^LO % ^ ■^ f/i V** J scs *''* TRACTS.— I. Bagshaw (Edward. Student Jh~0%Ji ^ of Christ Church). The Great Question con- cerning things, indifferent in Religious /D- ir**4v Worship, briefly stated, and the necessity and use of Heresies. In three Parts. 166U- 1662. — II.'HONYMAN (ANDREW, Bishop of Orkney) , The Seasonable Case of Sub- mission to the Church-Government, as now re-established by Law, stated and determined 1662. — III. A Two Discourses of the Religion of England, asserting that reformed Christianity settled in its due latitude is the stability of this Kingdom 1667-1668.— IV. „ Bontman (Andrew, Bishop of Orkney). A Survey of the Inso- lent and Infamous Libel, entitled " Naph- tali," &c. Two Parts, 1668-1669, in one vol. sm. 4to, calf. 9s. 6d. 1660-69 : : . - l~ rrJL4*~* Qu~itL +nt« <* 9 *k . ^1 lyyrv*° * ' c/ I ' • The feafonablc C AS E of Submission to the Church-government? As no if re-eilabli&cd by Lavr,briefly ftatedand determined : By a Lover of the peace of this CHURCH and KINGDOM. i Sam. Chap. 15. 22, gchold , ta obq is better then facrificc> Confcjf.Suec, Cap. 14. Civilibus legibus , qua cum pietate nonpugwnt, eb qui [que Chrifiianus paret prom pins, quo fide Chrifiieft imbutus plenius. - _, _ _ — -, 'PHbli/btd bj Order. EDINBURGH, printed by Evan Tyler, Printer to the Kings moft Excellent Majefty, 1662. : I ()7 The Cafe anentfnbmifsion to the prefent Church -government, re-ejlabltjhed by Lawjlatedand conjidered. He exceeding great bitternefs of che conti- nued and increafing fad difiraclions amongft the people of God, to the hindrance 6t tfiehl edification in faith and a godly life, with charity and peace amongft therafelves,fhould put all the Minifters of Chrift to moft fe- rious thoughts, in confidering how far they may, under the prefent difpenfations of God,without (^accom- modate in following unqueftionable duties, with, and under, the eftabliihed Government of the Church. And although, as to a cordial allowance of the prefent change, they cannot yet at- tain,fomcibing rcmiining,whether of fcruple or affection, which maketh it unpkafing, and their concurrence with it, to ly heavy upon their fpirits ; yet, if there be found no manifeft tranfgref- fion in concurring under the fame, in matters of unqueftionable duty , they would wifely put difference between gtavaminffi- ritta and iig*yxencon[ci?ntia, fomcthing in the will that rend- reth them uverfe, and the prevailing clear light of a well-inform - ed confeience, (to which, how uneafie it is to attain in this point of controverfie, they can tell who have truly try 4 d it ) binding them up from concurrence, as a thing in it fcif unlawful!. Men,who walk in the fear of God, and arc zealous of His honour, had need to be very jealous of their own zeal, that it carry them not to the rejecting of a real duty, which (to their apprehenfion) fits too near a fin: Minifters, whom fober-mindednefs doth greatly become, would look to hi, that the cenfure of a grave Di- vine upon the fpirits of our countrey-men ( fr&fervidum Sco- torttmingeniHw) do not too much touch them. It is their A a duty (A) duty to advert, left, at this time, too great animofity contribute to the laying of the foundation of a wofull divifion , to be en- tailed to the generations to come- the evil whereof wi II pre- ponder all the good that any one form of Church -government can, ofit felf, produce, viz* the diftionour of God, the weake- ning of the caufe of the true proteftant Religion, againft the common adverfaries thereof; the deftroying of true charity and love amongft the people of God, the hinderance of their profit- ing under the feveral Miniftries they live under, and the creating continual confusions and diffractions in the Common- wealth ( the ordinary fruit of fchifm in the Church ) a* too lament- able experience ( whereof we carry the fad marks to this day ) hath taught us. i. That there may,and ought to be, a brotherly accommoda- tion and concurrence in matters of practice, which are undoubted duty, (albeit Brethren be of different judgments anent the con- ftitution of Meetings, or capacity of perfons that ad in thefe du- ties ) grave and learned men have put it out of queftion. It is well known , that in the Aflembly of Divines at /^^accom- modation was mainly laboured for (and far carried on) between 'Presbyterians and Independents , that they might concur in common Adings for regulating the Church , with a rcferve of liberty of their own feveral principles. The Independents thought the Presbyterians had no judicial Authority in thefe Meetings. The Presbyterians , though accounting this an er- rour, yet, were willing, in common unqueftionable duties, to concur with them. Alfo, feveral of the moft eminent Presby- terians in England^ as Mr. Finer 9 Mr. Baxter and others, ac- counting of un- preaching Elders, as of an humane device f a& now the Office of a Bifhop is accounted of by many Brethren ) Yer, not being able to attain to the exercife of .presbyterial Go- vernment, without the intermixture of thefe; yea, of them, double the number to preaching Presbyters in each Meeting, ( which gave them an overfwaying power in the Government ) notwithstanding they did concur with them in matters of m> queftionable duty. Is it not alfo well known, that amongft our felves in this Church , Brethren did ordinarily concur in Synods and Presbyteries , in doing their duties with thefe whom they charged charged with a finfall fchifrae ? ( a thing as much sgainft the Covenant, as that which is now pretended for withdrawing from the Meetings of Synods and Presbyteries. ) And when Brethren, thus charged, did withdraw their concurrence in forne duties, by fcveral pa{TigesinthatPaper,entituled, A Reprfftx* tation of the rife , frogrefs and flate of the Divisions in the Church' of Scotland, how that practice of theirs was conftrucled of, pag. 21. it is affirmed that they homologate with the tenet and practice of Separatifme , denying the lawfulnefs of concur- rence in a lawfull neceflary duty , becaufe of the per Tonal fin of fello.v-a&orsin it. And, pag. 28. fpeaking of their refufirg to own the Judicatories as lawfull, becaufe the men whom they judged to be in a courfe of defection ( the Commiflioners of the Church they meant) were admitted to (it there , it is faid by the Reprefenter , that it is a principle that drawcth very deep : for, (faith he J by parity of reafon, they muft not joyn with any inferiour Judicatories where they are, nor in any Lawful act of Religion or Worfhip, more then in an Aflembly. May not much of thisbcapplyed to tbeprefent Withdrawers From concurrence in necefory duties ? AfntAf nomine^ Ac te, &c. It will be faid, there is a great difparity between thofe Comreifli- oners and the Bifhops, who are looked on as new unwarranted Officers in the Church ,* and therefore, albeit there may be now reafon for withdrawing from Meetings where they are, there wis no reafon for withdrawing from Aflemblies where thefe Commiflioners fate. But, (not to divert to a difpute here, whether the Office of a Bifhopbe new, or unwarrantable, or lefle warrantable then the Office of thefe Commiflioners, which wife men looked upon as very like epifcopal) there is herein a parity, that as thefe now are judged, fo the other were judged by the Excrpters againft them, to be in a courfe of defection, and unlawfully officiating as members of the Aflemhly. And yet, were thefe Quarrelers reproved for withdrawing from the general Aflembly upon that account ? Shculd net that reproof be taken home in the prefent cafe, by fuch as withdraw from Meetings of the Chruch ? why (hould there be divers weights, and divers meafures ufed in fuch parity of cafes ? Again, it is aflcrted, (pag. $7.) to be a divifivc principle* that rr.en will net coqciu to concur in fowfull duties , becaufe thefe, with whom they joyn, will not come up to their judgment in all other things : XJttd.Thcy challenge them for refufing to joyn in an uncontro- verted du?y, bec3ufe the direction to it flowed from the autho- rity of an A tTcmbty, which they could not own : It were good that chefe former principles, were better remembred and ufed in the prefent cafe. Further, the Presbytery of Edi%b!i7gh % in their Paper, printed, 0tf*£. 5. 1 659, (pag. 8. of that Paper) fpttk very foberly, difclaiming it as none of their principles, that no difference of opinion can be fufTered by them. We iti (fay they) clear, that in many things of common practice in a Church, there may be agreement by accommodatioo,though differences of judgment remain, &c. Again, fay they, we readily yield, that, as we prophefie but in part, men in a Church tnay compofe debates by putting end to contentions, though they be not all of one judgment ; and therein we judge the Apoftle hath fet the rule before uf, 1 Cor. n. 15. A Golden Rule indeed, the practice whereof, in if s juft fenfe, mi^ht bring us much fwect peace. But, not to infill upon the judgments of learned men concerning ~thc Cafe of fubmifiion to , and acting in duties, with Meetings anent the constitution whereof, or mem- ber$,theLe may be fome difference in judgmenf.If we will hearken to a man, greatly learn'd, and known to be no great friend to Billiops, we (hall hear him perfwading to obedience and fub- mifiion to them in things lawful. Theodore Beza, being writ- ten to by foroe Minifters in England, who excepted againft feme cuftomes in the difcipline and order of that Church (their controveifie had not then rifen fo high, as to (hike at the Office of Biiliopsjonly forne cuftoms in difcipline and ceremonies in ex- ternal order, were moft flood upon.) He, (Beza Epift.i 2.) though diiliking thefe things ; yet, plainly arerres to them,that thefe cu- ftomes are not ttmi momcnri % a? that for thefe they fhould leave their minirtry>and by deferting their Churches,give advantage to Sathan, who feeketh occafion to bring in greater and more dan- gerous evils 4 He wifheth them there to bear what they cannot amend, to beware of all bitternefs : And albeit they could not come to be of the fame mind with others ; yet , with a godly concord to refift Sathan, who feeketh all occafions of tumults and f 7 > and infinic calamsties.~ And he doth moil gravely obtefr the Minifters (with tears, as he faith) Vt Regit M*fft*t*,& om- nibus Pr&julibtts juii ex animo cbfeqvantur. Be*.* pleads for hearty obedience (in things lawful) to the Bdiops, of whom hcfpeakshcnKwrably in that Epiftle { not hinting at the onlaw- fulnefs of their Office,nor offering to perfwade the Minifters to do againft their Office: Sant maximiviri (faith he) quiftn- gfilariT>eiOpt. Max bentficio papifiicis Epifcopisfeccefle- re i He accounts not them nor their Office popifh ; but faith, By the Jin gal ar. morcy of the mqft great and gwd G ^ the j have [uccecded the p§pifi &ijbops t et come in their ■ -place* even as , by the fingular mercy of God, protectant Minifters have come in the place and room of popifh Priefts. And how well he efteems < f the Officcand of the men in the Office fine- ly abating fcrnewhat of his pereraptorinefs in the heat of difputQ with fome , as he had caufe ) may appear not only byi what he faith in that Epiftle, exborrefcim. %%i commeadbg Grindals Chriflian patience and lenity, added), Major i pofthac ptna digni e runt qui authnitattm tuam <*/-» pernabuntxr, doling his Epiftle, Dsufte cuftodiat, &intant* eommiffo tibi munere fAhtlo fuo fpiritu regat, & mag\s as ntgisconfirmet. Ana in his 58. EpiftLe> to that fame Bifhop, he faith, 'Dominusteiftic fat London) (peculatorem &)udi- cent canflituit. By aSi which, it may appear, that it would have been far from Beza's mind, that Minifters fhould give no obedience to Bifhops eftabiifhed by the Laws of a Kingdom, not fo much a; in things undoubtedly lawful, or that they fhculd have refuf'd concurrence with Biihops in ordering the Church, and acting in unqueftionable duties. 3. The prefent Queftion,conccrns the cafe and carriage of two kind of Minifters. 1. Some refufe to come to Synods (although called by the KingsMajefties command,(ignified by His moft ho- nourable privic Council) where Bifhops do preftde. They refufe alio to come to Presbyteries, whereaModerator,preteriding no more power then sny cf tliemfelves , prefides , being nominated by the Bifliop in the Synod, to continue till the next fleeting of the Synod. Such Such Meetings they withdraw from ; albeit nothing be required of them, but to ad in uriCjucftionable duties, foe regulatiflg the Church, and fupprefting, according to theic power, otfinfuldiforder ,• albeit there be no impofition upon their judgments, nor fubfeription required , nor declaration that they allow any thing they count amifs in the conftitution of thefe Meetings, or aoy confticuent members thereof j Yea, where it might be permitted to them (if thty intreatcd for this) to eafe their confeieoceby figoifying their fcruples (which they cannot overcome) anent the confticution of thefe Meetings , or anent the members thereof, fo be they would do this with that inoffenfivc modefty , humility and refpect to the fupremc Au- thority and the Laws of the Land, and tofuch Meetings and the members thereof, that becomes; and after that, to con- cur in thcic undoubted duties : Concerning fuch Minifters, the queftion is, whether they may and ought to concur with fuch Meetings of their Brethren, in carrying on their undoubted duties? or, if it be unlawful fo to do? 2. The other rank of Minifters are thefe , who, falling within the coropaffe of the Ad of Council at Glafgow, and of Parliament whereto it relates, do rather choofe to part with their Miniftry then to feek a Prefentation from the Patron, and Collation thereupon from the Bifhop ; yea, who will quit their Miniftry, rather then that they will once come in terms of treating wi:h a Bifhop, to try upon what conditions they may have the liberty to enjoy their Miniftry, and to ferve God therein for the good and falvation of his people. 3. As to the cafe of Brethren of the former fort, feveral things are worthy their mod ferious confederation, which may render them fomewbat jealous of the uowarrantablenefs of their prefent way. 1 . Hath not the Supreme Magiftratc (even accor- ding to their own principles) an undoubted power to convo- cate Synods when he fees it needfull ? Never were there any proteftant Minifters ( no nor chriftian Minifters) before this time, who, being convocated to a Syood or Church-meeting by the Soveraign Chriftian Magiftrate, did refufe te come at his command ; Nor is there any rank or degree of Subjects that cant without the ftain of finfal difobcdience, refufe to meet upon w upon His Majeftiei command ; and Miniftcrt cannot plead exemption from the common duties of Subjects. a. Brethren would confider, whether it would prove a fufficient ground to juftifie their not-coming to the Synod upon His Ma jetties com- mand by His Council, becaufe that command to come to the Synod, is joyned with another, commanding to concur duti- fully, &c And the command to come, is only io^rder to the required concurrence, which they cannot give, as they fay. Is this rational, that where two commands of the Magiftrate are joyn'd, the one undoubtedly lawful to be obeyed, the other doubted of, that Subjects (hould difobey theMagiftiateia that which is clearly lawfull, becaufe they have a doubt or un- clearnefs anent obeying him in the other command? Dothic not become Subjects to go as far on in obedience to lawfull Authority, as they fee they may without fin againft God ? Then it is time to flop wheQ any thing is put to them by vertue of the Kings Command, which they clearly fee they cannot do without fin. Had they come to the place, it would, fro tanto y have (hewed their refped: to Authority, albeit they had humbly declared themfelves bound up from acting by their doubts. And yet, it may be, they will in end find, that they might lawfully have concurred in unqucftionable duty, that there was no ground to refufethis ; and that they might have fufticiently falved their Confciencc by ahumblefignificationof their fcruple, as was faid , and yet not refufed to concur in undoubted duties, for the perfona! fault (as they apprehend) of any member of the Atfembly. 3. Whatgrcund could they have for feparation from the Synod? Is it the want of liberty to choofe a Moderator ? Or, Is it that he that prefides, is a Bifftop, and claims more power then they can allow/ more then they think is due,as of a negative voice? Or, Isit the want of un- preaching Elders in the Meeting > As to the, 1 . Are they able to fticw that every ecclefiaftical Meeting or Judicatory, hath, by a dvine fcriptural Rights priviledge to choofe their own Mode- rator > Where is there any Precept for this ? or any example of fuch election in Scripture ? If all Meetings of ecdefiaftical Judicatories have this priviledge, then alfo their Seflions (where they take open them to be cofiftant Moderators) have B this Baxter^ and many others look upon thefe as an humane device (and their reafons moving them, are weighty.,) But let them be as they arc imagined by the Brethren 5 yet, can the removal of thefe, with- B % out out their fault, tender it unlawful for them to concur in a" Synod of Minifters where thefe are not ? Can the abfence, or removal of thefc (fuppofed) Church-officers,render a Synod of M.nifters, with their Prelidcnt, unlawful and not to be joyned with ? becaufe other men are debarred from their duty (they are fuppofed to have right to ) (ball we run from our duty* cf pccially this being done without our fault ? A fourth thing the Brethren would confider anent their refu- sal to concur ia Synods and Presbyteries, before it was hinted ati and it is this. They have, for many years, concurred in doing common duties in Presbyteries and Synods, with thefe* whom they looked upon as fixing a (inftri fchifme (as the other, they charged them with apoftafic from former principles ) yet, with thefe they concurred in common duties, fo far as they could get their concurrence, and complained or their feparating way when they refufed. And were they not bound againft- fihifmand the makers of it, by the Covenant and Word of God too, as againft any thing elfe that is now made the pre* tence of feparation from the Judicatories ? Fifthly, Brethren would confider, if in this their prefent practice, they do not fall fhort of the moderation and wifdom of their worthy Aoceftors, with whom they pretend to be of of the fame judgment, whochoofed rather to concur with fuck Meetings as thefe (though not fatisfied with their conftitution) in governing the Church, and doing unqueftionable duties, then altogether to defert them, or makeafchimcandruin the peace of the Church. Some fay to this, they were but men, and erred in fo doing ; but thry are not angels that fay fo, nor without danger of erring; they were menofconfcienccand learning, and more unlike to have erred in this their way, then thefe who fay they erred and prove rt not- Some alledge * difparity between the cafe of Minifters then and now, upon the account of clearer engagements igainft Epifcopacy by Minifters now, then by them who lived in thefe times, and upon the account of the (landing of Synods at the time when Bifhops were brought in upon them, in our Anccftors dayes ; whereas now they were not ftanding, when Bifhops are brought in but raUed, and fit now as holding and depending upon Epifcopacy ^ It (n) It fhall not be denyed there is fome difparity zhd difference be- tween the cafe of Minifters now and then, fimile xoneft idem* but any difference that is obferved , is impertinent and not ma- terial to this purpofe , to make the concurrence in tbefe Sy- nods now, to be uniawfull, which was to our Anceftors lawful! * Tor, as to the former ground of difparity, it is certain, Minifters then accounted themfelvcs as really bound agamft the allowance of epifcopal Government , both by the Covenant and by the Word of Godi as any do judge themfelves engaged againft it by late Bonds .* whether they did miftake in this or nor, we fay nothing; but, that they did fo judge^it is out of queftion; and yet, they thought their practice, in concurring in all lawfull matters in Synods and Presbyteries, confident enough with their judgment, touching Epifcopacy and their Bonds againu *-. And as to the latter of thefe difterences,it can be nothing material* as thereniring concurrence with Synods aad Presbyteries now, uniawfull, which then might be lawfull : For, the Meetings now and then are of the fame conftitution , nothing altered. Nor is there any thing in thefe Meetings to affright from concurrence in them now, more then at that time ; nor any more holding of, or dependency on Bilhops now, when the King's Ma jefty hath taken off the reftraint which for a time He put on , then if He had not at all retrained them , neither any more then was of thefe Synods and Presbyteries,which of old did fit when B'fhops were brought in upon them. Neither is it likely, thatMini- fters,who now refufe concurrence, would have given ir,had their Judicatories not been reftrained from meeting. This fecms a very bare pretext. Sixthly, Brethren would confider well, if in rcfufing to con- cur with their Brethren in undoubted duties ( where they may falve their confeiences by humble , modeft exprefling what they judge amifs ) they do not run themfelves either upon the rock of ecclefiaftical Independency, in their feveral Congregations, in adminiftration of Difcipline, ( if they mind to have any Disci- pline at all ) or, to combine in clandeftine Presbyteries of their own, which they may confider how either it fhajl be taken b$ thechriftian Magiftrate, or how it fhall rellifh of that fpirit of unity 'and love that (hould he amongft Chrift's Minifters ; and where-- tvhereaway in end this principle of diviffon from their Brethren, 1 in unqueftioned duties, may lead them; whether to divide al- fo from their Brethren in the worfliip of God , tnd to teach people fo to do , ( fomewhat of this is already feen ) and to endeavour the fixing of a perpetual fchifme, the* feeds whereof are fown with too much animofity. 4. Nowcomcthtobeconfidered, the cafe of fuch Brethren of the Mimftry as choofe rather to quit their Miniftry then once come in termes with thefe, upon whom the law hath fettled a power, to order them in the exercifc of the fame. Ic would be rr.oft ferioufly thought of, whether it be right, that any Mi- niftersof Chrift (hould fee their Miniftry, the fervice of God, the benefit which the Lord's people might have by their good gifts, ■ to fay nothing of the intereftof their families) atfo lo'Va rare, as not to have ufed all lawfull means ( trying at leaft upon what termes they might enjoy their MfniftryJ before they had fallen upon that extremity to deferc it. If any man will fay, it is no lawfull mean to fpeak with aBfhopm that matter, though ic might tend to his continuance in the Miniftry ("and perhaps might be , in feme meafure , difappointed in his fears) he had need to examine well, whether conceit or con- science tulethnv ft there ; and to think of ic, howhecan juftify the deferring of his Mlniftry , without the utmoft eflay to hold it* Itmuftbc confeffed, that it is a new and rare Cafe, that men will rather embrace fuffering then once fpeak one word to perform intruded with power, by the Law of the Land, (what* ever they be) to try at them, upon what termes they might be permitted to preach the Gofpel. The comfort ( it is to be feared ) of fuffering , upon fuch an account , will not run very clear. Bur, it will be faid,the thing that is ftuck at, is the ca- nonical Oath, enjoyned by Law, and which the Bifliops will re- quire : this, fome fay , they cannot cake , conceiving it contra- dictory tD the Covenant and to the Word of God. But, 1. Such as have not fo much as come in termes with the Bifhops , and of whom that Oath, or Promife, hath not been particularly re* quiredjfeem to leap too foon to fufteriflg,before it come to them- and before they had- tryed , iF poflibJy there might have been relevant grounds for difpecfing with the Law towardf them. Had Had they been perfonalfy put to take that Oath ; and if fo,there could be no difp?nfiog with them, nor they able to digeft thic Oath , then they had more clearnefs in their undergoing fuifer- ing. *• As to'contradidion to the Covenant , if Timorous ( pag. 37.) may be believed (and he feems tender in the matrer of others,) there is no contradiction between the canonical Oath and the Covenant ; he maintains , that the Minifters, who of old took the canonical Onh, did not fwear the contradictory thereto when they took the Covenant : whence it will follow neceflarily , that they who have taken the Covenant do not con- tradict that Oath, if they {liould take the Oath of canonical Obedience : and indeed k will be bard to find out a contra- diction, either in termes, or by neceflfaryconfequence. Bur, if the obligation of the Covenant, as to that fecond article, (ball be found to ceafe, (whereof afterward) the lawfulnefs of the other Oith will be clearer. 3. It would be confidered , that the Reveread Perfons, intruded by Law to call for that Promife from Mimfters , do not fearch into mens apprehenfions concern- ing the grounds of their power; all they fcek, is obedience to them in things lawful! and honeft , as being prefently in power, being,by Law , ordinary Orerfeers of the Miniftry in their du- ties , and chief Ordainers of them who enter into the Miniftry. But,it is faid, where obedience is promifed, there is an acknow- ledgment of the lawfulnefs of their PowerPC rnce and Authority; becaufe , obedience formally cannot be but to a lawfull Autho- rity : therefore, he that in his confeience thinketh aBifhops Oifice unlawful! , cannot fo much as promife obedience to him in things lawfull and honeft , left, by his taking fuch an Oath, he make himfelf guilty of eftabltfhing that which he accounts unlawful!. But, 1. it is not obedience under a reduplication, and as formally obedience , they call for j if it be obedience ma- terially, Minifters doing their duties in things really lawfull, they are fatisfled. 2. Suppofe it were fo , that obedience, as formally obedience, wer* required ; yet , it were hard to fay , it could not be promifed, or that it could rot be acknowledged, that thry have any lawfull Authority *• for, waving the con- federation of any eccleCaftical Office, wherein they may pretend to be fuperiour to other Mfqifters 5 and giving (but not grant- ing) (i6) ing) that as Church-minifters, their Office and fuperiority were unlawful • yeclocking upon them as the Kings Majcfties Com-, mitfioner s in Caufes ecclefiaftical for regulating the external or- der of the Church in their feveral bounds, and impowred by the la w of the land fo to do (they being alfo Presbyters, and having power with others in Ordination and Jurisdiction ecclefiaftical) it will be hard to fay , that their power is not lawfull , and that obedience is not due to them.- The ftri&eft c Prcsbyterians i will not find ground to difown their Office in that confideration. There are three things mainly, which bear of? Bre- thren of both thefe forts and ranks, from fubmitting to, and concurring in their duties under the prefent Government, i. Their fears of future evils, a. Their prefent thoughts of the unlawfulnefs of the Office of a Bifliop over Presbyters in the Church. 3. Their former Engagements by the bond of the Covenant, which they conceive ftill binds them. As to the firft, their fears $ there can be no fufficient ground in thefe to bear them off from that, which, for the prefent, is found to be their duty : If evils feared, fliould come, and Brethren, in conscience toward God , not able to comply with them, then fuffering might be the more comfortable ; but the gracious providence of God, watching over his Church,the goodnefs and wifdora of our Sovcraign, and of Rulers under h/m(con(iderfng the temper of this Nation) may make all thefe fears vain, and difappoint them j and it is net for us to be too thoughtful, or to torment our felves with fears, before the time. In the mean time, it would be well confidered by Brethren, that bear oft" from concurrence, if they do well in withdrawing their counfels from their Brethren, and in doing that which tendeth to the lofs of their entered in,and refpeel with perfons in prefent Authority ; in regard whereof, they might be exceedingly in- ftrumental to prevent any thing that is feared. 2. As to their thoughts of the unlawfulnefs of the Office of a Bifliop, fome- thing hath been faid of the lawfulncfs of their concurrence in un- queftion'd duties (even upon that fuppofition ) fomething alfo hath been faid of the acknowledgment of the lawfulnefs of their Office, looking upon them as Psesbyters, commiflionatcd by the King, for external ordering of Chureh : affairs in their fere- rail r*H bounds; and of the la wfulnefs of obedience to them, as ia that capacity. It is not the purpofe of this Paper, todifpute much for their Church- capaciry or Rule oyer Presbyters, or anent the Office of Bihops, as an order of Church- minifters. Only as to this, thiee things would be ferioufly pondred by Brethren, i. Where , they are able to find in all Chrifts Tefta- me^t, any precept for meer Presbyters, pre3chirg and un- preaching, in a full equality of power, to rule the Church of Chrift ; to give Ordination to Minifters, to jud^.e in al! contro- versies of Reigion mimfterially, and do ali ads of Govern- ment in the C urcb, or where tbty can fii,d any example of fuch a Presbytery, doing thefe acts without fome fuperiour Oificeraclmg w:th them, or directing them in their actings, or where there is any inhibition (either exprefie, or by ntceflary confequcoce,) that no Gofpel-minifter fhould in any cafe have fuperiority in power over others in Church- affair. 2. Let it be coniulered, if (defending from, the Scripture times) it cart be found in any Writer, who lived in the firft two or three ages after Chrift, or in any Hiftory or Record relating to thefe times (not to fpeak of after-ages) ic can be found, that there was any fuch Church-officer as an unpreaching Elder, joyned in full equality of tower with Pleaching elders in ads of Ordina- tion of Minifters (from which, if they be neceftary parts and members of the Presbytery, they cannot be excluded) and in ali other ads of Jurisdiction ; or, if there be any mention of the names, or power of any fuch perfons. Or, if it an be from thefe Writers found, that there was ever any Ordinatioa of Minifters, or exercife of Jurisdiction eccltfiafticaf by Mini- fters, i.e. by meer Preaching-presbyters, without fome one, ftated Prefident over them, under the name of Biftiop, who was to go before them in thefe actions; and without whom/ no- thing was to be done in thefe. Shall not the practice of that primitive Church, which followed the Apoftles, as it were, at the heels, be moft able to Anew us which way they went, and what was rheir practice ? It is too horrid a thing to imagine, and that .which a modeft Chriftian can hardly down with, rfaat immediatly, after the Apoftles times, the whole -Church of Chrift, fiiould* agree to To fubftaiitialan alteration of the C Government Government of At Church (fuppof'd to be) indicated by Chrift and his Apqftles, as to exclude one fe& of Officers of his appointment, and to take in another not appointed by him : And that it (hould be done (o early, Stetim poft tempora Apo- flolerum % dut corum etUm tempore, faith Mol\n in the proteftant Epifcopacy that is owned , there is no more of the Pope then there is of a Mafs-prieft in a Minifter ; cr of a Con- clave of Cardinal-presbyters in a Commiflion of the Church or a Presbytery. The Epifcopacy that is now, is the very pri- mitive Epifcopacy,which Timor cut defcriving (Ep. 10.4frtf.25.) affirmeth to be, that nothing in Ordination or Jurifdi- ftion be done by Brethren under the BilTiop, without him, and he alone doing nothing without them in thefe , and avowes the fame not to be contrary to the Covenant. The Epifcopacy that now is, is that fame Office for fubftance, which Ignatius had at Antiocb, Polycarp at Smyrna, Cornelias in Rome, Ira* netis at Lyoaj in Fr*nce y Cjpri*n in Carthage^ and many others had in other places before the Nicen Council ; and which Chryfopome, Atigvftine and many others had after : and it fhoujd be our de-fire to God,that our Bifrops ( as they hold the fame Office and Pla,ce, foe fubftance, thefe did) fo they may imir C 2 tatc tiitc their vcrtues and graces; and be notable Inftrurnents for advancing God's glory in their ftations. But, 3. it would be confidered, that the holding of Epifcopacy,as a Government un- lavvfuti and contrary to the Word of God, will caft too great an imputation upon this Reformed Church of Scotland: For, flay- ing afidc the times of war and confufion fincc the year, 1638* wherein , in the midft of the noife of Armes and Armies, there hath been fmall opportunity foraferious free difquifition anent ihcfe matters,) it will be found, that before that year , Epifco- pacy had been for a far longer time owned by this Reformed Church then Presbytery had been : For, until! the year, 1580. Epifcopicy was not abolifhed in Scotland ; the Office of Bi- fhops wa9 really ufed in Scotland till the year, 1 5 80. in which the General Alfembly at Dundee declared it unlawful! : and yet , they could not get their Presbyteries fet up by the Autho* rity of the Land, till twelve years after in the year, 1592. Bur, evident it is, that at the time of making that Ad at Dun* dee , Bithops were in the Land (for fo the Ad: it felf, in the body of it^importsj Forafmucb (fay they) as the Office of 'Si/bop is now ufed in thii Realm , &c. And is clear alfo from their Order they give to procefs the feveral Bifhops, if they lay not down their Oifice, Now , from the time of general Re- formation, from Popery to the time of that Acl of Dundee^ there were full twenty years- (the Reformation being in the year, 1560.) during all which time, the Church of Scotland was governed by fome, fingtilares per/on^ particular perfons in fcveral circuits in the Land j fome under the nams of Super- intendents, Commitfioners or Vifitors of Countries ; fome un- der the name of Bifhops; where popifti Bi(hops embraced the Reformation, they had their power continued, and Commiflion given to them for ordaining Minifters and ufing Jurifdiclion : and when the civil Migiftrate prefented any Orthodox to vacant Bi(hopricks,they were accepted of by the Aflfembly, Edinburgh, At4g*6> 1573* where the Regent , promifing to the Affembfy that qualified perfons fhall be prefented to vacant Bi(hopricks> the Alfembly concludes, that the jurifdi.$ion of Bifliops in their ecc'efiaftical Function > • (hall not exceed the jurifdiclion of Su- perintendent?. And the Superintendent of fatbits , is called by by fahnKnott) at his inftallmg, anno^ 15^0. the PrfJ^oftrn: Churches of Lothian . and thefe,who reprefent that Countrey, promife to give obedience to him as becomes the fheep to their Paftor. It is manifeft then, that for twenty years after the Re- formation, Biftiops, whether under that nan:e, or other names, c:ntinued in Scot/and: and it is remarkable, that our Refor- mers were wifer men then to put a 7 rt sbjt ery in their Creed : For, in theConfeffion rfgiftratcd inParliamenr,4»«v 567. (which "before had been preferred J though they had zeal enough againft all things tbit favoured of popery ; yet , in their Confeflion, there is nothing sgainft Bifhbps, nor for a Presbytery. And, Art 24. the former civil priviledges of the fpiritual State of the Realm are ratified; accordingly, Biftiops did (it in that Parlia- ment: alfo, in the fame Confedion, they fay , not one Policy or Order can be for all Churches and all rimes. But , after the year, 1580. wherein the Office of Biiho ps was abrogated by the Aderr.bly , albeit force provincial Synods were fet up in the place of the outed Bifhops and Superintendents in thefe Pro- vinces ; yer,was there no Presbytery before the year, 1 5 Stf. nor any of thefc Judicatories legally eftabliftied before, 1592. and within eighteen years after that, or twenty j Bifhops are fee up again by the Art of Aflembly , 1610. and ratified in Parlia- ment",: £12. and continued fothefpace of twenty eight years, till the Atfembly at Giafgcrr , 1638. So it may beeafily feen, the Office of a Bifhop is no great Granger to this Church, fince the Reformation of Religion ; but hath been longer owned then Presbytery in times ofpeace : and, modtfty would require, we fhould not be ready to condemn this Refoimed Church, as having in thofe times owned aGovernment unlawfull and againft the Word of God , efpecially when the different fruits of Go- vernment, by 'Presbytery and Eftfcofacj i have been, to ourcofr, fadly experienced. But now, we come to the third difficulty snent the Oath of the Covenant: This is popularly pleaded by fuch as do not pe- netrate into the controverfle anent the Office of a Bifhop, in point of lawfulnefs or unlawfulnefs. Indeed, the Bond of a lawfull Covenant fsfofacred a tye, that, witfacut contempt of the («) the holy majefty of God , it cannot be violated, nor without great fin • no creature can abfolve us from it, nor difpenfe with it; nor are we to break it for any temporal advantage, terror or trouble. Yet, ( fuppofing the Covenant to be lawful!, which is not proven) it is fure, i .That a lawfull Oath may ceafe to bind 12s , fo that though we do not that which was under Oath pro- ttifed to be done \ yet, there is no perjury : Semper per jurus ep, qui nonintendit quod pr omit tit * non Jemper perjurus eff 9 qui mn perficit quo A promt fit fub J ur amen to , hy the Cafuiftr. 2. It is certain that a lawful!, although in the interpretation of it, itbz ftri ft i juris, and is to be underftood according to the intention of the givers of it, and as the plain words bear ; yet, it bindeth not in the fenfe which any ignorant mind or over- scrupulous confeience may put upon it, or that fome perfons, upon partial defignes, may put upon it, Videndttmc(t(iz.y CafuiftsJ tie Jtrifta interpret Atio the At in nimisftnftam& rigiddm. 3. It is certain, an unlawful! Oath did never, nor doth bind any confeience to do according to it, though ic bind- eth to repentance for making of it , and adhering to it* In confidcring and applying th«fe things : as to the firft, Ic would be remembred, that an Oath,howfoevcr in it felf lawful!; yet the cafe may be fuch, that by fomething following after ir, the Oath may ceafe to bind us to the performing of what was fworn ; yea, the cafe maybe, that an Oath, lawfully made, yet cannot be lawfully kept j it were fin to keep it in foae cafes •• then, and in that cafe, it is not we that loofe our klvcs, but God loofeth us, when an Oath, lawfull at the making, can- not be kept without fin againfthim. A moBgft other cafes, wherein the ceafing of an obligation of a lawful! Oath may be feen, thefe three Cafes are worthy to be confidered; and feri- anfly is it to be pondred whether they be applicable to the pre- fent Queftion anent a difcharge from the bond of the Cove- nant, as to the fecond Article of it, which is now under quefti- on. 1. If the matter of an Oath be fuch, as a Superioar hath it in his power to determine of ir, the Oath of the inferiour or fubjecl: pcrfon ceafeth to oblige hirr, and.isloofed when the Superiour confents not to what he hath fworn : this is both agreeable to reafon; becaufe no deed of^pcrfoninferiouror * iubjefl fubjefl to others, fiiould prejudge the right of the Supenour, nor take from him any power allowed to nimby G~>d in any thing : And alfo, all found Divines do acknowledge this upon the common equity -of that law, Numb. 30.4. If it be faid, that the matter of the fecond Article of the Covnant, being not of indifferent nature, but determined by the Word of God, and fonoc under the power ofaSuperiour on earth to deter- mine in it ; it woul J be remembred, that in all this part of the difcourfe, where the ceafing of the obligation of the Covenant is fpoken of (as to the fecond Article) they are dealt with, who plead the obirgation of the Covenant only, and upon that account do fcrupic. As for theconfideration cf thelavvfulnefs orunlawfulnefsofEpifcopacyinitfeif, a little of it was fpoken to before j and the cryali of that, is matter for longer difquifi- fition : and men would not be too peremptory in condemning Epifcopacy, if they ferioufly confider, that the ablcft Pens that ever engaged in this Controverfie, have found it a task too hard for them to demonftrate Epifcopacy to be in 10 felfunlawfull : and if we ask the judgments of the mod eminent reformed Divines, we fhall find very few or none learned, foberand faithfull in the point, who do judge it to be forbidden by God. But ia this point, when thefe who alledge the bond of the Covenant only for their fcrupic, there is a necefTity toabftraft from that queftion, whether Presbytery be necelTary by divine iaw, and Epifcopacy in it felfunlawfull? In this part of the difcourfe (fuppofing the lawhilnefs or indirTerency of it) wc only enquire, whether rr.eerly by venue of the Covenant, we are bound to fhnd againft it ? If by Gods Word it be found to be unlawfull (which cannot be proved) then whether there had been a Covenant made againft it, or not, it cannot be al- lowed? If it be faid again,that theconfent ofour Superiour hath ken obtained to that, to which we have determin'd our felves by our Oath in the fccond Article; and therefore our Oath, be* fore God, is confirmed, and he oath not power to revoke his confent, according to that law, 2Vjow£. 30. 14* It would be be conflicted, whether it was the Lords mind in that iaw, that if children or wives , having vowed, (hould by fome means drive their parents or husbands out of the houfe, deprived them o£ 04) ©f all their worldly comforts ; and then, When they had put them thus undutifully under fad tentations, barg3in with them either to ratirie their vows, r,r never to enjoy thefe com- forts they had deprived them of; whether it was the Lords mind, that confent, foobtain'd, fhould be an irrevocable con- firmaiioD of their vows, who hadcarryed themfelvcs fo undu- tifully ? There is no evidence for that. And the application is eafi., fincc it is known that the Covenant was contrived and carryedon, as ifthedefign had been laid to extirpate Epifco- picy whether the King would confent or rot, cr whatever courfe fhould be taken to force his confent, vi & armis, or by fufpendingHim from the exercife of His royall Power ; an un- parallel'd way of ufage from fubje&s to their SOVER AlGN. Again it would be con(idcred,whether this be, "Be )ure natnr*- li, that a confent of a Superiour once given to the vow of an inferiour, he hath no power to revoke bis confent upon reafon- ablecaufes, and to make void the vow, albtir, if he do it raili- ly and unreafonably, he finneth. Great Scholiets are of the mind, he may revoke his confent : Le{fins % Traclat. de Voto^ dubio 13. It is thought by him and others, that the precept cacnus is judicial, as it make :h an in evocable confirmation of the vow once confented to. If it be further faid, if the Superi- our, under Oath, give his confent to the inferiours Oath; or, ifHehimfclffwear the fame thing, then there is no power left of revoking his confent, or doing or putting his inferiours to do contra' y to the Oa.h : This is granted, unlefle upon fome other ground there be a clear looting of the Superiours Oath, and a ceafing of the obligation of it. Leaving thefe things to be ap- plyed, let us look upon the fecond Cafe, wherein the obliga- tion and binding-power of an Oa;h ceafeth, and the Oath is loof'd ; it is this, When the matter concerning which the Oath is, continucth not in the fame ftate it was in at the making of the Oath, when fomcthing id providence before the accom- plifhment of the Oath occurreth, that makcth the performance of the Oath, either finfuU, or importing fome turpitude, and fomething againft moral honefty; or when the cafe comes to be that, that the plain end and expedition of the Oatb,upon which it was founded, appcaicth fruftrwe : according to the language of (*5) i>f Divines, Res nan ptrmanet in tidcm ftdtu, Mel cejfat ]/£ rtmcntiobiigttioi For example, if a man fwear, thac at fuch i certain time, he flialJ deliver to fuch a man his (word, if in the mean time that man turn mad, and, in probability, might kill himfclf or others with the fword, had he it in his hand, there lyeth no obligation upon the fwearer to deliver it to him ; Nay, it were a fin,and againft charity, to perform what he had promifed. Again, if a man fwear to marry fuch a woman at fuch a time, if before that time he is made certain (he is with child to his own brother, it were a grievous fin of inceft to to marry hereunder pretence of keeping his promife^ Or, if (he fhould, before the marriage day, be found with child to another man (not fo related to himj yet, to marry her, as it could not but have fomething againft mora! common honefty in it ; fo the plain end and expectation of his Oath, on which it was founded, being fruftrate by the wemans whoredorae, (viz., the having of a loyal honeft and comfortable yoke- fellow) albeit be had made twenty Oaths to her, they bind him notj God hath looPd the man, Res nonpermtnet in eodemftatu* Now, as to the prefent Cafe of tbe Covenanters, let it be considered, whether the matter abidcth in that fameftate, *. e* whether there do not fomething now occur, that putteth us in that condition, that without fin we cannot perform what we did promife, in that fecond Article of the Covenant. It will be faid, Whatis thefin ? Foranfwcr, Icmuftbeftillfuppof'd(as before we adraonifhed) that in this part of the difcourfe con- cerning thefe who plead the bond of the Covenant mcerly, that the matter of the fecond Article of the Covenant f about which the debate is) is in it felf indifferent; and that Epifcopacy in it felf, or by any law of God, is not unlawfull, or prohibited .• If it were this way unlawfull there needed little queftion be made about the bond of the Covenant, (for, whatis unlawfull, muft never be allowed, be it fworn againft or notj but, fup- pofing the indifferency and lawfulnefs of Epifcopacy in it felf, I fay the Covenant cannot now oblige againft it, there being fo notable an alteration of the cafe and ftate of matters, that whoever now do think themfclves bound to (land to the Cove- nant, as to that fecond Article (for there are other matters ia P that (*6) that Covetnrtr,from which we can never be difobliged or loofed^ they being ncceifery by divine and moral-Law ) do think them- fe ives bound to a perpetual difobedience to the Magiftrate , in a matter wherein be hath power to command them; and this is a perpetual (In. Perkins, of Oaths, faith well, No Oath can bird Again ft the 'fthsljom Laws of the Common- wealth: be- caufe ever j foul is fubjefi to fuptrior powers , Rom. 1 3 . Nei- ther is ic material whether the Laws be made before or after tic Oath; both wayes the matter of the Oath becomes impof- fible, Ae iure y as Cafuifts fpeak : And now we are to think , the matter remaineth not in the fame ftate, when the doing of what we did fwear, imports fin. I know Timor chs ( pig. 19. ) pleadeth, that even upon fup- pofition, that ic is in the power of the Magiftrate tofet up the cpifcopal form of Government, that yet we cannot own it, but mud fuffcr under it : becaufe ( faith he ) upon that fuppefuion, that the matter of the Oath, was res indiffertns & liber* in it ft If ; yer,it is no more free to us, Jht Amentum ( faith he) tdlit libertatem : But, by his favour, albeit in indifferent things of private concernment , wherein private perfons bind themfelves, and wherewith the Magiftrate medleth not, an Oath may take away our liberty ; yer, a fub/eds Oath cannot take away the power of the Magiftrate , in commanding things which he feeth for publick good , and the matters nor being in themfelves un- hwfull: Neither can it takeaway or hinder the liberty, or ra- ther duty of fub/efts, in obeying what is lawfully commanded ; otherwife, fubjeds, by their Oaths, might find a way to plead themfelves free from obedience to Magiftrates in all things in- different which they fhonld command them ; which is abfurd. Bur, 3. It would be remembred, that when the keeping of an Oath is certainly a hindrance of fome greater good, ( cfpecially if other circumftances concur, that render the Oath non-oblige- ing ; the obligation of it, in fome cafes, may ceafe. This anent the loofing of Oaths, becaufe of the obftacle put to fome greater good, which might be attained by not doing what is fworn* is indeed a very ticklifti and tender queftion K and all had need to !ook to it, left, under pretence that the keeping c f an Oath is an obftacle to a greater good attainable, by not keeping the Oath there (*7) there be a wide gap oprned to all perjury- and the popirti Gafuifts are herein too lax for laying that ground, that it is dcjure natural*-, that every cne fhould do that which is beft ,- they conclude, that where the performance of what is fwror n is like to hinder a greater good that might be attained by not keeping the Oath, that in that cafe an Oath bindeth not at all. Pfoteftant Ga drifts-, as Bifhop Saxder/on , do deny this principle without limitation thus expreffed 5 yet do grant, that it is true when there concurreth fome other thing ( as ufually there doth) which may render the Oath void, or the keeping of it .unlawful!, or loofeth from ir, the impedicivenefs of greater good there hath weight. But, we may fay, albeit other things did not concur to the ruling or voiding of an Oath ; yet, if the (landing to it be found impeditive of a greater good , to which we are bound by a prior obligation, then the Oath, being an ob- fracle of fuch a greater good, ceafeth to bind the fwearer. If a man (hould fwear never to go near fuch a river or water, having once been in hazard there ; yet, where he feeth at fome diftance from it his brother like to pcrifli in the water, and it is probable to hkn,tbat he could be able to fave his life, the prior and greater bond of char ty , aod of God's Law commanding, that bindeth him to go help his brother, and looieth him from his Oath. And as to our cafe , betides what hath been faid for the clearing, up- on other grounds, of the non- obligation of the Covenant in that fecond Article ( the matter thereof (till (uppofed as indif- ferent, and Epifcopacy not forbidden by any divine Law) may we not clearly fee , that there is ( by adhering to that Oath as (tilt binding) an obftacle put to the attainment of a greater good and of greater nccetfity, and to the feeking after that grea- ter good which we are pre-obliged, by former Bondf, to labour after ? Js not that great duty of preaching the Gofpel of peace , lying upon Minifters* ( Wo to u$ if We f reach not ) and lying upon many Mmifters antecedently to the taking of this Covenant ; and upon adhering to that Covenant in the fecond Article, proveth a- hindrance to that greater duty whereto we are pre-obliged • (hall it ftillbethloughttobind fo, that rather then we will acknowledge God's loofing us by a former obliga- tion to a greater duty, we will, by adhering to it, put our felVes Da ia in incapacity (according to Law; tofervc any longer in the Mi-} niftry ? Do there not alfo ly upon us all pre- obligations td> obey the Magiftrate in things not againft God's Law, (fuchas now Epifcopacy is fuppofed to be ) to procure the publick peace and good of Church and Scate , and prevent horrid confu- fions, which ( as matters go ) cannot be avoided by (licking at that Article in the Covenant ? Shall not the peace of con- fcience, that (hall arife from tendring thefe great interefts , be as much, and more then any peace of confciencc pretended to be in keeping the Oath , which ( though we ftiould not be ready to judge any ) may perhaps, upon examination, be found rather a piece of fatisfa&ion to the will , then peace of the confcience, God having loofcd and fet free confcience from that Bond , i# hoc rerum ftatu f But, to the fecond thing which we obferved anent Oaths, or Covenants , it would be remembred, that a Covenant or Oath,. though lawfull and binding , even in the ftricl interpretation of it ; yet, doth not bind in the rigid interpretation, which fome, cither through weaknefs,or fcruples or defign, may put upon it. Sometimes fouls may make fnares of Oaths to themfelves by ovetftretching them, and fo do run themfelves into the perplexi- ties they needed not. Concerning the Covenant, different inter* pretations and fenfes have been given of it, according to the feve* ral interefts of perfons of contrary judgments,combinedin it. Bat, as to the fecond Arcicle now in queftion,it may be doubted, if it be broken by fubmitfion to,or owning the prefent Epifcopacy efhblifhed by Liw in Scotland • or , whether it be not an over- ligid draining of that Covenant, to bend it againft the prefent Epifcopacy eftabliftied in Scotland. For clearing of which , it would be confidered, firft, th at at the time of the taking of that folencn League and Covenant , there were no fuch Church-of- fices in Scotland,** are mentioned in that Article ; there needed not,as to Scotland, a fwearing to extirpat Offices that were not in it at that time ; and fome Offices there mentioned , never were tn it. a. It would be remembred, that an Oath is to be interpreted according to the fenfe of the givers of it. Timor- cm (pag. 16) giveth us aflarance , that the Parliament ofEng- /<**/, intended nothing lefs in impofing the Covenant, then the extirpation extirpation of all kinds of Prelacy and Bifhops In the Church; and that it was refolvcd in Parliament, with confent of the Brethren of ScotUnd , that it was only intended agaioft Epifco- pacy as then eftablifted in EngUni : and (Prtfi $. 23.) we da not ( faith he ) think the Covenant to beagainft the primitive Epifcopacy, which there he defcrives to bea prefider.cy ofor.e Mnifter over other?, (0 that without him nothing is to be done in matters of Ordination and Jurisdiction : and when he ex- plained the fecond Article of the Covenant, he faith, it is only tyrannical B.fhops thic are covenanted agi'nft : which Baxter alfocals thefmrull//vc*V/of Prelacy, In . is Preface to the Dis- putations of Church- government j which he fayes was abjured only, and not Epifcopacy. And in that fame difpute ( f*g. 4.) he declareth, that raoft of the godly Minirters, lince the Refor- mation, did judge Epifcopacy, fomeoftbem, lawfull, and fome ofthemmoft fie ; and addeth, that almoft al! of thefethatare of the late A$- at Weftminficr , and moft throughout the £and, did conform to Epifcopal Government, as not contrary to the Word of God ; and that he befievs, that many of them are yet fo fir reconciliable to it , (moderated) that if h were only efh- blifhed,they wouM fubmic to it as they did : for, he heareth (as he faith J but of few of them who have made recantation of their former conformity j and contrarily , hath known divers of them profefiing a reconc.liablenefs, as aforefaid, as Mr Gataker do:h, in one of his Books, profefs his judgment. Thus Mr, B*x?er y by whom we may fee their error or f*l!y, who think there can be no godly Kfimftcn owning Epifcopacy; and alfo how reconciliable godly Divines in the A J, were to a regulated Epifcopacy ; So that it feeraeth , the great grievance aira'd at h the Covenant to be redreflfed, was, the Bidiops darn of a fole. Ordination and Jurifd ftion ; and the multitudes of Courrs of lay Chancellors , &c. fet over M»mfters in matters of G v^rn- ment , and not the Office of B {hops , concurring with Synods of Minifters and their p r e(iding and being Superiors in Church- meetings. If it be faid,:hat every one of the navicular Orrices, mentioned under the name of Prelacy in the Covenant , are ab- jured ; and therefore Bifhops are abjured : Mr. Vires ^ in his Configurations upon the Kings Conceffions at the Jjle of W*g ft, will will (for loofmg this ) ttll us of a.fenfcof the Covena&r, which he inclines to, viz., that, as to that Article, the Cove- rant is not to be underftood in fenjtt Aivifo, bptcotnpofite, ( which futtth to Mr, Baxters complex frame) And there* alter t*, that continuing of Biftiops with a negative vp ce in Ordination and minifterial Meetings, might be perm ir ted with- out breach of Covenant. . And if ic.be fo, as this learned man and others mentioned, concede , What rcafon is there to; bend the Covenant againfl: the prefent Epifcopacy o{Scot/a»d 9 which is eftablifh'd to govern thc.Churcb (nor excluding,) but with confent of Presbyters, with as great moderation as any was in the primitive Epifcopacy. But it will be faid, thenweftand bound againft the Englifh Prelacy, as it is explained in the Covenant. ^4nf, Ic will be time to difputetbar, when we are called to live under that frame of Prelacy : In the mean time let it be granted, that the Church eftablifhrnent amongft u«, is not that which the Covenant defcribrth to be renounced : neither are we rafhly to judge rhe way of other Churches, which we are not called to own? they are to give an account of theirown way toGod and the Kin^and will allow us a difcharge from meddling in their affairs • and they are not like in haft, to give u any place or calling in modelling theirCburch-govern- menr, to which all proteftant Churches ought to p3y reverence. But again, it wiil be faid ? was not the form of Epifcopacy- that was in Sect/and before ( from which the prefent is nothing different) abjured in the N-ation'al Covenant, before we toad any dealing with England snent change of their Church- govern- ment. A*?, If we will believe the Miaifters who reafon'd with the Doctors of Aberdeen (and they were the prime promoter* of the Covenant, and carried with them thefenfeof riiebodyofl the Covenanters) they who fubferibed that Covenant, roight, with great liberty, voice in an Aflembly, concerning Epifcopa- cy without prejudice notwithstanding their Oath : And upon this ground, would perfwade the Doctors to fubferibe the. Covenant, becaufe in fo doipg they fbould not be taken as abjuring Epifcopacy ( as the Doders thougbtfj But, notwith- flanding their Oath and fubfeription, had their liberty remain- ing entire to voi:e tot Epifcopacy in an Aflcmbly ; See their anfwef a* anfwer to the Do&ers their fourth and tenth d^m^n^i*. AoJ the truth is, that as in the explication add >8. Epifcopacy J is not mentioned as abjuiedj forreittK abjured by the. National Covenant as it was enjoy n J d to be fub- fcnbed, anno. 1580. It is alledged, that under thensme of the Popes wicked Hierarchy, the 0;8ce cf Ep"»fcopic> ** 25 abjured ; But they who fay (o y would conlider, that the ado- ring of the Popes wicked Hierarchy, imports not sn ab, oration ofcheOificcofa Bifhop, more then the Oifice of a Presbyter ora D.acon, which are parts of that Hierarchy (focalledby the Ccurcil ofTrt«t, Canon. Seff. 7. ) as mil as the Office of a Bidaop. If die Covenant do not under that exp-etfion abjure thefe Offices, neither doth it abjure the Office of a Bifhop, feing th:f^ are parts of that which the Ripifts call Hierarchy, as Will as this. The intent of that Covenant, wis not to abjure the Office cfBifliops, more then of Presbyters or Dea- cons, but to abjure the Hierarchy, fo far as it was the Popes, (his wicked Hierarchy) as it alfo abjureth his five baftard facra- ments, fo far as he tnaketh them Sacraments, (for fure, Orders or Ordination of Minifters and Mirriage,which he msketh two Sacraments, are not abjured in the Covenant as to the matter of them, but only as to the relation of being Sacraments, which the Pope puts on them) even fo the Popes Hierarchy is abjured, counted and called wicked, not as to the matter of thefe Offices comprehended under the ccclefiafticil word HierArchy^ (for then the Office of Presbyters and Deacon*, ftir-uldbealfo counted wicked and abjured) but as to the dependance of all thefe Offices on him, as the fountain and bead of the Church under Chrift, and the co ruption adhereing to thefe Offices, and flowing from him, fo far as they are his, depending on hira> corrupted by him, there is wickednefs in them or joyn'd to them, and fo-they are abjured (as in another word of that Covenant, his blafphemous Prieft- hood is abjured, yet in that the Office of Presbyter is not abjured.) Bur, mean time, the Offices themfelvesjwhich are ftid to make up that Hierarchy, are not abjured, nor are to be rejected, but purged from what is his, or any dependance on him, or corruption flow ng from him* Aod fo the Office of a Biflaop, amongft Proteftants (BiiLops (Bifheps now being loofed from that dependance from the Sea of Rome and the Pope, who as head of the Church claimed a plenitude of power over the whole Church, and made all Chriftiau Bifhops and Minifters but as his flaves and vaffals, portioning out to them fuch meafure of jurisdiction as he thought fit ; as their ftiles in this Countrey imported of old ; €go N. T>e* apoftoltc* fedts grttia Epijcopus) I fay the Office of the ptoteftant Biftiop is no more a part now of the Popes wicked Hierarchy, then is the Office of a Mimfter or Dfacon* But further it may appear, that under the name of the Popes wicked Hierarchy, the Office of Biftiops was not abju- red in the National Covenant, i. The enjoyner of that Covenant to be taken by the fnbje&s, was King James, of blefled memo- ry ; He, having himfelf with His family fubferibed that Oath and Covenant, gave charge to all Commiffioners and Minifters •within the Realm to crave the fame Confefilon from their panfhoner*, and proceed againft the refufers, as the words of the charge bear, Msrch,2, 1580. This was the flrft injuncti- on for taking the Covenant, which was mainly intended for fecuring the Religion, and the King who favoured it and pro- fefled it, from Papifts, who were found pra&ifing with for- eigners againft him and it, and for clearing the King and his Court from afperfions. But that the King by that Covenant intended the abjuration of the Office of proteftant Epifcopacy, it is moft improbable, and by many things the contraiy appear- eth. 1. The inftrument in penning that Covenant at the Kings command, was Mr. John Craig, His Mimfter, a very learned man, who but nice years before, (J**, 12, anno. 1571.) had given his confent in the Aflembly of the Church, which then did meet at Leith % that Commiffioneis might be appointed to joyn with ihefe whom the Council fhould appoint for fettling the policy of the Church : of thefe Commflioners he himfelf was one, and with him Dun the Superintendent of Angus, fVmrame Superintendent of Fyfe and others: the refolution they came to, was that there fhould be of the moft qualified of the Miniftry fome chofcn by the Chapters of the cathedral Churches, to whom vacant Atth : b^opricks and Bilhopricks _ might («) ifiigbt bedifpon'd, and they to have power of Ordination,and to exerce fpiritual Jurisdiction in their feveral Diocefles ; and at the Ordination of Miniflers to exact an Oath of them for acknowledging His Majcfties Authority , and for obedience to their Ordinary in all things lawfu'l And accordingly fome were provided to Bidiopricks at that time ; neither did the Church in the following Aflembly at St. Andrt^i^{March % 1571. J take exception at thefe Articles of agreement. It is true at 'Perth (Atignft y 1572.) they received the fame, but with a protection , it was only for an interim , &c. But this we may fay, that the learned Penner of the National Covenant, allowed of Bifhops a few years before this Covenant : Nor is there any evidence that he changed his mind, or that he did in that draught of the Confeflion, mean protifhnt Bifhops (which then he approved) by the Popes wicked Hierarchy which is abjured. 2. As for the King himfelf, that He minded no abjuration of the Office of a proteltant Buhop by that Covenant, may be evident by this, that when He and His fami- ly took that Covenant, and when he enjoyn'd ittotfeefub* jects, there was no fuch thing known in this Church as a Go- vernment by Presbyteries (the whole Government confiftirg in Ordination and Jurisdiction, txerced in the feveral parts of the land, being in the hands of fome under the name of Bifhops, fome under the name of Superintendents, or under the nsmc of CommiiTioners of Countreys, who (xercii'd the fame in their feveral precincts,) other Government there w T as nor, but by iorr.e (ingle pcrfons, having power in their feveral bounds. It is true, the AiTcmblyquarrei'd what they did amifs, butyetthty were then really Bifhops •• And it is not like the King did fwiar h.m- felf, or put others to fwear againft the Church- government that was then in the Countrey, and was not rejectee! by the Church, till J*//, 12, 15S6. Yea, it is evident, that the King and His Council, minded not to fwear down proteftant Epifco- pacy by that Covenant : For, fuppofe the General Aflembly in that fame year, 1580, July 12. did pailean Act againft Epifco- pacy(the like whereof had not been done in this Church before J yec, the very year following, 15 81. though the King and Council had prefented the Confeflion to the Aflimbly, to be E fubferibed fubfcribed by them and the people in fcveral Parishes at their order, or by their perfwafion ; yet, that very fame year, an A& of Council is made, confirming exprtfly that agreement, 1 571 . at Leith concerning Archbiftiops and Bifhops : And this was don- fix months after the fending the Confeflion to the Aflembly and the Councils Aft for fubferibing ; this being in Ottoberi that in March, 15 81. Now is it any way probable, that the King and Council (had they intended to abjure Epifco- pacy in the CorfeflionJ fhouM within fix moneths make an Acl; for confirming a former agreement for cftabiifliing Epifcopacy ? And this Ad of Council was no fecret : For, the Kin£ openly avowed it in the bufinefs concerning Montgomery) K. {hoy of gUfgoi»> whom the King would not fuffer to be procefTed upon the account of hij accepting a Biflioprick ; becaufe, as he faid, he had fo lately ratified, the agreement at Ldtb, 1571. Neither did the Aflcmbly or any Minifters fpeak of that deed of the Kings and Councils, as contrary to the Covenant (albeit in thefe dayes they had a way of ufing liberty enough, and more then was fitting.) And it being plain, that the Covenant (in the intention of King and Council who infoyned it firft, and tranfmitted ir to the Aifembly ardfub/e&sj doth not abjure Epifcopacy 5 Why fhould the fubje&s take therafelves bound as fwearing down Epifcopacy by that Oath, feing every Oath is to be taken in the declared fenfc of the Impofers, which is con- fident with the words of it ? But it will be yet faid, that th« General Affembly at GtafgoXt, 1638. have declared, that in that National Covenant, Epifcopacy was abjured in the year, 1580. and they enjoyned, that ail fhould fubferibe according to the determination of that Affembly ; and many have done fo. Anf. 1 . It feemeth very ftrange, that any Aflembly, or Company of men, fhould take upon them to declare what was the fenfeofthe Church in taking a Covenant, or Oath, when few or none of the men were living, who took that Covenant; or, if living, few or none of them were members of that Affem- bly at OUfgowy 1638. As jur amentum eft vinculum perfo- uale t (fo fay the Cafuifts ) So no man, or company of men can take upon them to define what was the fenfe of dead men in taking an Oath or Covenant while they were alive, unleffe they can (35) can produce fome authectick expreffe evidence, that fuch was their meaning in taking the Oath and Covenant in their life- time. Novv,all that the At!embly of Ctafgm hath produced in their large Kdt , ( Sejf. 16.) declaring Epifcopacy to be ab/ured, Hnno, 1 5 80. amounts to nothing more,but this,that before JuU 1580. (at which time, fome moneths after the Covenant was enjoyn'd by the King to be taken by the fubjecls) the Church was, and had been fome years labouring againft Biihops (who notwitbftanding continued, till after the A& at "Dnndte, 15 80. J And that after the year, 1580. there was much oppofition to that Office by the Affefinblies: But all their citations of Acls 9 come not to this pointi to prove that Epifcopacy was ab/ured by the Covenant or any words in it r « nor do thefe ancient Af- femblies after, 1580. ever aflert any fuch thiog (men being then living who knew the fenfe of the Covenant, that it was againft Covenant to admit of Epifcopacy^, but they go upon other grounds in oppugning that Orfice. How ftrangeisit that Afkmblies of Minifters, who had taken that Covenant, are never heard to plead againft Epifcopacy ( though they loved it not) upon that ground ? And that fifty eight years after, when moft, or all of thefe firft takers of it, are worn out, a generation rifeth, that will plead, that their Anceftors took that Covenant in that fenfe {abjuriag Epifcopacy) whereas there is in no Ad of thefe ancient Affemblies (after the Cove- nant was taken, or at the taking of it) any affertion, that it was their mind in taking that Covenanr, to abjure Epifcopacy . ? And thao Epifcopacy was not (in the intention of the takers of the National Covenant of old) abjured by the Covenant ,• no, nor unlawful! in it felf, even in the judgment of the Affembly of the Church of Scotland, may appear, in that within fix years after that year, 1 5 80. a General Affembly at Edinburgh do declare, that the name of Si/bop hath a fpecial charge and funftion thereto annexed by the Word of God ; and that it is lawful for the General Affembly, to admit a Bifhop to a Bene- fice preferred by the Kings Ma jefty, with power to admit, vifie and deprive Minifters, and to be Moderators of Presbyteries where they are refident and fubjeel: only to the fentence of the General Affemblies. It feeras within fix years, the General E 2 Affembly (16) Affembly at Edinburgh rctrafted the Aft of Dundee] i^SS But, 3. Strange it was that the Company met at GUfgo^Q ( an Aflembly againft which as much is faid,and upon good grounds, as againft any other in our Church) had power to bind others to their determination of the fenfe of the Covenant. Certain it is, no Aflembly nor Company of men, can put an obligation upon perfons who hive taken an Oath personally to accept of their fenfe of the Oath which they put upon it. It is true, tie Affsmbly ofGUfgorv could declare their own fenfe of the Oath taken by themfelves, but could notimpofe their fenfe upon the takers of the Oath before, that fenfe not having been given to tire takers of the Oath by the impofers of the fame ; and the takers of the Oath not having impowered the Commiffioners at GU'gow to declare their fenfe of that Oath they had taken. So then, whatever was done at £A*/gw after the Covenant was taken by the body of theLand,could not oblige all the takers of it to own their declaration of the fenfe of the Covenant (which was not at firft imposing the Oath, declared to ihem) And the body of the people of this land, have not indeed abjured Epifcopacy by that National Covenant they entered in ; neither the Covenant, nor added interpretation irnporteth any fuch thing : Nor hath the body of the people of the land, by any after deeds, owned that Aflemblies fenfing of the Covenant ; Nor was there any Aft in that Afifembly, that all fhould owb their determination of the fenfe thereof. Ic is true, there is an Aft (Seff. 26.) that thefe who had not already fubferibed, fliould fubferibe with an allowance of the AfTemblies determination concerning the fenfe of the Cove- nant : But few did fo. If any did fo, they are to confi- der, whether they have not been toorafhly carryed on in the current of that time without a juft examination of mat- ters, But finally, Now ( that we are got out of the noife of Armes and Confufions of the by-paft times) it concerneth the Mini- fters of Chrift, to ponder if there was any thing unlawful! in that Covenant (we fpeak now of the folemn League and Covenant , which feemeth moft exprefle againft Prelacy,, and which almoft fwallowed up the memory of the other.) Thai That there- are great duties engaged to iflthe fame, relating to true Religion and an holy life, from which no power on earth canloofe, and to which weareindifpenfably tyed, is not to b^e doubted. Neither is it to be doubted, that many godly Mini- fters and people, were ingaged in that Covenant, who deftgned no evil, nor minded any injury to the Soveraign ; Yet , feveral things, as to that Covenant, are worthy to be fetioufly examined, that we may fee how they can be juftified before God ; Or, if they are to be confeffed as faults, especially if any evil or unlawful! thing be found in the fabftance .or mater of the Covenant; it would be remtmbred, Malum eft ex fi»l*tis Jefettibus. I. The warrantablcnef> of entring into that publick Oath or Bond, without the fupreme Authority of the land, aod againft the mind of the Soveraign. Can there be any Did not people conceive themf: ( or were taught fo ) that it was their place and calling ♦o take armes without and againft the confent of the 5 a Sovcraign (44) Soveraigft Law-giver? And in. tint calling, they were to endeavour forcibly, content the King or not, to carry that abolition ofPrelacy^ Let it be confiJered, whether engage- ing to fuch endeavours were lawful!, quoad nos ; or whether it can be a lawfull bond, that tycs to fuch violent endea- vours agiinft the fuprem: Migiftrace and Laws 'be what they wilt b:) And kc it be fcrioufly pondred, that if they who hold themfelves obliged in nj way to yield unto, acknowledge, obey nor adl under the Government, which the K ; .n£ and Law have fct over them, and by thus with- drawing their fubjeclion, encourage and lead others to do the like after their example, thereby defigning to weaken the Government (which in the faireft conftru&ion, cannot be judged to live peaceably) If, I fay, thefe will fpeak and act confidentially to former principles aDd practices , not yet by them difclaimed, they muft alfo hold themfelves by the fame Covenant oblig'd to refill and fight agiinft the Laws fencing Epifcopacy, if occafion were offered ; and not only to vent their animoficies and difconcencs in their prayers and difcourfes in private, but alfo to take alloccafions to revile and curfe that Government and their Superiours, commiflionated by the King, in Przyers, Sermons and dif- courfes in publick • and, in cffecT:, to do what in them lyetb, to bring it and them under the fcandal and odium of the people, and make them the Butt of their malice and revenge,* let wife men judge how far this is from* the tenor of our lawfull Oaths of Allogiance.Suprenncy, yea and Chri(tianity,ind what an in- let this will givetodifturb the peace and rekindle that fire which had almoft confumed Tfstoa&es. To dofe, u If Epifcopacy be of Apoftolick Jnftitution (as many learned godly men judge, 3nd ic is hard to fay many fwearers of the Covenant had ground of clear perfwafion to the contrary,) it would not be fo- banded againft without grievous fin and fcandal. *. If Epifcopacy be of indifferent nature, and only by humane conftitucion, ic would be confidered, what Pro- teltants write againfl: Papifts, That vows of perpetual abfti* nence in all cafes from tloiugs in their nMure indifferent^ are utterly f45) . , *lt(rl] *«/**/*// j zrd let it be thought, whether it be law- full for any fubjeds to bind uptherofelves by Oath, never to be fubjeft to the Magistrates laws in things God hath put un- der the determination of his power. 3. Let Epifcopacy be un- lawfully which is not proven ly any) yet it (hall be unlawful for fubjedU to attempt the abrogation of the Laws favouring ic, by 3ny force co be ui'd on the Lawgiver, which is indeed thz inter,*: of the Covenant, and the proceedings thereupon we r eanfwcLJble. Tne Lord give us humble and peaceable fpirits, to fee at la I, an J lay to heart the fin and folly of thofe Bonds and Combi- nations againlt the King* Ecc'efiaftical Government, and his letwsofrlje land, which are incontinent with tint dury and loyalty, which Church- men, above other jubjecb, (ht»uld pay 10 that Supremacy in ali otwfts And over all perfons y deciaud by the law to be an inherent right to the Crown: Ic is high t:me for us in this day of our tranquillity and calm which God hath wrought, toconfider what belongs to our peace, and to difcern the way of our duty, from which wchave been too long tranfported by the tempeftuous Agitati- ons and diverfe winds of Doctrines, Engagements and profeMi- <*n- in the years paft : Reafon and Scripture, Divine and Na- tural law, feem to point out as with a Sun- beam, the way v;e fhould holi, namely, that for public^ fecurity, order *ndp£dce % Minifters and people do acquiefce in the prefect cftt b liflimcn t i and obey every Ordinance of man, whether the King as Supream, or thofe who are commifilonared by Him, and that not only for wrath but cocfcience fake. Lee ic be far from Minifters of the Gofpcl of peace, to head and • lead the people into divifions and offences, and by their car- riage and way, to difpofe them into difatfecftion and difcoarent with the King and his Law.*, as if in the account of feme, (whether of corrupt and weak minds) he were a Tyrant rtoc a Father to the Church, whomaketb fuch Laws, which His confeientious fubjeds cannot obey f^rfear of fin againft God ; if tiiis way of disobedience be perfifted in, it is ealic to fee what evils will follow, (fincc it muft be expected, that the King King and Parliament, will in honour and jufticei maintain the JawsJ And how the whole Nation may be expofed to the reproach of a troublefome, difquiet, factious people, delight- ing ftill in fedition and turbulcncy ; It becomes us rather to cut offoccafions of (tumbling in the way of Gods people, and to be patterns of love to, and zeal for the Honour and tran- quility of our King and Countrey, of this Church and State, and to fhew fo much tendernefs for the intercfl of Religion, Order and Unity, as to put forth our felves to the utmoll in our (rations, to promote all thefe, which will prove the rooft effectual way of crudiing that fpirit of Athcifm and profane- nefs, fo much complained of by thofe who flee from the only remedy thereof; Minifters are not to imploy therafelves fo much in confidering how to maintain and uphold the intereft of a party or caufe they haveefpoufed, as how far they may go, what they may without fin de in the practice of what the law in/oyneth. The God of peace and truth direct and ftabliih us in the way of peace and truth, Amen. F I J^I S ERRATA. ?*f. I 5 . Line (.for others rend Oatbi. Tag, i 8. Line i. for k& redd fort.