Reader
Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Thomas Forrester

Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 2 · Chapter 2

CHAP. II.

The Informers arguments against the abjuration of Prelacy in the nationall Covenant fully examined. Some reasons of his against an Oath in generall, or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity, weighed. The Apologeticall narration, and the Assembly 1638, vindicated.

WE come now to examine what this new absolver or pretended doubt-resolver, hath presented to us against the oblidging force of these great engadgments. The defence which he hath patcht up out of the survey of Naphtali, and that pamphlet called the seasonable case, consists of 2. parts. 1. He denys that the bond of either the national, or solemne league and Covenant, doth strike against the present Prelacie. 2. Upon supposall that the solemne league and Covenant doth strike against it, he denys its obligation. In both points we shall examine his grounds and trace his Method. I the doubter alledges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant, so that none may warrantably owne the Ministry of such as preach under them, as being perjured. To this consequence he repones nothing, but seems to admitt it, and therefore we need not speak unto it. Only he quarrells with the antecedent & tells us that we would act more Christian Like, if we were sparing in judging another mans servants, who stand or fall to their own Master. But the judging there forbidden, being a rash felfish judging of others in things indifferent, as meats or drinks, and (as Calvin paraphraseth the words) de hominium factis pronunciare extra verbum Dei de factis aliorum non licet statuere secundum nostram ipsius estimationem, sed ex verbo Dei. That we are not to judge of mens practises by our own opinion, but according to the rule of the Word, and not without its limits. Telling us further, that Iudicium quod a verbo sumitur, neque humanum est neque alienum that it is no human privat judgement which is drawn from the Scriptures, the impertinent application of this passage & premised Scripture to our case, which is a practicall disowning of palpable perjury, and turning away from such, whose instruction causeth to erre from the words of knowledge, is obviously evident. This is no judging without Gods word, but according to it, to say that perjury is perjury, sin is sin. Our Informer by this new knack would take away all christian judgement of discretion, yea by this his wide glosse, all judiciall decisions whither civill or ecclesiastik. Besides, is not his pamphlet a judging of another mans servants, Ministers and people, as schismaticks and what not, for disowning Curats upon the forementioned grounds. Doth he not and all his party judge, despise, and persecute the people God, for that which he calls indifferent, and a disputable point, at the foot of the page. But to proceed, his Doubter alledging [that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which doe abjure them] he cryes out at, all Bound! as a paradox, and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it, and asks if we think them bound. Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in Gods covenant (Deut: 29.) who were not there, as well as these who were there, young and old, wives, little ones, from the hewer of wood, to the drawer of water. It seems this man either hath not read that chapt: or understands not the import of nationall compacts even among nations themselves; which do certainlie oblidge all members in the incorporation, although not personally sworne by every duplicate page duplicate page individuall. Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majestie, but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supremacie or alledgeance. If so, then a man could not, be guilty of treason, which is certainly a breach of this fealty, unlesse he had personally sworn, which I know not who will assert.

But the doubter alledging That it obligeth even the posterity, he tells us that this is a strange fancy, Iuramentum being with casuists, vinculum personale, binding those that took it only, that accordingly the Covenant sayes, [we every one for ourselves] and not [for our selves and others]—That the father who was against Bishops, his swearing should not prelimit his sons judgement (who is for them) in a disputable point, or oblidge him to act contrary, to his judgment. Ans: 1. That there are covenants and oaths reall and hereditary, as well as personal, is evident in scripture; and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it, which is not only thus evident, but acknowledged also by Casuists. Was not that oath and Covenant, Deut: 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto (and by consequence engadging) their seed for ever. Deut: 5: 2, 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive, even that Covenant at Horeb, though they were all near dead with whom it was made. Neh 9. 38. all entred into Covenant but only some sealed it. Was not that oath of Josephs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan, the oath to the Gibeonites, such as did reach and oblidge their posteritie? So that oath betwixt David and Jonathan. 2. Sam: 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such, cannot be doubted, it being about matters of perpetuall and everlasting importance, which no time can alter, evacuat or limit, and having the publick faith of Church and state interposed therin, by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath: And likewise being in its nature promissory, in relation to duties, midses and ends perpetually necessary and oblidging, it is palpably evident that it is reall, and not personall only. 2. For that expression, every one for our selves, it is very impertinently here alleadged to exclude the posterity: for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be, the glory of God, the advancement of Christs kingdome, the happiness of the King and his posterity, the true publick liberty, safety of the kingdomes &c. wherin every ones private state is included; which of necessity includes the posterity and designes the obligation for them.

Next, in the close of the first article, the posterity is expresly taken in, when the end and designe of the matters therin contained is said to be, that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love &c: And in the close of the 5. article we engadge to endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all posterity: and therefor his negative inference viz: for our selves, and not for our posterity, is opposit unto the very sense, scope, and words of this oath: so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities, conditions, and relations, wherein, in order to the work of God, the then engadgers stood. 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the fathers engadgement, is a poore shift. For this might be objected against any nationall mutuall compact, in matters of a farr lower nature then this. This might have been objected against Josuahs oath to the Gibeonites. Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them, and might not Zedekiahs posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon? I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now constitute, and oblidge for our selves and posterity, that it shall stand in this posture. Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this, since he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apostolick frame, owned by the primitive Church. But shall the sons judgement who is other wayes minded, be prelimited by the father, or els must he act contrary to his judgement? let the Informer see to this. If he say its not a disputable point to hold the present prelacie, and that therefor the son is oblidged to informe his judgement and act rationally, the obligation to the dutie carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it: surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant; and that consequently his objection is naught, and the horns of his horned argument are crooked, so that it pushes us with neither of them. We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to practice, in many things not indispensably necessary: will fall under the fathers paternall power over Children, witnesse that case of the Rechabites: And that this will not in every thing inferre a prelimi, tation in judgment as to the object simpliciter: Nay who knows no… that the great morall precept [honour Thy Father and thy Mother] imports a very extensive obligation upon Children as such, in order to obedience to parents, and gives unto parents a large, and extensive authority hereanent. But shall the son be prelimit in his judgment anent all these, or act contrary to it? so this objection (in the Informers sense, and according to his scope) will blurre out a great part of the 5t. Command. But what needs more, the matters here engadged unto, are important truths and dutys, not disputable points, as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party would make them: and therefor we are under perpetuall obligations to owne and mantaine the same.

But if this man will abide a quere here, and a litle retortion of his notion further, thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithfull ministery and professors of this nation, in their judgement about his disputable points of the present conformity, by so many laws and acts, or else oblidge them to act contrary to their judgement? Sure fathers have at least as great, if not a greater authority to limit their children, then the Prelats and their party to prelimit the Presbyterian Ministers of this Church. Especially (which is our advantage in this comparison) the children being supposed under no previous contrary obligations to that which in this case the fathers put upon them in relation to prelacie, as the non-conformists are under counter obligations to that which is now demanded of them by their persequutors.

Mr Crofton. (in his analepsis, pag. 145.) tells us that considering the Covenant as made by the people of England, as a Kingdom and a Politicall body, professing the reformed religion, it looks like a nationall obligation, that the confluence of publick assent and authority by the people collectively and distributively considered, the accession of Royall assent, makes it a Publick and nationall Covenant, binding all persons of the nation (that sware, or sware not personally) and our posterity after us, in their particular places, and all that shall succeed unto the publick places, and Politick capacities of this kingdom, to preserve and pursue the things therein promised, so long as it remaines a kingdom, under one king, and in the profession of one reformed religion. He enforces this with the lord chief Barons speech, to the condemned traytors at the old baylie [you were bound to beare allegance to your king, yea though you may not have taken the oath of alleadgance your selves, yet yow were bound by the Recogintion of king James and his posterity made at his first coming to the crown of this Realme, by the whole parliament, being the whole collective body of the kindom] hence he inferrs, that they and their posterity, must needs be bound, who themselves have [universaly] by the authority of such who were intrusted for them engadged the faith of the nation: for I see not (saith he) how they can give away our estates or take pardons in the name, and to the security of the nation if they may not in our name make oaths, promises, and Covenants to bind us and our Succeeding generations and posterities, in sense whereof I cannot but desire all that wish well to England to consider the Covenant, the Solemne League and Covenant. So that with Mr Crofton it is an uncontrovertible point, that the obligation of this Sacred oath reaches the posterity, which he makes good from the sense and pleading of the Lord chief Baron in the point of alledgance and fealty to his Majesty which is the sentiment of all Lawers, and of the law itself. So that what our Informer calls ane odd fancy, appears to be a most solid truth, consonant both to Scripture, reason and the law of nations. As for the next objection of his doubter anent the fathers oblidging for the child in Baptism it is not our argument, nor is sutable to the state of this question, which is concerning a Covenant taken for our seed als well as for our selves; and if he acknowledge that the father binds not, in the name and room of the childe, then it toucheth not our point, for our question is about fathers taking on engadgements for themselves and their posterity. As for what the Informer adds here, its good that he acknowledges that ane oblidging force flows from the binding mater in that baptismall Covenant, and that the childs obligation is strengthened by his vow, which is enough in our case against him, since the matter of our Covenants, and vows fall under divine precepts, to which the obligation of the oaths and vows is accessory. So that having sworne to keep these holy engadgements unto God, we must performe, and here he contradicts his forleader, the author▪ of the seasonable case, who will have us either acknowledge the matter of the Covenant indifferent, or not plead the force of an oath or vow as superadded to that which was duty before.

The doubter next objects That having sworne against prelacie we must not any more dispute, or question the obligation, citing, Prov: 20. 25. This objection he advantagiously for himself, but foolishly propones, that he may make way for some discourse (forsooth) upon this Scripture. We acknowledge as well as he, that we are not forbidden to enquire into an oath and vow in what cases, and how farre it is binding. Nay this is commanded, since we must both sweare and performe in Iudgement, which requires a knowledge and inquiry as we saide before; and when an oath of vow is found materialy unlawfull, and vinculum Iniquitatis, it is no transgression of this precept to quite it. Such an inquiry as is in order to the understanding and performance of this vow in faith, we will allow whither to young or old. Only for what he sayes of many who were put to sweare at schools and colledges, and engadge in this Covenant, who could not do it in judgement, it is a calumnie which he cannot justifie, all being exhorted and instructed therein who were come to Years of discretion, so as to be in capacity to enter into this Covenant, with judgement: and if lesser young ones present in congregations where it was sworne, did signifie a spontaneous consent, it was no more, then what Israels litle ones did by their presence before the Lord, Deut: 29. Well, but what is forbidden ehre to make inquiry (saith he) how the vow may be eluded. This is ingenuouslie saide, and hereby his own lips condemne him and all his party, who have been now for many years, racking their wits to finde out evasions how to elude this Sacred vow. Witnesse the many pamphlets on this Subject since his Majestie's returne, and this mans among the rest.

But the Doubter alleading that upon enquiry we will finde our selves bound against prelacy both by the nationall & solemme League. He falls upon his impugnation first of the nationall Covenant, telling us as touching it [that the terme of the Popes wicked hiearchy will not include prelacie, as the survey of Naphtali fully proves] well, let us hear these proofs. The first is because king Iames and his counsel (the imposers of that Covenant, and the takers of it, Anno 1580) did in anno 1581: ratifie the agreement at Leith, made betwixt the Commissioners of the state and Church anno 1581. which was in favours of episcopacy. And would the king and counsell the next year have acted so contrary to it, if they had thought all episcopacy to be abjured therin Ans. Is this the great demonstration, which the Survever, and he have drawen out to prove this point, this being nothing but the old musty store of the Seasonable case, better propounded therein, then its here. To this I say, first, it is a very weak or rather wilde proof to conclude that such a corruption as prelacie could not be imported in that expression, Because the takers and imposers did some time after counteract and contradict their engadgement: must the sense of a promissory oath and Covenant be measured by the after practice of engadgers? Sure he will not darre to admit this rule, and yet its the very topick of his argument. I would but ask him, if we could clearly demonstrat from the words of this oath, and from this expression, that episcopacy is therein abjured, must he not grant that this argument taken from their after practice who took it, will signifie nothing, since it cannot stand good against the sense of the words, and the obligation natively resulting therefrom. Sure he cannot deny this, else he will swallow monstrous absurdities. And therefor unlesse he can disprove our arguments, which do prove prelacie to be abjured in that oath, and by the words in their genuine sense, he must grant that this practicall argument will signifie nothing. 2. He might have found that the Apologist outshoots the Surveyer and him, as also the Seasonable case in their own bow, and breaks this argument with a wedge of their own setting: for whereas they alledge that about a year or lesse after this Covenant was imposed and taken, King James ratified that aggreement at Leith. He retorts that at the assembly 1581. which had declared prelacie utterly Unlawfull, and without warrand in the word, the Kings Commissioner presented to them (together with the Covenant subscribed by the King) a plot of presbyterys to be erected by him through the Kingdom, together with his letter to noblemen and gentlemen to be assistant therein, and for dissolving prelacies, to make way for these judicatories made up of Ministers and Elders. Hence (Saith he) how could King James intend prelacy by this confession since the self same day (a shorter time then half a year) wherein this confession (subscribed by him and his houshold) was presented to be subscribed by the assembly, he presented a plot of presbyteries to be erected through the Kingdom. Now let our Absolvers Medium come in here, would King and counsell have acted so much for presbytery, and in opposition to Prelacie, in that very day wherein this nationall Covenant was presented by him, If he had not judged prelacie to be therein abjured, and presbyterie engaged unto. And (if this assemblies carriage will have any weight in this argument) would they have recorded this oath as the Test and badge of this their nationall engagement, after they had immediatly before judicially declared against prelacie, if they had not looked upon it as abjured therin, and understood this oath in a sense opposit thereunto.

The Informers next reason is, that in their strivings with the King to get prelacie away, they never used this argument; that it was abjured in the nationall Covenan…, which they would have done, had they thought it to be included in that expression, of [the Popes Hierarchie.] This, our Informer hath very justly copied out of the Seasonable case. What? had the Surveyer in all these pages which he cites, no new notions to furnish him with, that this proctor is still feeding on the old store. But to the matter, first, how (I pray) runs this argument, [Ministers pleaded not this obligation at that time with King James: Ergo, There was no such meaning in the nationall Covenant] surely this is a wide consequence. 2. this is yet wider [we know not of any such pleading at that time: ergo there was none] besides, he might have found that the Apollogist tells him out of Petries hist: pag. 448. That Mr. Melvin in anno 1584. writing to divines abroad anent our Church, shews them that three years since, the discipline of this Church was approved, sealed, and confirmed with profession of faith, subscription of hand, and religion of oath, by the King and every subject of every state particularly. And that (pag; 570.) he shews that when some Ministers (anno 1604) were accused by the Synod of Lothian as to a designe of overturning the government, the synod presented the confession of faith to them, as containing ane abjuration of prelacie, and a vow for presbyterian government, And that Mr. Forbes one of the impannelled Ministers for holding that meeting at Aberdeen in anno 1605. in his discourse to the gentlemen of the assize, shewed that they were bound by the nationall Covenant to mantaine the discipline of the Church, and having read it to them, he told them that they would be guilty of perjury, if for feare or flattery they discernd that to be treason which themselves had sworne and subscribed. Who also desired the Earle of Dunbar to shew the King what followed upon the breach of the oath to the Gibeonites, and that they feared the like should fall on him and his posterity. The Seasonable case (pag: 13.) acknow ledges that Ministers at that time lookt upon themselves as obliged against prelacy, by the national Covenant, as well as we by the League, in plaine contradiction to this Informer. As for that which he adds [of Beza's intention in writing against prelacie] we spoke to it already upon the first dialogue. And seeing this man objects to us Beza here again, we will offer to his consideration, Beza his 79. epistle written to John Knox, and dated at Geneva, Aprile 12. 1562. Wherein he sayes, This is the blessing of God that ye brought into Scotland, together with the sownd doctrine, foreign or good discipline—he obrests him to keep these two, since if the one be lost, the other cannot long continue—thereafter he imputes it to this cause, viz the want of this pure discipline, that the gospell is preached to many in judgement, not in Mercy. Then he adds, I would have thee (my Knox) and the rest of the brethren remember (which is now as befor our eyes) that as the Bishops brought in the papacie, so these false Bishops the relicts of papacie, will bring Epicurisme into the Church. Let them beware of this whoever wish the safety of the Church: and seeing ye have once banished is out of Scotland, receive it never again, albeit it doth flatter with the shew of retaining unity, whereby many of the best ancients were deceived. See Petries hist. part. 3. pag. 376.

The Doubter next enquiring what is meant by the Popes hierarchie. He answers, not all Bishops, but these who actually depended upon the Pope, and that all Bishops can no more be understood, then reformed Presbyters, who renounce their dependance upon him; Presbyters and Deacons being a part of his hierarchie, as the Council of Trent determines. Ans. This is already removed when we did shew that prelacy is here abjured simpliciter, and absoluty, abstracting from this dependance, it being here abjured as other corruptions are abjured, not mainly or only, because the Pope brought them in (as the assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638 clears it in their explanatory act, and likewise the Apollogist pag. 396.) but as a corruption, …ex se & sua natura of its own nature, contrary to the word of God, and the pure received doctrine of this Church. It is His wicked hierarchie as the rest of the corruptious therein enumerat, are called [his] such as invocation of Saints, dedications of altars &c. Because introduced by him, not to distinguish these corruptions, from a lawfull dedication of altars, worshipping of Images &c. Doth this man think that these Reformers would have admitted such corruptions presented under another notion then the Popes authority, and obtruded by this Argument; that their dependance upon him being broken off, they were no more to be accounted his corruptions?] or that they would have embraced extreme unction, or some other of his Sacraments, and the inferiour orders of Lectors, Acoluthi, Exorcists &c: upon some other consideration then his Sacraments or orders? surely he dare not assert this, and so the case is here. 2. As for his reason that otherwise all Ministers and Deacons should be abjured. It is very impertinent, Because 1. Ministers and Deacons, are officers of divine appointment, so that the abuse being removed, this divine officer stands; but prelacie is, exse, or of it self, contrary to the word of God, as we have proved. 2. The Hierarchie is abjured in that Covenant, as contrary to the then discipline of this Church, but so are not Presbyters and Deacons. 3. We have proved that the Hierarchie, and the speciall prerogatives which prelates arrogate to themselves, ar originaly papal, and they in a speciall manner are looked upon by him as his creatures. 4. as the Papacy cannot subsist without prelacie, and any otherwayes then upon its shoulders, so neirher prelacie nor the Papacy can consist with Presbyterian government, and Presbyters divine right and power.

The Doubter next objects [that all Bishops depend on the Pope, citing Appol: pag. 395. And that therefor all Episcopacy is abjured in this oath.] He answers, the Apologie sayes they depend upon the Pope, in esse & operari, but asks how he proves it, and tells us that to say it is so because the Pope acknowledges they depend upon him alone, is a poor because, evident to any ordinary capacity, resolving this upon the Popes [ipse dixit] like a Papist, and gives the Papists that advantage over Protestant Churches, that a Bishop depends upon the Popes supremacie, now and from the beginning, wherein he saith, protestants do oppose the Pope and prove that his supremacy was contradicted by Councils and Fathers. Anf: The silly Impertinency of this new agent of the tottering cause, is here very evident, in thus reflecting upon that Author, whose answers to these poor arguments of the Seasonable case, he dare not touch. For that Pamphleter alleging [that Prelates are not abjured in that Covenant, but as they depend on the Pope, as it abjures the five bastard Sacraments, as he makes them Sacraments, and that therefor the corruptions only of these offices which flow from him, are abjured, and as a part of his blasphemous priesthood.] The Apollogist taking this concession, inferrs thereupon, That if these offices be abjured as a part of his Hierarchie, and as confirmed by, and depending upon him, then Prelates are abjured, who depend upon him in esse & operári. The Prelate as such being no officer of divine appointment, as the Presbyter and deacon, which if they were, then this Casuists argument would hold good, that we were to remove the corruption, and retain the institution and ordinance of God. But since we do suppose the office it…self to be a corruption, and he hath not proved the contrary, his paralled as to the bastard Sacraments is naught. And to clear this matter of fact that they are a part of the Popes hierarchie, by the Popes acknowledgement, that Author cites Peter-Suave in his history of the council of Trent, where the Pope would not have it determined, whither Prelats were Iuris Divini, lest they should not depend upon him after this as formerlie. Now the question here being, whether the Pope lookt upon Prelates as a part of his hierarchie, as in the capacity of Prelates: in order to the clearing of this other question depending betwixt this reverend author, and the Author of the Seasenable case, viz. whither our Reformers intended to abjure Prelats in that Covenant, as a part of the Popes hierarchie. To clear this matter of fact, what could be more pertinent then the Popes own acknowledgement, and judiciall declarator; that de facto they depend upon him, and areowned as parts of his hierarchie, is in this convincingly apparent. That de jure they have no divine warrand, this author supposed it as his principle, the contrary wherof neither that Pamphleter, nor any other hath proved: So that the Popes [ipse dixit] in this, is sufficient to prove this matter of fact. That he made not the Popes, [ipse dixit] the rule to decide whither this officer be juris divini, or not, is in this convincingly evident (and by consequence this mans obvious folly in imputing to him such ane assertion) that he grants, that if this Casuist had proved the Prelate to be juris divini, and institute by Christ or his Apostles, then the abjuring [of the Popes wicked Hierarchie], would import only the abjuring of [the corruption of this officer], whose lawfull office might be still retained: but this casuist taking this for granted that he is so institute, and reasoning upon that supposition, the author had good ground, until his Antagonist as the affirmer shouldpro vehis supposition, to hold fast his own principle viz, that the prelats Episcopal being is papal: which is cleared by many of the Learned from convincing Testimonies. Let this Resolver read Leo (epist. 86.) and Swave (Tom. 4. pag. 465. of the Council of Trent, sess. 23. cap. 4. de Sacram. ordinis) where Anathema is pronounced upon any that denyes Prelates power of ordination. &c. over Presbyters. I suppose he were alleging against a Papist that some of the Popish orders are essential pieces of his hierarchie, and should prove it by the Popes acknowledgment and constitutions, would he think the Papists rejoynder good, ergo, ye owne the Popes authority, and make his, [ipse dixit] judge. Say it were a question anent ths Acoluthi or Exorcists &c. Whither they are a part of the Popes Hierarchie? would he not think the Popes acknowledgment and owning them for such, to be a sufficient argument to prove this? Since he supposeth (and rationally) that they have no other right either in esse, or operari. Do not all our divines draw Arguments from the Pope and his councils acknowledgment, to prove their owning of many corruptions, and that they are properly theirs. But do they justifie the Popes [Ipse dixit] in proving this, or in this method of arguing? since they do suppose aliunde, that they have no divine right, as the Apologist in the point of prelacie rationally doth. 2. as for what he adds of protestant Churchet, or Prelates, their opposing the Popes pretended right and Supremacy hereanent, we say that they impugne his supremacy best, who lay an axe to its root [prelacie]. And to grant that prelacy is of its self a part of his Hierarchie, will no more justify his supremacy, then Pauls saying that the mysterie of iniquity was working in his time would do it. And al tho the first Proestotes or Bishops did not formally depend upon him, yet as a humane device they made way for him, and eatenus, are a part of his Hierarchie, which the opposition of some Bishops when he first attempted supremacy doth nothing invalidat. Besides that the question here betwixt the Apologist and that Pamphleter, was about prelacie as it appeared befor the Reformers in its then being and would, but not of the first proestotes or moderatours. What he adds here anent Calvin [his owning of a hierarchie, and pronouncing Anathema upon them who would dissowne it, if cut off from its dependance upon the Pope] is answered already upon the 1. Dialogue. He…e I shall only adde, that if Calvin in that passage, opposed unto the [Popish Bishops] Such as take Christ for their head, what curse will he not judge them worthy of, who owne and plead for such Bishops as pretending to renounce the Popes headship, take for their immediat head a civill Pope, and make him as to all spirituall maters, a more absolute head then the Pope himself.

As for his argument from these Ministers who reasoned with the Doctors of Aberdeen [their declaring that the Doctors might take the Nationall Covenant, and yet debate and vote in relation to episcopacie in the ensuing assembly] I wonder what blurred this mans eyes, that citing pag. 395. of the Apollogy, he could not look back, to pag. 393. where he might have found this argument of his Master the author of the Seasonable case answered, which this casuist drew from that pamphlet emitted anno 1638. under the name of his Majesties Commissioner; so that we have it here in the 3… concoction, and yet it is as raw as at the first. The answer in short is (I remit it at length to his reading in that peice) that it was not the nationall Covenant it self that the Doctors scrupled to subscribe, and consequently anent which that debate was stated betwixt the Ministers and them, but the addition containing, the application to the present times, which as to prelacie was expressed thus [a forbearing the approbation of the corruptions of the publick government of the Church] by this they thought they were expresly specifically bound against prelacie: this these Ministers denyed, but never said that prelacie was not abjured in the nationall Covenant it self, or the negative Confession. Let this Absolver read the answers of the Ministers, wherein this will be cleared.

The Doubter next objects [that the decision of the assembly 1638. put it out of doubt that prelacie was abjured in that Covenant, and that all Episcopacy was meant by the Popes hierarchie]. To which he answers. 1. That prelacie being of divine, or Apostolick right, that decision is null from the beginning. Ans. wheras he sayes he hath proved prelacie to be of divine or apostolik right, I will presume to say I have proved the contrary; so that the Covenant is so far from being null upon this ground, that it is rather an accessorie tye to disown a corruption, to the disowning wherof, wewere before by scripture grounds preoblidged. But passing this, he next alledges that it was more then that assembly could do to declare this. Who so? 1. (sayth he) how could they put a sense upon ane oath taken 58. years before, and few or none of the first takers alive, or if alive, few or none members of that assemblie? how could they know that their exposition was according to the mind of the first imposers? But why will this Plageary tell us still over and over the arguments of the Seasonable case, without noticing the answer therof already exhibit unto him? did not the Apologist tell him, that this reason supposeth the sense of that Covenant to perish with the first framers. And whereas that casuist added, to make the argument stronger (which this his disciple forgot) that the oath being vinculum personale, they could not give the sense of dead men. To this the Apologist answers, that there is also a vinculum reale, as this nationall oath was, and that it oblidging all the Land, and the posterity, we were accordingly in order to performance, bound to Search into its meaning, and that this was the proper work & duty of a general assembly. That that casuist himself acknowledged (which this borrower should have noticed) that this was the judgement of Ministers concerning its sense when prelates were first obtruded upon this Church, so that its true meaning from hand to hand was come to them, and that they were the more in tuto to judge of it. And whereas the argument of the Seasonable case had a Limitation in it which this man forgott, viz: [unless that assembly could produce authentick evidences that this was the meaning of Imposers] the Apologist told him that they did produce authentick expresse evidences, that such was the meaning of the first takers. I would know how this man comes to descant upon the sense of ancient writers in this pamphlet, and to determine anent sentences of private writers, dead severall centuries of years agoe? He is very confident in fastning his Glosses upon Jerom's words. I trowe that Author is dead more then 58. years agoe. And for as clear as his words are against the divine right of prelacie, yet this man thinks he is Cock sure that this was not the meaning of Jerom's words, which presbyrerians alledge. Quis talia fando, temperet a risu.

But the Seasonable case goes on to object next (and this resolver followes up at his heels.) That all which that Assembly produceth (Sess. 16.) to prove this to be the meaning of that Oath, amounts only to this, that the Church about that time of taking the Covenant, and also afterward, was labouring against Bishops, but proves not that episcopacie was abjured in the words of the oath. Now why would he not do his Doubter such a small piece of justice, as to put into his mouth the large answer of the Apollogist to this argument, from (pag. 406. to 409.) But this would have made him too stiffe a Doubter for this Resolver or Informer: but had he nothing in the Surveyer to resolve this? Well, the Apollogist here tells him and his Leaders in this argument, that the Covenant supposeth a Government then in being, to the defence of which it oblidgeth: that that Government was not prelacie, but presbytery, he clears by a large induction of our assemblies acts and procedour, as the Assembly 1638. did before; so that, that matter of fact being clear, there is No doubt but that the nationall Covenant binds to defend and preserve presbyterian Government then owned and existing; even as its engadgement to defend the King must needs be understood of King James who was then reigning. That this was the government then Existent and owned by this Church, we cleared in short already, and need not here repeat it. But 3. this Informer (passing over a more plausible objection of his Master the Seasonable case) enquires by what warr and that assembly could put upon others their sense of the Covenant; they might declare their own sense (saith he) which possibly was not right, but how could they oblidge others to their sense, who had taken it before, the first imposers having given them no such power. The Apollogist here told him, that this assembly put no sense of their own upon any who took it either before or after, but as the representatives of this Church gave a judiciall interpretation of it, and by authentick evidences made it appear, that this was the sense of the imposers, and of the Church of Scotland when it was taken, and that such as sware it before with an explicatory addition [to forbear the approbation of prelacie, untill the assembly should try whither it was abjured in that oath] did consequently commit this unto, and were accordingly depending upon the assembly to declare the meaning therof; besides that the judicial interpretation of this nationall Church her oath, did of right belong unto this her supreme judicatory as is said. Here the Doubter objects [that those who took the Covenant after it was thus sensed by the assembly, have abjured Episcopacy]. To this he answeres that the assembly did intend to put no other sense upon it, then the sense of the words, and of the first imposers. Very true, but what then? the first imposers having no such meaning (sayth he) as to abjure Episcopacie, the assemblies ground failes, and their posterior meaning could not bind against the first meaning. This last is easily granted, but the great pinch lyes in this, how proves he that the first Imposers never meaned it against Episcopacie. This he sayes is already shewed, but where? we must waite it seems for a new pamphlet to get an account of this great proofe.

The Doubter next alleadeth to purpose [that we engadge our selves in that Covenant to adhere to this Church in doctrine, faith, religion and discipline, —and to continue in the doctrine and disciplin thereof, which is Presbyterian discipline.] To this he answers. That by discipline, cannot he meant Presbyterian government. Why so? because (saith he) at the first imposing of the Covenant there was no such government in Scotland nor for a confiderable time after. Ans. we have made it appear that Episcopacie was judicially declared unlawfull, and that both the books of discipline were received, which overthrow prelacie, and asserts Presbyterian discipline, before ever that Covenant was taken; and that at the very time of taking it the old mould of prelacies were dissolved, and Presbyteries erected both by the King, and assembly. But how proves our Informer that there was no such government in Scotland at that time? because (saith he) the King, for all Ministers essayes to introduce Presbytery, yet owned Episcopacy. But how proves he this, that at the imposing of the Covenant, he owned episcopacy? did he not owne the assemblies power, and the power of Synods? presented he not to that assembly 1581, a plot of Presbytries, and his letter enjoyning their erection, & to dissolve prelacies, together with the subscribed Covenant? how did this own episcopacy? let Royalists take notice what an ingrained dissembler this man makes King James, in saying that he still owned episcopacy, when so palpably disowning it to the sense of all reasonable men. And if king James came all this length as to the introducing of Presbytrie, surely Ministers essayes with him for this end, were very effectuall. Besides, its a poor argument to prove that this protestant organick Church was not at that time owning Presbyterian government, or exercising it (and by consequence that the Discipline as then existent, sworne to be mantained in that oath, is not Presbyterian) to say that king James owned episcopacie. Nay, in granting these essayes of Ministers for Presbytry, he grants that Presbyterian government was owned. For sute I am what was their sense and endeavours as to Presbyterian government from the beginning, the same were the sense and endeavours of the body of this protestant Church. But his 2d answer to the premised objection of his Doubter is ushered in with a therefor…—what next? therefor the government meant in it must be Episcopacie, if any particular mode of government be understood. This is well stept out, a piece beyond his Master the Seasonable case, who hardly comes this length. The man that will let us Episcopacie in this Church at that time, as the Government imbracd by her, must have odd prospectives, and of a like quality with these of our Informer, which have descryed Diocesian Bishops in Scripture. We heard that the Seasonable case grants [that Ministers then lookt on themselves as oblidged against episcopacie, both by the nationall Covenant, and by the word of God] pray Sir, be tender of these Ministers reputation, were they so principled and still owning episcopacie too? this is strange, yea and owning it and promising to defend it in this Covenant. Besides, how will he reconcil our Churches labouring now against Bishops, acknowledged by him pag. 118. with her practising Episcopacy, which he asserts pag. 118. But his answer hath a proviso [if any particular mode of government was understood.] But why will this latetudinarian Informer cast the mist of a hesitating [if] upon a clear and plaine truth? strange! Speaks not the Covenant of an existent frame of Government embraced by this Church? What! Were they embracing a Proteus? was it an existent individuum vagum, or materia prima, some Embryon that had received yet no forme? But how proves he that Prelacie was sworne unto in that Oath? Because (saith he) the Year after, the King ratified the agreement at Leith in favours of Episcopacie. This we heard before, and did shew what an insignificant reason it is, from King James practice a year after, to inferre what is the sense and intendment of this Oath, and the takers of it. A topick and reason which none who are solid and rational will admitt. Yet the Informer still beats upon this Anvill. Besides, the Apollogist tells him (pag. 15.) that this treaty at Leith, anno 1571, was opposed and censured by the Nationall Assembly, the very next year; So that this national Church in her suprem judicatory, gave no consent unto, but opposed that treaty, and whatever recesses from her Presbyterial Government, were therin begun; But this mans sqeemish eyes, stil overlooks what he cannot answer. Now remark our Informers profound and subtill reasoning in this point. King James did not abjure episcopacy in the Nationall Covenant, why so? Because the next Year he acted for Episcopacie. And when we allege that the Government to which that Covenant oblidgeth, was Presbyterian Government which was then existent; he tells us that the Government then existent was episcopall. And when he is put to the proofe of this paradox against such clear evidences, he just recurrs again and tells us (for his proof) that King James then acted for episcopacie; fine circular reasoning this is, and the Informer shall thus never want a Medium, & knows exactly to answer the solidest argument against-him with turning, according to the Souldiers dialect, asye were.

But what is meant by [discipline] in that Covenant? The substantialls of it (sayth he) and necessary policie as exprest in the first dook of discipline, 9. Cap. which is unalterable, tho particular formes (as some think) may be changed. But 1. Why will this versatil Informer bemist his reader what dark and generall expressions. Whither means he the [essential necessary Policy,] according to that phrase of the book, or a necessary Policy exprest and asserted in that book? If the first, I would ask him. 1. Why condescends he not upon that essential and necessary policy, and gives no account of its nature and extent, as it is contradistinguished from that which is not necessary, but mutable. 2. If by substantials of Government…, he mean all Church-officers of divine appointment, according to the Scripture account of their qualifications, their authority, and its due exercise, with what sense or reason can he suppose, or any els, that this wil not determin a particular form, & cansubsist without it? how can a particular form be more formaly and explicitly described then thus? But, next, if by necessary Policy, he understand the Policy held out and asserted in that first book, I would ask him. 1. Why excludes he the second book, which was at this time extant and received, and which doth in severall chapters viz. 5, 6, 7, 8. treat of the Pastor, Doctor, Elder, and Deacons office, which he will no doupt own as substantiall peeces of Church-policy, being so clearly asserted in Scripture. 2. Why answers he not to the account & character of that first book given by the Apoll: (pag. 10.) who tells him that it overthrowes prelacy in the establishing of Church-sessions, the way of election and triall of Ministers, and severall other things contrary to the episcopall method; will he by this silence consent, that prelacy stands in opposition to the substantialls of Church Government, and the utterly necessary Policy therof? to a policy indeed unalterable; (to use his time phrase)? if he say, that he understands by this phrase, that policy which is necessary in either or both these books, but not the intir. Policy delineated therin; how will he prove that the Covenant-obligation in the Intention of the imposers, reaches the on and not the other? Next I would ask this Informer, whither thinks he that particular forms of Government are alterable, yea or not? if not, how comes he to distinguish them in this, from the essentiall necessary Policy which he cals unalterable? if he think them alterable, why doth he not positively assert this, but presents this opininion as the thoughts of some only, and censurs Stilling fleets opinion herin (pag. 76.) Besides, if by [substantials of Government] he unstand [the disciplin asserted in that book,] he justles and deals stroaks what his reverend father B. Spotswood, in his character therof exhibit in his History, pag. 174. For first, he sayes it was framed in imitation of the Government of the reformed Church in Geneva, which all know was Presbyterian. 2dly. He sayes it it could not take effect as being but a Dream. And did he call the [substantialls of Government] but a Dream, thinks this man? Surely either the Bishop or our Informer dreams. 3dly. He wisheth Iohn Knox had retained the old policy, and therefore in his sense this policy was distinct from Prelacie. On the other hand the framers (the Ministry owneing it) supplicat the Parliament after it was drawn up for [the restauration of the Discipline of the ancient Church,] and for discharging the Popes usurpation, and of all that Discipline that did flow therefrom, as inconsistent with the Discipline of the ancient Church, and the Disciplin contained in that book. How absurd is it to suppose that it was only substantialls which was at this time existent, and no particular forme; it being a forme of Government and the Discipline of this Church, which the Covenant oblidges unto; and the Apologist as, well as the Assembly 1638. could have given him a large account and proof of a particular forme at this time existent. In a Word, let us have all the substantialls of Government, i. e. AllChurch officers divinely appointed, with their due power and Assemblies higher and lower, and it will quickly justle his prelacie to the door, and make him him and hisFathers feest he dint of the true Church of Scotland, her sword and censures for what they have done, if they repent not.