^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.ATwo 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 try4 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
f7>
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 G0^
the j have [uccecded the p§pifi &ijbopst 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<s nt contra Regit Jkfajeftatis
&?pifcoporum volnntaicm, mir.iftri [no mint fieri o fttnganturx
But from his Epifties to GrindatBllkopo? London, Epii>. %%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 tantoy
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
<I0)
this alfo, which, belike, will not pleafe them well, that any o£
the Meeting but themfelves fhould be chofen there to prefide;
or, canihey fay, that every ecdefiaftical Meeting or Judicatory,
hath this priviledge by a divine natural right ? If fo, no civili
Society or judicatory fhould want it ; but all claim power to
thoofe their own Prefidents, which were evil dodrine under a
Monarchy, where power is in the Prince to elecT: and name Pre-
fidents for Council, Sefllon, &c Or, are tbey able to demon-
ftrate, that it is not lawful for the ChrillianMagiftrate, upon
whom the external ordering of all the Judicatories in his His
Dominions depends, to nominate out of a Meeting of Minifters,
conveen'd by him,onc grave and £odiy Miniller of the number,
to order the actions of the Meeting, and by his Authority to
controll the unruly ? Can it be made evident, that the ancient
Chriftim Councils, general or provincial, (though tbey had
ecdefiaftick Prefidents J did alwayes formerly choofe their own
President ? 'Preftdes tcclef**$ici in vetuftis Conciliu, non-
HunquAm nominati ab Imperatore, faith Zepperus, Ecclef*
Pol. p. 741,
As to the fecond , The great exception is at the power of
the Prefidents of the Syncds, they being Bilhops, claim an un-
due power as if Authority folely refided in them, atleaftthey
claim a negative voice.
An[. i. Were it fo, and were this a fault ; yet, it were not
thetr fault who concur : the perfonal fault of another cannot be
any good ground for Brethrens withdrawing from their necefla-
ry duty, efpecially it being confidered what might be allowed
them, for eafing the fcruple of their Con fcience, as was above
faid. If I be only admitted to confult ia regulating the affairs
©f the Church, in a Meeting where I think I fhould have equal
authority with any that fits there, Can it be fin in me to go fo
Far in my duty, as I am permitted to do, to teftifie againtt fin,
to give my beft counfel for fuppreflirg thereof, and for advance-
ment of holinefs ? If I be abridged and reftrain'd as to that
authority, which I think is due to me, it is the fin (if there be
any ) of thefe who do reftrain me and not mine ; fnall I do no
part of my duty, becaufe I cannot do all that I think I ought to
do, being, as to fome part of it, rcftrain'd by another ?
Bat
I
But Secondly, Is it not granted by molt judicious Dlvincsi
that Presbyters (having a power in fevcral cafes to fufpend the
cxercifc of their own juft authority, when the fufpenfion of it
tenderh to a publick good) may for the peace of the Church,
refolve to give to one perfon of their number a negative voice
in Government, fo as to do nothing without him ? *BaxU
Church gover. p*&, 18. And excellent Mr. F/w (when at
thelQeof**'*^, the King could not be brought off that, that
in Meetings of Presbyters there (hould be one, under the name
ofBifhop, with a negative voice) did counfel both Tresbjteri-
**s and Independents to accept of the conceflion, as they would
not have all the blood, miferies and confufions that after might
enfue, laid at their door. See his confederations on the Kings
Conceffions. Whatever may be faid of that negative voice ;
the law of the land putting B ftiops into a (heed prefidency,and
yet Presbyters being admitted to rule with Bifliops, judicious
and fober men would not lay fo great weight on it, as to refufe
their concurrence in common and uncontroverted duties upon
that account. But yet, one thing would be rercembred, that
Brethren are at a very clear difadvantage in withdrawing from
presbytcrial Meetings, where they know the Moderator doth
not, nor can claim more power then any of thcmfelves. Ail
the ground of their not concurring with thefe Meetings, mull
be, that they do not choofe the Moderator in their particular
Presbyteries ; But he is nominate by the B mXn the Sy-
nod 5 and yet, in all reafon, the authority an * anient of BHhop
and Synods (hould conclude any particular Presbytery. Do
not Brethren remember, that in time of the Commifllon of
the Kirks ruling, there were reftraints laid upon Presbyteries
in matters far higher and weightier concernment then that, and
little dinn about the fame ?
But thirdly,if the Brethren refufe to concur with the Synods
for want of unpreaching Elders there, whofe Office they accouut
of divine institution, they would remember, that great Divines
of the presbyterian way, 7?l**dtl9 Vines> 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 cPrcsbyteriansi 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<tuty Epift.
3. ad Efifcbp. n'intov. Bifhops wire fet up in the time,1
when fome of them (efpeciallyjc^j were living, vfae»tibuf9
videniibtist & noncentraiietntibHs ; as \s manifeft by Hiftory
inthefucceflbrsof^/^at tsjlexandiia and others. Can it
be imagined, that fuch a thing as the Office (.fa Bifhop, fhoild
have been fet up fo early iri the times of the Apoftles, and they
not contradicting it, had it been contrary to Chrifrs mind ?
How unlikely is it, that in thofe times, when the piety and
zeal of Chriftians Was fo great, and knowledge too, there
Should have been no oppofition to the Office of Bifhops, had it
been judged a wronging of Chrifts Ordinance ? How unlikely
is it, that in times of fuch fiery perfecuiion, Chrifts Minifters
fliould be carryed with aipbition, to feek the fupenority
over others in an Office againfl: his mind I Or, that people
would have yielded to the ambitious courfes of Paftors*? How
can it be thought, that the whole Church in thefe times ("with-
out any known exception) fhbuld have taken up that way of
Government by B.fliopj, without any co-a&ion to it by civil
Power; without any advice or diredion from General Ailem-
blies and Councils, which then were not in being ; If this way
had not been univerfally judged lawfull ; yea, it may be fup-
pofM defcending from a higher Warrant then voluntary agree-
mentsofmen? We do never hear of any oppofition to the
Office and dignity of a Bilhcp over Presbyters, till it was
made by one Aerius in the fourth age, (whom Epiphan'ms
calleth a frantick man) he being enraged, that Sftftatkias, whom
he undervalued in comparifon of himfeif, wis preferred to him,
andgottheBifhoprick, which he ambitioufly airrttct at, begau
to talk againft the dignity and order of Bifhops, and is therefore
counted by Epiphtmu! and *s4ugujlint ("no children in know-
ledge) an heretick, (in whatever fenfe tncy mean ) andalfohe
is juftly centered and condemned by Biondei, Gerf. Bncer^Mo-
H***t to Andrews, as t difturbcr of t lawful order in the
Church,
(19) _
Church, albeit they cannot come up to think, that Epifcopacy
is a divine Inftitution or apoftolicaU.
Now,!ec Brethren in modefty confider, how unlike it is , that
the Office of a Bifhop fhouldbe contrary to the inftitution of
Cbrift in his Word , that began fo early , even in the Apoftlcs
times without their contradiction , that yvas fo univerfally fub-
mitted to by the primitiveChriftians in their moft firy tryals,that
hath continued in the chriftian Churches, (not only thefe in-
fe&ed with the Roman apeftafie, but the eaftern Church that
difclaimeth the Popes fupremacy ) and that for 1500. years
after Chrift , without any contradiction , fave of one man,who
never had a marrow ; no not Jerome (whatever be faid con-
cerning him by fome ) that is ftill owned by moft of the re-
formed Churches, who have rejected the Pope, not only by thefe
of the Lutheran way, under the name of Superintendents {quid
eft Bpifctfpus nifi Snp^intendens f faith Jerom* epift. dd Euo*
grum ) but alfo by fome of the Calvinean way , as may be fcen
by Zeppertes% Ecclef. Pol. And- formally, that is even owned as
lawfull (being well-moderated) by the ftouteft Difputers againfl:
the divine right of it. Albeit men, in their paffionatftrams to
popular auditories , fometimes cry out upon the Office of a Bi-
fhop as an anti-chriftian and popifti domination; yet> 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*nceyCjpri*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 Eftfcofacji 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 eff9 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 iurey 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?ery 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 pre(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»d9 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.
EpifcopacyJ is not mentioned as abjuiedj forreittK
abjured by the. National Covenant as it was enjoy nJd 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 (oy 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 (Atignfty 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 wTas 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-
ualet (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 Acls9
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<xampie
ftiewed amon^ft the people of God of old, either Jews or
Chriftians, of carrying on a publick Oath or League and Bond
without their Soveraign Powers, that were over them, going
before them ; or, they not confenting or contradicting ? Is
it not fo fpeciar a Royalty of the King, to have power of
impofing a publick Oath on all his fubjecls, efpecially when
the Oath hath a direct aim for railing and taking Armes, for
invafion of any in foreign Nations (fuch was the aim of the
folemn League as to usk Scot/and) that if this can be done
without the King, What is there that may not be done with-
out him? Who can have a lawfuil power tofwear all the
Kings fubjedb to fuch a purpafe, without his confent ? Much
leflc can any have power to fwear them to a War againft the
.Soveraion, while he is no way injuring them, but leaping
favours upon them ; the War, in that refpeft, not being de-
fensive on their part, nor admitting of apologie upon that
ground (fuppoling that to be a good ground.) Is it not cer-
tain, that feveral juft laws of this land, clearly inhibit all
Leagues of fubjecls under whatfoever colour or pretence, with-
out the Kings confent had and obtain'd thereto ? Jam. 6. Pari.
10. A3. 12. Marj, Pari. 9* Act 75. It is wdl known,
that when the Natioaall Covenant wascarryed on, that the?
people might be moved to concur in it and to take it, it was
pretended.
pretended, that it was not without Authority- and that the
warrand it had from King fames his Authority, ftill continued
( albeit neither He nor His Succeffor gave any authoriy to the ad-
ditional explication and application ) and, at that time, it was
ingenuofly profefled by the Promoters of that Covenant, ( as
may alfo be cleared by Writings they have left to the world )
that had it been a new Covenant or League , they would not,
they could not have entered in it without the King's Authority
warrandingthem ; Butf when the folemn League and Covenant
(which had no fhaddow of the King's Authority ) cometh upon
the ftage, this Dc ftrine was forgotten utterly ; for, it was car-
ried on in England by a Meeting of Parliament, excluding one
of the Eftates , and the King proclaiming againftit in Scotland
by a Committee of Eftates , which , if they had power to engage
the Land in a Forreign war , intended in that Covenant , may be
doubted. Now, although this could not nullifie the obliga-
tion of the Covenant , were the matter of it undoubtedly law-
full and otherwife ftill obliging ; yet , it were wel) if uniavrful-
nefs, in regard of this defect and want of a jawfull Authority
warrandiog it, were acknowledged; this were fome piece of
felf-denyal : Cafuifls fay , that res jurat a may be licit a , when
furamentum eft illicitum. Let the matter of the Oath be
lawfulUnd fuppofe it alfo to oblige; yet, they who appear fo
afraid of (in in breaking that Oath, would, for proof of their fin-
cerity , give as publick testimony againft the (infull way of en-
triog into that Bond , as they do againft that (in ( as they fup-
pofe) in breaking it; if they fay fablum valet : .let them condder if
they have no better reafon to fay fieri non debuit.
2. It is moft ferioufly to be confidered , if there be not in the
intrinfical frame of the Covenant that with which God was
not well* pleadd. Such a folemh Oath and Covenant , being a
moft folemn profeffion before God of what men did own in
Religion, and profefledly intended for the greateft mutual aflu-
rancc of men entring in it , (one to anotherj (hould have been
fram'd in moft ftricl, plain and fpecifical termes. But , this fo»
lem» League , &c Was fttrfofcly fraw/d in general and homo-
nymous termes , fuch as (by the expreflions ) Jcaveth room for
ail the Seflaries in the Ifle (if they will but profefs to own
the
(39)
rfie Word of God) to lurk under the lap of the Covenant, to
own each one their own way , and yet plead their keeping of
tbe Covenant, fuch is the generality of the tcrmes of it 3 that
fevexaL forts of Se&aries may fight in their feveral factions one
againft another, all pretending the Covenant, there being no di-
ftind fpecinxal terraes in the Covenant , whereupon ferae could
implead others as guilty of breach ; and did not theSeclariim
Armi?, when they invaded Scotland, pretend the Covenant and
keeping of it ? and thereupon there were high appeals made to
heaven ? ^Tiil not all , or moft of them, own the letter of the
Covenant, which only feems clear againft Popery and Prelacy,
and for a violent extirpation of this ? Then there was no
fecurity in that Covenant for prefer ving Presbytery in Scotland ;
the Presbytery not being once named,only the matter is wrapped
up in a general, We fliall preferve the Reformed Religion in
the Church of Scotland in Doclrfne, Worfhip, Discipline and
Government againft our common enemies; reformed Religion ,
and againft common enemies : No Independent or Septratift,
but might fay»be would preferve the Reformed Religion, &c*
in Scotland, albeit he thought not Presbytery to be any part of
Reformed Religion or Government, and although he minded to
doagainftit himfclf; only, if he would preferve it, itfhould
be to hold off what he apprehended worfer , he would preferve
it againft the common enemies. Neither is there fecurity in
that Covenant for reforming England , according to the pattern
as was defired by u<. Was there not more policy then piety
in this, to endeavour the foldering and holding faft of fo many
feveral parties united againft Epifcopacy ? yet , forting amongft
themfelves ■ like the iron and clay toes of Nebuchadnezzar's
image , and ready to break one upon another fall under pretence
of the Covenant) as it clearly came to pafTe and is ftili like to
be, fuch is the vanity of huaiane policies, unfound wayes of
uniting, tending to the begetting, in end, of greater diftraclions.
And the Covenant being of purpofe framed in general terms,
for tbe moft part, that feveral parties might be faft united
againft Prelacy owned by the King ; if it ftieui d be ftill owned,
would prove no better then a perpetual feminary of diverfc
Parties, all pleading their keeping of their Covenant, and yet no
party
(4°;
party agreeing one with another in the fpecifical fenfc thereof;
and fome of the wayes of thefe feveral parties, might be found
much worfe (in the judgment of right difcerners ) then Prelacy
is, or may be thought to bebyfomc. It would be ferioufly
pondred, whether this way of a ftudied indiftiDtftnefs, genera-
lity and homonymie in the terms of the Covenant, for ftrergth-
ning a patty againft fome one thing, was acceptable to God ?
And whether the blood of our Countrey-men, fhould have
been ca(\ away in fuch uncertain terms ? It will be faid,
The Covenant is clear enough againft Epifcopacy,*fet us keep
it in the clear and true fenfe of it, whatever c/oubtfulnefs be
otherwayes. But to fay nothing of this that we have (hew-
ed above, how unclear it is againft the Epifcopacy eftablidi-
cd now in Scotland (however clear it be as intended againft
the EngliQi frame ) were it not better to lay afide ( when now
it is difctaimed by King and Parliament and all perfonsof
truftin the Land) an kumane form, which* in refpeel of the
Compofurc of it, is apt to be, hath been, and is like to be
a feminary of varieties of parties (all pleading it) and worfe
evils then Prelacy is imagin'd to be, then ftill to ownir,
when as authentick exponers of the fenfe of it, who nrghc
reprove falfe pretenders to the keeping of it, cannot be had ;
neither while they were in being, could agree amongft
themfelves anent the fenfe of k; 2s may be feen in the Par-
liament of Englands barling the Scotifh Commiflioners
Declaration, anno. 1647. and other Papers. God hath
given the children of men work enough to be exercifed
in his holy Word, which certainly, in his intendment, hath
but one true fenfe (howbeit mans blindnefs often pcrceiveth
it fiotj It is a needlefs labour to be taken up with humane
forms (purpofely contrived in general terms for taking in
parties of known contrary fenfe and judgment) which will
(if own'dj prove apples of contention in tie prefent and
fuccecding Generations.
But, 3. Let fober and godly men confider, If it was
dutifully done, to f wear the prefervation of the Kings per-
son and Authority conditionally and with a limitation, /*
*Ai frefervation and defence of the true Religion. Mr.
Crofton
Cnfton indeed denyetb , that in that third Article of the Co*
venantj there is toy limitation of cur loyalty in defending
the King, or that this is the fenfe, that we are only bound
to defend Him while He defends Religion; he afferts, than
claufe to be only a predication of their prefent capacity who
engage to defend the King's Perfon , to this fenfe, we being
in defence of Religion , &C» Jb*H defend the King's Per/on.
But, ("to fay nothing how ftrain'd-lke this looketh, the
words, ivhe fenfe cf judicious men, looking 2sa clear limi-
tation of our duty to Him; as if otherwife we owed Him
no duty of that fort ) Belike, the General <*4§. of the Church
of Scotland (hould undtrftand the fenfe of the Covenant
fomewhat better then Mr. Crofto»y (to fay nothing of their
dating their opposition to Authority of Parliament in the
matter of the Engagmcnt, 1648. upon this as the main hinge,
*» our conditional duty to the King ) They in their Decla-
ration, 1649. declare, that the King was not to be admitted
to the exercife of His royal Power, before fatisfa&ion , as to
the matter of Religion ( they meant mainly that particular
inodeof Church-government by Presbytery ; for, that was
it that went under the name of Religion , the fubftance of
the prottftant Religion being never under qucftion between
the King and them ) they plead for a ground the Covenant,
where their dutyjin defending the King's Perfon and Autho-
rity, is faid to be fubordinate to Religion ; and therefore it
is concluded, that without manifeft breach of Covenant, they
cannot 3dmit Him to reign, till in that they be fatisfied : It
is clear, they look'd on it as a limitation of their duty, and
that His owning of Presbytery , &c, was conditio fine qu*
non , of His reigning amongft them, and of their paying duty
to Him ; and fo indeed the tranfadions in the Treaties at *Bre-
ds and the HagueM and what followed thereupon, expounded
their mind. Now, wis this right, that ( where our Allea-
giance binds us to duty in a greater latitude) this fhonld be
beid out to p eople as the only flandard of their loyalty, and
duty to the King ? Was it found Doctrine to iniinuat ( to
the fenfe of intelligent men) that we were not otherwife
F bound
f40
bound to defend Him ? Was it well by fuch a daufeio give
occafion to wicked men ( as the Sectaries take it in their Dc*
claration before the late King's death ) to think they were no
further obliged to Him then He fliould defend that which
they accounted Religion ; yea , that they were.obliged by Co-
venant to deftroy His Perfon, they finding (as they fay in that
Declaration ) that His Safsty and Religions are inconfiftent ?
And, was it the duty of the fc who were CommilTioners from
this at London then , to profefs in their Paper, thut veerc mt
intrvfled to juftifie any in their guilt , when they knew the
Regicides would take their meaning tabe of the King -? Dotii
difference in Religion, or in thefe inferior and lower points
about Church-government, loofe a peop!cfrom their duty in
defending His Perfon , and obeying His Authority ? How
may forreign Princes ( who have Proteftants in their Domi-
nions) take it, if that might pafs for an approved opinion
amongft their proteftant Sub/eds, that their loyalty is to be
limited to His beeing of their Religion; and if He be nor,
they miy either ceafe to defend Him or invade Him? It may
be remembred, that thofe who owned the weftern Remon*
ftrance,d,d juftifie their fed irious Engagments and renting pro-
ceedings (which few of them havedifclaim'd to this day)
upon their fenfing the obligation of the Covenants is faid, and
that in. conformity to the conftant tenor of the publilhed Decla-
rations and Teftirconies of Church- judicatories , (kec the tak-
ing of the Covenant: and if fc, fureit concerncth the Mini-
fters of this Church, to vindicate the Doctrine thereof, in the
point of that rtfpetl and obedience to the Civil Magi fir ate
( which the Confeflions of all Proteftant Churches do own )
which hath been ftajo'd by thefe corrupt principles and po-
rtion-, and the undutifull practices, flowing from the fame in
thefe years pall.
But to hy no more, it would be in the fear of God con-
fidered, if in the folemn Covenant, the engagers therein have
bound themfelvcs to any acl unlawfull, that may render the
Covenant in fome part of the matter of it finfull ; the acl
ivhich in the fecond Article ( now under queftion ) they have
engaged
engaged themfelves in, is-the voting oat of Prelacy or
the Orfices, &c. There was no fuch 0 Scsttani
at that time, fo they needed not to fwcar txtifpation of
what W3$ not there,* lnS'ngtaKd their Church- government
being warranted by the Laws cf the Kicg and Land, it may
bcqueft;on\iifthe 'wearing the extirpat.on, or endea-
to extirpate the fame, without and againft the confenc
of the Sovcraign Lawgiver of the land, was a lawful! Acl.
The qutftion is not no Epifcopacy be law:
not, But fuppollng Epifcopacy to be iiolawfull in i:
ftlf, albeit in that cafe the Law-givers were indeed bound to
remove it, and to annul! Laws favouring it ; Yetj it were
t full to people to bandy for forcing or frighting the
Law-givers to an alteration of thefe Law?, and to tyc
themfelves to a mutual defence, with lives idd for
for overturning what the Law alloweth (agree theSove
or not) wnich is the clear meaning of the Covenant, Artie.
2,3,5. If once that Principle prevail, that fuhje&s may
(when they apprehend Laws unlawfully ufe forcible endea-
vours to obtain alteration thereof, Whatfecuricy can there
be for the beft Princes in maintaining the belt Laws ? or
what peace for people ? When an evil fpirit rufheth upon
people, or fome Sheba bloweth the trumpet, they will be
ready to think it is their place and calling, being fouldiers
and men at artnes (however called thereto) to offer violence
to Magiftrates and Laws, even the beft : It is in vain,
fome defenders of the Covenant fay, forcible endeavours
are not meant; Compare fecond Article and thirds that
make mention of lives and eftates, and relates to the former
and the fifth Article. It is clearly enough feen, violent
endeavours are meart, where lefle will not do. And when
thecaufe of-- the Covenant was managed in the field, were
not people upon account of that Article, hunted out ei
tokillordie,and terrified with the charge of Covenant-break-
ing if they went not > 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
wereanfwcLJble.
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 perfonsy 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
cfttbliflimcnti 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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11