
and
by
necessary
consequence
from
what
he
hath
acknowleged
:
And
therefore
this
answer
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
,
unless
he
will
retract
his
concession
,
that
there
may
be
corruptions
in
a
Church
and
her
assemblies
,
which
will
render
a
separation
necessary
.
Next
,
as
for
what
he
adds
,
that
ordinances
are
not
polluted
by
the
presence
of
scandalous
ones
.
It
is
not
for
him
,
nor
against
us
;
since
he
acknowledges
,
there
may
be
a
Lawfull
yea
necessary
separation
from
a
Church
&
her
assemblies
in
worship
,
tho
not
upon
this
ground
of
the
ordinances
their
pollution
by
the
presence
of
scandalous
ones
:
because
of
the
reason
which
we
have
already
heard
;
and
we
do
also
upon
other
grounds
then
this
of
a
pretended
pollution
of
the
ordinances
by
their
scandals
,
maintain
our
disowning
Conformists
in
their
worship
to
be
a
duty
(
as
we
have
heard
)
even
that
they
are
forcing
all
to
a
sinfull
complyance
with
them
,
in
a
schismatick
departing
from
the
unity
of
this
Church
and
perjurious
overturning
the
work
of
reformation
,
and
will
neither
suffer
Ministers
nor
professors
to
joyn
with
them
in
worship
,
but
with
an
express
aknowledgement
(
in
the
intent
of
our
Laws
)
and
owning
of
this
defection
.
Sure
we
are
commanded
to
withdraw
from
every
Brother
that
walks
disorderly
,
(
which
our
Informer
pleads
as
a
sufficient
ground
to
disowne
Presbyterian
Ministers
&
withdraw
from
them
because
of
their
supposed
disorder
and
schism
,
tho
the
ordinances
in
their
hands
are
not
polluted
with
their
supposed
guilt
,
)
and
from
all
fellowship
with
scandalous
brethren
,
which
is
contagious
and
may
pollute
us
,
Now
,
are
not
they
walking
disorderly
&
cross
to
the
doctrine
,
discipline
,
&
Reformation
of
this
Church
?
are
they
not
consequently
schismaticks
?
are
not
their
scandals
infectious
,
when
they
will
suffer
no
Ministers
to
possess
their
charges
,
or
officiat
either
with
,
or
without
them
,
or
people
to
enjoy
ordinances
among
them
,
without
direct
owning
their
defection
,
and
overturning
our
Reformation
,
and
a
professed
submission
to
their
abjur'd
prelacy
,
as
is
clear
in
the
acts
enjoyning
Ministers
preaching
,
and
peoples
hearing
in
conformity
to
prelacy
and
the
supremacy
.
For
that
of
Rev.
18.
he
sayes
,
that
it
enjoyneth
a
separation
from
Rome's
corrupt
doctrine
and
Idolatrous
worship
,
but
warrands
not
a
separation
from
a
Church
where
no
such
corruption
is
.
I
answer
,
The
ground
of
the
command
is
the
danger
of
Infection
by
Rome's
sins
,
as
is
expressed
in
the
text
,
which
will
consequently
hold
wherever
this
danger
is
,
whatever
be
the
the
particular
sins
from
whence
this
danger
flowes
,
for
(
as
I
said
)
majus
&
minus
non
variant
speciem
and
we
may
add
,
that
other
Known
rule
,
a
quatenus
ad
omne
valet
sequela
.
In
whatever
case
an
union
is
unwarrantable
and
infectious
,
a
proportioned
separation
is
upon
this
ground
enjoyned
.
Nay
,
if
the
conjunction
have
but
mali
speciem
or
be
inductive
to
sin
only
,
the
command
of
eshewing
,
every
appearance
of
evill
,
will
reach
this
withdrawing
,
unless
the
conjunction
be
on
other
grounds
an
indispensible
duty
.
Now
our
Covenant
obligations
,
and
our
Reformation
as
itstood
established
being
duely
pondered
,
it
will
be
clear
that
Conformists
are
schismaticks
and
destroying
Innovators
,
and
there
is
no
prior
obligation
to
joyn
with
them
,
but
rather
to
disowne
them
in
this
course
.
Sure
this
man
holds
that
fellowship
with
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
their
assemblies
for
worship
is
contagious
,
and
that
people
are
obliged
to
leave
,
and
come
out
from
them
,
tho
he
dare
not
lay
Idolatrous
worship
nor
corrupt
doctrine
to
their
charge
,
and
so
he
must
acknowledge
,
that
this
and
such
like
commands
will
warrand
a
separation
upon
the
general
ground
here
intimat
,
abstracting
from
that
special
case
of
Romes
Idolatrous
worship
and
corrupt
doctrine
.
It
s
very
sophistical
reasoning
from
the
denyall
of
the
special
ground
and
nature
of
Romes
contagion
,
from
which
christians
are
called
to
separat
,
to
deny
a
separation
upon
any
other
contagion
to
fall
within
the
compass
of
that
precept
,
which
is
to
reason
from
the
denyall
of
the
species
to
the
denyal
of
the
genus
.
His
Doubter
in
the
next
place
retorts
his
charge
of
separation
upon
himself
,
and
alledges
[
that
we
have
better
ground
to
charge
Conformists
with
schism
because
of
their
departing
from
the
government
of
this
Church
,
to
which
we
are
still
adhering
,
so
that
they
have
gone
out
from
us
,
not
we
from
them
.
]
We
proved
this
charge
already
from
the
constitution
and
Reformation
of
this
Church
as
it
stood
established
,
and
our
universal
vows
of
adherence
therunto
,
so
that
such
as
have
overturned
this
work
of
Reformation
,
(
not
Presbyterian
government
only
)
they
are
properly
the
first
dividers
and
deserters
.
But
let
us
hear
how
he
acquits
himself
of
this
charge
.
1.
He
sayes
that
their
submission
to
prelacy
is
in
obedience
to
the
commands
of
superiors
,
whom
we
are
bound
to
obey
in
things
not
sinfull
,
So
that
their
obedience
is
duty
,
and
Presbyterians
their
non
submission
is
disobedience
to
authority
,
and
Schisme
from
the
Church
.
But
1.
His
Doubter
alleadging
that
Presbyterial
Government
is
the
Government
of
this
Church
,
and
inferring
thereupon
that
departing
from
it
is
Schism
,
and
that
Prelatists
have
gone
out
from
Presbyterians
,
not
they
from
them
,
which
is
a
very
clear
consequence
,
and
will
clearly
infer
the
departers
to
be
Schismaticks
upon
any
description
of
Schism
which
he
can
assigne
;
And
moreover
,
this
being
the
great
ground
upon
which
this
man
and
his
fellows
do
charge
Presbyterians
with
Schism
,
viz.
That
they
are
separat
from
the
present
Prelatick
constitution
,
since
he
offers
no
formal
answer
either
to
the
antecedent
or
consequent
of
his
Doubters
argument
,
what
will
the
interposed
command
of
Rulers
signify
to
alter
the
Nature
of
Schism
,
or
to
make
that
practice
which
is
Hactenus
upon
Scripture
grounds
Schismatical
,
to
be
no
Schism
.
This
I
must
say
is
strange
divinity
,
but
like
enough
to
that
of
these
men
who
make
the
Magistrate
a
Pope
over
the
Church
,
her
ordinances
,
and
over
sacred
Oaths
and
vows
.
2.
We
have
proved
that
their
submission
and
obedience
in
this
point
,
is
a
high
rebellion
against
God
,
in
disowning
at
mens
arbitrary
command
,
the
Government
of
his
house
appointed
in
his
word
,
and
embracing
an
abjured
Hierarchy
contrary
to
it
,
and
against
which
all
the
nations
were
engadged
.
So
that
our
practice
is
obedience
to
God
,
and
a
keeping
of
the
union
of
Christs
body
,
and
theirs
is
both
perjury
and
Schism
.
He
tells
us
,
that
he
hath
proved
in
the
first
conference
Episcopacie
to
be
the
only
Government
left
by
Christ
,
and
practised
by
his
Apostles
:
So
that
our
disowning
it
is
Schism
from
the
Scripture
Church
Government
,
and
that
of
the
primitive
Church
,
as
well
as
from
them
.
To
this
I
only
say
,
that
I
hope
we
have
made
the
prelacy
he
pleads
for
,
appear
to
be
a
stranger
both
to
Scripture
and
antiquity
.
Again
he
tells
us
,
that
in
this
charge
of
Schism
,
he
means
it
not
only
or
mainly
in
respect
of
Government
,
but
of
separating
from
their
Assemblies
for
Worship
,
which
is
Schism
tho
the
Government
were
wrong
.
I
answer
1.
If
he
acknowledges
that
separating
from
the
Government
is
Schism
,
why
answers
he
not
our
countercharge
,
that
their
party
did
first
separat
from
the
Government
of
this
Church
,
and
that
therefore
the
Schism
lyes
first
and
principally
at
their
door
;
for
that
which
he
sayes
of
the
Magistats
command
,
is
(
as
we
have
heard
)
utterly
insignificant
to
wipe
of
this
charge
.
2.
This
charge
of
the
first
Schism
on
his
part
standing
good
,
for
any
thing
he
hath
said
,
that
which
he
here
adds
of
our
being
Schismaticks
,
because
of
our
separation
from
their
Assemblies
for
Worship
,
is
like
wise
naught
.
For
upon
this
ground
of
his
Doubter
,
which
he
cannot
disprove
,
viz.
That
they
have
made
the
first
breach
and
separation
,
they
are
Hactenus
Schismaticks
,
and
so
are
to
be
disown'd
in
their
worship
upon
that
very
account
and
ground
,
upon
which
he
pleads
for
disowning
Presbyterians
Assemblies
for
Worship
tho
he
can
lay
nothing
else
to
their
charge
,
or
alleadge
any
substantial
corruption
of
the
worship
.
And
so
the
recocted
crambe
which
he
here
presents
to
us
again
anent
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
Simeon
and
Anna
their
attending
the
Temple
Worship
,
Zacharias
and
Elizabeth
,
Joseph
and
Mary
their
not
separating
there
from
&c.
Pleads
as
much
for
his
Presbyterian
Doubter
in
relation
to
the
owning
of
our
Presbyterian
Assemblies
for
Worship
(
and
much
more
)
then
for
him
.
Since
he
dare
not
say
that
they
are
more
corrupted
then
the
Church
of
the
Iews
was
at
that
time
,
and
so
we
may
echo
back
his
alas
how
will
you
justify
this
separation
of
yours
,
with
an
enquiry
how
he
and
his
party
will
justify
their
separation
from
the
true
Ministry
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
?
What
if
a
party
of
corrupt
Priests
and
Levites
had
risen
up
and
pursued
a
course
of
defection
,
tending
to
raze
and
ruine
all
Gods
ordinances
,
casting
out
all
such
Priests
and
Levites
as
would
not
concurr
with
them
,
and
had
appointed
an
acknowledgment
of
and
concurrence
with
their
wicked
defection
,
to
be
the
only
condition
upon
which
they
will
admit
either
priests
or
people
to
share
in
the
ordinances
?
In
the
mean
time
a
great
body
of
Priests
and
people
adhering
to
Gods
ordinances
,
and
contending
against
them
,
had
been
keeping
their
possession
of
the
temple
Worship
as
long
as
they
could
?
I
dare
refer
to
our
Informer
to
give
judgment
in
this
case
and
shew
,
what
Simeon
and
Anna
,
Joseph
and
Mary
would
have
done
,
and
to
which
of
the
parties
they
would
have
adhered
?
And
let
our
cause
be
judged
by
this
.
His
Doubter
in
the
next
place
objects
[
that
Conformists
lecture
not
,
&
therefore
may
not
be
heard
.
]
Here
he
but
trifles
to
insinuat
that
this
is
solely
lookt
upon
by
us
as
a
ground
of
not
owning
them
.
But
in
so
far
as
in
this
our
case
it
s
a
piece
of
their
apostacy
from
our
establisht
reformed
Worrhip
,
and
an
expresse
badge
of
conformity
to
prelacy
,
and
in
both
these
respects
,
flat
perjury
and
breach
of
Covenant
,
we
look
upon
it
as
having
its
own
influence
with
other
grounds
to
warrand
a
non-union
to
them
while
standing
in
a
stated
opposition
to
faitfull
Ministers
mantaining
,
this
with
other
pieces
of
our
Reformation
.
To
this
objection
our
Informer
answers
,
1.
That
some
Conformists
lectured
,
and
ye●…
were
separat
from
.
And
so
might
all
of
them
be
upon
the
forementioned
grounds
thus
disowned
and
separat
from
,
Altho
they
had
keept
a
form
of
this
,
but
I
beleeve
they
are
for
signs
and
wonders
among
them
who
keep
the
lecture
,
or
owne
it
at
all
.
Next
he
tells
us
,
of
the
ancient
reading
of
the
Scripture
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
and
of
Moses
and
the
prophets
in
the
Synagogues
,
Acts
13.
15
,
27.
and
15.
21.
and
likewise
in
the
Christian
Church
.
But
what
then
?
who
denies
this
,
why
,
they
have
(
he
tells
us
)
the
Scriptures
publickly
read
in
their
Churches
.
But
I
trow
the
reading
is
the
better
of
expounding
,
and
he
might
have
found
,
that
the
Levites
(
Neh.
8.
8.
)
read
the
Law
of
God
distinctly
,
and
gave
the
sense
,
and
caused
the
people
understand
the
reading
;
And
he
dare
not
say
that
the
ancient
publick
reading
of
Scriptures
among
the
Jews
was
by
Gods
appointment
a
dumb
reading
without
exposition
.
Why
gave
God
prophets
and
teachers
unto
his
Church
if
not
for
this
end
?
and
faith
comes
mainly
by
hearing
the
Word
preach't
.
Why
then
grew
his
reverend
Fathers
and
their
conforming
Sons
,
so
angry
with
this
Churches
laudable
practise
of
giving
the
sense
together
with
the
reading
(
comprobat
by
that
ancient
Practise
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
which
he
pretends
)
since
otherwise
the
Text
read
ane
100.
times
is
still
like
a
kernell
under
a
hard
shell
.
Nay
but
he
sayes
,
if
we
separat
upon
this
ground
we
would
have
separat
from
the
Church
in
all
ages
.
Sure
not
from
that
Church
where
the
law
was
expon'd
and
its
sense
given
,
as
well
as
read
,
beside
that
our
non-union
to
our
prelatick
Innovators
,
(
or
withdrawing
too
if
he
please
)
hath
this
as
an
appendix
with
other
grounds
,
that
Conformists
in
withholding
our
former
lecture
or
expository
reading
from
the
people
,
and
substituting
a
bare
reading
in
its
place
,
discover
themselves
to
be
teachers
who
are
keeping
close
and
not
opening
the
seals
of
Gods
book
,
&
are
afraid
that
their
hearers
should
learn
too
fast
.
In
the
3d
place
,
he
tells
us
a
tedious
storie
,
anent
the
disuse
of
our
first
authorized
method
of
Lecturing
,
which
was
at
first
only
to
read
one
chapter
in
the
old
testament
and
another
of
the
New
with
brief
explication
of
occuring
difficulties
,
but
that
thereafter
we
held
with
one
chapter
,
then
with
a
part
of
one
,
and
raised
observations
—
making
it
a
short
sermon
,
so
that
its
all
one
to
separat
for
this
,
as
to
separat
for
shorter
sermons
,
which
are
,
caeteris
paribus
,
thought
better
then
a
long
.
Then
he
tells
us
further
(
to
cloak
this
their
laziness
)
that
variety
of
purposes
are
hardly
retained
,
and
procures
a
wearying
,
and
that
one
thing
puts
out
another
&c.
But
what
fruitless
talke
is
all
this
?
If
our
Churches
appointment
was
of
this
nature
at
first
to
open
up
difficulties
upon
the
reading
,
did
she
therefore
intend
to
cut
off
the
exercise
of
that
gift
anent
practical
observations
,
which
is
found
in
experience
so
eminently
edifying
as
himself
acknowledges
in
the
next
page
,
and
the
method
of
preaching
abroad
,
to
which
method
we
are
beholden
for
some
excellent
commentaries
upon
the
Scripture
,
which
would
probably
have
been
by
this
time
Intire
through
the
whole
bible
according
to
the
design
and
mould
projected
by
the
Reverend
brethren
and
Ministers
of
this
Church
,
If
our
Prelats
lazy
reading
tribe
,
had
not
invaded
the
pulpits
of
the
Lords
faithfull
labourers
.
Again
,
suppose
there
was
as
to
this
method
some
deviation
from
the
first
appointment
,
yet
since
our
Church
gave
a
tacit
approbation
&
universally
used
it
,
his
censure
is
too
critical
&
saucy
;
beside
,
to
plead
from
the
variation
in
the
practice
to
a
total
disuse
,
is
dull
reasoning
;
and
whatever
the
lecture
was
at
first
this
is
certain
,
that
this
universal
practice
and
eminently
edifying
piece
of
publick
duty
,
owned
by
our
Church
,
was
presently
disused
and
discharged
by
prelats
,
and
its
disuse
became
one
of
the
badges
of
conformity
,
and
a
part
of
their
mark
upon
their
creatures
,
and
therefore
eatenus
in
all
reason
it
ought
to
have
its
own
weight
with
other
grounds
,
as
to
disowning
them
,
in
their
present
state
and
circumstances
.
The
experience
of
all
the
true
seekers
of
God
can
disprove
sufficiently
what
he
adds
,
of
a
tedious
nauseating
as
the
issue
of
variety
of
purposes
;
variety
rather
taking
off
,
then
begetting
tediousness
whence
the
Scripture
is
composed
for
this
end
of
such
a
sweet
variety
of
purposes
and
methods
.
His
story
of
Pembo's
desiring
to
hear
one
word
or
sentence
at
once
,
and
no
more
till
after
a
long
time
,
is
calculat
well
to
patronize
a
reading
or
non-preaching
Ministry
;
but
the
many
scripture
precepts
given
to
christians
anent
growth
in
Knowledge
,
and
leaving
the
first
principles
,
and
not
to
be
alwayes
children
in
understanding
,
and
likewise
the
scripture
precepts
straitly
charging
and
enjoyning
Ministers
to
be
instant
in
season
and
out
of
season
preaching
,
exhorting
with
all
long
suffering
and
doctrine
,
sufficiently
discovers
the
●…diculous
tendency
of
this
story
.
4.
He
tells
us
,
that
suppose
it
were
a
fault
,
every
fault
will
not
warrand
separation
.
We
say
not
that
every
fault
,
nay
nor
this
simply
considered
,
will
warrand
separation
,
but
that
this
with
many
others
presumptuously
maintained
and
avowed
,
will
warrand
a
non-union
unto
a
schismatick
party
of
Innovators
destroying
and
overturning
a
well
reformed
Church
,
and
rooting
out
a
faithfull
remnant
of
adherers
thereto
.
As
for
the
want
of
the
circumcision
and
the
passover
for
sometime
in
the
Iewish
Church
,
which
he
next
pleads
as
that
which
did
not
cause
a
separation
,
not
to
stand
upon
the
particular
impediment
of
circumcision
while
in
the
wilderness
or
an
inquiry
into
what
speciall
lets
might
have
had
an
influence
(
or
a
sinfull
influence
)
upon
the
disuse
of
the
passover
,
yet
Conformists
case
,
who
are
but
a
schismatick
unsound
part
of
this
Church
,
rejecting
an
approved
ordinance
and
duty
,
in
complyance
with
and
subserviency
unto
a
perjurious
course
of
defection
,
is
so
far
discrepant
from
this
,
that
any
may
see
the
disparity
.
As
for
that
of
2
Kings
23.
22.
That
there
was
not
holden
such
a
passover
(
as
that
of
Josiah
)
from
the
dayes
of
the
Judges
that
judged
Israel
,
nor
in
all
the
dayes
of
the
Kings
of
Israel
,
nor
of
the
Kings
of
Judah
.
It
s
only
spoken
comparativly
in
respect
of
the
spirituality
and
s●…lemnity
of
that
passover
,
and
doth
not
suppose
ane
absolute
disuse
of
this
ordinance
through
all
that
time
.
A
learned
Interpreter
upon
this
passage
doth
paraphrase
the
verse
thus
,
that
there
was
no
passover
celebrat
with
so
solemn
care
,
great
preparation
,
and
universal
joy
,
the
greater
because
of
their
remembrance
of
their
miserable
times
under
Manasseh
and
Amon.
—
And
that
from
the
dayes
of
Samuel
the
last
of
the
Judges
,
as
it
s
exexpressed
2
Chron.
35.
18.
None
of
the
Kings
had
with
such
care
prepared
themselves
,
the
Preists
and
people
to
renew
their
Covenat
with
God
as
Josiah
now
did
.
And
as
he
will
not
be
able
to
prove
that
out
of
the
case
of
persecution
,
invasion
,
dispersion
or
captivity
,
and
the
inevitable
necessity
flowing
from
these
,
there
was
a
warrantable
disuse
of
these
holy
ordinances
,
so
professors
their
not
separating
from
that
Church
even
upon
a
sinfull
disuse
;
will
never
come
home
to
his
purpose
,
as
is
already
oft
cleared
5.
He
adds
,
that
upon
this
ground
we
would
separat
from
all
other
Churches
,
and
from
our
own
Church
before
the
year
1645.
And
then
he
would
please
us
again
by
telling
us
,
that
he
could
wish
all
sermons
were
as
Lectures
,
the
chief
points
of
a
long
text
being
propounded
,
which
would
be
more
edifying
,
then
when
they
rack
thè
text
and
their
brains
(
a
native
and
kindly
character
of
his
party
,
and
their
preaching
)
to
seek
matter
from
their
text
to
hold
out
the
time
.
But
we
have
oft
told
him
that
it
s
not
this
defect
only
,
or
without
the
circumstances
of
our
present
case
,
that
we
plead
as
a
ground
of
disowning
them
.
And
if
he
account
the
Lecture-method
of
preaching
the
more
edifying
,
with
what
conscience
have
they
deprived
Gods
people
of
this
exercise
&
method
of
preaching
,
upon
my
Lord
Bishops
orders
?
It
seems
his
ipse
dixit
is
the
first
rule
of
edification
with
our
Informer
and
his
fellows
,
a
principle
well
suited
to
lawless
and
Lordly
prelacy
,
which
must
have
all
ordinances
mancipated
to
its
arbitrary
commands
.
So
that
our
Informer
giving
the
supreme
Magistrat
a
papal
power
over
Church-Government
,
and
solemn
sacred
Oaths
and
vows
,
in
the
preceeding
Dialogue
,
and
the
Bishops
a
dominion
over
Worship
in
this
,
puts
pityful
fetters
upon
Christs
glorious
bride
;
and
as
in
this
point
and
most
of
his
reasonings
,
in
begging
the
question
,
he
but
skirmishes
with
his
own
shadow
,
so
in
thus
wounding
our
Church
,
by
his
dangerous
laxe
principles
in
his
pretended
healing
,
but
truely
hurtfull
and
trifling
Dialogues
,
he
shewes
himself
to
be
a
physician
of
no
value
.
CHAP.
V.
The
Informers
answers
and
reasoning
upon
the
point
of
Scandal
and
offence
,
in
reference
to
the
owning
of
Conformists
,
considered
.
His
dangerous
principles
both
as
to
civil
and
Ecclesiastick
power
in
this
point
.
His
answer
to
the
Doubters
argument
for
Presbyterian
Ministers
preaching
in
the
manner
controverted
,
taken
from
the
practice
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
examined
.
His
absurd
principles
●…nent
the
Magistrats
coercive
power
over
the
exercise
of
the
Ministerial
office
.
Having
discovered
this
mans
unsoundness
in
the
points
above
examined
,
wherein
we
have
seen
how
in
opposing
the
Lords
work
,
his
faithfull
servants
their
laboures
in
promoting
it
,
he
hath
dashed
against
the
Scripture
and
sound
divines
,
and
stated
himself
in
opposition
to
both
.
We
shall
next
discover
,
some
more
of
his
errors
,
which
,
are
the
issues
of
the
former
,
&
of
the
wicked
designe
for
promoting
wherof
,
they
are
presented
.
The
first
that
offers
it self
to
be
considered
,
is
in
the
point
of
Scandal
.
From
which
we
argue
against
the
owning
of
Confor●…ists
as
is
above
exprest
.
And
this
grand
doubt-resolver
will
needs
discusse
it
,
but
with
what
success
we
shall
presently
see
.
His
Doubter
in
the
next
place
offers
to
him
an
argument
against
hearing
Conformists
,
[
taken
from
the
offence
and
stumbling
of
many
godly
,
flowing
from
this
practice
of
hearing
them
,
since
they
look
upon
it
as
a
sin
;
and
tells
him
that
the
Apostle
sayes
we
must
not
give
offence
nor
lay
a
stumbling
block
before
others
.
]
We
have
already
proposed
,
and
some
way
improven
this
argument
from
the
scandal
of
the
weak
in
this
case
.
To
this
he
first
answers
,
that
when
we
are
forbidden
to
give
offence
,
It
s
meant
of
not
doing
that
which
is
of
itself
sinfull
,
whereby
we
grieve
the
godly
,
and
lay
a
stumbling
block
in
the
way
of
others
by
our
evill
example
;
but
when
we
do
our
duty
in
obeying
God
,
we
cannot
give
offence
to
any
,
and
if
they
take
offence
Its
their
own
sin
and
weaknes
,
but
none
is
given
.
As
here
(
he
sayes
)
it
s
their
weaknes
to
offend
at
maintaining
unity
and
peace
,
that
this
rather
gives
a
good
example
,
and
to
ly
by
from
hearing
Conformists
for
fear
of
offence
of
the
weak
,
is
to
omit
duty
and
harden
them
in
sin
.
Ans.
The
Informer
offering
this
reply
from
the
sense
of
that
scripture
generally
hinted
by
his
Doubter
,
seems
at
first
view
to
restrict
the
command
of
not
giving
offence
,
to
that
which
is
in
it self
sinfull
,
wherin
it
might
easily
be
made
appear
that
he
contradicts
sound
Divines
,
scripture
and
himself
.
Especially
the
passage
to
which
the
Doubter
referrs
being
of
a
far
other
sense
and
scope
.
But
lest
this
censure
should
appear
too
Critical
,
and
upon
consideration
of
his
second
answer
,
I
shall
not
medle
with
what
he
sayes
here
in
thesi
,
or
this
assertion
in
it self
considered
.
But
to
the
assumption
&
application
of
this
passage
in
his
answer
,
I
return
to
him
this
in
short
,
that
he
doth
but
here
still
beg
the
question
in
supposing
that
the
owning
of
Curats
is
in
this
our
case
a
duty
and
a
maintaining
of
peace
and
order
in
the
Church
,
wherof
we
have
made
the
contrary
appear
:
and
that
maintaining
the
true
union
and
peace
of
this
Church
,
is
to
owne
her
true
and
faithfull
Ambassadours
,
contending
for
her
reformation
,
true
order
,
and
union
against
their
course
of
defection
:
and
so
this
practice
is
both
sinfull
in
it self
and
scandalous
to
others
.
His
2d
Answer
to
this
premised
argument
of
his
Doubter
is
,
That
the
Apostle
ordinarly
when
forbidding
to
give
offence
;
speaks
of
the
use
of
liberty
in
things
indifferent
,
that
it
must
not
be
used
to
the
offence
of
the
weak
brother
,
lest
contrary
to
his
conscience
he
be
emboldned
to
sin
,
1
Cor.
8.
10.
Or
be
grieved
because
he
thinks
we
sin
in
doing
what
we
should
not
,
Rom.
14.
15.
Ans.
We
shall
not
much
stand
upon
this
,
only
we
here
see
that
the
lawfulness
of
a
thing
in
it self
,
will
not
(
according
to
him
)
Justify
it
in
that
case
wherein
,
either
the
weak
is
emboldned
to
sin
,
grieved
,
or
made
more
weak
and
his
plerophory
hindred
.
And
that
the
sincere
enquirer
for
Truth
may
be
confirmed
in
this
sound
persuasion
,
and
guarded
against
what
he
after
subjoyns
,
I
shall
here
offer
unto
him
the
sense
and
Judgment
of
an
eminent
Father
,
and
Reformed
divine
upon
this
point
.
Chrysostome
upon
Rom.
14.
Homily
25.
Expones
all
the
Apostles
Arguments
to
the
same
scope
,
of
the
unlawfullness
of
offending
the
weak
in
things
indifferent
.
Particularly
upon
verse
13.
Si
non
salvare
fratrem
(
saith
he
)
culpam
habet
,
id
quod
&
Evangelici
talenti
de●…ossor
indicat
:
Quid
non
faciet
datum
etiam
scandalum
?
Sed
inquies
quod
si
suopte
vitio
scandalizatur
infirmus
?
propter
hoc
ipsum
aequum
fuerit
,
ut
illum
feras
,
Nam
si
fortis
esset
,
tali
cura
opus
non
haberet
,
nunc
vero
quia
imbacillior
est
multa
etiam
curandi
diligentia
opus
habet
,
that
is
,
if
it
be
faulty
not
to
save
our
brother
,
as
the
hider
of
the
talent
maketh
it
evident
:
What
will
not
even
the
giving
of
Scandal
do
.
But
you
will
say
,
what
if
the
weake
be
scandalized
by
his
own
fault
?
Upon
the
same
very
ground
it
is
just
that
you
beare
with
him
.
For
if
he
were
strong
then
he
would
have
no
need
,
of
such
care
,
but
because
he
is
weak
he
stands
in
need
of
much
diligence
for
his
cure
.
In
the
next
homily
,
he
hath
many
things
upon
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
argument
to
the
same
purpose
.
Upon
the
14.
ver.
I
know
nothing
is
unclean
of
it self
.
He
offers
an
objection
to
the
Apostle
for
clearing
the
words
.
Quid
igitur
non
corrigis
fratrem
,
ne
putet
aliquid
immundum
esse
?
●…t
quid
non
illum
ab
ista
consuetudine
omnibus
viribus
abducis
Why
do
you
not
with
might
and
main
withdraw
your
brother
from
that
opinion
and
practice
(
a
thing
that
our
Informer
and
his
fellows
make
no
bones
of
as
to
dissentients
.
)
To
this
he
answers
in
the
Apostles
name
.
Ver●…or
inquit
,
ne
moerore
illum
afficiam
unde
&
subdit
:
Verum
si
propter
cibum
frater
tuus
contristatur
,
non
jam
secundum
charitatem
ambulas
.
Vides
quo●…
〈◊〉
familiarem
interea
sibi
faciat
infirmum
Auditorem
ostendens
tantam
illius
rationem
halere
se
,
ut
ne
moestum
reddat
,
etiam
quae
vehementer
erant
necessaria
,
praeciperere
non
audeat
,
sed
indulgentia
illum
●…agis
ac
dilectione
attrahat
?
Neque
enim
postea
quam
vanu●…
exemerat
metum
,
potenter
illum
tra●…it
aut
cogit
,
sed
sui
ipsius
Dominum
esse
permittit
,
that
is
.
I
am
afraid
lest
I
make
him
sad
,
and
hence
he
subjoins
,
but
if
thy
brother
be
grieved
with
thy
meat
,
now
walkest
thou
not
charitably
.
See
how
tenderly
he
deals
with
the
infirme
hearer
,
shewing
that
he
hath
so
great
a
regard
to
him
,
that
lest
he
make
him
sad
he
dare
not
command
these
things
that
are
most
necessary
,
for
he
he
doth
not
draw
and
force
him
after
he
hath
taken
away
the
groundless
fear
,
but
permits
him
to
be
his
own
Master
.
And
upon
the
1
Cor.
8.
v.
20.
He
hath
things
to
the
purpose
.
On
verse
9.
Non
dixit
quod
licenti
a
vestraoffendiculum
sit
,
neque
certo
asseveraverit
ne
impudentiores
faceret
.
Sed
,
inquit
,
videte
:
timore
eos
abducit
,
&
ne
faciant
prohibet
:
Et
non
dixit
scientia
vestra
,
quod
majoris
esset
laudis
,
neque
perfectio
vestra
:
Sed
licentia
quod
suberbiae
&
stultitiae
—
non
dixit
fratribus
sed
infirmis
sratribus
,
ut
gravius
eos
reprehenderet
quod
nequeinfirmis
parcunt
&
maximefratribus
.
That
the
Apostle
imputes
folly
and
pride
unto
them
who
offend
the
weak
brethren
.
Upon
the
10.
verse
—
the
conscience
of
him
that
is
weak
shall
be
emblodned
to
eat
&c.
He
shews
that
the
offender
of
the
weak
cannot
charge
the
guilt
upon
his
weakness
—
tu
enim
imbecilliorem
facis
duo
sunt
quae
te
privant
venia
,
&
quod
infirmus
&
quod
frater
—
addatur
&
tertium
maxime
horrendum
—
quod
Christus
neque
mori
propter
illum
recusavit
,
tu
autem
neque
ei
indulgere
pateris
.
That
is
,
the
offender
makes
them
yet
weaker
,
that
two
things
render
such
as
offend
them
inexcusable
,
the
one
that
they
are
weak
,
the
other
that
they
are
brethren
,
and
a
third
crime
may
be
added
,
which
is
most
horrid
—
that
thou
●…fuses
so
much
as
to
spare
those
for
whom
Christ
refused
not
even
to
dye
.
Upon
12.
vers
.
When
ye
so
fin
against
the
brethren
&
wound
their
weak
Conscience
ye
sin
against
Christ
.
He
hath
these
words
,
quid
homine
inhumanius
existimari
potest
,
qui
●…grotum
verberat
?
Etenim
omni
plaga
gravius
scandalizare
est
,
nam
saepenumero
&
mortem
adfert
.
Et
quomodo
in
Christum
peccant
?
Uno
quidem
modo
,
quod
quae
servorum
sunt
ipse
pro
se
accipit
.
Altero
autem
,
quod
in
corpus
ejus
&
membra
faciunt
qui
percutiunt
.
Tertio
quod
opus
ejus
,
quod
propriamorte
absolvit
,
ii
propria
ambitione
destruunt
.
What
can
be
more
i
nhumane
then
that
man
,
Who
beats
one
that
is
sick
?
for
to
scandalize
is
more
grievous
then
all
strokes
for
it
oftentimes
brings
death
.
And
how
sin
they
against
Christ
?
One
way
,
because
he
takes
to
himself
what
concerns
his
servants
;
another
way
,
because
they
wound
his
body
and
members
,
Thirdly
,
in
that
the
work
which
he
accomplisht
by
his
own
death
,
they
destroy
by
their
own
ambition
.
Upon
the
last
verse
of
the
chapter
,
If
eating
of
flesh
make
my
brother
offend
I
will
eat
none
while
the
World
stands
.
He
saith
,
Hoc
Magistri
optimi
est
officium
,
suo
exemplo
erudire
quae
dicit
,
Et
non
dicit
sive
juste
,
sive
injuste
:
sed
quomodocunque
.
Sed
non
dico
,
inquit
,
Idolothytum
,
quod
&
propter
aliam
causam
prohibetur
:
sed
si
quod
licet
&
permittitur
scandalizat
,
etiam
illis
abstinebo
,
neque
una
aut
altera
die
,
sed
tot●…
vitae
tempore
.
Non
enim
manducabo
,
inquit
▪
carnes
in
aeternum
.
Et
non
inquit
,
ne
perdam
fratrem
:
Sed
simpliciter
,
ut
non
scandalizem
:
That
is
,
this
is
the
duty
of
the
most
excellent
Master
to
instruct
what
he
sayes
by
his
own
example
.
And
he
saith
not
I
will
not
eat
whether
justly
or
injustly
:
But
whatever
way
I
will
not
.
As
also
he
saith
not
that
he
will
not
eat
of
the
Idolothytwhich
is
forbidden
for
another
cause
.
But
if
that
which
is
lawful
and
permitted
give
scandal
,
even
from
these
things
I
will
abstain
,
and
not
for
a
day
or
two
,
but
during
my
whole
life
.
For
he
saith
I
will
not
eat
flesh
while
the
world
stands
.
And
he
saith
not
lest
I
should
destroy
my
brother
:
But
simply
lest
I
should
offend
him
.
And
a
little
afterward
having
shown
,
that
what
the
Apostle
speaks
belongs
unto
us
.
he
saith
,
dicere
enim
quid
mihi
curandum
est
,
si
ille
scandalizatur
,
&
ille
perit
?
Crudelitatis
illius
atque
inhumanitatis
est
:
Atque
tunc
quidem
ex
eorum
,
qui
scandalizabantur
,
infirmitate
id
contingebat
.
In
nobis
autem
non
itidem
;
Talia
namque
peccata
committimus
,
quae
etiam
fortes
scandalizant
:
Nam
cum
percutimus
,
cum
rapimus
cum
trahimur
cupiditate
,
&
tanquam
servis
liberis
abutimur
,
nonne
haec
sufficientiasune
ad
scandalizandum
?
Neque
mihi
dixeris
illum
calceorum
sutorem
esse
,
alterum
Corearium
Statuarium
vero
alium
:
Sed
considera
fidelem
illum
esse
&
fratrem
.
Illorum
namque
sumus
discipuli
Piscatorum
,
Publicanorum
,
tentoriorum
Opificum
:
Christus
einm
in
fabrili
domo
educatus
est
,
&
fabri
sponsam
matrem
habere
non
est
dedignatus
,
&
ab
ipsis
incunabulis
in
praesepi
●…acuit
,
neque
ubi
caput
inclinaret
,
invenit
:
Et
tantum
iteneris
confecit
ut
fatigaretur
&
ab
alijs
victum
accepit
.
That
is
,
for
to
say
,
what
am
I
concerned
if
such
a
man
be
scandalized
,
and
such
a
man
perish
?
is
his
inhumanity
and
cruelty
:
But
some
of
those
who
then
were
scandalized
,
were
offended
through
weaknesse
,
But
soit
is
not
in
us
:
for
we
commit
such
sins
which
do
even
offend
the
strong
.
For
when
we
strike
,
and
offer
violence
to
them
,
and
are
drawn
by
our
own
lusts
,
and
abuse
free
men
as
if
they
were
slaves
,
are
not
these
sufficient
to
scandalize
them
?
Say
not
to
me
,
this
man
is
a
Shoemaker
,
the
other
a
Tanner
,
the
other
a
statuemaker
,
but
consider
that
he
is
faithfull
,
and
a
Brother
.
For
we
are
the
Disciples
of
those
fishers
,
Publicans
,
and
tentmakers
.
For
Christ
was
educat
in
a
tradsmans
house
,
&
disdained
not
that
his
mother
was
betrothed
to
a
tradsman
,
and
himself
lay
in
a
manger
for
his
cradle
,
neither
found
he
where
to
lay
his
head
:
Was
wearyed
with
his
journey
,
and
received
maintainance
from
others
.
In
which
passages
,
it
is
evident
that
Chrysostome
upon
the
great
moral
and
Apostolick
grounds
,
of
the
weak
their
interest
in
Christ
,
his
tenderness
of
them
,
his
dying
for
them
,
their
spiritual
hazard
while
their
conscience
is
wounded
,
their
liberty
in
Christ
,
the
cruelty
and
uncharitableness
of
offending
them
,
demonstrates
the
hainusness
of
,
&
vehemently
inveighes
against
this
sin
,
and
clearly
asserts
with
the
Apostle
,
that
the
lawfulness
of
the
practice
in
it self
,
affords
not
the
least
warrand
for
doing
of
that
out
of
which
seth
,
or
whereby
the
weak
brother
it
made
more
weak
.
Next
,
I
shall
offer
the
sense
of
an
eminent
Reformed
divine
upon
this
point
.
Pareus
upon
this
chapter
doth
fully
confirme
our
principles
on
this
head
.
Let
the
Informer
read
his
analysis
of
the
chapter
,
where
he
will
find
him
digest
the
Apostles
reasons
and
arguments
against
the
giving
offence
in
matters
lawful
,
and
learndly
prosecutes
them
in
his
exposition
,
which
he
will
find
to
be
such
as
do
cut
the
sinnews
of
the
new
and
dangerous
principles
in
this
point
,
which
the
Prelatick
formalists
do
maintain
,
citing
Chrys.
in
some
of
the
passages
mentioned
.
Which
purpose
he
also
prosecutes
in
his
commentary
upon
Rom.
14.
and
15.
Chap.
Upon
the
7.
verse
anent
the
pollution
of
the
weak
conscience
,
he
sayes
that
this
pollution
is
not
so
much
to
be
imputed
to
themselves
,
as
unto
those
that
did
induce
them
to
eat
by
their
ill
example
.
Upon
the
9.
verse
he
shews
that
the
lawfulness
of
their
practise
excuseth
not
abuse
in
this
case
,
calling
scandal
,
dictum
vel
factum
quo
alius
deterior
redditur
,
citing
Rom.
14.
21.
Upon
the
10
vers.
he
shews
that
the
danger
and
guilt
there
pointed
at
,
is
the
inducing
of
the
weak
to
imitat
the
practice
with
a
fluctuating
conscience
.
Upon
the
11.
He
shews
that
the
Apostle
puts
together
aggreging
circumstances
of
this
sin
of
giving
offence
in
things
lawful
viz.
that
we
ought
to
edify
and
not
destroy
by
our
knowledge
,
next
that
the
person
scandalized
is
our
brother
.
3.
An
infirm
brother
,
whom
to
wrong
must
be
extreme
malice
,
4.
Which
is
the
greatest
of
all
,
that
Christ
hath
dyed
for
the
infirm
brother
.
The
same
he
resumes
upon
the
12
,
vers.
and
explains
the
sense
of
Chrysost.
and
Beza
as
to
the
wounding
of
the
weak
conscience
.
Upon
the
Apostles
conclusion
vers.
13.
He
shewes
that
he
expresseth
a
resolution
of
the
same
nature
and
extent
with
that
Rom.
14
,
21.
viz.
not
to
do
that
whereby
our
brother
stumbles
,
or
is
offended
or
is
made
weak
.
Adding
,
idem
vult
intelligi
de
toto
genere
rerum
mediarum
&
licitarum
,
potius
in
his
se
libertate
sua
cessurum
,
quam
ut
fratrem
offendat
.
Sic
the
sin
tacite
ingerit
quae
est
presentis
loci
doctrina
praecipua
:
In
casu
scan
dali
etiam
a
rebus
licitis
abstinendum
esse
:
Quia
tunc
sunt
illicitae
&
peccata
,
per
accidens
quidem
sednostra
culpa
,
quando
quod
facere
possumus
ac
debemus
,
(
N.
B.
)
offensionem
infirmorum
non
cavemus
.
That
is
,
the
same
he
will
have
to
be
understood
of
all
things
lawfull
&
indifferent
,
that
in
these
we
ought
rather
to
cede
from
our
liberty
then
offend
our
brother
.
Thus
he
tacitly
enforceth
that
point
which
is
the
chief
Doctrine
of
this
place
.
That
in
the
case
of
scandal
we
must
abstain
from
things
lawfull
,
Because
then
they
become
sins
and
unlawfull
by
accident
,
yet
by
our
fault
when
we
guard
not
against
the
offence
of
the
weak
,
which
we
can
and
ought
to
do
.
In
the
close
he
sayes
,
that
the
Apostle
will
have
us
in
things
lawfull
not
simply
to
eye
what
is
our
right
,
but
what
charity
and
edification
do
require
,
But
now
let
us
come
to
the
assumptian
and
application
of
our
Informers
concession
,
to
the
present
case
and
question
,
are
there
not
many
weak
brethren
who
may
be
embolded
to
sin
,
or
(
may
we
suppose
)
condemn
me
sinfully
if
I
hear
Curats
?
Suppose
the
practice
were
lawfull
in
it self
,
what
will
cure
this
malady
?
Behold
a
Catholicon
presently
,
We
must
know
(
saith
he
)
that
if
the
command
of
Authority
interpose
&
enjoin
the
thing
Indifferent
,
then
it
s
no
more
in
my
liberty
pro
tunc
.
Because
(
forsooth
)
I
am
restricted
by
Authority
,
which
makes
the
thing
necessary
.
Ans.
1.
This
man
charges
a
great
defect
upon
the
Apostle
Paul
who
in
all
his
discourses
upon
guarding
against
offence
in
things
indifferent
,
makes
no
mention
of
this
new
case
&
knack
,
anent
making
the
indifferent
thing
necessary
,
by
the
command
of
Rulers
,
and
exeeming
thus
the
giving
of
offence
from
guilt
?
But
all
along
he
pleads
by
many
arguments
in
the
places
mentioned
,
that
if
the
thing
be
indifferent
,
the
case
of
offence
makes
it
unlawfull
.
And
all
his
arguments
in
these
passages
,
which
do
press
the
eshewing
of
offence
are
moral
and
constantly
binding
(
and
consequently
admit
no
such
restriction
as
this
)
such
as
Christs
tenderness
of
the
weak
,
their
redemption
purchased
by
his
blood
,
Christian
liberty
,
the
evill
of
my
brothers
doubting
,
whatsoever
is
not
of
faith
is
sin
&c.
And
he
moves
objections
against
his
doctrine
,
such
as
,
I
have
knowledge
;
I
have
faith
—
And
shall
I
be
limited
of
my
liberty
,
because
anther
is
weak
or
wilfull
&c.
Such
like
objections
he
moves
and
answers
,
but
of
this
exception
and
restriction
anent
a
command
from
Rulers
altering
the
nature
of
the
thing
,
and
loosing
all
his
arguments
in
relation
to
offence
,
the
Apostle
mentions
nothing
.
2.
This
puts
a
blasphemous
authority
,
upon
the
Magistrat
;
we
know
the
terrible
interminations
and
threatnings
thundered
against
giving
offence
,
and
discoveries
of
the
dreadfull
tendency
thereof
,
wo
to
them
by
whom
offence
comes
,
Again
,
better
be
cast
into
the
sea
then
offend
one
of
the
little
ones
—
destroy
not
him
,
saith
Paul
(
with
thy
offensive
carriage
)
for
whom
Christ
dyed
.
Now
will
the
Magistrats
command
give
me
sufficient
warrand
and
security
in
and
for
a
thing
indifferent
,
to
destroy
my
brother
,
and
,
will
it
list
off
Christs
wo
and
make
it
lighter
then
a
feather
,
which
is
more
dreadfull
then
to
be
cast
into
the
sea
with
a
milstone
tyed
about
ones
neck
.
3.
I
would
know
if
this
Informer
will
deny
that
the
Apostolick
precepts
in
relation
to
offence
&
scandal
,
pressed
with
important
and
great
motives
in
the
premised
Scriptures
;
are
of
ane
universal
and
moral
nature
,
and
do
reach
and
oblige
all
that
owne
the
profession
of
Christianity
in
their
several
relations
and
capacities
.
These
precepts
founded
upon
the
everlasting
and
constantly
binding
grounds
and
motives
of
union
,
charity
and
love
to
the
brethren
(
the
great
gospel
command
)
edification
,
the
communion
of
Saints
,
(
the
very
bonds
and
ligaments
compacting
and
strengthning
Christs
mystical
body
)
none
can
deny
to
be
of
an
universal
extent
,
and
to
be
among
the
grand
rules
of
Christian
practice
limiting
and
directing
our
carriage
in
whatever
relation
we
stand
,
whether
Ministers
or
people
,
Masters
or
servants
,
Parents
or
children
&c.
And
the
superiour
being
under
the
obligation
of
these
great
rules
(
unless
we
will
make
God
a
respecter
of
persons
)
it
necessarily
followes
that
they
do
direct
and
limit
him
in
the
exercise
of
his
power
,
so
that
this
being
one
Regula
Regulans
as
to
all
the
Magistrat
Laws
;
it
s
must
absurd
to
imagine
that
his
counter-practice
and
Laws
can
loose
himself
or
others
from
this
divine
superiour
obligation
,
unlesse
we
will
deiesie
him
and
make
his
Law
&
practice
the
soveraign
and
supreme
rule
in
every
point
as
well
as
in
this
.
Whence
it
followes
by
necessary
consequence
that
the
practice
which
is
offensive
,
scandalous
,
and
destructive
to
our
brother
,
in
its
present
circumstances
,
and
upon
the
constant
unerring
scripture
grounds
&
rules
,
cannot
be
altered
in
its
present
quality
and
state
by
mens
commands
crossing
the
divine
Law
,
but
remains
a
sinful
scandalous
practice
though
a
hundred
Lawes
enjoyn
and
authorize
it
.
4.
Was
not
Pauls
Apostolick
declarator
that
evry
thing
sold
in
the
shambles
might
be
Lawfully
eaten
,
as
powerfull
to
exeem
that
action
of
eating
such
things
from
the
compass
of
offence
as
the
Magistrats
Law
and
authority
?
Sure
he
had
at
least
as
much
,
if
not
more
authority
in
this
point
,
then
the
Magistrat
,
especially
as
this
Informer
expones
authority
afterward
from
Acts
15.
28.
yet
that
same
practice
,
Lawfull
in
it self
,
and
by
the
Apostle
declared
to
be
so
,
and
accordingly
enjoyned
and
authorized
by
him
,
must
not
be
used
in
this
case
of
the
offence
,
even
of
the
weak
and
ignorant
,
but
the
Apostle
himself
,
though
thus
declaring
and
,
(
may
I
say
)
authoring
the
lawness
of
the
practice
,
declares
he
will
never
use
nor
take
it
up
in
this
case
of
offence
.
I
beseech
him
,
was
not
the
warrantabliness
of
this
practice
in
it self
by
the
Lords
word
,
declaring
all
things
to
be
clean
to
the
clean
,
and
Pauls
Apostolick
declarator
in
this
place
,
as
valide
to
render
it
,
of
indifferent
,
necessary
to
the
users
,
as
the
command
of
our
civil
Rulers
in
relation
to
this
practice
under
debate
,
and
a
litle
more
,
he
having
the
mind
of
Christ
,
and
being
a
Master
builder
of
the
Churches
.
Yet
the
offending
of
the
weak
,
ignorant
yea
or
wilfull
,
will
in
his
Judgement
cut
short
this
liberty
,
and
render
the
practice
sinfull
upon
that
ground
.
But
moreover
the
instance
of
the
brazen
serpent
will
here
bite
and
sting
his
cause
and
argument
to
death
;
for
it
was
an
eminent
type
of
Christ
,
and
reserved
(
and
sure
our
Informer
will
say
warrantably
)
as
a
signal
monument
of
that
rare
typical
cure
of
the
people
stung
by
the
fierie
serpents
in
the
wilderness
,
yet
when
the
people
were
stumbled
,
and
it
became
an
occasion
of
their
sinning
and
committing
Idolatry
,
good
Hezekiah
brake
it
,
called
it
Nehushtan
,
and
is
commended
for
it
by
the
Spirit
of
God
.
Now
in
this
mans
principles
the
interposing
of
authority
for
its
preservation
was
sufficient
to
keep
it
from
being
destroyed
,
though
all
Israel
should
have
been
never
so
much
stumbled
,
and
ensnared
to
Idolatry
by
it
,
but
the
keeping
of
this
monument
God
would
dispense
with
in
this
weighty
case
.
Sure
that
which
rendred
the
preservation
of
it
highly
provoking
,
and
Hezekiahs
breaking
of
it
commendable
,
was
its
stumbling
and
ensnaring
tendency
and
effects
,
whatever
authority
and
acts
might
have
interposed
formerly
for
its
preservation
.
Will
the
Informer
say
that
Gideons
ephod
(
which
in
his
intention
was
only
designd
for
a
monument
of
that
victory
over
the
Midianites
)
was
lawfully
preserved
when
it
became
thus
ensnaring
as
the
brazen
Serpent
,
or
that
the
preservation
of
it
was
lawfully
authorized
in
this
case
?
surely
he
will
not
for
shame
assert
this
,
and
so
the
case
is
here
;
and
he
may
see
in
these
instances
(
if
his
eye
be
single
)
that
a
practice
though
in
it self
lawfull
or
indifferent
,
yet
,
when
become
offensive
in
its
present
circumstance
and
inductive
to
sin
,
cannot
in
that
case
be
rendred
warrantable
by
any
Laws
of
the
Magistrat
.
Finally
,
our
Informer
in
this
as●…ertion
cosseth
found
Divines
and
Casuists
as
well
as
the
Scripures
,
yea
and
fights
with
himself
.
For
we
have
heard
from
Chrysostom
and
Pareus
(
who
are
herein
accorded
by
all
our
writers
)
that
the
action
which
is
in
its
preseut
state
and
circumstance
,
scandalous
,
is
,
while
cloathed
with
these
Circumstances
,
necessarily
evill
,
and
upon
many
weighty
grounds
severely
prohibited
by
the
spirit
of
God
in
the
Scriptures
forecited
.
So
that
no
power
and
Laws
men
of
can
remove
these
scripture
limits
&
march-stones
.
Next
,
the
great
ground
and
rule
anent
a
scandalous
action
,
and
upon
which
the
scripture
motives
against
it
are
grounded
,
is
the
state
,
condition
and
freedom
of
the
conscience
,
lest
it
be
hindred
in
its
plerophory
,
emboldned
to
judge
without
ground
;
and
the
person
hindred
to
act
in
faith
,
or
induced
to
act
against
it
&c.
So
that
to
assert
that
the
Magistrats
command
can
invalidat
these
grounds
and
principles
,
and
render
the
action
not
sanda●…ous
which
is
such
otherwise
,
is
to
give
him
a
Dominion
over
the
conscience
,
and
subject
it
immediatly
and
absolutly
to
his
Laws
,
which
is
a
principle
disowned
by
all
Protestants
.
Moreover
the
Informer
himself
defines
the
offence
of
the
weak
brother
in
things
indifferent
,
an
emboldning
him
to
sin
contrary
to
his
conscience
,
or
to
judge
that
we
sin
when
we
sin
not
,
citing
1
Cor.
8.
Rom.
14.
Now
if
the
action
be
upon
this
ground
&
principle
necessarily
sinfull
in
its
present
circumstances
,
how
(
I
pray
)
can
the
Magistrats
command
render
it
not
only
Lawfull
;
but
necessary
,
as
he
is
bold
to
assert
.
Can
the
Magistrat
by
his
Law
embolden
a
mans
conscience
to
sin
,
and
yet
neither
the
Magistrat
sin
himself
,
nor
the
man
sin
in
obeying
him
?
Amesius
a
better
Casuist
then
he
will
tell
him
(
de
Consc.
lib.
5.
cap.
11.
Quest.
6.
R.
6.
)
that
nulla
authoritas
humana
,
vel
tollere
potest
scandali
rationem
,
ab
eo
quod
alias
esset
scandalum
,
vel
peccati
rationem
a
scandalo
dato
.
That
is
,
no
humane
authority
can
take
away
the
nature
of
scandal
from
that
which
otherwise
were
a
scandal
,
or
the
nature
and
cause
of
sin
from
scandal
given
.
And
his
ground
is
very
considerable
,
which
doth
confirme
what
I
have
now
said
.
Nullus
enim
homo
(
saith
he
)
potest
vel
charitati
&
conscientiis
nostris
imperare
.
vel
periculum
scandali
dati
praestare
.
That
is
,
for
no
man
can
put
imperious
commands
either
upon
charity
or
our
consciences
,
or
exeem
from
the
hazard
of
scandal
given
.
But
now
to
fortify
this
raw
&
ignorant
assertion
as
to
scandal
,
our
Informer
brings
Act.
15.
28.
—
these
necessary
things
—
from
which
words
of
the
councils
sentence
,
he
drawes
ane
argument
thus
,
that
though
of
themselves
they
were
not
necessary
,
but
somtimes
indifferent
,
yet
by
the
Authority
of
the
council
they
were
made
necessary
for
the
good
of
the
Church
,
so
[
he
sayes
]
obedience
to
authority
preponderats
the
not
giving
offence
,
as
the
greater
duty
of
the
two
,
as
divines
and
Casuists
shew
,
and
in
this
case
the
man
who
thus
obeyes
gives
no
offence
,
but
doth
duty
,
and
if
any
take
it
,
its
causeless
on
his
part
,
and
occasioned
through
the
brothers
weakness
,
so
that
its
scandalum
acceptum
non
datum
,
groundlesly
taken
but
not
given
,
and
when
the
Apostle
forbids
to
use
,
our
liberty
to
the
offence
of
the
weak
,
he
speaks
to
those
who
were
not
determined
by
Authority
.
Ans.
What
poor
ignorant
and
incoherent
reasoning
is
this
,
1.
It
s
a
strange
sottish
,
or
rather
popish
Assertion
,
that
the
necessary
things
Acts.
15.
28.
were
made
so
by
the
councils
authority
:
For
the
text
is
most
express
,
that
the
Apostles
enjoyned
this
upon
weighty
scripture-grounds
,
and
what
seemed
good
to
the
holy
ghost
(
speaking
in
the
word
)
as
well
as
to
them
,
so
that
the
holy
ghosts
grounds
and
commands
touching
the
maintaining
of
love
,
and
union
in
the
Church
,
and
the
great
rule
of
edification
,
and
not
stumbling
the
weak
Iews
,
were
the
great
and
standing
Scripture
principles
upon
which
this
decree
was
grounded
.
Now
to
shew
how
our
Informer
takes
the
papists
here
by
the
hand
in
this
glosse
,
let
us
hear
Calvine
upon
the
place
—
[
praeter
haec
necessaria
]
Hujus
vocis
praetextu
superbe
triumphant
Papistae
,
quasi
hominibus
liceat
ferre
leges
quae
necessitatem
conscientiis
imponant
—
quia
quod
deccrnunt
Apostoli
necessario
servandum
esse
pronuntiant
—
i.
e.
the
Papists
triumph
proudly
upon
pretext
of
●…his
this
place
,
as
if
men
might
make
Laws
imposing
a
necessity
upon
Consciences
because
what
the
Apostles
decree
,
they
affirme
,
must
be
necessarly
kept
.
—
Then
he
adds
,
atqui
expedita
&c.
But
the
Answer
is
easy
to
such
a
foolish
cavil
(
so
he
censures
our
New
Casuist
and
his
fellowes
in
this
point
)
for
this
necessity
was
no
longer
vigent
then
there
was
hazard
of
dissolving
union
,
so
to
speak
properly
it
was
an
accidental
or
extrinsick
necessity
,
which
had
place
not
in
the
thing
it self
,
but
in
guarding
of
offence
—
which
[
saith
he
)
is
evident
in
the
speedy
laying
aside
of
this
decree
.
Then
he
tells
us
,
that
when
the
contention
ceased
—
Paul
shewes
that
nothing
is
unclean
,
and
again
establishes
this
liberty
Rom.
14
:
14.
And
commands
to
eat
freely
what
ever
is
sold.
Adding
,
that
the
papists
in
vain
do
snatch
an
occasion
to
bind
consciences
from
this
word
and
to
conclude
the
Churches
power
to
statute
any
thing
beside
the
word
of
God
.
Telling
us
further
,
that
from
the
word
of
God
the
Council
drew
this
ground
of
exercising
charity
in
matters
indifferent
.
Then
(
saith
he
)
in
summa
,
the
summ
is
,
if
charity
be
the
bond
of
perfection
,
and
the
end
of
the
Law
,
if
Gods
command
be
that
the
faithfull
study
mutual
unity
and
concord
,
and
that
every
one
please
his
nighbour
to
edification
,
none
is
so
rude
who
may
not
perceive
,
that
what
the
Apostles
here
commanded
is
containd
in
the
word
of
God
.
—
And
at
the
close
he
tells
us
,
Apostol●…s
ex
verbi
Dei
sinibus
minime
egredi
.
—
That
the
Apostles
would
not
step
beyond
the
limits
of
the
word
of
God
.
But
2.
This
mans
Babylonish
tongue
still
wounds
himself
as
well
as
the
truth
,
for
1.
he
acknowlegeth
that
what
the
Apostles
here
decreed
,
was
for
the
Good
of
the
Church
;
which
(
if
he
understand
any
thing
)
he
must
needs
take
it
according
to
the
grounds
laid
down
in
this
disquisition
,
specially
that
which
the
Apostle
James
proposes
immediatly
before
his
and
the
rest
of
ths
Apostlee
decision
vers.
21.
viz.
that
Moses
had
in
every
city
,
them
that
teach
him
,
being
read
every
Sabath
day
.
So
that
it
was
needfull
at
that
time
upon
the
grounds
of
charity
,
union
,
and
aedification
,
to
beat
with
the
weak
Jews
in
abstaining
from
these
things
discharged
by
Gods
Law
,
till
the
ceremonies
were
honourably
buryed
.
Hence
it
followes
clearly
that
this
abstinence
was
made
necessary
upon
these
weighty
grounds
at
this
time
,
and
not
by
the
authority
of
the
council
only
.
Neither
was
the
matter
enjoynd
,
of
a
thing
indifferent
,
made
necessary
,
by
their
determination
,
but
upon
these
grounds
,
and
for
the
great
end
of
the
Churches
good
,
which
he
mentions
,
this
abstinence
was
at
this
time
,
and
in
this
case
necessary
;
And
by
the
Apostles
declared
to
be
so
upon
divine
warrand
for
what
else
will
he
make
of
that
expression
.
It
seemed
good
to
the
Holy
ghost
.
Again
,
Paul
and
the
other
Apostles
had
no
power
but
to
edification
,
nor
any
dominion
over
the
faith
of
Gods
people
,
and
so
acted
nothing
here
pro
arbitrio
or
imperio
.
So
that
their
sentence
,
was
only
a
declarator
of
Gods
mindeanent
that
which
was
antecedaneously
to
their
decree
hic
&
nnnc
a
necessary
duty
,
although
we
deny
not
that
the
Apostles
decision
was
to
have
its
own
weight
in
determining
the
Churches
obedience
.
2.
He
brings
this
passage
to
prove
that
obedience
to
authority
will
preponderat
the
not
giving
of
offence
.
But
so
it
is
that
the
great
ground
of
the
Apostles
decicision
here
is
the
guarding
against
the
offence
of
the
weak
Iews
,
and
obedience
to
this
sentence
was
in
not
giving
offence
,
and
upon
this
very
ground
Christians
were
to
abstain
from
these
meats
,
whereas
he
foolishly
distinguishes
in
this
point
betwixt
obedience
to
authority
,
and
not
giving
offence
,
as
distinct
duties
,
and
makes
the
first
to
over-rule
the
second
,
in
plain
contradiction
to
the
text
,
which
makes
the
not
giving
offence
,
to
be
the
great
duty
,
and
the
foundation
of
this
obedience
.
3.
This
charge
will
be
the
more
conspicuos
,
and
the
Informers
inconsistent
prevarications
,
in
this
point
,
if
we
consider
these
things
in
the
point
of
offence
:
1.
That
every
offence
through
weakness
is
not
sinless
upon
the
offenders
part
.
The
Inform●…r
himself
doth
(
with
the
Apostle
)
assert
this
,
who
in
the
very
preceeding
page
from
1
Cor.
8
:
10.
&
Rom.
14.
tells
us
,
that
the
Apostle
will
not
have
that
which
〈◊〉
indifferent●…
or
lawful
in
it self
,
used
to
the
offence
of
t●…e
weak
,
or
imboldening
of
their
conscience
to
Sin
.
〈◊〉
That
upon
this
ground
it
follows
that
,
the
Scandal●…
acceptum
,
or
offence
taken
,
as
contra
distinguish●…d
by
our
divines
from
Scandalum
datum
,
or
offen●…e
given
,
is
badly
and
to
narrowly
described
from
●…e
groundless
taking
thereof
,
as
if
upon
this
account
it
were
faultless
upon
the
offenders
part
,
it
being
certaine
,
that
neither
the
lawfullness
of
the
thing
out
of
which
offence
arises
,
the
good
intention
of
the
doer
,
nor
mens
commands
,
nor
the
weakness
,
yea
or
wi●…kkedness
of
the
takers
of
offence
,
will
free
the
giver
thereof
from
guilt
,
unless
the
action
be
in
its
present
state
and
circumstances
a
necessary
duty
:
for
thus
the
distinction
could
have
no
place
,
and
there
were
no
Scandalum
datum
at
all
there
being
no
ground
to
take
offence
,
upon
the
takers
part
,
and
takeing
this
phrase
in
the
Scripture
acceptation
as
there
can
be
no
reason
of
a
sinfull
action
properly
.
Nay
though
the
effect
should
not
follow
,
the
giver
is
still
guilty
,
as
Peter
was
in
giveing
offence
to
our
Lord
,
though
that
action
could
produce
no
sinfull
effect
in
him
,
for
he
said
to
him
thow
art
ane
offence
unto
me
.
So
that
it
is
beyond
debate
with
all
sound
divines
and
casuists
,
that
any
dictum
or
sactum
,
action
or
word
,
upon
which
the
formentioned
effects
may
follow
,
if
it
be
not
hic
&
nunc
necessary
,
is
a
scandalum
datum
.
3.
That
accordingly
all
sound
divines
treating
on
this
subject
,
in
describeing
a
passi●…e
scandal
in
opposition
to
that
which
is
given
,
do
not
draw
their
measures
or
description
meerly
from
the
weakness
or
othere
bade
disposition
of
the
taker
of
offence
,
but
from
the
state
and
condition
of
the
action
it self
,
out
of
which
offence
ariseth
,
which
if
not
necessary
in
its
present
●…tate
and
circumstances
,
they
hold
the
scandall
to
be
is
well
active
as
passive
;
Thus
Mr
Gilespie
Engl
▪
●…op
:
cerem
.
Thus
Ames
:
de
Consc:
lib.
5.
cap
,
1.
〈◊〉
,
quest
3
,
Resp.
1
,
2.
tells
us
,
that
,
in
omni
scandalo
●…ecesse
est
ut
sit
aliquod
peccatum
,
in
every
scandal
of
ne●…essity
there
is
some
guilt
,
because
it
hath
a
ten●…encie
to
the
spiritual
hurt
and
detrime●…
of
our
bour.
And
describing
passive
scandal
,
which
is
without
sin
upon
the
givers
part
,
he
sayes
that
this
falls
out
,
cum
factum
unius
,
est
alteri
occasio
peccandi
,
praeter
intentionem
facientis
,
&
conditionem
facti
,
that
is
when
the
fact
of
one
is
the
occasion
of
anothers
sinning
,
beside
the
intention
of
the
doer
,
and
the
condition
of
the
deed
it self
.
He
draws
not
his
description
from
the
intention
of
the
doer
only
,
but
from
the
condition
of
the
deed
it self
,
which
if
tending
to
the
spiritual
hurt
of
our
neighbour
,
is
still
an
active
scandal
,
and
no
authority
of
men
can
alter
its
natur
or
remove
its
guilt
,
as
we
heard
him
before
assert
.
Mr
Durham
on
scandal
,
part.
1
,
chap
1.
describeth
scandal
,
that
is
taken
only
or
passive
offence
,
that
it
is
such
when
no
occasion
is
given
,
but
when
a
man
doeth
that
which
is
not
only
lawful
,
but
necessary
,
exemplifieing
this
by
the
Pharisees
carping
at
Christs
actions
Matth.
15
:
12.
and
by
that
of
Prov.
4.
19.
where
the
wicked
are
said
to
stumble
at
they
know
not
what
.
Thus
clearly
asserting
that
the
lawfulness
of
the
practice
,
will
not
wholly
lay
the
guilt
on
him
that
takes
offence
,
unlesse
it
be
also
necessary
.
4.
The
Informer
cannot
deny
,
that
this
necessity
of
the
action
,
must
be
evinced
from
clear
Scripture
commands
and
cannot
be
rationally
inferred
either
from
the
assertion
of
the
practiser
,
or
the
commands
of
the
Magistrat
simply
,
or
any
supposed
Ecclesiastick
canon
,
since
this
would
evert
the
Apostles
reasoning
on
this
head
.
So
that
he
is
obleidged
to
evince
the
necessity
of
this
practice
controverted
from
other
grounds
then
he
hath
mentioned
,
or
this
charge
stands
good
against
him
,
esspecially
since
(
as
we
have
said
)
the
Apostles
injunction
which
he
mentions
as
to
the
free
use
of
meats
,
was
a
greater
authoritative
determination
;
then
any
which
he
now
alledges
to
render
the
practice
necessary
.
And
if
a
practice
lawful
in
it self
,
and
corroborated
by
ane
Apostolick
precept
enjoyning
it
,
could
not
be
lawful
in
the
case
of
offence
,
farre
lesse
can
the
constitutions
he
mentions
make
this
practice
lawful
in
such
a
case
.
So
that
our
Argument
,
a
Scandalo
,
stands
good
against
him
upon
this
point
,
in
answer
to
which
he
hath
brought
nothing
but
what
is
contrary
to
Scripture
,
casuists
,
yea
and
himself
.
The
charge
which
he
after
exhibites
against
us
,
of
erecting
separat
meetings
in
the
houses
and
fields
—
and
of
our
being
Schismaticks
if
ever
the
Christian
Church
had
any
,
we
let
pass
among
the
rest
of
this
mans
petulant
assertions
,
the
grounds
whereof
we
have
examined
and
confuted
.
The
people
of
God
in
obedience
to
Christs
faithfull
Ambassadours
(
by
Prelats
perjurious
violence
thrust
from
their
watchtowers
)
assembling
to
hear
the
great
Shepherds
voice
,
erect
no
seperat
meetings
,
but
keep
the
assemblies
of
this
Church
driven
by
them
to
a
wilderness
,
whereof
(
if
the
Lord
open
not
his
and
the
rest
of
his
tribe
their
eyes
)
they
will
bear
the
sin
and
punishment
for
ever
.
The
Doubter
object
next
,
[
Christs
preaching
in
privat
houses
and
fields
,
and
peoples
hearing
therein
,
inferring
that
so
likewise
may
we
.
]
This
argument
our
Informer
(
according
to
his
usual
candor
)
disguises
,
we
say
not
that
in
a
setled
peaceable
state
of
the
Church
,
Ministers
may
preach
and
people
hear
in
this
manner
,
but
upon
supposal
of
this
Churches
disturbed
persecute
condition
by
a
party
of
prevailing
backsliders
,
Ministers
preaching
and
peoples
hearing
,
is
warrantable
upon
the
formentioned
grounds
;
both
Ministers
(
upon
whom
our
Prelats
hands
have
been
very
heavy
of
a
long
time
,
yea
(
I
may
say
)
their
litle
finger
thicker
then
their
predecessours
loins
,
)
sters
and
people
being
in
this
broken
destroyd
state
of
our
Church
chased
,
harassed
,
and
denyed
all
ordinary
places
appointed
for
divine
worship
,
nay
scarce
any
place
of
residence
in
their
native
land
free
from
the
fulmina
&
thunderbolts
of
Prelats
mad
rage
.
But
what
sayes
he
to
this
argument
,
he
tells
us
1.
That
tho
Christ
preached
thus
,
yet
it
was
not
to
separat
from
the
Iewish
Church
,
nor
did
he
disowne
the
hearing
of
their
teachers
,
but
allowed
to
hear
Scribes
and
Pharisees
with
a
(
proviso
)
to
beware
of
their
leaven
—
that
he
sent
those
who
were
miraculously
heald
to
the
Priests
,
and
did
not
bid
disowne
them
.
Ans.
1.
Whatever
be
concluded
as
to
Christs
disowning
,
or
seperating
the
people
from
the
teachers
of
the
Church
of
the
Jews
at
that
time
(
wherin
the
Informer
hath
offered
nothing
which
will
amount
to
a
demonstration
of
what
he
affirmes
,
and
his
assertion
tho
granted
will
not
fortify
the
conclusion
he
aimes
at
)
yet
this
is
certain
and
undenyable
,
(
and
in
so
far
his
Doubters
parallel
argument
stands
inviolable
against
him
)
viz.
that
our
blessed
Lord
preacht
after
this
manner
which
he
condemns
.
Since
he
condemns
in
universum
&
simply
Presbyterian
Ministers
preaching
,
and
peoples
hearing
them
in
this
manner
,
abstracting
from
the
disowning
of
Curats
and
their
Ministry
,
so
that
this
answer
meets
not
the
objection
as
levelled
against
his
principles
.
And
he
cannot
deny
but
that
in
so
far
as
Christ
and
his
Apostles
were
owned
,
their
ordinary
Jewish
teachers
were
separat
from
and
disowned
,
but
he
condemns
all
owning
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
withdrawing
from
Curats
,
as
ingraind
Schism
and
sinfull
separation
.
This
answer
is
the
more
forcible
,
if
it
be
considered
that
our
Lord
had
liberty
of
their
Synagogues
to
preach
in
,
yet
he
frequently
left
them
,
and
preacht
in
privat
houses
and
in
the
fields
,
and
therefore
Presbyterian
Ministers
may
use
this
liberty
,
whom
(
in
a
peice
of
cruelty
beyond
that
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
to
Christ
)
they
have
banish't
from
pulpits
.
2.
As
for
our
Lords
not
putting
people
to
separat
from
that
Church
or
the
teachers
thereof
,
we
have
already
shown
how
far
it
is
from
his
purpose
,
and
what
a
wide
consequenceit
is
,
from
a
non-separation
from
the
Jewish
Church
,
and
teachers
tho
corrupt
,
(
while
that
legal
dispensation
stood
,
which
was
shortly
to
be
removed
,
and
the
Gospel
Ministry
erected
in
its
place
)
and
from
our
Lords
tollerance
thereof
as
Gods
ancient
Ministry
,
though
now
corrupt
,
to
which
he
was
to
put
an
honourable
close
,
to
conclude
that
a
people
are
to
disowne
a
faithfull
Gospell
Ministry
and
Church
,
in
complyance
with
a
number
of
destroying
Innovators
ejecting
them
,
and
razing
a
sworn
Reformation
,
which
all
that
Church
are
bound
to
defend
.
This
is
such
a
palpable
inconsequence
,
as
any
may
upon
first
view
discover
it
.
3.
There
was
(
beside
what
is
said
)
this
reason
in
special
,
wherefore
our
Lord
would
not
have
the
Jewish
Ministry
at
first
universally
left
,
because
he
came
as
a
Minister
of
the
circumcision
to
confirm
the
promises
made
to
the
fathers
;
he
was
to
come
to
the
temple
as
the
Kings
Son
and
Lord
of
all
the
Prophets
who
went
before
him
,
the
Law
being
to
go
forth
from
Zion
,
and
the
word
from
Jerusalem
,
Jesus
came
first
to
his
own
.
Therefore
the
Jewish
Ministery
and
teaching
,
was
to
stand
for
a
time
to
make
this
apparent
,
and
as
Christs
great
witness
for
his
authority
,
and
the
Doctrine
of
the
gospel
,
either
for
their
conviction
or
conversion
;
hence
he
appeald
unto
the
Scriptures
which
they
heard
dayly
read
,
and
preacht
,
Search
the
Scriptures
for
they
testify
of
me
.
And
when
he
enjoynd
the
healed
leper
to
go
and
shew
himself
to
the
Priest
,
it
was
to
offer
the
Sacrifice
which
Moses
commanded
for
a
testimony
unto
them
.
So
that
to
make
the
substituting
of
the
Gospel
to
the
legal
dispensation
and
ordinances
apparent
,
and
its
Ministry
to
the
Jewish
Ministry
and
Priesthood
,
to
which
Christs
death
and
resurrection
only
was
to
put
a
final
period
,
it
was
necessary
it
should
be
own'd
in
some
measure
.
And
Christ
could
not
wholly
disowne
it
without
stopping
a
great
part
of
his
mediatory
fulfilling
of
all
righteousness
,
for
he
was
as
head
of
the
circumcised
people
,
and
as
of
the
seed
of
Abraham
according
to
the
flesh
,
to
obey
the
Judicial
and
ceremonial
Law
,
and
therefore
he
duely
attended
the
passover
and
all
the
solemn
feasts
,
which
could
not
subsist
in
their
exercise
,
without
the
standing
of
that
old
Ministry
;
Now
how
far
this
is
from
our
Question
,
and
inferring
the
owning
of
Curats
in
our
case
,
is
obvious
to
the
meanest
capacity
.
What
he
sayes
of
hearing
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
is
already
answered
.
But
now
this
Informer
will
offer
some
special
reasons
of
Christs-preaching
after
this
manner
,
to
cut
short
our
argument
here
;
the
first
is
,
Because
he
was
to
bring
in
the
Doctrine
of
the
gospel
,
and
preach
himself
the
true
Mes●…ah
,
which
was
needfull
to
be
done
,
and
because
of
the
opposition
of
his
doctrine
by
the
Jewish
teachers
.
Ans.
1.
Altho
he
was
to
bring
in
the
doctrine
of
the
Gospel
into
the
world
,
yet
as
he
was
sent
first
and
immediatly
to
the
lost
sheep
of
the
house
of
Israel
,
and
to
exercise
his
Ministry
toward
them
mainly
(
upon
which
ground
at
his
first
sending
forth
the
Disciples
,
he
commanded
them
to
go
to
these
lost
sheep
,
not
in
the
way
of
the
gentiles
)
so
he
had
the
synagogues
and
Temple
to
preach
in
,
and
frequently
did
so
;
and
yet
notwithstanding
went
to
the
fields
with
great
multitudes
,
and
to
other
places
then
these
appointed
for
their
ordinary
and
publick
Worship
;
and
therefore
Presbyterian
Ministers
may
do
the
like
,
who
are
denyed
our
Conformists
Synagogues
or
ordinary
places
of
Worship
,
they
being
upon
important
grounds
obliged
(
as
our
blessed
Lord
was
)
to
officiat
and
bestirre
themselves
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
.
And
therefore
.
2.
Since
he
reasons
from
the
necessity
of
the
Work
which
Christ
was
about
,
and
the
opposition
which
he
met
with
therein
from
his
enemies
,
these
samegrounds
pleads
strongly
for
Presbyterian
Ministers
officiating
in
the
manner
contraverted
,
because
the
preaching
of
the
gospel
by
Christs
faithfull
Ambassadours
,
was
never
more
necessary
,
and
never
met
with
greater
opposition
from
its
enemies
;
and
therefore
upon
his
own
grounds
it
followes
,
that
Ministers
ought
to
embrace
all
occasions
of
preaching
and
in
any
place
where
they
can
have
accesse
.
Sure
he
dare
not
restrict
the
necessity
of
the
work
,
and
the
persecution
,
from
which
he
infers
the
Lawfulness
of
preaching
after
that
manner
,
to
that
particular
necessity
and
persecution
attending
the
first
planting
of
the
gospel
,
or
affirm
that
these
grounds
may
never
again
recur
for
legitimating
of
this
practice
,
since
thus
he
would
condemn
ou●…
first
Reformers
.
Come
we
to
the
2d
Reason
which
is
this
,
Christ
was
head
of
his
whole
Church
,
and
was
not
to
be
limit
in
the
manner
of
his
.
Ministry
as
ordinary
teachers
,
but
might
preach
where
and
when
he
pleased
,
since
all
belonged
to
his
Ministry
,
and
that
none
will
say
that
he
is
pastor
of
the
whole
Church
,
but
the
Pope
,
nor
can
any
meer
Man
do
what
Christ
did
in
every
thing
.
But
our
meetings
(
he
sayes
)
are
in
despite
of
the
Law
,
and
we
add
disobedience
to
our
schism
.
Ans.
1.
We
shall
easily
acknowledge
that
all
Christs
actions
are
not
imitable
,
such
as
those
of
divine
power
,
as
working
of
Miracles
,
and
the
actions
of
divine
prerogative
,
as
the
taking
of
the
ass
without
the
owners
liberty
,
the
actings
of
his
special
Mediatory
prerogative
,
such
as
the
enditing
of
the
scriptures
,
giving
of
his
spirit
,
laying
down
his
life
,
instituting
Church
officers
,
Col.
3.
16.
Joh.
10.
15.
Mat.
28.
18
,
19.
These
are
not
imitable
,
nor
yet
such
actions
as
were
meerly
occasional
,
depending
upon
circumstances
of
time
and
place
,
as
the
unleavened
bread
,
the
time
,
and
such
like
circumstances
of
his
supper
.
But
we
say
there
are
actions
imitable
,
as
1.
in
general
Christs
exercise
of
graces
,
which
have
constant
and
moral
grounds
,
and
are
commended
to
Christians
for
their
imitation
,
every
christians
life
(
as
such
)
ought
to
be
an
imitation
of
him
the
precious
mirrour
of
grace
,
Mat.
11.
29.
Learn
of
me
for
I
am
meek
.
&c.
Eph.
5.
2.
Walk
in
love
as
Christ
also
hath
loved
us
.
Joh.
13.
15.
I
have
given
you
an
example
that
ye
should
doe
as
I
have
done
.
The
christian
must
walk
as
he
walked
.
1.
Joh.
2.
6.
2.
In
particular
,
Actions
on
Moral
grounds
,
flowing
from
the
relations
wherein
Christ
stood
,
do
oblige
,
and
are
examplary
unto
,
those
that
are
under
such
relations
,
viz.
Christs
subjection
and
obedience
to
his
parents
,
and
paying
tribute
to
cesar
,
do
exemplify
children
and
subjects
their
duty
as
in
that
capacity
;
so
his
Ministerial
acts
and
faithfull
diligence
therein
,
do
exemplify
Ministers
duty
.
Now
the
question
is
,
as
to
this
manner
of
Christs
preaching
in
this
case
,
that
is
,
not
in
the
ordinary
and
authorized
assemblies
of
that
Church
but
in
the
fields
,
and
in
houses
,
whether
the
grounds
of
it
will
not
sometimes
recur
,
and
oblige
ordinary
Ministers
?
for
it
s
ratio
exempli
we
are
to
look
unto
,
rather
then
the
meer
circumstances
of
the
Individual
act
,
as
Chamier
tells
us
,
Tom.
3.
lib.
17.
de
Jejunijs
.
And
for
evincing
this
in
our
case
our
Informers
own
answer
is
sufficient
,
if
we
shall
but
suppose
(
which
neither
our
Informer
nor
any
of
his
fellows
have
ever
been
able
to
disprove
)
that
Presbyterian
Ministers
are
under
a
relation
to
this
Church
as
her
true
Pastors
,
and
under
the
obligation
of
our
Lords
commands
to
officiat
accordingly
.
His
grounds
are
the
necessity
of
the
work
and
the
bitter
persecution
of
Christs
enemies
;
both
which
grounds
are
still
vigent
in
relation
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
as
is
said
.
For
what
he
adds
of
Christs
acting
this
as
head
of
his
Church
,
and
not
limit
in
the
exercise
of
his
Ministry
,
as
ordinary
Ministers
,
none
of
which
is
an
universal
postor
.
It
is
very
insignificant
here
.
For
1.
every
piece
of
Christs
Ministry
,
his
very
teaching
,
and
teaching
in
the
temple
,
was
as
messenger
of
the
Covenant
,
who
was
to
come
unto
that
temple
,
and
in
the
capacity
of
head
of
his
Church
,
yet
are
examplary
for
Ministers
duties
according
to
their
measure
.
2.
He
dare
not
say
,
that
our
Lords
preaching
after
the
manner
instanced
in
the
objection
of
his
Doubter
,
or
his
preaching
while
fleeing
from
persecutors
,
was
meerly
founded
upon
this
ground
,
and
did
flow
from
no
other
cause
and
principle
but
this
viz.
that
he
was
not
limited
in
the
way
and
exercise
of
his
Ministry
,
for
he
hath
already
assigned
other
Reasons
of
this
,
viz.
the
necessity
of
the
work
,
and
his
persecution
simply
considered
,
so
that
if
he
should
assert
this
,
his
2.
answer
would
contradict
his
first
:
and
besides
,
he
will
not
deny
,
but
that
such
as
were
not
heads
of
the
Church
,
and
who
were
in
an
ordinary
peacefull
state
thereof
,
limited
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
,
did
preach
after
this
manner
,
for
the
officers
of
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
Acts.
8.
in
that
scattering
and
persecution
,
went
every
where
preaching
the
gospel
.
So
did
our
first
Reformers
(
not
to
stand
upon
that
moral
precept
given
to
the
Apostles
,
who
were
not
heads
of
the
Church
,
viz.
when
they
persecut
you
in
one
city
flee
to
another
)
and
the
Informer
will
not
say
that
they
were
not
to
carry
the
gospel-message
with
them
in
this
flight
Now
that
which
those
who
were
not
heads
of
the
Church
,
but
Ministers
,
yea
and
ordinary
Ministers
have
done
the
parallel
of
and
warrantably
,
surely
that
Christ
did
not
upon
any
extraordinary
ground
now
expired
:
But
such
is
this
way
of
preaching
,
Ergo
&c
▪
In
a
word
as
its
easily
granted
that
ordinary
Ministers
are
fixt
and
limit
to
their
charges
in
a
setled
state
of
the
Church
,
so
he
dare
not
deny
,
that
a
Churches
disturbed
persecute
condition
will
warrand
their
unfixt
officiating
upon
the
grounds
already
given
;
and
he
should
know
that
others
then
the
Pope
were
universal
pastours
,
and
even
in
actu
exercito
,
of
the
whole
Church
,
viz.
the
Apostles
as
himself
acknowledged
,
nor
can
he
deny
that
ordinary
Ministers
are
in
actu
promo
related
to
the
whole
Church
,
as
her
Ministers
given
to
her
by
Christ
,
and
set
in
her
.
As
for
what
he
adds
of
our
meetings
,
that
they
are
against
the
Law
,
he
knowes
that
all
the
Jews
appointed
that
any
who
owned
Christ
,
should
be
excommunicat
.
From
the
violence
and
persecution
of
which
Law
,
himself
infers
our
Lords
,
officiating
in
the
manner
contraverted
,
and
he
can
easily
make
the
application
to
our
case
,
and
answer
himself
.
The
Doubter
thinks
it
hard
[
to
be
hindred
by
the
Law
from
hearing
the
word
of
God
and
other
parts
of
worship
,
or
that
Ministers
be
hindered
to
preach
,
i●…
being
better
to
obey
God
then
men
.
]
He
answers
1.
that
the
Law
allowes
and
commands
us
to
hear
the
word
preach●…
in
our
own
congregations
in
purity
,
and
defends
it
,
which
is
a
great
mercy
,
and
that
its
better
to
worship
God
purely
with
the
Laws
allowance
then
in
a
way
contrary
to
it
.
Ans.
1.
Granting
that
the
Law
did
allow
some
to
preach
faithfully
what
saith
this
for
their
robbing
so
many
thousands
of
the
Lords
people
,
of
the
Ministry
of
some
hundreds
of
faithfull
Ministers
?
will
a
piece
of
the
Rulers
duty
in
one
point
excuse
their
sin
in
twenty
others
,
and
loose
the
people
from
their
obligation
to
duty
towards
Christs
Ambassadours
?
This
is
new
divinity
.
2.
The
law
allowes
none
to
preach
(
in
the
manner
he
pleads
for
)
but
with
a
blot●…
of
perjury
in
taking
on
the
Prelats
mark
,
and
complying
with
a
perjurious
course
of
defection
,
and
allowes
none
to
deliver
their
message
faithfully
in
relation
to
either
the
sins
or
duties
of
the
time
,
which
is
far
from
allowing
to
preach
in
purity
,
and
in
this
case
we
must
rather
adhere
to
Christs
faithfull
shepherds
upon
his
command
,
tho
cross
to
mens
Law
,
then
follow
blind
unfaithfull
guides
in
obedience
thereunto
,
and
this
upon
that
same
ground
of
Acts
4.
19.
which
he
mentions
.
But
he
sayes
,
that
answer
of
the
Apostles
will
no
way
quadrat
with
our
case
,
why
so
?
1.
Because
the
Apostles
had
an
immediat
extraordinary
call
from
Christ
to
preach
in
his
name
,
and
so
were
not
to
be
discharged
by
any
power
on
earth
.
Ans.
1.
That
the
Apostles
answer
suites
our
case
,
will
be
apparent
when
it
s
considered
,
that
our
answer
and
Apology
which
we
offer
to
our
adversaries
,
who
do
now
accuse
and
persecute
us
upon
this
ground
,
is
one
with
theirs
,
their
grounds
in
their
answer
,
compared
with
the
context
,
are
[
that
they
are
Christs
Ministers
and
witnesses
,
employed
about
the
great
gospel
message
,
cloathed
with
his
authority
,
and
under
the
obligation
of
Christs
commands
lying
upon
them
.
]
Now
will
not
this
quadrat
with
our
case
as
to
the
substance
of
this
answer
,
dare
he
say
,
that
the
Magistrats
Laws
can
exauctorat
a
Minister
of
the
gospel
,
or
take
away
that
ministerial
authority
which
he
received
from
Christ
,
might
not
thus
the
ministry
be
put
out
of
the
world
;
Dare
he
deny
that
he
is
a
minister
still
notwithstanding
of
the
Laws
restraint
,
and
standing
under
a
ministerial
Relation
to
the
Church
,
as
the
Apostles
were
,
and
under
commands
and
obligations
consequently
in
order
to
the
exercise
of
the
ministry
?
can
the
Rulers
meer
prohibition
loose
either
ministers
their
relation
pastoral
,
or
the
obligations
flowing
therefrom
?
2.
Altho
the
call
of
the
Apostles
was
immediat
and
extraordinary
,
yet
this
will
not
prove
that
their
answer
will
not
suite
the
ordinary
and
mediat
call
in
such
a
case
as
theirs
,
when
a
minister
is
under
a
legal
prohibition
to
preach
:
for
first
,
we
do
not
find
that
the
Apostles
did
plead
their
extraordinary
or
immediat
call
mainly
or
only
,
if
at
all
in
this
case
,
but
their
ministerial
gospel
call
and
message
quatalis
,
the
authority
of
the
one
,
and
the
weight
and
importance
of
the
other
,
in
relation
to
all
Ministers
,
are
constant
moral
grounds
bearing
the
conclusion
of
the
same
duty
and
apology
as
to
them
:
since
the
substance
of
this
Apostolick
apology
lyes
in
this
,
that
they
were
Christs
Ministers
,
cloathed
with
his
commission
to
preach
the
gospel
,
which
any
faithfull
Minister
may
plead
in
such
a
case
.
2.
Tho
their
call
was
immediat
and
extraordinary
,
upon
which
ground
they
were
singularly
out
of
the
reach
of
the
Rulers
restraint
as
to
their
ministry
,
yet
they
were
so
likewise
as
Christs
messengers
and
ministers
simply
in
a
general
sense
,
for
majus
〈◊〉
minus
&c.
3.
As
the
Apostles
had
their
power
immediatly
from
Christ
and
not
from
the
Rulers
,
which
is
the
great
ground
why
they
could
not
be
Lawfully
prohibit
to
preach
,
and
would
not
submit
their
ministerial
authority
,
its
acts
and
exercise
,
to
the
Rulers
disposal
,
especially
the
gospel-message
being
of
so
great
importance
,
so
there
is
derived
from
them
a
ministerial
authority
in
the
Church
,
independent
in
its
nature
and
exercise
upon
the
magistrat
,
as
theirs
was
,
tho
the
Apostles
(
as
I
said
)
had
singular
prerogatives
beyond
ordinary
ministers
,
and
in
that
respect
were
singularly
beyond
the
reach
of
their
restaint
.
Now
this
authority
was
exercised
by
the
Church
renitente
Magistratu
for
several
generations
,
upon
the
same
ground
of
this
independent
spiritual
power
and
the
weight
of
the
gospel-message
which
the
Apostles
did
here
plead
;
The
Informer
answers
aly
,
that
this
prohibition
tended
to
the
absolute
supressing
of
the
gospel
,
and
there
was
then
no
other
way
for
propagating
it
through
the
world
,
but
by
their
preaching
,
but
now
tho
some
be
silenced
,
others
are
allowed
to
preach
.
Ans.
1.
This
piece
of
the
apology
for
not
obeying
the
Rulers
mandat
,
is
of
his
bold
putting
in
,
but
nothing
of
it
is
in
the
text
,
viz.
that
there
were
no
others
to
preach
the
gospel
but
they
.
Their
Apology
as
I
said
is
drawn
from
their
authority
,
and
message
simply
.
2
I
ask
him
,
could
any
one
of
the
Apostles
have
submitted
to
this
prohibition
,
upon
an
insinuation
or
assurance
that
the
Magistrat
would
not
hinder
others
to
promote
the
gospel
?
if
they
could
not
,
then
he
must
grant
that
this
anwer
is
naught
,
that
the
Apostles
refused
,
because
the
prohibition
tended
to
suppress
the
gospel
:
For
the
gospel
was
preacht
and
propagat
,
though
one
of
them
was
a
little
after
taken
oft
the
stage
,
if
he
say
that
any
one
,
or
more
of
the
Apostles
would
have
submitted
to
the
prohibition
upon
thir
terms
,
then
.
1.
He
contradicts
his
first
answer
,
that
their
extraordinary
immediat
call
could
not
be
discharged
by
any
power
on
earth
,
and
2.
He
charges
them
with
unfaithfulness
to
Christ
in
laying
up
his
talents
,
and
laying
by
his
work
upon
mens
command
not
to
preach
.
Sure
Christs
command
and
commission
tyed
all
his
Apostles
conjunctly
and
severally
:
Paul
said
,
too
to
[
me
]
if
[
I
]
preach
not
the
gospel
,
and
one
Apostles
diligence
,
could
not
loose
the
obligation
of
the
other
,
and
excuse
his
negligence
.
3.
We
have
proved
that
there
is
no
warrand
from
God
for
Rulers
their
immediat
arbitrary
discharging
Christs
Ambassadours
to
officiat
,
and
consequently
faithfull
Ministers
are
not
obliged
to
obeye
.
And
upon
the
same
ground
that
one
apostle
could
not
warrantably
suffer
the
Magistrat
to
impose
a
silence
upon
him
,
be
cause
others
were
permitted
to
preach
,
It
s
unlawfull
for
ordinary
Ministers
to
be
silent
,
because
others
are
preaching
,
and
much
more
when
those
who
are
preaching
are
declaring
themselves
unfaithfull
,
and
destroying
but
not
feeding
.
So
that
our
Informer
doth
but
mock
God
,
if
not
blaspheme
,
while
blessing
him
,
that
authority
,
is
opposit
to
our
disorders
,
not
to
the
gospel
.
The
Doubter
next
asks
him
[
if
the
King
and
Laws
can
silence
a
Minister
that
he
shall
not
preach
the
gospel
.
]
He
should
have
added
,
by
his
own
proper
elicite
acts
as
King
or
Magistrat
,
or
formally
and
immediatly
.
But
this
man
must
still
shrewd
himself
in
the
mist
and
clouds
of
deceitful
generals
,
and
mould
our
arguments
in
his
own
disguise
,
that
his
simple
evasions
may
appear
answers
.
Well
,
what
sayes
he
to
this
doubt
▪
His
answer
is
,
(
I
ommit
his
insignificant
reflection
)
that
Solomon
thrust
out
Abiathar
from
the
priesthood
1
Kings
.
2.
27.
which
was
a
restraining
his
priestly
power
as
to
its
actual
exercise
,
to
which
he
was
bound
to
submit
,
so
a
King
may
discharge
a
Minister
to
exercise
his
Ministry
within
his
dominions
,
which
he
must
not
counteract
,
suppose
he
think
the
King
and
law
wrongs
him
,
especially
,
when
others
do
preach
tho
he
be
silent
.
Ans.
This
reason
and
instance
is
a
baculo
ad
angulum
,
Solomon
punisht
Abiathar
civilly
for
a
capital
treasonable
crime
,
which
deserved
death
,
telling
him
(
as
the
text
saith
)
that
he
was
a
man
of
death
,
or
one
who
deserved
capital
punishment
,
according
to
the
nature
of
the
hebrew
phrase
,
which
sentence
of
death
Solomon
(
upon
the
grounds
mentioned
in
that
passage
)
did
change
into
a
sentence
of
banishment
,
and
by
this
civil
punishment
did
consequenter
put
him
from
the
exercise
of
his
priestly
office
,
which
he
could
not
in
that
case
perform
:
Ergo
he
formally
and
immediatly
deposed
him
,
and
the
civil
magistrat
may
so
immediatly
and
formally
depose
ministers
,
this
is
a
consequence
utterly
unknown
to
all
rules
of
Logick
,
or
solid
divinity
.
The
Instance
indeed
proves
,
that
the
Magistrat
may
civilly
punish
a
Minister
for
crimes
,
and
consequently
cut
him
off
from
the
exercise
of
his
Ministry
,
but
that
he
can
simply
and
immediatly
,
or
by
proper
elicit
acts
,
discharge
the
exercise
thereof
,
can
no
more
be
proved
from
this
instance
,
then
that
the
man
who
gives
bad
physick
,
or
hurts
the
Ministers
person
,
and
eatenus
stops
the
exercise
of
his
Ministerial
office
,
hath
an
authority
to
inhibit
the
exercise
of
his
Ministry
.
As
for
our
Informers
restriction
,
anent
the
Kings
inhibiting
a
minister
to
preach
in
his
dominions
,
't
is
a
very
poor
and
transparent
sophistical
cheat
,
for
no
man
ever
said
that
he
can
exercise
any
magistratical
power
upon
those
who
are
without
his
dominions
,
whether
ministers
or
others
.
And
thus
should
his
dominion
in
Gods
providence
be
streached
over
all
the
christian
Church
,
he
hath
authority
(
by
this
courtdivinity
)
to
silence
the
gospel
sound
in
a
clap
,
and
extinguish
a
gospel
ministry
when
he
pleaseth
,
and
then
this
man
would
do
well
to
ponder
how
this
consists
with
the
nature
and
designe
of
Christs
great
commission
to
his
first
ambassadours
(
his
Apostles
)
in
reference
to
the
gospel
message
,
and
unto
all
ministers
untill
the
end
of
the
world
,
and
his
promised
presence
accordingly
;
as
also
whether
the
Apostles
,
and
ordinary
ministers
afterward
,
did
warrantably
counteract
the
Magistrats
opposition
in
this
exercise
of
their
Ministry
;
and
what
our
lords
answer
would
have
been
,
in
case
such
an
objection
anent
Princes
discharging
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
,
had
been
offered
by
the
Apostles
at
the
first
giving
out
and
sealing
of
their
great
patent
and
commission
to
preach
to
all
nations
,
and
whether
our
Lord
would
have
told
them
that
their
commission
did
not
bind
in
that
case
.
The
Informer
is
afraid
to
set
his
foot
on
such
slippery
ground
as
to
assert
that
the
King
can
depose
absolutely
,
but
yet
averres
that
he
can
restrain
the
actual
exercise
of
the
Ministerial
office
,
and
surely
if
this
be
granted
(
in
that
extent
he
pleads
for
)
it
will
abundantly
secure
self-seeking
polititians
from
the
trouble
of
a
faithful
Gospel-Ministry
,
&
they
will
be
content
to
part
with
this
nicety
of
a
simple
deposing
.
But
if
,
in
the
Judgment
even
of
some
of
his
Rabbies
,
whom
I
could
name
,
the
most
formal
ecclesiasticall
censures
do
amount
to
no
more
then
this
legal
restraint
of
the
exercise
,
he
doth
but
pityfully
resarciat
his
lapse
,
and
mend
the
matter
by
this
whimsey
.
As
for
what
he
adds
of
[
Beza's
letter
to
the
non-Conformists
in
England
,
not
to
exercise
their
Ministry
against
the
Queens
authority
and
the
Bishops
.
]
The
often
mentioned
difference
betwixt
the
then
State
of
that
Church
,
and
our
present
condition
,
doth
quite
invalidat
his
proof
,
since
certainly
in
some
cases
the
counteracting
the
Princes
command
as
to
the
exercise
of
the
Ministry
,
requires
a
very
cautious
consideration
,
but
had
our
case
in
its
present
circumstances
and
latitude
as
above
delineat
been
propounded
to
Beza
[
touching
the
overturning
the
Reformation
of
this
Church
(
so
fully
setled
by
civil
and
Ecclesiastick
Authority
,
and
confirmed
by
Oaths
of
all
ranks
)
by
Prelats
and
their
adherents
ejecting
all
faithfull
Ministers
,
who
will
not
be
subject
to
that
course
.
]
Sure
Beza
who
(
as
we
heard
)
requested
John
Knox
never
to
let
Prelacy
be
introduced
into
Scotland
,
and
all
faithfull
Ministers
to
contend
against
it
after
it
was
cast
out
,
would
have
judged
Minsters
obliged
in
this
our
case
,
especially
after
Prelacy
is
thus
vowed
against
,
to
keep
their
possessions
,
to
preach
the
gospel
,
and
testify
against
such
a
wicked
course
,
as
well
as
it
was
the
duty
of
our
first
Reformers
to
preach
against
the
will
of
the
then
Bishops
and
persecuters
;
Besides
,
it
s
the
Doctrine
and
principles
of
our
Church
,
that
neither
the
Magistrate
nor
Prelats
censures
can
loose
a
Minister
from
the
exercise
of
his
Ministry
;
which
is
above
cleared
.
So
that
our
Informers
great
Diana
,
which
he
is
all
this
time
declaiming
for
,
viz.
The
imposing
of
an
absolute
silence
upon
the
true
Pastors
of
this
Church
,
that
Conformists
onely
may
be
heard
and
ownd
,
doth
so
stoop
and
bow
down
,
that
the
underpropings
of
his
slender
artifice
,
and
poor
mean
pleadings
,
cannot
prevent
its
precipice
and
ruine
.
CHAP.
VI.
The
nature
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
relation
to
this
Church
and
their
call
to
officiat
therin
,
vindicate
from
the
Informers
simple
cavills
.
Mr
Baxters
rules
for
the
cure
of
Church-divisions
impertinently
alledged
by
him
.
The
Testimonies
of
the
jus
divinum
Minist.
Anglic.
And
of
Mr
Rutherfoord
in
his
Due
right
of
Presbytery
anent
unwarrantable
separation
,
insufficient
to
bear
the
weight
of
his
conclusion
.
THE
appearances
of
our
Lords
Ambassadours
in
his
message
and
for
promoting
his
Interest
,
have
been
much
opposed
by
Satan
in
very
various
Methods
and
versatile
disguises
in
all
ages
,
but
that
Presbyterian
Ministers
of
a
pure
Apostolick
Presbyterian
Church
should
be
opposed
in
the
exercise
of
their
holy
function
and
Ministry
received
from
Christ
,
and
this
exercise
impugned
from
pretended
Scripture
grounds
and
Presbyterian
principles
may
seem
strange
,
if
these
latter
days
had
not
produced
many
such
prodigies
of
errors
and
wickedness
.
The
progress
of
this
personat
doubt-resolver
his
impugnations
will
discover
so
much
,
which
we
now
proceed
to
examine
.
This
Informer
next
alleages
That
Ministers
among
us
make
themselves
Ministers
of
the
whole
Church
,
and
the
Doubter
alledging
[
That
a
Minister
is
a
Minister
of
the
Catholick
Church
]
he
Answers
from
Mr
Rutherfoord
Due
right
of
Presb.
page
204.
That
tho
a
Minister
is
a
Minister
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
yet
not
a
Catholick
Pastor
of
it
,
that
by
ordination
,
and
his
calling
he
is
made
Pastor
and
by
election
he
is
restricted
to
be
ordinarly
the
Pastor
of
his
flock
.
And
that
Mr
Durham
on
Rev.
page
106
,
107.
thinks
there
is
odds
betwixt
being
a
Minister
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
a
Catholick
Minister
of
it
,
as
the
Apostles
were
and
the
Pope
pretends
viz.
to
have
immediat
access
for
the
exercise
in
all
places
—
that
●…ho
actu
prime
they
have
a
commission
to
●…e
Ministers
of
the
whole
Church
,
yet
actu
secund●…
they
are
peculiarly
delegated
to
such
and
such
posts
,
But
we
have
made
our selves
Ministers
of
all
the
congregations
of
the
Countrey
.
I
answer
,
this
doctrine
crosses
not
our
principles
nor
practice
in
the
least
.
For
first
,
when
we
assert
that
a
Minister
is
by
election
restricted
to
be
ordinarly
the
Pastor
of
a
flock
,
and
especially
delegat
,
and
fixt
to
such
a
post
&
particular
watchtower
,
it
is
not
so
to
be
understood
,
as
if
there
could
be
nolawful
exercise
of
his
Ministry
elsewhere
:
for
first
,
this
were
flat
independency
&c.
2.
All
(
save
they
of
this
perswasion
)
grant
that
the
Minister
receives
no
new
authority
as
to
his
Ministerial
acts
and
officiating
in
other
places
,
but
a
new
application
only
.
Hence
in
the
2d
place
,
is
to
be
understood
of
the
Church
her
ordinary
settled
state
under
a
settled
Ministry
but
when
there
is
a
destroying
enemy
within
her
bosome
wasting
her
,
and
the
fathfull
Ministry
are
put
from
their
Watchtowers
and
posts
,
by
a
number
of
Schismatick
Innovators
,
who
are
dissolving
her
union
,
and
impeaching
her
Authority
:
In
this
extraordinary
case
,
Ministers
more
enlarged
and
unfixt
officiating
,
is
no
breach
of
this
Rule
;
Because
1.
In
this
case
the
Parochial
constitution
is
impossible
to
be
held
,
and
God
calls
not
to
impossibilities
,
and
yet
his
call
to
preach
the
Gospel
stands
and
binds
,
and
by
consequence
to
preach
to
others
then
the
Ministers
parish
.
The
common
rule
will
plead
for
this
viz.
necessitas
non
habet
legem
,
which
this
Informer
himself
doth
hold
will
in
some
cases
warrand
the
laying
by
of
that
which
otherwise
were
a
duty
;
he
knows
what
his
inference
is
from
Davids
eating
of
the
shew
bread
to
keep
from
starving
,
and
Paul
,
and
those
with
him
their
casting
their
goods
into
the
sea
to
preserve
from
perishing
.
So
that
of
necessity
he
must
admit
this
rule
and
answer
,
upon
his
own
ground
.
2.
The
reasons
which
did
warrand
our
first
Reformers
officiating
in
this
manner
(
a
practice
which
he
dare
not
say
that
the
authors
mentioned
,
or
any
reformed
divines
do
condemn
)
will
warrand
this
our
practice
in
this
persecute
state
of
our
Church
,
it
being
clear
that
the
case
of
Reformation
is
parallel
to
that
of
a
Churches
defection
,
and
persecution
,
in
relation
to
this
practice
contraverted
,
as
we
cleard
from
Acts
8.
3.
The
same
great
end
of
the
Churches
greater
good
and
edificaton
,
which
warrands
fixing
of
Ministers
to
their
posts
in
a
Churches
setled
peacefull
state
will
warrand
their
officiating
more
largely
and
at
other
posts
,
when
put
from
their
own
in
her
disturbed
,
persecute
and
destroyed
coondition
by
a
prevalent
Schismatick
,
backsliding
party
.
The
faithfull
watchmen
seing
the
city
betrayed
by
a
party
of
professed
defendents
,
who
are
letting
in
the
enemy
,
do
their
duty
to
the
city
best
in
resisting
them
and
running
to
help
.
4.
If
faithfull
Ministers
their
necessary
keeping
their
posts
and
the
unlawfulness
of
exercising
their
Ministry
any
where
else
,
were
in
this
case
asserted
,
then
it
would
follow
that
a
Minister
standing
in
that
relation
to
a
disturbed
and
destroyed
Church
,
and
all
his
gifts
and
graces
,
were
useless
in
that
case
,
which
notwithstanding
are
given
for
the
good
of
the
Church
,
but
this
is
absurd
;
Shall
not
the
weeping
Church
be
taken
by
the
hand
by
her
true
Sons
,
when
she
is
wounded
and
her
vail
taken
away
by
smiting
watchmen
.
5.
By
our
Principles
the
Prelatick
party
are
Schismaticks
who
have
already
broke
and
overturned
our
Churches
order
,
and
Reformation
.
Now
this
Informer
will
not
deny
,
that
in
such
a
case
,
the
Church
may
send
forth
her
Ministers
to
officiat
among
such
backsliders
and
Schismaticks
,
for
their
healing
and
recovery
;
he
knowes
upon
what
ground
Mr
Lightoun
not
long
since
,
sent
out
some
of
his
brethren
to
preach
in
the
West
of
Scotland
.
Beside
Mr
Gillespie
will
tell
him
,
Miscell
.
page
23.
That
a
Schismatick
Church
hath
no
just
right
to
the
liberty
of
a
sound
Church
,
as
to
the
calling
or
setling
of
Ministers
.
So
that
in
our
principles
no
Conformists
are
duely
or
lawfully
called
and
settled
.
6.
Our
divines
do
grant
that
in
extraordinary
cases
,
even
the
want
of
ordination
it self
will
not
hinder
to
officiat
Ministerially
but
that
there
may
be
a
necessity
which
will
sustain
and
comport
with
the
want
of
it
.
Mr
Gillespy
Misc.
ch.
4.
page
63.
tells
us
,
that
in
extraordinary
cases
when
ordination
cannotbe
had
,
and
when
there
are
none
who
have
commission
&
authority
from
God
to
ordain
,
then
and
there
an
inward
call
from
God
stirring
up
,
and
●…ing
with
the
people's
good
will
and
consent
whom
God
makes
willing
,
can
make
a
Minister
authorized
to
ministerial
acts
—
That
at
the
first
plantation
of
Churches
,
ordination
may
be
wanting
without
making
void
the
Ministry
because
ordination
cannot
be
had
.
And
if
necessity
will
plead
this
in
relation
to
ordination
it self
,
Ergo
a
fortiori
this
necessity
of
our
Churches
destroyed
perturbed
condition
,
may
much
more
comport
with
ordained
Ministers
their
more
enlarged
officiating
for
the
help
and
recovery
of
a
perishing
remnant
,
by
Wolves
in
sheeps
cloathing
.
Next
,
this
Informer
going
on
in
his
nauseating
repetitions
,
charges
intrusion
upon
our
Ministers
,
and
enquires
,
what
warrand
they
have
to
preach
and
administer
Sacraments
to
those
of
another
Ministers
charge
,
being
neither
called
nor
desired
by
these
Minsters
.
I
answer
,
they
have
Gods
call
to
preach
the
Gospel
as
Minsters
of
this
Church
,
and
as
this
call
would
warrand
their
officiating
in
other
parishes
upon
the
lawfull
Ministers
desire
or
invitation
in
a
settled
serene
state
of
our
Church
,
so
in
this
her
ruined
and
destroyed
condition
,
the
same
call
abundantly
warrands
their
helping
of
these
congregations
,
and
such
poor
Macedonians
,
who
desire
their
help
while
under
destroying
Schismaticks
,
who
have
no
lawfull
call
to
be
their
Mininisters
from
God
or
this
Church
.
But
here
our
Informer
assaults
us
with
a
dilemma
;
either
Presbyterian
Ministers
call
is
ordinary
,
or
extraordinary
.
Ordinary
they
have
none
,
since
they
are
not
invited
by
the
Ministers
of
the
congregations
to
whom
they
preach
,
extraordinary
they
will
not
pretend
unto
.
I
Answer
by
a
counterdilemma
,
and
retort
his
argument
thus
,
either
the
pretended
Ministers
of
these
congregations
have
an
ordinary
or
extraordinary
call
to
officiat
therein
,
ordinary
they
have
none
according
to
the
Doctrine
,
Reformation
,
and
principles
of
this
Church
,
being
neither
called
by
the
people
,
nor
ordained
by
the
Presbyteries
of
this
Church
,
if
we
speak
of
the
generality
who
are
ordained
and
obtruded
by
the
Prelats
,
upon
these
congregations
where
they
officiat
,
and
for
those
who
were
otherwise
ordained
and
have
conformed
,
we
have
told
him
that
by
accepting
presentation
from
Patrons
and
collation
from
Prelats
,
they
have
renounced
their
Presbyterian
call
and
ordination
and
the
call
of
this
Church
consequently
,
and
thus
do
fall
under
the
same
consideration
with
the
rest
;
and
for
the
exraordinary
call
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
,
will
pretend
unto
it
.
And
when
he
answers
this
dilemma
,
and
by
the
Scripture-rules
,
and
the
Principles
,
and
reformation
of
this
Church
,
(
which
the
Informer
hath
not
disproved
,
yea
admits
us
to
suppose
in
this
question
)
justifies
the
Curats
call
to
of
●…iciat
in
these
congregations
over
which
they
assume
an
authority
we
shall
produce
ours
as
to
this
practice
which
he
condemns
.
Beside
,
what
answer
will
he
give
to
such
a
dilemma
in
the
mouth
of
Schismatick
congregations
,
offered
unto
such
Ministers
as
the
Church
sends
from
their
own
congregations
to
officiat
among
them
?
And
whatever
his
answer
be
,
it
will
suite
our
case
.
Then
he
tells
us
of
acts
of
councils
condemning
this
encroachment
,
as
he
calls
it
,
But
when
he
shall
exhibit
a
case
parallel
to
ours
,
which
these
acts
speak
unto
,
we
shall
consider
it
.
For
what
he
adds
of
the
Aberdeen
Doctors
their
charging
the
Presbyterian
Ministers
who
preacht
in
their
congregations
,
with
a
practice
repugnant
to
the
Scripture
and
Canons
of
ancient
Councils
,
he
should
have
done
well
to
have
produced
these
Scriptures
which
the
Doctors
alleaged
:
And
for
ancient
Canons
,
I
think
all
things
in
their
case
considered
,
it
would
be
a
hard
task
to
produce
these
Canons
stricking
against
that
practice
as
it
stood
circumstantiat
,
considering
their
Schismatick
withstanding
the
Reformation
of
this
Church
,
their
Arminian
principles
,
and
defending
popish
ceremonies
which
errors
they
had
openly
vented
and
obstinatly
maintaind
.
His
next
charge
of
ordaining
others
to
perpetuat
our
schism
,
is
a
manifest
calumny
,
this
true
organick
Church
is
by
this
practice
,
only
propagating
a
lawfull
pure
Ministry
in
opposition
to
their
destroying
Schismatick
course
,
the
blessed
fruits
whereof
,
and
its
seals
upon
the
hearts
of
the
people
of
God
,
have
been
conspicuous
,
and
we
hope
yet
further
will
.
And
no
less
gross
is
that
calumny
which
follows
,
anent
our
great
mixt
communions
,
and
admission
of
ignorant
vitious
persons
unto
them
,
who
(
he
sayes
)
by
our
way
cannot
be
kept
back
,
there
being
none
admitted
at
any
seasons
of
this
nature
(
which
have
been
very
rare
)
but
upon
sufficient
testimonies
from
faithfull
Ministers
or
elderships
.
But
is
he
not
ashamed
to
object
this
to
us
,
whereof
his
party
is
so
notoriously
guilty
,
who
are
knowen
to
admit
,
yea
call
promiscuously
,
to
fill
their
empty
tables
,
(
which
tender
souls
dare
not
approach
unto
)
both
gross
ignorants
,
and
notoriously
profane
to
the
shame
and
scandal
of
Religion
,
and
the
contempt
of
that
holy
ordinance
;
our
persuading
people
not
to
owne
Conformists
as
the
Ministers
of
this
Church
we
hope
doth
now
appear
better
grounded
then
all
this
Informers
persuasives
to
the
contrary
.
And
that
we
have
been
in
any
measure
succesfull
in
this
,
speaks
out
Gods
purpose
not
to
leave
wholly
our
married
land
.
For
that
which
he
cites
out
of
Baxters
preface
to
the
Cure
of
Church
divisions
anent
the
odiousness
of
Sacrifices
presented
to
God
,
without
love
and
reconciliation
to
brethren
,
and
of
making
a
peoples
communion
in
worship
,
the
badge
and
means
of
uncharitablness
and
divisions
,
we
th●…nk
reconciliation
and
unionin
the
Lord
needfull
to
acceptable
worship
,
but
an
association
with
scandalous
Schismaticks
and
backsliders
in
their
wickedness
,
we
think
is
no
less
dangerous
and
obstructive
to
reall
fellowship
with
God
in
duty
;
especially
since
God
presses
our
coming
out
from
among
such
,
and
our
being
separat
from
the
contagion
of
their
sin
,
with
this
motive
,
that
he
will
receive
us
.
And
as
there
is
a
holy
brotherhood
which
we
must
associat
with
in
order
to
communion
with
God
,
so
there
is
a
congregation
of
evill
doers
which
we
must
hate
.
Yea
we
have
Davids
precedency
(
as
is
before
observed
)
to
hate
them
with
perfect
hatred
,
and
count
them
our
enemies
.
But
who
can
sufficiently
admire
these
mens
talk
of
unity
and
love
who
having
first
broken
and
divided
this
poor
Church
have
been
these
so
many
years
persecuting
to
the
death
,
yea
sweeming
in
the
blood
of
the
faithfull
Ministers
and
professors
therof
because
hey
durst
not
joyn
to
their
way
,
and
conform
to
their
supposed
trifles
and
indifferencies
.
Surely
prelacy
being
the
grand
Idol
of
Jealousy
provoking
God
against
us
,
and
the
fire
which
hath
kindled
all
our
combustions
,
and
hath
opened
the
veins
of
the
Lords
servants
and
people
to
bleed
for
many
years
,
occasioned
such
horrid
dispersion
and
unheard
of
oppression
〈◊〉
the
Lords
Church
and
people
in
our
Land
,
with
what
f●…ces
can
these
upholders
of
this
course
look
up
to
the
God
of
Love
and
peace
,
and
how
can
they
lift
up
suc●…
bloody
wrathfull
hands
to
him
.
But
now
his
poor
half
proselyted
Doubter
confesses
that
[
there
is
much
truth
in
what
he
has
heard
from
this
sound
Informer
forsooth
—
And
takes
leave
with
a
profest
resolution
to
reflect
upon
what
he
has
heard
from
him
,
]
Whereupon
he
dismisses
him
with
some
of
his
healing
advices
,
prefacing
with
an
admonition
to
seek
illumination
from
God
.
But
had
this
man
been
serious
in
seeking
this
from
God
,
he
had
not
vented
in
these
trilling
Dialogues
such
weak
notions
and
reproaches
against
Gods
truth
and
people
.
But
since
his
Doubter
returns
him
no
answer
therunto
,
I
shall
make
up
his
want
and
shortly
offer
my
thoughts
upon
them
.
His
first
advice
,
is
not
to
be
too
confident
of
our
own
opinion
as
undoubtedly
right
,
but
consider
what
he
hath
said
in
his
three
conferences
.
Ans.
If
it
be
truth
which
we
hold
,
sure
we
most
hold
it
by
faith
in
a
pure
conscience
,
and
not
be
wavering
and
●…ossed
children
.
We
acknowledge
not
the
Cartesian
principle
,
and
the
popish
doubting
way
as
found
divinity
,
and
a
confidence
of
truth
is
far
from
a
self
confidence
.
As
for
what
is
offered
in
his
three
dialogues
,
I
hope
it
is
sufficiently
antidoted
by
what
is
said
above
,
so
that
it
needs
not
in
the
least
demurr
our
persuasion
.
2.
He
will
not
have
us
think
the
matters
of
difference
to
be
the
substantialls
of
Relegion
,
since
persons
of
both
persuasions
may
keep
love
and
fellowship
without
renting
the
Church
and
neglecting
ordinances
,
because
greater
differences
have
been
;
and
communion
not
broken
thereby
.
Ans.
If
these
matters
contraverted
be
not
substantialls
,
why
then
have
they
made
such
a
substantiall
bloody
contest
for
them
●…anquam
pro
aris
&
focis
,
for
so
many
years
,
and
if
communion
must
not
be
broken
in
a
Church
upon
this
account
,
why
have
they
rent
and
overturned
our
Church
,
and
persecute
away
so
many
godly
Ministers
and
professors
for
these
things
,
denying
all
fellowship
with
them
in
their
worship
,
for
adhering
to
their
principles
,
and
disowning
this
course
of
conformity
?
had
prelatists
suffered
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
professors
to
stand
as
they
were
in
this
Church
,
to
enjoy
their
principles
,
and
to
follow
their
respective
duties
according
to
their
stations
,
faithfull
Ministers
to
preach
,
and
Gods
people
to
enjoy
the
fruits
of
their
Ministry
,
he
might
with
some
colour
have
pretended
to
this
desire
of
union
and
fellowship
,
but
since
prelatists
have
cast
them
out
,
and
do
so
cruelly
persecute
them
for
adhering
to
their
principles
,
and
owning
these
duties
,
this
pretence
is
nothing
but
deceitfull
hypocrisy
.
He
adds
,
that
the
difference
is
but
a
matter
of
government
,
and
if
we
separat
for
this
,
we
would
have
separat
from
all
Churches
since
christianity
began
and
if
Christ
held
no
comunion
with
a
Church
,
where
prelacy
was
,
he
hath
then
seldom
had
a
Church
,
and
hath
been
for
many
years
a
head
without
members
.
Ans.
This
is
nothing
but
a
renewed
repetition
of
groundless
assertions
:
for
how
proves
he
that
our
plea
is
a
matter
of
government
only
?
surely
their
course
strikes
at
the
whole
of
our
Reformation
,
as
hath
been
cleared
.
Again
,
how
proves
he
that
we
would
have
separat
upon
this
ground
from
the
Church
for
so
long
a
time
,
tho
it
were
granted
that
our
plea
were
only
a
matter
of
government
,
since
he
hath
not
yet
produced
instances
of
such
a
prelacy
as
we
have
,
in
any
Church
.
Besides
,
since
the
Informer
pleads
for
prelacy
upon
pretended
Apostolical
precepts
and
practices
,
and
yet
doth
here
vilify
it
unto
a
meer
punctilio
,
and
makes
it
such
a
sorry
business
as
persons
may
come
and
go
upon
it
at
their
pleasure
,
we
may
easily
discover
what
nimble
Sophisters
,
and
slippery
fingered
Gentlemen
he
and
his
fellows
are
as
to
the
retaining
and
holding
of
divine
institutions
,
and
that
they
can
easily
expose
them
to
sale
,
for
obtaining
easefull
serenity
and
other
worldly
designs
.
Or
how
proves
he
that
its
the
government
of
our
Church
which
they
have
introduced
?
or
that
they
are
the
Church
?
or
that
we
are
in
this
practice
separating
from
our
Church
?
Hath
not
Christ
a
mystical
body
in
Scotland
without
prelats
?
or
finally
,
how
proves
he
that
there
is
alike
ground
for
Joyning
to
prelacy
,
introduced
by
an
Apostat
party
,
after
it
is
cast
out
,
and
abjured
by
all
,
as
there
is
for
Joyning
in
fellowship
with
a
Church
continuing
Long
under
that
corruption
,
and
not
purged
and
reformed
from
it
.
The
Joyning
with
them
in
their
worship
,
being
demanded
as
a
badge
of
our
consent
to
prelacy
it self
and
all
the
corruptions
attending
the
same
.
3.
He
pleads
for
charity
,
and
that
we
say
not
Conformists
are
graceless
because
of
this
difference
,
he
tells
us
,
that
for
all
Corinths
corruptions
,
the
Apostle
spends
a
whole
chapter
upon
Love
,
and
that
such
as
have
least
truth
,
have
least
charity
,
that
the
weak
christians
who
understood
not
their
liberty
Rom.
14.
in
being
loosed
from
the
ceremonial
Law
,
had
least
charity
as
they
had
least
truth
,
and
so
papists
to
protestants
.
Ans.
This
charge
lyes
most
directly
home
to
himself
,
and
those
of
his
way
.
Let
more
then
20.
years
Law
&
practice
,
in
relation
to
the
ruine
of
a
faithfull
remnant
of
Ministers
and
professors
who
adhere
to
the
reformation
and
government
of
this
Church
,
and
their
vows
for
promoting
the
same
,
discover
what
hath
been
the
charity
of
our
Prelatical
party
.
Beside
,
whatever
be
our
thoughts
as
to
their
state
with
God
,
and
without
judging
their
eternal
condition
,
it
s
no
breach
of
charity
to
know
such
as
are
seducers
from
Gods
way
,
to
beware
of
sin
,
and
the
ensnarings
of
such
seducers
,
for
which
we
have
so
many
scripture
commands
as
we
have
heard
,
and
the
Judgment
of
discretion
in
relation
to
evils
which
we
are
to
eshew
,
is
not
that
uncharitable
judging
in
matters
Lawfull
and
Indifferent
,
which
is
condemned
,
Rom.
14.
3
,
4.
for
else
we
could
not
act
in
faith
.
And
the
same
Corinthians
whom
Paul
exhorted
so
much
to
Love
,
he
enjoyned
also
to
come
out
from
among
the
ungodly
2
Cor.
6.
and
to
flee
the
contagion
of
their
sin
.
4.
He
advises
to
consider
the
danger
of
divisions
Gal.
5.
15.
Mark
3.
24.
since
the
enemy
mocks
religion
upon
this
ground
,
and
while
each
fights
with
another
,
all
are
overcome
,
which
he
illustrats
with
the
story
of
Scilurus
his
sheaf
of
arrowes
Ans.
Divisions
indeed
among
Gods
people
are
sad
,
and
have
had
sad
effects
,
but
union
must
be
in
truth
and
duty
,
and
cemented
with
these
bonds
,
since
it
is
the
unity
of
the
spirit
which
we
must
seek
Eph.
4.
3.
and
therefore
not
in
a
way
of
defection
and
Rebellion
against
God
and
in
breaking
his
Covenant
,
which
is
nothing
else
but
a
combination
against
him
;
It
is
in
the
Lord
,
that
we
must
be
of
the
same
mind
,
Phil.
4
2.
and
Christ
who
prayed
so
enixly
,
for
his
disciples
union
,
Joh.
17.
21.
prayed
also
for
their
sanctification
in
and
by
the
truth
,
17.
ver.
and
that
they
might
be
kept
from
the
evill
of
the
world
,
15.
ver.
And
the
Apostle
Paul
who
is
so
great
a
pleader
for
Love
and
union
,
would
not
give
place
by
subjection
to
deceitfull
workers
,
no
not
for
an
hour
Gal.
2.
5.
The
best
way
to
mantain
union
&
preserve
the
Gospel
(
which
their
dividing
innovating
course
of
backsliding
hath
exposed
to
so
much
prevalency
and
reproach
of
Papists
)
is
to
keep
our
garments
free
of
their
defilements
,
&
to
put
away
that
accur
sed
thing
which
hath
made
us
so
weak
before
enemies
.
5.
He
advises
his
Doubter
to
acquaint
himself
with
the
writings
of
the
old
Non-conformists
in
England
,
such
as
Cartwright
,
Bradshaw
,
Ball
,
&c.
Who
testify
against
the
Brownists
for
their
separation
from
that
Church
(
for
which
he
sayes
much
more
might
have
been
alledged
then
for
ours
.
)
Ans.
We
acknowledge
that
these
worthy
men
have
done
well
upon
this
subject
,
and
that
separation
which
they
wrote
against
;
But
our
case
[
anent
a
Church
purely
reformed
from
corruptions
of
doctrine
,
worship
,
discipline
and
Government
and
under
universal
oaths
of
adherence
to
that
reformation
infested
,
encroached
upon
,
and
invaded
by
a
party
of
Schismatick
overturners
of
her
reformation
,
standing
in
opposition
to
a
faithful
Ministry
,
and
professors
adhering
to
them
,
]
is
so
vastly
discrepant
from
their
case
,
[
anent
keeping
up
fellowship
with
a
Church
universally
tainted
with
corruptions
,
from
which
she
had
never
been
purged
,
]
that
by
no
imaginable
grounds
,
can
a
consequence
be
drawen
from
the
one
to
the
other
.
And
any
consequence
relating
to
us
,
or
application
of
the
pleadings
of
these
Divines
against
the
Brownists
,
will
properly
strike
against
his
dividing
party
,
who
have
gone
out
from
the
fellowship
of
this
pure
Church
,
to
which
they
were
Joyned
,
and
did
vow
adherence
to
her
constitution
and
reformation
,
yet
notwithstansting
by
them
thus
miserably
rent
and
destroyed
for
many
years
.
As
for
these
Rules
of
Mr
Baxter
in
his
Cure
of
Church
divisions
,
which
this
Informer
doth
afterward
commend
unto
us
,
we
are
not
much
concerned
in
their
explication
or
application
,
since
they
do
not
in
the
least-strike
against
what
we
maintain
,
therefore
we
shall
briefly
run
over
them
.
For
the
first
here
mentioned
,
[
anent
not
making
communion
with
a
Church
stricker
then
Christ
hath
made
it
]
when
we
disowne
dividers
and
Schismaticks
renting
and
destroying
a
pure
Church
,
and
introducing
abjured
innovations
,
we
do
not
narrow
these
terms
of
communion
,
which
Christ
hath
given
.
For
he
hath
commanded
us
to
withdraw
from
such
as
cause
divisions
and
offences
,
contrary
to
our
received
ordinances
,
and
not
to
have
fellowship
with
the
unfruitfull
works
of
darkness
,
to
turn
away
from
Covenant-breakers
;
And
it
s
their
dividing
party
who
fall
under
the
censure
of
this
rule
,
who
make
complyance
with
abjured
prelacy
the
terms
of
their
communion
,
and
so
cruelly
persecute
all
who
will
not
conform
to
their
course
of
backsliding
.
There
is
no
doubt
equal
danger
on
the
other
extreme
in
making
the
terms
of
our
communion
laxer
then
Christ
hath
appointed
.
For
the
2
rule
which
he
mentions
[
anent
a
due
impression
of
the
evill
of
division
and
discord
,
and
the
reasons
and
necessity
of
union
.
]
I
think
indeed
had
this
Informer
and
his
party
,
kept
up
a
Scripture
impression
of
this
,
they
had
not
for
the
punctilio's
of
their
trifling
Conformity
,
so
miserably
rent
this
poor
Church
,
and
overturn'd
her
Reformation
.
For
the
3.
[
anent
not
engadging
too
far
in
a
divided
sect
,
]
it
reaches
Conformists
,
another
blow
,
who
have
so
far
engadged
for
Prelats
and
their
Interest
,
that
for
many
years
it
hath
been
the
great
work
of
our
Laws
(
by
the
instigation
of
them
,
and
their
Rabbies
)
to
root
out
all
Ministers
and
professors
of
this
Church
,
who
do
not
conform
,
and
owne
this
course
of
backsliding
.
Dare
this
petulant
Informer
call
adherence
to
this
Church
,
her
sworn
Reformation
,
principles
,
and
faithfull
Ministry
,
adherence
to
a
divided
Sect.
For
the
4.
[
anent
the
difference
betwixt
a
sound
and
sinfull
zeal
,
and
that
we
be
suspicious
of
our
Religious
passions
]
we
say
,
zeal
for
the
Gospel
,
for
keeping
Covenant
with
God
,
for
reformation
from
popry
and
prelacy
(
which
is
the
the
Test
of
our
zeal
as
stated
in
opposition
to
them
)
doth
convincingly
evidence
its
soundness
.
For
the
5.
[
anent
not
being
over
tender
of
our
repute
,
or
impatient
of
mens
censures
,
]
we
say
,
to
be
tender
of
truth
and
duty
,
and
our
good
name
in
maintaining
it
,
which
is
as
precious
ointment
,
and
to
be
tender
of
not
offending
and
displeasing
all
who
are
thus
tender
,
is
nothing
but
a
true
and
Gospel-tenderness
.
For
the
6.
[
anent
eshewing
needless
fellowship
with
the
more
censorious
Christians
]
we
say
,
we
stand
oblig'd
to
keep
fellowship
with
all
the
godly
in
all
duties
,
and
this
charge
of
over
censoriousness
we
deny
as
to
our
plea
against
Conformists
,
neither
hath
he
Informer
yet
made
it
good
.
For
the
7.
[
that
we
lay
not
too
much
weight
on
doubtfull
opinions
,
nor
begin
with
them
]
we
bless
God
that
in
this
pure
Church
,
Gods
people
have
been
taught
the
solid
beginnings
and
first
principles
,
and
do
build
on
that
foundation
;
But
we
have
not
so
learned
Christ
,
as
to
put
into
the
Category
of
things
doubtfull
,
breach
of
Covenant
,
abjur'd
Prelacy
,
and
a
Schismatick
sinfull
complyance
therewith
,
For
the
8.
[
anent
not
admiring
or
favouring
a
preacher
for
his
voice
,
affectionat
utterance
,
&c.
Without
solid
understanding
,
]
we
say
,
Gods
people
with
us
have
been
helped
not
to
regard
mens
speech
,
but
their
power
.
And
as
they
know
Christ
the
great
shepherd
his
truth
,
by
his
voice
from
them
,
accordingly
as
his
sheep
to
follow
them
.
For
the
9.
[
anent
not
rejecting
a
good
cause
,
because
owned
by
bad
men
]
we
say
,
the
cause
we
disowne
is
bad
in
it self
,
and
we
disowne
the
owners
of
this
bad
cause
,
upon
this
ground
;
And
are
confirmed
in
our
disowning
of
it
,
by
the
fruits
which
we
see
the
owning
of
it
produceth
in
its
supporters
and
abbetors
,
which
are
such
as
do
warrand
us
according
to
our
Lords
command
,
to
avoid
and
beware
of
them
.
For
the
10.
[
not
to
follow
the
bad
examples
of
Religious
persons
,
]
we
bless
the
Lord
we
are
taught
to
walk
by
the
rule
of
Gods
Word
,
not
by
examples
of
men
,
and
not
to
follow
even
a
Paul
further
then
he
is
a
follower
of
Christ
.
For
the
11.
[
anent
keeping
an
eye
on
the
state
of
all
Churches
upon
earth
,
and
pondering
how
Christ
keeps
fellowship
with
them
,
lest
while
we
think
we
separat
only
from
these
about
us
,
we
separat
from
almost
all
Churches
]
we
say
,
that
we
have
lookt
upon
our
own
Church
deservedly
,
as
among
the
purest
and
best
reformed
,
and
by
the
same
rule
are
concerned
to
keep
up
fellowship
with
her
,
as
knowing
that
such
as
renounce
fellowship
with
her
,
would
renounce
it
with
all
Churches
.
And
this
we
do
with
a
due
charity
for
all
Reformed
Churches
,
and
whatever
Churches
do
hold
the
foundation
.
But
upon
these
grounds
we
are
bound
to
disowne
destroying
Schismaticks
,
as
are
our
Conformists
,
who
have
introduced
abjured
innovations
contrary
to
her
pure
constitution
and
Reformation
,
and
have
gone
out
from
her
fellowship
,
and
by
the
same
consequential
reason
,
from
the
fellowship
of
all
Churches
.
For
the
last
rule
which
he
mentions
,
[
that
we
count
it
as
comfortable
to
be
a
martyr
for
love
and
peace
by
blind
zealots
,
as
for
the
faith
by
infidels
]
we
say
,
that
we
owne
no
zeal
which
is
not
according
to
knowledge
,
and
are
contending
for
the
union
and
reformation
of
our
Mother
against
a
party
of
blind
fiery
zelots
,
for
ane
abjured
hierarchy
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
and
this
Churches
vows
,
in
which
honourable
quarrel
that
many
have
suffered
even
to
bonds
,
imprisonments
,
yea
death
it self
,
it
is
our
Glory
.
As
for
what
he
adds
[
of
the
English
nonconformists
,
their
testyfing
against
separation
,
as
a
way
which
God
never
blessed
with
peace
and
holiness
though
they
dissented
from
the
Ceremonies
]
I
nothing
doubt
,
but
that
they
would
have
put
the
same
Character
upon
the
practice
of
the
Prelats
and
their
followers
,
had
they
seen
and
known
all
the
circumstances
of
our
case
.
They
dissenting
from
fellowship
in
the
ceremonies
,
and
eatenus
from
fellowship
in
the
Worship
,
though
that
Church
,
had
never
been
purged
from
them
,
how
much
more
then
are
we
concerned
to
disowne
innovations
introduced
into
this
Church
,
after
they
have
been
cast
out
and
vowed
against
.
Suppose
that
Church
,
had
been
(
as
ours
)
Reformed
in
doctrine
Worship
,
discipline
and
Government
,
and
a
party
had
risen
up
destroying
that
pure
constitution
,
contrary
to
all
their
vows
,
admitting
none
to
fellowship
without
acknowledging
of
their
wicked
course
,
persecuting
and
casting
out
all
Ministers
and
professors
,
who
would
not
concur
?
And
then
let
them
tell
us
what
these
nonco●…ists
would
have
done
in
this
case
,
surely
upon
the
same
ground
that
they
eshewed
a
contagion
in
communicating
with
the
Ceremonies
,
they
would
have
eshewed
this
piece
of
contagious
conformity
also
.
Especially
the
express
vows
of
adherence
to
that
supposed
reformation
in
every
piece
of
it
,
and
of
disowning
all
recesses
,
all
backsliders
,
and
of
owning
all
adherers
to
these
vows
in
prusuing
the
ends
thereof
,
being
taken
in
,
and
duely
pondered
.
After
the
close
of
this
Dialogue
,
our
Informer
will
needs
strengthen
his
plea
in
presenting
unto
us
,
by
way
of
Apendix
,
some
passages
of
the
English
Presbyterians
,
their
Jus
divinum
Ministerij
Anglicani
,
and
likewise
in
Mr
Rutherfoord
his
due
right
of
Presbytery
,
anent
the
unwarrantableness
of
Separatio●…
,
which
as
they
are
utterly
alien
from
our
purpose
,
so
(
as
would
seem
in
the
conviction
hereof
)
he
doth
not
so
much
as
offer
to
draw
an
argument
from
any
of
them
,
while
propounding
these
his
grand
supposed
topicks
,
except
a
general
hint
at
the
close
,
which
is
utterly
insufficient
to
fortify
his
conclusion
,
as
we
shall
after
shew
,
but
leaves
the
favourable
conclusion
to
be
drawn
by
his
half-proselyted
Doubter
,
or
friendly
partial
reader
.
However
(
altho
upon
the
matter
any
seeming
conclusion
he
might
draw
from
them
is
answered
,
yet
)
we
shall
view
them
briefly
,
having
premised
(
1.
)
That
he
supposes
but
hath
not
yet
made
good
,
the
charge
of
a
sinfull
separation
upon
the
people
of
God
in
this
case
,
which
we
have
shown
to
be
more
applicable
to
himself
.
2.
That
the
case
of
separation
from
that
Church
at
that
time
because
of
her
corruptions
,
is
far
wide
from
this
case
of
our
disowning
Conformists
now
,
and
consequently
all
his
citations
will
never
come
home
to
our
purpose
,
because
.
1.
Not
to
separat
from
a
Church
upon
the
ground
of
corruptions
which
have
been
long
setled
in
her
;
is
very
far
distinct
from
this
practice
of
disowning
an
Innovating
party
introducing
corruptions
to
the
ruine
of
a
pure
Church
,
after
they
have
been
seen
,
and
universally
cast
out
,
which
is
the
practice
he
now
pleads
for
;
a
stop
as
to
an
advance
in
Reformation
,
is
much
different
from
backsliding
in
this
case
,
and
especially
the
joyning
to
a
backsliding
party
who
are
not
the
true
Church
,
is
much
different
from
adherence
to
a
Church
tho
backslidden
.
It
s
a
far
different
case
not
to
leave
the
communion
of
a
Church
because
of
some
corruptions
,
and
not
to
joyn
with
an
unsound
party
of
a
Church
drawing
back
from
her
Reformation
:
So
that
upon
a
due
consideration
of
the
matter
of
fact
,
and
Presbyterian
principles
,
its
evident
that
these
Testimonies
do
levell
against
Conformists
.
2.
It
s
a
far
different
case
to
owne
the
Ministry
of
a
corrupt
Church
wherin
prelacy
is
universally
owned
,
and
wherein
there
hath
been
no
other
way
of
entry
into
the
Ministry
for
many
generations
but
by
Prelacy
:
and
to
owne
a
party
of
Schismatick
Intruders
introducing
Prelacy
over
the
belly
of
a
Presbyterian
Church
,
and
shutting
out
her
faithfull
Mininistry
,
surely
these
Intruders
are
in
this
case
the
Brownists
.
3.
It
s
a
far
different
case
to
submit
to
a
Ministry
meerly
Episcopal
,
and
to
keep
the
Worship
in
a
Church
long
under
this
Government
,
and
to
submit
to
an
Episcopal
Erastian
Ministry
,
and
a
Church
Government
fundamentally
corrupt
,
deriving
all
its
power
from
an
Antichristian
supremacy
,
and
meer
civil
papacy
,
after
it
hath
been
eminently
and
universally
disowned
by
that
Church
,
and
vowed
against
,
Especially
when
a
backsliding
party
only
do
thus
usurp
over
the
sound
Ministry
,
and
have
ejected
them
,
and
this
Erastian
abomination
is
set
up
to
raze
this
true
spiritual
Government
of
the
Church
once
universally
setled
and
owned
.
4.
It
s
a
far
different
case
,
to
submit
to
an
Episcopal
Ministry
so
far
as
pure
,
while
Episcopacy
is
universally
ownd
,
and
no
obligation
is
upon
any
to
disowne
it
,
further
then
its
own
corruption
in
that
case
will
amount
to
and
infer
:
and
to
owne
and
submit
to
an
episcopal
Erastian
Government
introduced
by
an
Innovating
party
into
a
Presbyterian
Church
against
her
standing
acts
,
solemn
Oaths
and
vows
universally
taken
on
by
that
Church
against
the
same
,
while
a
faithfull
Ministry
,
and
the
great
part
of
the
people
are
in
Conscience
of
their
vows
contending
against
it
.
Surely
this
superinduced
obligation
requires
a
higher
degree
of
zeal
against
that
defection
,
and
renders
it
the
more
hainous
.
The
high
places
permitted
to
David
and
Solomon
before
the
Temple
was
built
,
are
censured
in
after
times
;
greater
light
and
obligations
do
in
this
case
cast
the
ballance
.
These
considerations
do
clearly
repell
any
argument
which
he
would
draw
from
his
citations
to
our
case
.
But
now
to
view
them
,
The
English
Presbyterians
in
that
piece
do
first
assert
page
10.
[
that
all
in
the
same
bounds
most
be
under
the
care
of
the
same
Minister
,
and
that
these
limits
ought
not
to
be
brangled
Ans.
This
shall
be
easily
accorded
,
give
us
our
beautifull
Church-order
and
a
lawfully
called
Ministry
and
this
parochial
order
shall
be
observed
,
and
obeyed
.
2.
(
page
11.
)
[
A
man
under
a
wicked
or
Heretical
Minister
must
remove
his
habitation
rather
then
brangle
parochial
order
.
]
Ans
Then
it
follows
in
their
principles
,
that
when
the
order
and
union
of
a
Reformed
Church
is
already
brangled
by
Innovating
Schismaticks
,
whose
wickedness
and
errors
are
palpable
,
men
may
attend
a
more
pure
Ministry
without
Schism
,
by
clear
consequence
,
sure
he
is
a
loser
by
this
.
3.
(
page
12.
)
[
to
appoint
Elders
in
every
Church
,
and
every
city
,
is
all
one
,
and
converts
in
the
city
must
joyn
with
the
congregation
in
Churchfellowship
.
]
Ans.
But
what
if
a
party
in
the
city
call
themselves
the
Church
,
shut
out
the
true
Minister
,
and
bring
in
one
of
their
own
,
must
not
the
true
converts
own
their
first
Minister
,
and
oppose
these
Innovators
?
Surely
this
Testimony
rebounds
another
blow
upon
our
mis Informer
.
4.
(
page
25.
)
[
evil
men
defacto
have
been
officers
,
Hophni
and
Phineas
,
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
whose
Ministerial
acts
were
not
null
,
and
Christs
commission
authorized
Judas
.
]
Ans.
This
will
as
much
plead
for
owning
Presbyterian
Ministers
as
Conformists
:
And
if
he
alleadge
that
they
are
disorderly
,
Schismatical
,
&c.
and
therefore
must
not
be
ownd
in
this
case
.
I
answer
●…he
must
prove
this
which
he
hath
not
yet
done
.
2.
He
must
acknowledge
,
that
the
granting
that
the
Ministerial
acts
of
Church-officers
,
are
not
null
by
their
sins
,
will
not
plead
for
hearing
Ministers
in
every
case
,
untill
aliunde
,
and
from
other
grounds
,
our
obligation
to
owne
such
men
as
our
Ministers
hic
&
nunc
be
made
good
,
which
he
hath
not
yet
done
as
to
Curats
.
Neither
Hophni
or
Phineas
,
nor
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
were
rooting
out
the
faithfull
Ministry
of
the
Church
of
the
Jews
,
who
would
not
concurr
in
a
course
of
defection
,
after
they
had
laid
down
a
course
to
overturn
the
ordinances
:
which
is
the
case
of
Conformists
in
relation
to
us
,
as
is
evident
.
Again
,
state
the
question
so
that
Hophni
and
Phineas
,
and
the
Pharisees
Ministry
could
not
be
owned
without
partaking
in
their
sin
,
then
this
man
must
needs
grant
,
that
Gods
people
were
obliged
to
disowne
them
,
and
had
disowned
them
.
Now
we
have
proven
this
to
be
our
case
as
to
the
owning
of
Conformists
.
5.
(
page
42
,
43.
)
[
Israel
is
called
the
people
of
the
Lord
,
even
after
the
Calves
were
set
up
at
Dan
and
Bethel
,
and
Cajaphas
was
own'd
as
high
priest
,
though
they
came
to
the
office
by
bribry
and
faction
,
and
the
highpriest
had
an
hand
in
crucifying
Christ
]
Ans.
The
same
reply
and
retortion
recurs
as
formerly
▪
what
will
he
say
if
we
plead
this
for
presbyterian
Ministers
,
whom
he
will
not
call
worse
then
these
mentioned
,
nor
will
he
say
that
our
Presbyterian
Church
is
worse
then
that
Church
.
So
that
he
must
grant
this
will
not
reach
his
conclusion
,
till
more
be
supposed
and
proved
in
this
point
.
Again
,
tho
God
in
his
soveraign
dispensation
had
not
as
yet
cast
off
the
ten
tribes
,
having
a
faithfull
remnant
among
them
,
yet
I
hope
he
will
not
from
this
plead
for
owning
the
Calves
,
or
the
Priests
Ministry
whom
Jeroboam
had
obtruded
,
and
set
up
contrary
to
Gods
institution
,
and
for
keeping
up
that
wofull
breach
in
Gods
worship
,
and
in
Israel
,
which
was
therby
promoted
,
and
this
is
a
fit
emblem
of
their
Innovating
prelatick
Ministry
.
Beside
that
the
high
priests
were
men
in
a
considerable
measure
deciders
and
Interpreters
of
the
civil
Law
,
and
might
in
that
respect
be
owned
.
But
however
,
it
is
(
as
we
have
said
)
bad
arguing
from
the
comporting
with
corruptions
in
that
old
dispensation
and
Ministry
especially
when
drawing
near
an
end
,
to
the
receiving
of
abjured
corruptions
into
a
Church
which
has
been
rid
of
them
,
and
from
a
non-separating
in
the
first
case
,
to
conclude
against
a
non-union
or
non
complyance
in
the
second
.
And
thus
neither
will
Pauls
carriage
toward
the
high
prist
,
Acts
23.
plead
for
adhering
to
Curats
upon
the
same
grounds
.
For
he
will
not
say
that
Paul
understood
not
his
office
in
a
spiritual
sense
to
be
now
expired
,
and
that
he
was
not
to
be
owned
as
a
teacher
,
who
was
every
way
destitute
of
the
truth
of
the
gospel
,
and
an
enemy
unto
it
.
Jackson
thinks
with
sevral
others
,
that
Paul
said
,
I
knew
not
that
he
was
the
high
priest
&c.
ironically
,
it
being
very
improbable
,
that
Paul
knew
not
the
high
priest
,
and
suppose
it
were
so
,
he
knew
him
to
be
a
ruler
as
his
own
words
discover
,
so
that
it
was
no
excuse
to
say
he
knew
not
the
high
priest
,
because
as
a
judge
it
was
against
the
law
to
revile
him
.
Therfore
(
saith
Jackson
upon
Exod.
22.
28.
)
though
they
understood
Paul
as
excusing
himself
,
yet
he
spoke
by
way
of
derision
as
disdaining
he
should
be
accounted
Gods
high-priest
,
who
carryed
so
.
Which
(
saith
he
)
is
the
more
probable
,
when
it
s
considered
how
far
he
was
from
having
any
true
right
to
that
place
and
power
to
which
he
pretended
,
when
Christ
had
abolished
the
legal
priest
hood
.
Calvine
on
that
place
of
the
Acts
sayes
,
It
s
not
credible
that
Paul-gave
him
his
wonted
honour
.
—
Cum
abolita
esset
adventu
Christi
sacerdotij
Majestas
,
&
secuta
turpis
prophanatio
,
Paulum
quasi
integra
vigeret
,
solito
honore
prosecutum
fuisse
,
qui
tunc
sub
Pontificum
titulo
nullo
jure
dominabantur
,
after
the
majesty
of
the
priest
hood
was
abolished
by
the
coming
of
Christ
,
and
vile
prophanity
attending
it
,
that
Paul
,
as
if
the
priesthood
had
been
standing
intire
,
would
have
allowed
the
wonted
honour
to
such
who
under
the
title
of
Priests
were
governing
without
any
right
or
just
title
.
And
having
objected
to
himself
,
that
we
must
not
contemn
civill
Magistrats
,
in
his
answer
he
puts
a
difference
betwixt
civil
Mahistrats
and
Church
rulers
—
Inter
civiles
Magistratus
(
saith
he
)
&
ecclesiae
praesules
aliquid
est
discrimenus
—
there
is
a
difference
betwixt
civill
Magistrats
and
Church
officers
,
tho
the
administration
of
civil
Rulers
be
perverse
and
confused
yet
(
he
tells
us
)
the
Lord
will
have
subjection
remain
intire
.
—
Sed
ubi
spirituale
regimen
degenerat
sol●…untur
piorum
conscientiae
,
ne
injustae
dominationi
pareant
&c.
spirituall
government
being
degenerat
,
the
consciences
o●…
the
faithfull
are
loosed
from
obedience
to
an
unjus●…
domination
.
But
our
Informer
will
say
,
that
I
thu●…
set
the
authors
of
jus
divinum
minist.
anglic
.
by
the
ear●…
with
Calvin
and
Iackson
as
to
the
sense
of
this
place
.
I
answer
,
they
do
not
peremptorly
and
positively
assert
that
Paul
acknowledged
him
as
high
priest
,
bu●…
onely
,
that
many
think
he
did
.
2.
Hence
the
weight
of
their
conclusion
subjoyned
,
viz.
that
corruptions
cleaving
to
Gods
ordinances
null
them
not
,
is
not
laid
upon
this
solely
,
nor
positivly
at
all
,
even
as
a
partial
,
but
onely
as
a
probable
ground
.
And
the
conclusion
it self
when
admitted
,
will
never
reach
his
designe
as
is
above
cleared
.
Again
,
admitting
that
Paul
acknowledged
his
providential
title
,
or
jus
in
re
as
to
a
civil
office
and
administration
at
that
time
,
as
it
may
well
have
its
own
weight
in
reference
to
the
premised
conclusion
,
civil
rule
,
as
such
,
being
Gods
ordinance
,
which
is
not
made
null
by
corruptions
,
so
upon
the
the
difference
of
civil
from
sacred
rule
this
concession
will
not
legitimat
or
infer
an
acknowledgment
of
the
spiritual
part
of
his
administration
.
Thus
we
have
seen
how
well
our
Informer
hath
acquit
himself
in
his
arguing
from
the
English
Presbyterians
.
Let
us
next
consider
,
how
he
reasons
from
Mr
Rutherfoord
in
that
peice
forecited
,
if
at
least
we
may
call
that
which
he
here
offers
a
formal
reasoning
,
since
he
offers
not
(
as
I
said
)
any
argument
from
these
citations
,
but
sure
we
will
find
that
these
passages
will
burn
his
fingers
.
In
that
piece
[
scil.
Due
right
of
presb
.
page
220.
to
256.
]
There
are
several
passages
which
this
man
takes
hold
of
,
as
1.
[
He
asserts
that
separation
from
a
true
Church
where
the
orthodox
word
is
preached
,
and
sacraments
duely
administrat
,
is
unlawfull
,
and
vindicats
2
Cor.
6.
]
Ans.
This
in
Mr
Rutherfoords
sense
will
plead
more
for
the
Presbyterian
Ministry
&
professors
then
for
Conformists
,
whom
he
will
not
say
that
Mr
Rutherfoord
will
look
upon
as
our
Church
,
in
such
a
case
as
this
,
since
(
as
we
heard
)
he
holds
that
in
case
of
such
a
breach
as
we
have
now
,
the
pure
Church
remains
with
the
smaller
stedfast
number
,
and
that
the
backsliders
from
truth
and
purity
,
tho
the
●…reater
number
,
yet
really
are
the
Schismaticks
.
And
●…n
this
sense
we
are
to
understand
him
when
he
sayes
that
this
separation
as
to
worship
,
will
not
infer
an
absolut
separation
,
And
his
allowing
non-union
,
where
there
is
not
sufficient
cause
of
separation
,
in
the
case
of
purer
to
be
joyned
with
,
and
his
admitting
a
partial
separation
,
because
of
a
partial
corruption
of
ordinances
(
Peacable
plea
page
121.
)
will
much
more
plead
for
a
total
non-union
in
this
our
case
;
and
I
dare
appeal
this
Informer
if
Mr
Rutherfoords
words
(
Peaceable
plea
page
122.
)
doth
not
suite
our
case
and
express
such
a
sense
therof
as
we
have
explaind
;
and
if
he
would
not
have
applyed
that
which
follows
unto
our
present
prelatick
party
,
had
he
seen
our
Church
in
this
posture
and
in
her
present
circumstances
,
viz.
we
separat
not
from
a
true
Church
or
her
Lawfull
Pastors
,
when
we
separat
from
hirelings
and
Idolshepherds
,
who
will
not
go
before
us
,
and
whether
he
would
not
have
thought
and
called
Conformists
so
?
Thus
(
page
148.
concl.
6.
)
he
tells
us
,
we
may
separat
from
the
worship
when
we
separat
not
from
the
Church
.
So
that
its
evident
,
that
in
Mr
Rutherfoords
sense
we
separat
not
from
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
nor
her
worship
,
while
withdrawing
from
Curats
,
in
attending
the
Ministry
of
Christs
faithfull
ambassadours
.
In
the
Next
place
this
Informer
presents
to
us
these
passages
further
in
that
peice
mentioned
,
viz.
(
page
233.
)
[
the
personal
faults
of
others
,
are
not
sufficient
ground
for
separation
—
That
the
disciples
thought
not
the
society
unclean
for
Judas
sin
,
though
they
knew
one
of
them
had
a
Devil
.
]
Again
(
page
250.
)
[
It
was
not
Lawfull
to
separat
from
the
Pharisees
preaching
truth
.
]
(
page
253.
)
[
The
Godly
separated
no●…
from
the
Church
,
when
the
altar
of
damascus
was
se●…
up
,
things
dedicat
to
Idols
,
as
Lutheran
images
,
are
called
Idolatry
,
1
Cor
10.
34.
Idolatry
by
participation
,
and
the
cup
of
devils
,
yet
Paul
command●…
not
separation
,
and
the
table
of
the
Lord
was
there
.
]
I
answer
,
this
is
already
removed
by
what
is
said
above
,
as
to
any
conclusion
for
his
cause
,
which
thi●…
loose
disputer
doth
not
so
much
as
offer
to
draw
ou●…
upon
these
citations
.
1.
Unless
he
prove
the
Conforming
party
to
be
the
true
Church
of
Scotland
,
to
which
in
this
case
we
are
obliged
to
adhere
,
or
2.
If
we
can
prove
,
that
according
to
our
Churches
Reformation
,
Presbyterian
ministers
and
professors
are
the
true
organick
Church
of
Scotland
,
though
the
persecute
smaller
number
(
which
according
to
Mr
Rutherfoord
is
very
easy
,
for
he
sayes
that
in
case
of
defection
,
truth
as
life
recools
to
the
smaller
hidden
part
,
(
Due
right
page
253.
)
In
either
case
I
say
this
will
plead
more
appositly
for
adherence
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
their
Assemblies
.
Next
,
Mr
Rutherfoords
scope
is
to
prove
,
that
personal
faults
corrupt
not
the
worship
,
which
wee
deny
not
,
but
as
we
have
above
cleared
this
falls
utterly
short
of
reaching
his
conclusion
,
as
to
the
owning
of
Curats
,
untill
he
first
prove
his
forementioned
suppositions
,
wherein
he
begs
the
question
,
and
this
principle
or
assertion
of
Mr
Rutherfoord
will
plead
more
strongly
for
not
disowning
Presbyterian
Ministers
untill
this
Informer
prove
his
suppositions
,
and
disprove
ours
in
this
debate
.
In
a
word
,
the
impertinency
of
all
his
citations
here
appears
in
this
,
that
there
is
no
reason
whereby
he
can
ward
of
this
argument
its
reaching
adherence
to
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
inferring
a
conclusion
of
owning
them
,
but
it
will
either
,
first
be
retorted
upon
himself
,
or
secondly
,
the
universality
of
the
argument
,
and
the
conclusion
deduced
there
from
,
so
limited
,
as
utterly
to
irritat
his
design
;
since
he
must
acknowledge
,
that
there
may
be
a
Lawfull
separation
from
a
Ministry
and
ordinances
,
altho
not
polluted
by
personal
scandals
.
And
therefore
this
principle
in
every
case
will
not
infer
a
separation
to
be
unlawfull
,
far
less
a
non
union
,
and
he
must
acknowledge
that
to
argue
the
unlawfulness
of
a
separation
or
non-union
in
every
case
,
or
meerly
,
from
this
ground
[
that
there
is
no
pollution
of
ordinances
by
the
personal
faults
of
Worshipers
or
administrators
thereof
]
is
a
gross
petitio
principii
&
ignoratio
elenchi
;
and
which
his
case
,
supposeth
many
things
which
are
to
be
proved
,
as
1.
That
Conformists
are
this
Church
.
2.
That
this
practice
of
disowning
them
as
now
circumstantiat
,
is
properly
a
sinfull
separation
.
3.
That
Prelatists
have
the
best
right
to
officiat
as
Ministers
in
this
Church
.
4.
That
we
have
no
other
reasons
for
a
non-union
but
this
pretended
pollution
of
ordinances
,
and
that
we
stand
obliged
upon
this
supposition
that
the
ordinances
are
not
thus
polluted
,
to
joyn
to
them
rather
then
Presbyterian
Ministers
.
And
since
this
principle
will
prove
them
all
to
be
Schismaticks
who
disowne
Presbyterian
Ministers
in
preaching
the
Gospel
,
it
will
follow
therefrom
that
our
Informer
is
in
this
pamphlet
pleading
for
Schism
,
or
else
he
must
so
limit
this
position
,
as
thereby
his
conclusion
against
us
shall
be
utterly
cut
off
as
is
said
.
Fourthly
,
he
presents
unto
us
that
passage
(
page
254.
)
where
he
shews
[
That
the
godly
in
England
tho
separating
from
Bishops
and
Ceremonies
did
not
separat
from
that
Church
;
and
approves
their
doing
so
,
and
in
keeping
communion
therwith
in
unquestionable
duties
,
the
contrary
whereof
he
charges
upon
these
separatists
against
whom
he
reasoneth
,
telling
us
ibidem
,
that
if
a
Church
be
incorrigible
in
a
wicked
conversation
,
and
yet
retain
the
true
faith
,
it
s
to
be
presumed
that
God
hath
some
there
to
be
saved
,
—
that
Christ
himself
is
where
his
ordinances
are
,
and
some
union
with
him
the
head
—
that
though
a
privat
scandalous
brother
ought
to
be
cast
off
,
yet
not
an
Orthodox
Chuch
.
]
Ans.
1.
The
Presbyterians
have
all
this
to
plead
for
pleoples
adherence
to
them
,
untill
this
Informer
prove
that
the
prelatick
party
are
our
nationall
organick
Church
,
which
will
be
ad
Kalendas
Graecas
.
2.
Mr
Rutherfoord
all
along
states
his
question
as
to
separation
,
from
a
Church
so
and
so
polluted
.
Ergo
he
spaks
not
of
a
Schismatick
destroying
Innovating
party
,
or
a
separation
from
them
rather
then
a
sound
Church
contending
against
them
,
which
would
quite
invert
his
scope
and
arguing
,
and
the
ground
and
hypothesis
thereof
.
For
I
pose
this
man
what
if
a
party
of
acknowledged
Innovators
cast
out
the
true
Ministry
,
and
should
plead
this
passage
of
Mr
Rutherfoords
for
their
schism
and
the
peoples
adherence
to
them
,
sure
he
would
charge
them
with
begging
the
question
,
as
we
do
Consormists
in
this
point
,
and
would
acknowledge
that
Mr
Rutherfoord
pleads
nothing
for
them
.
Fiftly
,
Mr
Rutherfoord
sayes
ib
idem
[
We
may
separat
from
the
Lords
supper
where
the
bread
is
ador'd
—
and
from
baptism
where
the
sign
of
the
cross
is
—
yet
we
are
not
to
separat
from
the
Church
.
]
Ans.
We
may
hence
collect
that
in
Mr
Rutherfoords
principles
1.
We
are
to
separat
from
all
contagious
Worship
,
tho
not
absolutly
corrupt
.
2.
That
this
is
no
separation
from
the
Church
while
there
is
a
purer
Church
&
Ministry
to
be
joyned
with
,
and
to
which
we
were
joynd
.
3.
That
a
fortiori
a
non-union
unto
,
and
disowning
of
a
backsliding
party
,
who
are
not
our
Church
,
is
warrantable
because
of
their
contagious
corruptions
,
especially
when
(
as
is
said
)
the
opposition
of
that
party
to
the
true
Church
is
so
virulent
.
Mr
Rutherfoord
tells
us
there
,
that
we
separat
not
from
the
Church
when
we
profess
to
hear
the
word
,
and
allow
the
truth
of
Doctrine
,
and
do
not
Presbyterian
professors
owne
the
true
Doctrine
of
our
Reformed
Church
,
while
hearing
and
and
adhering
unto
her
faithfull
Pastors
.
Beside
,
Mr
Rutherfoord
tells
us
,
that
there
may
be
cause
of
non-union
where
there
is
not
sufficient
cause
of
separation
,
as
Paul
separat
not
from
the
Jews
till
they
blasphemed
,
yet
,
saith
he
,
there
was
no
cause
why
people
should
joyn
to
that
Church
before
that
time
,
since
they
had
the
cleaner
to
joyn
with
viz.
That
of
the
Apostles
—
Ergo
in
case
of
a
true
Reformed
Church
her
being
divided
,
and
rent
by
a
backsliding
destroying
party
opposing
her
Authority
,
union
and
purity
,
introducing
Innovations
into
her
,
contrary
to
her
Reformation
and
vows
,
and
casting
out
her
faithfull
Ministry
who
dare
not
comply
with
their
wicked
course
,
a
non-union
to
them
and
adherence
rather
to
that
faithfull
Ministry
contending
against
them
,
is
no
sinfull
separation
from
the
Church
,
nor
a
separation
at
all
by
Mr
Rutherfoords
doctrine
.
Sure
the
Presbyterian
party
are
in
our
principles
the
cleanest
Church
,
to
whom
therefore
Mr
Rutherfoords
allows
to
adhere
.
(
page
253.
)
But
here
the
Informer
presents
us
another
passage
in
that
same
place
to
repell
what
is
said
,
viz.
that
he
asserts
[
there
is
no
just
cause
to
leave
a
less
clean
Church
(
if
true
)
and
to
go
to
a
purer
,
though
one
who
is
a
member
of
no
Church
may
joyn
to
that
which
he
conceives
purest
.
]
Ans.
This
makes
as
little
for
him
as
any
of
the
rest
,
for
1.
He
is
still
speaking
of
a
Church
,
thus
intirely
less
pure
,
in
comparison
of
a
more
pure
.
But
blessed
be
God
their
prelatick
impurity
,
has
not
infected
all
our
Church
,
their
being
1000
of
Ministers
&
professors
who
adhere
to
the
truth
.
This
man
will
not
say
that
this
will
plead
for
a
peoples
adherence
to
a
party
of
Schismatick
backsliders
Intruding
upon
a
pure
Church
,
Introducing
Innovations
into
her
,
and
ejecting
her
faithfull
Ministry
as
Conformists
are
now
doing
;
which
will
be
yet
more
convincingly
clear
,
if
we
consider
2.
that
Mr
Rutherfoord
layes
much
weight
upon
this
,
that
a
man
is
already
a
member
of
that
Church
which
is
less
pure
,
but
we
cannot
be
said
to
be
hactenus
members
of
,
and
on
this
ground
under
a
prior
obligation
of
adherence
unto
,
a
party
of
Innovators
and
backsliders
,
who
are
destroying
and
ruining
the
pure
Church
,
but
in
this
case
our
prior
obligation
is
in
order
to
adherence
to
that
pure
Church
and
her
faithfull
Ministry
,
thus
opposed
as
is
said
.
But
now
at
last
our
Informer
who
hath
been
hitherto
silent
as
to
any
inference
from
his
citations
,
drawes
out
a
general
conclusion
from
them
,
that
in
Mr
Rutherfoords
Iudgment
and
the
English
divines
,
neither
the
personal
faults
of
Ministers
,
Nor
real
faults
about
the
Worship
(
much
less
supposed
only
)
will
warrand
a
separation
,
which
when
admitted
lifts
not
his
cause
one
hair
breadth
off
the
dust
,
as
is
clear
from
what
is
said
;
since
he
hath
proved
none
of
these
three
,
either
1.
That
they
are
the
Church
of
Scotland
to
which
we
are
bound
to
adhere
according
to
the
tenour
and
principles
of
our
Reformation
,
nor
2.
That
this
practice
of
disowning
them
in
this
our
case
,
is
a
sinfull
separation
.
Or
3.
that
we
disowne
then
meerly
for
personal
scandals
,
or
some
corruption
in
Worship
.
Whereas
we
have
proved
that
abstracting
from
both
these
,
we
have
ground
of
disowning
them
as
Schismatick
Innovators
destroying
this
Church
;
and
himself
must
grant
that
there
may
be
a
non-union
unto
,
yea
a
separation
from
a
party
ground
lesly
assuming
the
name
of
a
Church
,
though
neither
their
personal
faults
do
pollute
the
worship
,
nor
the
worship
it self
be
simpliciter
disowned
,
or
else
he
must
yeeld
the
cause
when
this
is
pleaded
in
behalf
of
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
for
not
separating
from
them
:
since
it
is
upon
this
ground
,
that
all
along
he
pleads
for
people's
disowning
them
,
though
he
dare
not
say
that
the
ordinances
are
polluted
by
their
supposed
scandals
.
After
this
our
Informer
exhorts
his
Doubter
,
to
try
all
things
—
and
not
to
be
ashamed
to
retract
what
is
amiss
,
as
Augustin
wrote
books
of
retractions
and
Ierom
exhorted
Ruffinus
not
to
be
ashamed
to
confess
an
error
.
Ans.
I
think
indeed
,
we
are
to
search
all
things
by
the
rule
of
the
word
,
and
had
he
with
a
single
heart
and
an
eye
to
the
God
of
truth
,
searched
better
,
he
had
not
obtruded
upon
Gods
people
(
in
defence
of
so
bad
a
cause
)
such
insignificant
arguments
for
demonstrations
.
But
why
exhorted
he
not
his
Doubter
to
hold
fast
what
is
good
,
as
well
as
to
try
all
things
?
It
is
not
fit
to
be
ever
learning
,
and
fixe
in
nothing
.
And
no
doubt
this
latter
part
of
that
scripture
precept
,
justifies
our
opposing
their
Innovations
.
But
he
pleads
for
retractions
,
and
it
s
no
wonder
to
see
men
who
have
Justified
the
casting
aside
such
solemn
Oaths
and
vows
unto
God
,
plead
for
retractions
.
But
if
he
and
his
party
retract
not
such
monstrous
retractions
(
the
very
naming
whereof
would
have
made
Augustin
and
Jerom
astonished
)
the
wo
threatned
against
perjury
,
backsliding
,
&
breach
of
Covenant
is
very
near
them
.
His
concluding
prayer
that
God
bless
us
with
truth
and
peace
,
is
good
,
and
heartily
accorded
,
and
surely
when
our
Jerusalem
shall
have
this
spiritual
prosperity
,
peace
,
and
truth
(
which
this
man
pretends
to
pray
for
)
within
her
walls
,
prelats
and
their
wofull
train
and
corrupt
principles
,
which
have
made
such
sad
breaches
in
her
walls
,
will
be
without
them
.
And
the
prosperity
of
such
as
love
her
,
will
ruine
her
enemies
.
His
Doubters
Resolution
[
to
hold
fast
what
is
good
upon
the
proof
of
all
things
]
makes
up
his
lame
advice
.
And
having
thus
fortifyd
the
Knowledge
of
the
serious
Doubter
in
that
which
this
man
hath
been
misinforming
him
about
,
and
antidoted
this
poyson
,
we
pray
that
all
the
sincere
enquirers
for
truth
,
may
hold
it
fast
against
the
times
errors
and
defection
.
The
character
of
schism
presented
to
us
at
the
close
of
the
pamphlet
,
is
verifyed
in
the
party
he
pleads
for
:
since
their
proud
usurpation
of
the
name
and
authority
of
this
Church
,
after
they
have
thus
rent
and
separat
from
her
,
demonstrats
this
their
schism
to
be
superbiaeproles
.
And
in
their
taking
up
such
grosse
unheard
of
principles
anent
Oaths
,
anent
Magistracy
&c.
to
maintain
and
uphold
this
usurping
hierarchy
,
they
are
like
to
fall
under
that
other
branch
of
the
character
of
schism
,
that
male
perseverando
fit
haeresis
.
And
because
of
the
corruptions
which
it
is
like
to
be
more
&
more
productive
of
,
It
may
very
probably
become
also
mater
haereseos
.
The
Lord
awake
for
judgement
,
and
send
a
plentifull
rain
to
water
his
in
heritance
,
and
revive
his
work
in
the
admist
of
the
years
,
and
make
his
face
to
shine
upon
his
sanctuary
in
these
lands
,
which
is
disolat
,
for
his
names
sake
.
CHAP.
VI.
Animadversions
Upon
the
PREFACE
,
And
title
Page
.
HAveing
thus
examined
what
this
new
Casuist
hath
offered
in
these
Dialogues
,
we
shall
here
subjoyn
some
Animadversions
upon
the
Preface
prefixt
to
this
pamplet
(
1.
)
His
profest
design
is
to
let
people
see
the
sin
and
unwarrantableness
of
separation
as
the
Epidimicall
desease
of
the
time
.
Ans.
I
think
indeed
it
is
so
.
and
upon
whose
side
this
separation
lyes
,
and
who
hath
brought
in
this
flood
as
he
calls
it
,
not
since
78
but
62
I
hope
may
be
now
no
doubt
to
the
impartiall
discerner
.
It
s
no
strange
thing
to
see
men
charge
upon
others
,
that
whereof
themselves
are
so
eminently
guilty
,
Papists
call
themselves
the
only
Catholicks
and
charge
Protestant
Churches
with
separation
,
just
as
this
man
and
his
Innovating
party
deal
with
us
,
they
only
must
be
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
and
we
the
Schismaticks
,
though
not
many
years
agoe
it
would
have
been
thought
(
I
beleeve
by
many
of
these
men
themselves
)
as
strange
a●…e
absurditie
and
paradox
,
to
term
such
a
party
owning
such
principles
and
practices
as
they
now
doe
,
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
as
to
affirm
that
nihil
was
aliquid
,
non
ens
,
ens
,
or
that
Zenith
was
in
the
situation
and
place
of
Nadir
:
such
ane
intoxicating
thing
is
backsliding
and
sinfull
self
love
.
2.
He
praises
Magistrats
in
the
bounds
where
he
is
,
whose
authority
together
with
his
mightie
convictions
(
forsooth
)
brought
back
people
who
went
once
to
hear
Presbyterian
Ministers
out
of
noveltie
.
Ans
,
●…s
no
small
peice
of
our
sin
and
desolation
that
the
Magistrats
sword
given
him
for
protection
of
the
Lords
faithfull
Ambassadours
in
following
theire
duty
,
according
to
there
solemn
vowes
to
God
,
should
be
improven
in
such
a
sinfull
opposition
to
them
.
What
peace
and
order
in
this
Church
hath
attended
their
monstrous
perperjurious
backsliding
,
were
20
years
experience
may
discover
especiallie
to
those
who
have
seen
and
known
the
beautifull
order
of
our
first
glorious
●…temple
,
the
verie
rubbish
,
whereof
is
yet
refreshfull
in
any
remains
of
a
faithfull
Ministrie
that
is
left
.
3.
Against
his
modest
reluctancie
(
forsoo●…h
)
some
of
authoritie
and
learning
among
his
party
thought
it
fitt
that
these
his
Dialogues
should
see
the
light
,
because
schismatick
principles
and
practices
are
not
laid
aside
but
carried
on
and
this
Informer
thou
ht
it
a
mater
of
conscience
to
discover
to
such
as
are
willing
to
be
informed
,
how
unwarrarantable
such
cours●…s
are
,
if
Scripure
and
even
the
Doctrine
of
Presbyterians
may
be
admited
to
judge
.
Ans.
How
he
hath
fastned
this
charge
of
Schismatick
principles
and
practices
upon
Presbyterian
Ministers
and
Professors
,
I
leave
it
to
the
Impartiall
to
Judge
from
what
is
here
replyed
.
And
how
far
any
thing
which
he
hath
affered
either
from
Scripture
,
or
the
principles
of
Presbyterians
,
is
from
reaching
the
conclusion
which
he
aims
at
in
these
trifling
Dialogues
;
which
all
who
are
conscientious
are
(
we
hope
)
shy
this
rejoynder
,
and
a
respect
to
truth
and
dutie
,
sufficiently
antidoted
against
,
and
the
learned
as
well
as
conscientious
may
wonder
at
such
prodigiously
bold
ignorance
.
4.
He
wonders
that
so
many
of
good
note
and
not
of
the
comons
only
are
drinking
in
the
principles
of
Brounists
,
which
have
been
zealously
disputed
against
by
old
nonconformists
.
Ans.
How
h●…
hath
made
good
this
charge
I
refer
it
to
the
persusall
of
what
is
here
replyed
,
and
how
far
the
pleadings
of
these
Non-conformists
whom
he
mentions
are
from
helping
his
cause
.
I
must
here
add
,
that
its
astoninishing
to
find
this
man
pretending
a
principle
of
conscience
for
this
undertaking
,
when
his
conscience
could
not
but
tell
him
,
that
both
upon
the
poynt
of
Episcopacie
,
the
Covenants
,
and
separation
also
,
he
might
have
found
all
and
more
then
he
hath
said
fully
answered
,
and
that
he
pitifully
snakes
away
from
our
arguments
&
dar
not
propose
them
in
there
genuin
strength
.
Nay
he
doth
not
so
much
as
offer
fairly
to
state
the
question
in
any
of
these
three
great
points
which
he
pretends
to
inform
us
about
,
but
confusedly
shuffles
them
up
for
his
own
advantadge
.
And
upon
the
point
of
the
Covenant
obligation
,
he
poorly
followes
the
arguments
of
the
Seasonable
case
,
and
some
hints
from
the
Surveyer
without
so
much
as
offring
any
return
unto
what
the
Apologist
hath
long
since
repelyd
unto
them
.
If
this
was
conscientious
dealing
let
any
Judge
?
and
yet
he
is
not
ashamed
to
tell
the
world
,
that
because
Episcopacie
and
the
covenants
are
by
people
made
the
great
grounds
of
separating
,
therefore
he
premised
his
two
dialogues
concerning
Episcopacie
and
the
Covenants
,
to
shew
what
a
sandy
ground
they
are
for
separation
,
if
prelacie
be
found
at
least
Lawfull
,
and
the
Covenants
in
evry
case
not
obligatorie
,
whereas
he
hath
offered
nothing
either
to
prove
prelacie
lawful
,
or
the
Covenant
not
obligatorie
,
but
what
is
by
severall
of
the
godly
learned
abundantly
answered
and
fully
bafled
,
sevrall
of
which
(
viz.
the
Apollogist
,
and
jus
divinum
Ministery
Anglican
,
he
seems
to
have
had
before
him
in
writeing
these
Dialogues
,
and
yet
nather
doth
he
touch
the
answers
of
the
Apologist
to
his
arguments
anent
the
Covenant
,
nor
dar
he
scan
the
pungent
arguments
of
the
London
Ministers
against
prelacie
,
and
likwise
there
answers
to
sevrall
things
which
he
has
offered
for
it
,
and
particularly
there
learned
Appendix
in
the
poynt
of
Antiquitie
,
which
cuts
the
sinnews
of
all
his
tedious
legend
of
testimonies
,
he
durst
not
medle
with
.
Beside
It
wold
seem
he
hath
seen
Smectymnus
upon
this
subject
,
whose
learned
confutation
of
the
Episcopall
plea
as
well
from
scripture
as
antiquity
he
passes
over
sicco
pede
.
And
as
for
Erastian
prelacie
,
he
offers
not
a
jot
indefence
of
it
,
though
his
conscience
could
tell
him
that
this
is
one
main
poynt
of
our
plea
against
him
.
So
that
suppose
Episcopacie
were
in
its
self
found
Lawfull
,
as
he
sayes
,
yet
if
Erastian
Episcopacie
be
found
unlawfull
,
his
cause
and
pleading
is
lame
and
lost
.
After
this
he
would
amuse
his
reader
with
a
testimonie
of
Zanchie
and
another
of
Blondell
which
parts
the
hoofs
of
his
page
first
as
for
Zanchie
he
cites
a
passage
of
his
Obser:
in
suam
ipsius
confessionem
cap.
25.
aphor:
10.
11.
wherein
he
saves
first
his
faith
is
simply
built
upon
the
word
of
God
,
Next
In
some
measure
upon
the
commun
consent
of
the
antient
Catholick
Church
,
and
that
he
beleeves
what
has
been
defyned
by
holy
fathers
gathered
together
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
—
citra
ullam
Scripturae
contradictionem
that
these
things
are
from
the
Spirit
of
though
not
of
the
same
authoritie
with
Scripture
,
then
he
adds
that
nothing
is
more
certain
from
counsells
Histories
and
writeings
of
the
Fathers
then
these
orders
of
Ministers
of
which
he
has
been
speaking
to
have
been
received
into
the
Church
,
with
her
intire
consent
,
and
what
is
he
to
condemn
what
the
whole
Church
has
aproved
.
I
answer
,
beside
that
he
should
have
set
doun
these
gradus
Ministrorum
which
Zanchius
speaks
of
,
that
his
reader
might
have
known
what
these
degrees
were
,
or
whither
they
were
prelatick
degrees
or
not
,
which
no
doubt
he
would
have
done
had
he
not
found
that
this
would
have
marred
his
intent
,
(
for
which
cause
he
doth
not
so
much
as
offer
to
English
any
part
of
this
or
of
the
ensuing
testimony
)
we
say
,
first
,
that
any
who
knowes
Zanchies
learning
,
and
what
the
voice
of
the
first
and
pure
antiquity
is
,
and
how
far
from
giving
a
testimony
to
the
present
Diocesian
,
much
less
the
Erastian
prelat
,
of
whom
none
can
without
extrem
impudence
assert
that
Zanchie
is
speaking
,
will
esteem
this
perswasion
[
that
the
prelacy
now
existant
with
us
hath
the
universall
consent
of
all
histories
councills
and
fathers
]
to
be
as
far
from
the
thoughts
of
Zanchie
,
as
its
necessary
to
prove
his
poynt
2.
Zanchise
ayes
his
faith
simply
and
mainly
leans
upon
the
word
of
God
,
and
so
whatever
the
word
is
found
to
condemn
(
as
we
have
proved
it
doth
the
present
prelacie
in
many
respects
)
Zanchie
will
make
no
bones
to
condemn
it
likwise
,
own
it
who
will
.
The
next
passage
he
cites
is
of
Blondell
(
Apoll.
pag.
193.
)
who
asserts
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
belongs
absolutly
to
the
government
of
the
Church
—
and
it
s
anext
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
maner
&
order
of
its
government
,
which
the
Church
alwayes
thought
permitted
to
her
arbitrement
;
Nather
must
we
think
every
thing
unlawful
which
humane
custom
of
professors
hath
brought
into
the
use
of
divine
things
—
That
in
such
things
christian
prudence
must
act
its
part
,
that
no
Church
must
be
drawen
into
ane
example
,
that
from
the
generall
precept
〈◊〉
Cor.
14
:
40
▪
the
Church
hath
full
power
to
follow
what
is
more
decent
and
commodious
.
Ans.
1.
We
have
before
cleard
that
with
Blondell
their
diocesian
Prelat
stands
absolutly
condemned
in
scripture
,
and
in
his
principles
is
diametrally
opposit
to
the
divine
Scripture
Bishop
,
which
evidently
concludes
his
condemning
the
present
Episcopacie
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
,
—
much
more
the
Erastian
prelat
,
altering
fundamentally
the
government
it self
,
which
he
dar
not
say
that
Blondell
ever
dreamed
of
.
So
that
though
we
should
grant
because
of
this
testimonie
,
that
Blondell
will
befound
to
admitt
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
constant
Moderator
,
which
Its
well
knowen
is
the
outmost
length
he
goes
,
and
that
the
Churches
example
and
practice
here
anent
may
be
variable
,
it
falls
utterly
short
of
reaching
the
lest
patrociny
to
his
cause
.
2.
he
cites
1
Cor
14.
40.
anent
alterable
circumstances
of
order
and
decency
,
about
which
the
Churches
exercise
of
Christian
prudence
is
convérsant
,
so
that
he
must
understand
what
he
pleads
for
to
be
of
that
nature
,
but
we
have
shewed
upon
the
first
Dialogue
how
far
its
contrary
to
Scripture
&
reason
to
include
a
diocesian
Bishop
or
Arch
bishop
within
the
compass
of
decencie
and
order
there
commanded
,
since
decencie
and
order
points
only
at
circumstances
of
actions
already
commanded
and
circumstances
commun
to
civil
and
sacred
things
.
And
this
according
to
the
generall
rules
of
the
word
,
so
that
none
can
think
Blondell
so
sottish
as
to
take
in
among
these
,
the
Diocesian
or
Erastian
Bishop
and
Arch-Bishop
.
3.
Since
the
profest
scope
of
Blondells
learned
Appology
is
to
plead
for
sententia
Hieronomi
—
which
is
that
in
Apostolick
times
communi
concilio
presbyterorum
Ecelesiae
gubernabantur
,
surely
whatever
Blondell
may
admitt
as
to
the
Churches
libertie
in
relation
to
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
yet
the
admission
of
the
diocesian
prelate
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
(
which
this
man
pleads
for
)
and
much
more
the
Erastian
prelate
,
would
evert
both
his
hypothesis
and
scope
.
Again
,
he
dare
not
deny
that
with
Blondell
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
the
Ministeriall
scripturall
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Presbyterat
,
so
that
what
he
calls
the
modus
rei
cannot
in
its
self
,
(
and
consequently
in
Blondells
meaning
)
be
supposed
such
a
modus
rei
as
destroyes
the
thing
it self
,
&
the
subject
which
it
affects
,
as
certainly
by
the
Diocesian
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
much
more
the
Erastian
,
doth
the
very
substantialls
of
Presbyters
divine
power
,
which
this
learned
author
is
in
that
piece
pleading
for
.
And
in
a
word
I
dare
pose
this
Informer
,
whither
Blondell
would
not
have
thought
a
national
Churches
liberty
in
this
point
of
Custome
or
alterable
circumstances
of
decencie
and
order
(
even
tho
we
should
grant
that
he
puts
Episcopacy
among
these
)
is
tyed
up
and
restrained
,
by
sacred
solemn
Oaths
and
vowes
universally
taken
on
against
the
same
;
so
that
his
cause
is
never
a
whit
bettered
by
these
blind
Testimonies
which
(
as
is
said
)
he
he
durst
not
translate
,
as
he
professeth
to
doe
in
the
rest
of
his
citations
,
for
the
advantage
of
the
unlearned
.
The
assertion
after
subjovned
by
him
viz.
that
the
unlawfulness
of
Episcopacie
was
questioned
by
none
of
the
ancients
except
Aerius
,
and
rarely
by
any
of
the
modern
except
some
of
our
British
divines
,
that
antient
and
modern
divines
think
that
prelacie
was
the
primitive
Government
left
by
the
Apostles
]
we
have
proved
to
be
a
manifest
untruth
.
Specially
when
applyed
to
the
prelacy
existant
with
us
;
and
that
it
is
the
consentient
judgment
of
the
far
greatest
part
,
both
of
ancient
and
modern
that
there
is
no
difference
jure
divino
betwixt
a
Bishop
and
Presbyter
.
And
that
our
Prelats
now
in
Scotland
are
as
far
different
from
the
antient
Bishops
as
east
from
West
,
so
that
no
patrocinie
can
be
drawen
from
the
one
to
the
other
.
That
Blondell
professes
to
vindicat
Jerom
from
that
which
he
calls
Aerianism
,
who
will
believe
,
taking
Aerius
opinion
to
be
for
the
premised
Identitie
of
Bishop
and
Presbyter
;
since
we
have
made
it
appear
by
Testimonies
of
the
learned
,
that
both
Greek
and
Latine
Fathers
held
this
same
opinion
with
Aerius
.
How
he
hath
proved
Episcopacie
[
to
be
the
Government
which
hath
best
warrand
in
the
word
,
and
hath
continued
without
interruption
for
many
years
]
we
refer
it
to
the
reader
to
judge
by
what
is
above
replyed
,
wherein
we
have
made
it
appear
,
that
as
his
pretended
Scripture
proofs
for
prelacy
,
and
his
answers
to
our
Arguments
against
it
,
are
most
frivolous
,
so
none
of
his
pretended
Testimonies
from
antiquitie
doe
reach
his
conclusion
,
nor
any
shadow
of
a
patrocinie
for
our
present
Prelat
now
established
,
whom
we
have
fully
disproved
from
Scripture
,
both
in
his
diocesian
and
Erastian
mould
.
What
poor
shaddowes
for
proofs
doth
this
man
grasp
at
Blondell
thought
the
Scripture
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
lawful
,
and
its
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
belong
to
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
good
order
.
Ergo
,
he
pleaded
for
the
Diocesian
Bishop
with
sole
power
of
ordination
and
Jurisdiction
,
and
a
Bishop
deriving
all
his
power
from
the
civil
Magistrat
as
immediatly
subject
unto
him
,
which
is
a
very
antilogical
proof
and
a
meer
rop
of
sand
.
Lastly
he
mainly
commends
to
his
reader
this
Dialogue
anent
separation
[
wherein
he
sayes
all
the
reasons
brought
for
it
are
propounded
and
answered
without
passion
which
doth
but
alienat
the
minds
.
Ans.
How
poorly
this
man
hath
answered
the
true
grounds
of
disowning
conformists
,
or
rather
past
them
over
,
and
how
pityfully
he
all
along
begs
the
question
in
supposing
what
he
hath
to
prove
,
we
hope
is
made
sufficiently
appear
to
the
Judicious
and
impartiall
.
As
for
passion
,
its
true
there
is
less
of
this
in
his
Pamphlet
then
in
some
other
of
this
stamp
which
his
fellowes
have
flung
out
among
the
people
,
yet
he
hath
his
signal
flashes
of
it
[
in
Iustifying
Dr
Burnets
parallel
of
nonconformists
with
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
and
in
calling
them
as
great
and
causeless
Schismaticks
as
ever
the
Church
had
in
any
age
,
nay
in
his
grosse
malitious
reflecting
upon
the
sufferings
of
poor
Innocents
in
this
land
,
telling
us
under
the
covert
of
Cyprians
words
[
that
their
in
expiable
sin
of
discord
is
not
purged
by
their
sufferings
—
that
forsaking
Christs
Church
,
they
cannot
be
martyres
nor
reign
with
him
,
]
which
,
with
what
a
tincture
of
malice
it
presents
its
self
,
let
any
judge
.
His
conferences
he
sayes
do
bring
water
to
quenchour
flames
,
but
they
bring
rather
fewel
to
the
fire
,
and
wood
and
hay
to
uphold
Babell
.
The
Rabbies
whom
he
pleads
for
have
kindled
our
flames
,
and
the
best
way
to
quench
them
Is
to
put
these
incendiaries
to
the
door
.
Next
he
cites
the
preface
of
the
Syntag.
Confess
.
edit
.
Genev.
[
wherin
the
Church
of
Scotland
is
commended
for
her
unity
as
well
as
purity
of
Doctrine
,
and
then
he
cryes
out
O
how
have
we
lost
our
good
name
,
and
the
staff
of
bonds
is
broken
in
the
midst
of
us
]
but
he
should
have
been
so
ingenuous
as
to
have
told
us
that
we
are
in
the
preface
of
that
Syntagma
commended
for
our
reformed
Presbyterian
discipline
as
the
great
bond
and
cement
of
our
unity
,
and
the
guard
of
our
pure
doctrine
,
and
who
have
broken
this
bond
and
sacred
hedge
I
need
not
tell
him
,
and
what
hath
been
the
distress
,
confusion
and
desolation
of
our
Church
since
it
was
broken
,
every
one
now
sees
;
so
that
he
might
lament
the
loss
of
our
good
name
upon
this
ground
,
and
especially
of
our
Integrity
where
he
a
true
son
and
watchmen
of
this
Church
.
The
consequences
of
our
sad
divisions
,
through
the
violence
and
Schismatick
intrusion
of
abjured
perjured
Prelats
and
their
underlings
have
indeed
hazarded
the
standing
of
Christs
Kingdome
among
us
according
to
that
of
Mark
3.
24.
And
the
biting
&
devouring
wolves
,
the
Prelats
for
whom
he
pleads
have
hazarded
the
consuming
of
Gods
poor
remnant
Gal.
5.
19.
Our
Churches
dissolution
&
corruption
,
&
were
he
as
tender
to
prevent
this
,
as
to
preserve
there
worldly
peace
and
sinfull
union
,
he
would
have
seen
Prelacy
to
be
the
Idol
Iealousie
,
the
wedge
driven
by
the
popish
artisans
to
divide
and
break
this
Church
,
and
as
the
true
cause
of
all
our
breaches
to
be
removed
in
order
to
healing
.
The
popish
invasion
doth
indeed
plead
for
union
of
the
true
Prorestant
Church
and
interest
against
them
,
and
consequently
to
hold
out
and
oppose
such
arrant
upholders
and
promoters
of
that
Antichristian
interest
as
Prelats
have
first
and
last
been
found
and
never
more
then
now
,
since
popry
hath
never
more
prevaild
then
since
they
were
established
(
by
the
confession
even
of
our
Rulers
)
and
that
without
control
.
While
they
are
enflaming
the
powers
to
the
out
most
height
of
rage
against
poor
Innocent
nonconfomists
,
so
that
union
with
them
who
are
at
so
palpable
an
union
with
Rome
is
not
the
unity
of
the
spirit
which
is
to
be
keep
in
the
bond
of
Peace
,
and
to
be
ownd
by
any
that
favour
the
Protestant
Interest
.
The
texts
which
he
presents
unto
us
upon
the
frontispeice
of
the
Pamphlet
will
be
found
to
rebound
a
deadly
blow
upon
his
cause
.
For
that
●…assage
Psal.
122.
6.
7.
pray
for
the
peace
of
Ierusalem
&c.
We
also
pray
for
this
peace
,
and
in
order
to
the
obtaining
of
this
suit
,
that
the
Lord
would
make
up
the
breaches
in
her
walls
,
and
remove
the
treacherous
breakers
thereof
,
who
,
we
may
say
again
and
again
that
in
this
they
have
dealt
very
treacherously
,
but
what
peace
with
Conformists
while
their
whoordomsare
so
many
.
The
next
text
is
Psal
133.
1.
behold
how
good
and
pleasant
a
thing
it
is
for
brethren
to
duell
together
in
unitie
.
It
is
so
indeed
and
therefore
woe
unto
them
(
if
they
repent
no●…
)
who
have
broken
this
bond
of
holy
brotherhood
,
have
rent
Aarons
garment
,
corrupted
the
Covenant
of
levi
,
and
do
avowedly
owne
principles
and
wayes
upon
which
hermons
dew
(
heavens
blessing
)
cannot
be
exspected
.
Therefore
this
command
of
Lovely
union
engadges
to
disjoyn
our selves
from
them
.
For
the
next
text
Mark
3.
24.
a
kingdome
divided
against
its
self
cannot
stand
&c.
We
say
,
Gods
Church
hath
stood
amidst
great
divisions
,
is
one
and
intire
in
it
●…f
,
and
will
at
last
be
delivered
from
all
divisions
and
offences
;
and
therefore
upon
the
same
ground
we
are
to
avoid
prelatists
who
have
caused
them
.
For
that
of
heb
10.
25.
anent
not
forsaking
the
Assemblies
,
we
blesse
the
Lord
that
such
as
are
sorroufull
for
our
Churches
true
Assemblies
,
and
to
whom
this
man
and
his
fellowes
reproaches
thereof
are
a
burthen
,
have
had
the
Assemblies
of
Christs
ambassadours
to
attend
,
and
that
the
great
Master
of
Assemblies
hath
not
wholly
left
them
,
but
hath
covered
a
table
in
the
wildernes
in
this
our
Churches
fli●…ht
unto
it
,
to
these
who
with
perill
of
their
life
are
seeking
their
soul
food
because
of
the
sword
of
the
wildernesse
,
drawen
out
by
Assemblies
of
Schismatick
destroying
Intruders
,
from
whom
we
must
depart
,
and
who
have
persecut
us
away
for
adherance
to
our
sworn
Reformation
and
Covenant
with
God
,
which
they
have
dissound
.
The
sentence
next
subjoyned
viz
opinionum
varietas
&
opinantium
unitas
non
sunt
asustata
,
doth
highly
reflect
upon
himself
,
and
the
party
he
pleads
for
,
who
doe
persecut
with
fire
and
sword
all
who
differ
in
judgement
from
them
in
these
things
which
they
aknowledge
but
tricae
&
maters
indifferent
,
so
that
in
this
they
are
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
For
us
,
we
are
chased
out
from
them
,
and
can
be
admitted
to
no
union
with
them
except
we
unit
in
there
sin
,
which
throw
grace
we
are
fixtly
resolved
against
.
His
design
[
to
quiet
peoples
minds
,
and
setle
them
in
more
peace
and
unitie
]
is
of
it self
to
good
to
be
presented
as
a
porch
here
to
such
a
shattered
pasquill
,
and
to
be
pretended
to
so
bad
a
cause
&
in
this
place
may
be
not
unsuitably
assimilated
to
Solomons
ring
of
gold
in
a
swines
snout
.
No
doubt
solid
peace
and
unitie
is
only
to
be
found
in
Gods
way
,
in
keeping
his
Covenant
and
owning
his
Messengers
of
peace
(
whose
feet
have
been
beautiful
even
on
these
reproached
mountains
&
other
places
where
Gods
people
assembled
,
since
they
have
his
call
and
seal
to
preach
the
gospell
)
and
not
in
following
the
foxes
in
a
way
of
perjurie
and
breach
of
Covenant
as
this
pamphleter
would
perswad
.
FINIS
.