Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 3 · Chapter 3

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 3 · Chapter 3

p. 58CHAP. III.

The Doubters argument from Curats not entring by a call from the people, and that passage Acts 14. 23. cleared and improven. The Informers exceptions upon the terme foreign fully examined, and the peoples right in the call of Pastours cleared therfrom. His reasonings p. 59about Patronages, and the prelatick ordination, and peoples disowning of Scandalous Ministers not censured. As also his great argument from Math. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship, scanned and retorted upon him. Mr Durham in this point pleads nothing for the Informer. His answers and reasonings anent the charge of Introsion examined.

Our Informer upon this point of separation (which he holds to be his fort-royal in the present differences) having plyed his Doubter with offensive weapons, will needs shew his skill and just dealing in acting the defendant for some time. But I doubt that his defensive armour and answers shall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate, as his impugning weapons are bluntand pointless. Well, this fair disputant, will hear some of our arguments against the owning of Conformists, but be sure they must be of his own mould and digesting, for these can best suit the design of that pretty piece of pageantry, which he is acting in this pamphlet. The first argument which his Doubter offers, is [their not entring by a call from the people as all Ministers should (citing Act. 14. 23.) but by a presentation from the patron.] In answer to this, he spends some discourse upon that text, which we shall examine. But to clear this point the more fully, I will premise three things. 1. That the people have a divine right to call their pastou…, we proved before in the 9th argument against Episcopacy, and from other scripture-grounds beside this, although it be a weighty ground also, unto this we refer the reader. 2. That upon supposal of this divine rule and pattern of a Ministers Lawfull call, it doth clearly p. 60follow, that the patronages are a corruption, rendring the Ministers call in this respect maimed, and not so consonant to scripture as it ought to be.

3. Though it be granted that a Minister presented by the Patron, and not called by the people, hath the essence of the Ministerial office, and might in some cases be owned as a Minister, yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat: Because 1. Its certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church, as establisht before these innovations, a Ministers entry by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, without the usurping Prelate, and by the call of the people without the Patron, is the more pure and scriptural way of entry into the Ministry; and moreover the only way of entry own'd and authorized by her supreme Indicatories, and by consequence its most suitable to Presbyterian principles, when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other, and Ministers thus Lawfully called, are violently ejected by men reestablishing prelacy, and patronages, formerly cast out and vowed against, that people do adhere to their faithfull pastours rather then these Innovators and intruders; which will be convincingly clear, if it be also considered particularly, that as prelacy & allits corruptions & usurpations now existent and introduced, were fully removed and abjured by this Church, so laick patronages in speciall were upon most weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Churches declarator as appears in the Narrative of their 39. act. viz. The sense of the obligation lying upon them, both by the National and solemn league & covenant, by many deliverances and mercies from God, & by the latesolemn engadgement to duties, to preserve the doctrine and to maintain and vindicat the liberties of the Church of Scotland—to advance the work of Reformation—and considering p. 61that patronages & persentations of Kirkes is an evill and bondage under which the Lords people & Ministers of this land have long groan'd. That it hath no warrand in Gods word, but is founded only on the Canon Law, that it is a popish custom brought into this Church in time of ignorance & superstition, that its contrary to the 2d book of discipline, wherein upon solid grounds its reckon'd among abuses that are desired to be reformed, and Contrary to several acts of general assemblies, prejudicial to the liberty of the people, and planting of Churches, to the free call and entry of Ministers to their charge &c. This act the parliament 1662 did ranverse among other pieces of our Reformation: Ordaining all Ministers that entered since 49. to have no right to the benefice, till they obtain a presentation from the Lawfull Patron, and collation from the Bishop. Now upon supposal of the Covenant obligation, and our engadgement therein to separat from any corruption contrary to our Reformation, to give a testimony to that work, to with-draw from backsliders, is there any doubt but that people are oblidged (upon these grounds) to adhere to that body of faithful Ministers, who are standing to our principles and sworn Reformation (whereof these points mentioned are one main piece) rather then such as have turn'd aside to this course of perjurious defection. Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers, & exclude Conformists. Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the peoples right and liberty to call their pastour, Conformists are selling away this peice of her reformation & liberty, and thus crossing the scripture-pattern, the first are adhering to this Churches vowes (and people are obliged to owne these Ministers that are pursuing the ends) the other are casting them away &c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament, and in our Churches publick acts in opposition to patronages, and prelatick usurpations in a Ministers p. 62entry, are still binding and in force, according to our principles, as the Informer will not for very shame deny, and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles, and so what did then engadge to restore this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation, the same doth now bind to adhere therunto, and consequently to owne the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather then the backsliders and deserters thereof.

4. This man dare not assert, that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call, will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them, or that the granting a Minister to have this, is the only & adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary. For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously call'd Minister his labours, to whom the people stand oblig'd to adhere? Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatick course, setting up an altar against an altar (as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets) will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministeriall call, if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatick course? Nay he will not say it. 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lawful call, mission, and entry to their charges? will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them, and deserting conformists? If it will not (as he must here say, or yeeld the cause) then he must confess, that acknowledgment of the essence of Curats call, will not absulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr, and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church, they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastours, which will be ad Kalendas Graecas; & whatever he can pretend here, as to p. 63disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations, notwithstanding of their having a lawfull call, and pastoral relation to this Church, will be easily retorted upon himself, and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede, and stop the peoples owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church. So that the state of the question here being this, whether Ministers ordained by Bishops, and presented by Patrons, or those who are ordained by the Presbytry, and called by the people, have best right to officiat in this Church, as her Pastours, according to the Scripture rule, her reformation and principles, and to be own'd or disownd by the people accordingly. The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers, and exclusive of all his fraternity. And whatever he doth here alledge anent P…esbyterian Ministers schism, intrusion, or disorder, will be easily retorted upon himself, reputando rem in universum & ab initio. Or tracing matters to their true originals. But now what sayes our Informer to this argument of his Doubter, as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable. 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear, entred by the peoples call. But tho it were granted that such might be heard, who are but a few, how will this plead for all the rest, and loose his Doubters argument as to them? 2. we told him that its not the want of the peoples call, simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case, that we ground upon in disowning them, no more then it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them: But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation, union, and order of this Church, and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it, and by consequence being lyable to her highest censures; and likewise p. 64their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation. 3. All those who he alledges entered by the peoples call, havng by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism, disowned their first entry in this manner, and obtained presentation from Patrons, and collation from prelats, according to their new acts and orders, are now of the same stamp with the rest, as to their principles and carriage, and consequently the peoples disowning them upon the fore-mentioned grounds in this our case, falls under the same obligations with their disowning others, and the rather because their apostacy is an aggravation of their guilt. But now what sayes our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the peoples right in the election of Pastours. He grants, that the word foreign is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states, where the people signifyed their election of Magistrats, by the stretching forth of their hands, because the word so signifies. Well, what then hath he to quarrell at in this argument, for the peoples right in the call of Ministers from this text? 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Criticks shew, that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person, as its taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods chusing or appointing, So that the word is not necessarly to be underst…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages. Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import, and is made use of to signify a chusing by suffrages, and lifting up or extending the hands, Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Criticks, Interpreters, and the best Greeck authors. The Syriack version shewes that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders, but of the Churches election of Elders in rendering the text thus, Moreover they made to p. 65themselves, that is, the disciples mentioned in the former verse, made to themselves, (for such as were made, were not Elders or Ministers to Paul & Barnabas, but to the multitude of the disciples) in every Church while they were fasting with them & praying, & commending them &c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up, or stretching out of hands, thus Mr Gillesp. Misc. quest. page 9. Who also cleares this from Criticks and Interpreters asserting this sense of the word. He shews that where Iulius Pollux hath foreign lib. 2. cap. 4. Gualther and Wolf S…berus render it manuum extensio, and that Budaeus interprets the word plebiscitum, suffragium, H. Stephanus, manum porrigo. Because (he saith) they did in giving votes foreign thence the word came to be used, for scisco, decerno, …reo. Iustin. Martyr. Quest. & Resp. ad orthod. Resp. ad quest. 14. distinguishes foreign and foreign as of a different signification. Arrias Montanus in his lexicon, doth interpret this word manum elevare, eligere, creare Magistratum per suffragia. Again 2. The manner of election among the grecians clears this metaphore, & signification of the word. Demosth. Cicero and others make this appear; they had a phrase foreign, omnium suffragijs, obtinet, and another phrase foreign, no man gives a contrary vote. The approving votes, in chusing Grecian Magistrats in the theatre, was by holding up, or stretching forth of hands. See page 10. 11. 12. Where this is learndly and at large made good. 3. This is also made good from the ordinary method wherin the scriptures do express the setting apart of Church officers to their sacred functions, which is by the Churches election and consent, see 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2 Cor. 8. 19. 1 Tim. 3. 7. Acts 1. 23, 26. and 13. 3. and 15. 22. And since the holy ghost doth here intend by Luke to express the manner of the establishment of Elders, it is utte…ly improbable that p. 66the churches suffrage should be here omitted. 4. Protestant writers draw the Churches suffrage in election of Ministers, from this word, Magd. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. Zanch. in 4. precept. So Beza, Bullinger decad. 5. Serm. 4. Iunius contrav 5. lib. cap. 7. Gerard. Tom. 6. pag. 95. Danaeus 1 Tim. 5. Wallaeus in his treatise quibusnam competit vocatio pastorum. Cartwright, against the Rhemists, objecting (with our Informer) That in scripture this word signifies imposition of hands, answereth, That its absurd to imagine, that the holy Ghost by Luke speaking with the tongues of men, and to their understanding should use a word in that signification, in which it was never used before his time, in any writter holy or profane. For how could he be understood (saith he) if using the note and name, he had fled from the signification whereto they used it, therefore unless he purposed to write what none could understand or read, it must needs be that as he wrote, so he meant election by voices. Then he proves this from Oecumenius the greek scholiast, from the Greek Jgnatius, and tells us, there were proper words to signify the laying on of hands, had the holy ghost intended this, and that its absurd to thinke that Luke▪ who straitneth himself to keep the words of the seventie Interpreters, when he could have uttered things in better terms then they did, should here forsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands, being most proper and natural to signify the same. Next, As for what he objects from Acts 10. 41. had he been sincere or diligent in this debate, he might have found that the above mentioned learned Presbyterian writer with others doth here tell him first, that the word foreign used there, is not the same with foreign, but is as it were a preventing of foreign by a prior designation. 2. That its atribute to God metaphoric… or improperly, shewing that in the council of God, the Apostles were in a manner elected by voices in the trinity, which he clears by that parallel Gen. 1. Let [us] make man. p. 67Adding, that this hinders no more the proper signification of the word, when applyed to men, then foreign ascribed to God can prove, that there's no change in men, when they repent, because there is none in God.

The Informers 2d answer is, That Greek wri ters do ordinarly use this word to signify ordaining a person to a charge, without voices and suffrages. And that here its so to be understood, he proves from this, that Paul and Barnabas are said to do this work exprest by this Greek word, and not the people; That we will not say that Paul and Barnabas elected Ministers to these Churches, which were to yeeld the question. That therefore our translation reads it, they that is Paul and …arnabas, ordained them elders &c. they pray'd and commended them to the Lord; So that it was not the action of the people, but of Paul and Barnabas. Ans. All this is nothing but his petio principii and what is answered already 1. That this word signifies ordinarly the ordaining of a Person to a charge without votes and suffrages, is most false, and contrary to the sense of the word in Greek authors contrary to the Scripture acceptation of the word, & to sound divines as we have heard. And to this may be here added (which is also the observation of the above mentioned learn'd writters) that we find extraordinary Officers in the Apostles times not put into their functions without the Churches consent, hence we may conclude, that far less ought there to be an intrusion of ordinary Ministers without their consent. Paul & Silas were chosen of the whole Church to their extraordinary delegation, Acts. 15. 22. Pauls company were chosen by the Church 2 Cor. 18. 19. The Commissioners of Corinth were approved by the Church 1 Cor 16. 3. Matthias an Apostle, foreign simul suffragiis electus est, as Arrias Montanus turn's it, was together chosen by suffrages, viz. of the 120 Disciples. 2. How prove's he that Paul and and Barnabas did this work exprest by p. 68this word foreign, we told him that the Syriack version understands it of the Disciples. Mr Gillespy (lococitato) proves that foreign is here to be rendred ipsis not illis, shewing that Pasor in the word foreign renders Acts 14. 23. quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent presbyteros; so saith he foreign is for foreign, which he proves because the Greeks use the one word sometimes for the other, as he clears from Scripture parallels. So he thus senseth the verse and context, the Churches of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, after chusing of Elders who were also solemnly set apart with prayer and fasting, were willing to let Paul and Barnabas go from them to the planting and watering of other Churches, and commended them to God to open to them an effectu…ll door, Eph. 6▪ 18, 19. or for their saftie and preservation Luk. 23. 46. Again, what inconsistency with our sense of the word foreign will it be, if all that is mentioned in the 23. verse be taken as joint acts of Paul & Barnabas, and of the Churches together with them, viz. That they all concurr'd in making them Elders by suffrage, and in prayer and fasting, and commending themselves to the Lord. 3. How proves he, that the relative [they] in our translation is referred to Paul and Barnabas only, rather then the Churches? sure, this is a blind proof, and (as we use to say) a Baculo ad angulum; they ordain'd elders: Ergo Paul and Barnabas only ordain'd by Imposition of hands; since the word foreign, or foreign as its resolved by the learned, cannot hardly in propriety of speech import laying on of hands in ordination, which was proper to Paul and Barnabas; and the Septuagint whom Luke followes, expressing the laying on of hands by foreign Our Informer must acknowledge this from the sequel of his own reasoning, for he tells us, that Paul and Barnabas could not elect Ministers, very true, and therefore the foreign which in its native acceptation signifies election by suffrage, as he hath acknowledged, must relate to p. 69the people; Since there could be no hand-suffrage betwixt Paul and Barnabas 4. Giving and not granting that this was an act of Paul and Barnabas; distinct from the Churches suffrage, our argument stands good and this will not in the least yeeld the question as this man foolishly imagines; for to read it thus, Paul and Barnabas ordained elders by suffrage, is all one with this, that they ordained such to be elders as were chosen by the Chuch. The people declared by hand-suffrage whom they would have to be Elders, and Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders: As the Consul who held the court among the Romans, created new Magistrats, that is, did receive the votes and preside in the elections. Since (as I said) the hand-suffrage cannot in any propriety of speech relate to Paul and Barnabas alone. See Calvines Institut. lib. 4. cap. 53. paragr. 15. and Mr Gillesp. ubi supra, who further tells us, that this may be either an action of the Church only, as the Syriack makes it, or a joint action both of the Churches and of Paul and Barnabas, as Iunius makes it, or an action of Paul and Barnabas in this sense, that they did constitute elders to the Churches by the Churches own voices, in all which senses foreign stands good for us. To which we may add, that Calvine renders the word cu… suffragiis creassent, when the had made by votes. Adding, that Paul and Barnabas ordained Ministers to the Churches, for they did preside over, and moderat the people's election. Presbyteros dicuntur eligere Paulus & Barnabas an soli hoc privato officio faciunt quum potius rem permittunt omnium sugragiis: Ergo in Pastoribus creandis libera fuit populi electio, sed ne quia tumul…uose fieret, praesident Paulus & barnabas quasi Moderatores. That is, Paul and Barnabas are said to ebuse Elders, but do they this solely and by themselves, and do not rather remit this to the suffrages of all, therefore in the making of Pastours the people had a free election and choise, but left any thing should be done tumultuously p. 70Paul and Barnabas do preside as Moderatours. So he sayes we are to understand the decree of the Council of Laodicea, which seemed to inhibit the people's elections.

The Dutch Annot. upon this passage do tell us, that this was a custome among the Greeks in chusing their Magistrats, that the people by lifting up their hands give to understand their voting, so it seems that from thence this custome was also used in the primitive Church, that the setting forth of Ministers of the Church, being done by Apostles or those that were sent by them for this purpose, was approved by the Church by the lifting up of their hands; which use long continued in the Church; as the Ecclesiastick histories testify. And having told us that others understand this of imposition of hands (which they set down as the secondary and less probable opinion) they add that this also was done with consent of the church as appears by the fasting and praying which was done by the whole Congregation, and was also done in this chusing of the Elders, referring to 1 Tim. 5. 17. Acts 10. 41. upon which passage they shew, that the Greek word in Acts 14. 23. signifies properly by lifting up of hands to choose or ordain, and is here used concerning the choosing of ordinary Ministers by the suffrages of the Church, to which this extraordinary choosing of Apostles is here opposed, as being done by lifting up or stretching forth of Gods hand alone. Upon Acts. 6. 6. where mention is made of laying on of hands, they tells us, that as this was usual in blessing Gen. 48. 14. in sacrifices Lev. 1. 4. and in installing into offices Numb. 27. 18. Deut 34. 9. So the Church (pointing at the Apostolick Churches practice) in investiture of Ministers, did thus dedicate them to God his service, and used thus to wish his blessing 1 Tim. 5. 22. The English annot. upon this text under debate p. 71do shew, that the word signifies making of such a choise, as was made or confirmed by lifting up of hands, to signify suffrages or consent, and having told us of the general signification of the word in reference to ordination or appointing chap. 10. 41. they add, that the Syriack reads the text thus, [and they appointed to them Elders in every Congregation.] Whence they collect that Paul and Barnabas did not all alone in ordaining & Church-government; other Christians shew'd their consent or approbation of the persons who were ordained Elders by lifting up their hands; as very weel knowing, of what behaviour they had been among them: so foreign signifies (say they) to disallow by some act, election, or decree. Adding, that Suidas interprets foreign by foreign which his Interpreter renders electio, delectus, per suffragia confirmatio, populi totius consensus, an election, choosing, a confirmation by voices, consent of all the people. Let our Informer here observe 1. That the choosing of Ministers by suffrage, and consent of the Church, is imported and held out in this passage under debate, in the consentient judgment of Interpreters, and that this greek word, as in its ordinary, so its special acceptation in this place, will clearly infer so much, whatever authority in ordination and election as to Paul and Barnabas, and of Ministers consequently, the circumstances of this text will bear out and infer. 2. That this interest of the people in the election and call of Ministers is comprobate by the judgement and consentient practice of the ancient Church, as the history therof doth verify. 3. That that passage Act. 10. 41. doth (in their sense) nothing invalidate this right of the people, held out in this text, the one place speaking of an immediat choosing by God, the other of mediat and ordinary by men, the one, pointing at ordination and appointing of the Apostles to p. 72their office in a general sense, the other of the special or specifical mould of the call and election of Ministers. 4. That this right and interest of the people in Ministers call, as it is founded upon the ancient practice and unrepealed priviledge of Gods Church under the old Testament, so it hath besides this, and such like instances, and exemplary recommendations of the new-testament, a constant moral warrand of the peoples knowledge anent the case and behaviour of their spiritual guides.

His 3d answer to this text is, That if we understand it of a hand suffrage we lose by it. Why so? because we give advantadge to the Independents for popular election of Ministers wherea; we give this power not to all the people, but to the session. And he tells us, that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to pressthis text. Ans. 1. We have proven that a congregational Eldership is Iuris divini, & that by consequence this election strictly taken must be their priviledge, See 9 Argument against Prelacy on the 1. Dialogue. Who these understanding Presbyterians are, who do not understand this place as warranding the people's interest in the election & call of Ministers, the Informer hath not given us an account, since his Doubter is none of them, and if he mean the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici, he will finde that they do clearly assert this truth (propos. 1.) so as it do not exclude the due right of Ministers herein. See pag. 127. and 129. And the Assembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Ministers 4. Branch, do require the people's consent and approbation, as necessarily antecedaneous to the ordination. Besides, could the Informer be ignorant that there are several other weighty Scripture grounds & arguments pleaded by our writters to fortify this right of the people; why did he not then put these also into the mouth of his Doubter, and give us an account of his own, and his p. 73Episcopal Masters' skill in dissolving them? Moreover tho it were granted, that all here did concurr in this suffrage where no Eldership was yet constitute (as Mr Gillespy Judgeth probable miscell. pag. 14.) it will nothing infringe the power of the Eldership in Churches constitute, there being a vast difference betwixt the modus rei, in Churches constitute, and these in fieri or that are to be constitute. Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial suffrage by extending of hands, and that in commitiis, among courts, senats, and representatives of the people, as in the Roman senate, in which the Consuls presided. And that among the Greeks foreign is the Magistrat created by suffrages, in the courts solemnly held for that purpose. That the Roman senate did foreign as Chrysostome saith, which Doctor Potter expones, made their Gods by suffrage (Charity mistaken page 145.) Again, supposing Elderships here existent, this phrase may be well referr'd to the people, as importing their consent and approbation, reserving still to the Eldership their Juridical suffrage, and decisive vote in election. Mr Gillespy (ubi supra) clears this, shewing that in Athens it selfe the people did foreign, when they did but like well the persons nominated, as when a Thesaurer offered some to be surety foreign, whom the people shall approve. This he proves from Demosth. advers. Timocr. from which oration he makes it good, that the foreign the Assembly, and foreign, the court of Iudges, are plainly distinguished so far, that they might not be both upon one day; and that tho the people did foreign, yet not they but the foreign, or judges did foreign, ordain or appoint a Magistrat. In a word, we give in this mater [the Ministers call] the suffrage and election to the Eldership (I mean in a Church constitute) and the consent (which is distinct from the decisive voice as the learned acknowledge, Gamachaeus p. 72duplicate page p. 73duplicate page p. 74in primam 2dae ou… of Thomas quest. 15 shewes this) to the whole people, and the formal authoritative mission, and imposition of hands, making the man a Minister, and giving him the foreign who had it not before, to the Presbytery, according to the Scripture pattern; which is toto coelo different from the Independents principles in this point.

If any object that the giving the suffrage and election of Ministers to the Eldership, excluding the people, makes the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs, it being sufficient to clear us from their principles, that we allow not either to the Eldership or congregation, the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands. And that our arguments upon this head seems to give to the people not onelyonly consent, but suffrage in election. I shall desire first, that Mr Gillespies answer be considered (Miscell. page 24.) to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point. Who sayes that in this point of election we do not homologate with them, who give to the collective body of the Church (women and children under age onelyonly excepted) the power of decisive vote or suffrage in elections, we give the vote onelyonly to the Eldership or Church representative, so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of the congregation. So that he makes the attributing of this decisive voice & suffrage in elections, unto the people, to be down right Independency & the march stone of their difference from us. He tells us afterward, that the consent and knowledge belongs to the whole Church without which Ministers may not be intruded, & the counsel and deliberation, (which is distinct from this consent) to the ablest & wisest of the congregation, especially the Magistrates. But he distinguishes from both these the decisive vote in Court or judicatory, & the formal consistorial determination in the case of p. 75election, and this he sayes, belongs onelyonly unto, and consists in, the votes of the Eldership. And that the Independents contrarily give the conference and deliberation to the Eldership (as we use to do in Comittees) but the decision to the whole Congregation. Adding further, that such as have written against Independents do thus state the difference betwixt them and us in this point, viz. not whether matters of great importance and publick concernment ought to be determined with the peoples free consent (for this we grant) but whether the cause must be brought to the body of the Congregation to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church, citing Laget in his defence of Church-government, chap. 1. and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines in that piece intituled the Independency on scriptures of the Independency of Churches page 3. where he sets down this forementioned consent to the Minister who is to be chosen, as that which we allow to the members of the congregation in common. Adding further, that Independents place the whole essence of a calling in election, accounting ordination to be but a solemnizing of it, wheras we place the potestative mission, not in the Churches election but lawfull ordination. So that in the judgement of these Divines the reserving to the Presbytry the formal authoritative mission is the not the sole point of difference betwixt the Independents and us, nor can a man be cleard from Independent principles in their judgement, who extends the decisive juridical… vote in election beyond the Eldership, and gives this decisive, suffrage strictly taken to the people Besides, the absurd and dangerous consequences following upon this opinion, allowing the formal juridical elective suffrage to the people, are evident, such as 1. That this goes in some respect beyond Independents opinion as to the peoples power in elective suffrage, who though they give it p. 76to the collective body, yet …with a restriction excluding women, children and persons under age, not to every individual. 2. That this will inferr that every point of government and every cause, relating immediatly to the congregation, must be brought to the multitude or body of the people, to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church, for upon the same ground that the elective suffrages belong to them, so must every piece of government. Now Mr Laget ubi supra expresly states this as the Independents principle, and as that wherin they differ from us 3. This cuts off all right and power of a juridical eldership, which is by our writters asserted and made good from the scriptures, and makes all their authoritative decisive suffrages, in this and other points of government, in reference to the congregation, an invasion of the peoples right, and unlawfull usurpation of their power; for if this formall decisive suffrage belong to all the collective body jure divino, how can they give it away? 4. This will by consequence bring the collective body to have their formal decisive juridical suffrage, in superiour Church-judicatories, Presbytries, and synods, in every point wherin the congregational eldership and session have an immediat interest. Again, since consent and knowledge, is allowed by our writters to the whole congregation, and deliberation and counsel to some eminent members, the elderships elective suffrage, (which in their judgement is necessarly connected with this) cannot be said to impeach the due right of the collective body of the congregation in this point; unless (as I said) we step over the march-stone, and bring in the whole collective body of the congregation to have a decisive suffrage in government. In a word, the scripture arguments, and other grounds here hinted, which do clearly conclude the people and congregations right as to a call in general, p. 77will not infer that the foreign belonges to every one of the people or the whole collective body, so far as to import a formal decisive suffrage, for it being the due right of the peoples representatives, the Eldership (in whose choise and election the people have a great Interest, and to which they give a formal consent) the congregation doth in and by them give their foreign or suffrage, and what is proper to some part of this organick body the Church, may be well said to be the due right and action of the whole in a general sense, each part concurring suo modo. A man is said to see, though the eye onelyonly be the proper organe of sight, because the eye subsists in and with the body, and cannot act without, or separated from it. So the people in a general sense and mediatly elect by the eldership, the whole collective body concurring in what is proper to them herein. We heard from MrGillespy [ubi supra,] that among the Greeks, the people in consenting to a choise of governours were said foreign, so that although, upon the supposal of the divine right of a juridical eldership, representing the congregation (which right is abundantly proved from scripture) the formal Cousistorial foreign by juridical suffrage belongs to them, yet the whole collective body their foreign, in the manner formerly explained, stands good.

His last answer is, that if we think the peoples election s… necessary that none can be a Minister without it, then we null the ministry of the whole Christian world for above 1000 years upward, and the Ministry of this C…rch ever till the year 1649. For untill then patronages were not taken away. Ans We have proved that the People's right in the call and election of Pastours is the pure Scripture pattern continued in the Church of God for diverse ages, which is enough to prove that as it ought to be endeavoured after and established, by Churches who would imitat this pattern of the Lords tabernacle shewed upon the moun… ▪ p. 78So where it is obtained it ought to be held fast against any contraire innovations. That the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers and teachers had place from the Apostles even unto his own time in a good measure, may be proven (besides what we have said already to clear this) by a very unsuspect witness Marcus Antonius de dominis de Repub. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 22. Num. 10. he saith, in electione ministrorum etiam Apostolorum tempore & ipsorum instituto, plebem & totam multitudinem magnam habuisse partem. And lib. 3. cap. 3. Num. 12. Iam vero post concilium Nicenum in electionibus eundem prorsus veterem morem perpetuo Ecclesiam ad nostra pene tempora servasse, ut a clero & popul… fieret ex patribus ac rebus gestis, & conciliis & juribus: ex Romanorum Pontificum attestationibus & decretis jam sumo comprobandum. That is, that after the Council of Nice the same ancient custome was own'd to his times by the Church, as to the peoples interest in this election and call of Ministers, he undertakes to prove from the Fathers, from history, and Councils and Laws, and the very decrees of Popes. In the Council of Paris Anno 559. There was such a decree, Quia in aliquibus crivitatibus consuetudo prisca negligitur. &c. Because the ancient Custome and decrees of the Canons are neglected in some cities—they appoint the decrees of the Canons to be keept, and the ancient Custom, ut nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus, nisi quem populi & clericorum electio pleni…ima quaesierit voluntate &c. That none be ordained a Bishop without the will of the citizens, but such onelyonly whom the people and Clergy shall chuse with full consent. That the people had a right to require, call and elect their Pastour in the ancient Church, Didoclav. proves from the Example of Eradius, Ambrose, Flavianus, Nectarius &c. From pag. 3…6. to 331. shewing that Cyprian saith of Rabbinus that he was chosen p. 79Bishop, de universae fraternitatis suffragio, lib. 1. Ep. 2. By the chose of the whole Brethren. From the Epistle of the Council of Nice, to those of Alexandria, Lybia, &c. which is extant with Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9. Where he shews that those who succeed in the room of the dead Prelat must upon these terms succeed, si digni viderentur, & populus eligeret, if they appear worthy and the people shall chuse; That Chrysostom succeeded to Nectarius; postquam in hoc Clerus & populus suffragia sua contulissent, after he was called and chosen by the Clergy and people. Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. That Evagrius was chosen suffragiis, or by votes and suffrages, Socrates lib. 6 cap. 13. That Augustine called again and again for the people's consent as to his successour, Hic mihi v… stra assentatione opus est. F…. 11. To which may be added, a very impartial witness Bishop Bilson (Perpetual Government Chap. 15. page 434.) Where he shewes that the people had their right in chusing their Pastours. OnelyOnly, to prevent mistake upon these passages, we would take notice, that this suffrage here atribute generally and indiscriminatim, to the people and clergy, must be understood pro uniuscujusque modulo and according to every ones capacity, for the reasons above rendred. Since both Ministers right in ordination, and also the right of a juridicall eldership in churches constitute in reference to the election of Ministers, hath (as we have shown) a clear foundation in Scripture and antiquity. But of this enough. 2. We have also proven that we are not concerned, nor in the least constrained by our principles and practice in this case, to null a Church or Ministry where this call is wanting, it being enough for us, that the want of it is a corruption rendring a Ministry not so pure as it ought to be, and that our case being a case of competition betwixt Ministers holding fast this piece of our Covenanted Reformation, and a party of Schismatick p. 80Innovators opposing and rejecting it, and turning back to the vomit of this and other corruptions, after they have been seen, cast out, and vowed against: We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows, sufficiently warranted to leave these innovators, and adhere to the faithfull Ministry. 3. As we did shew that the granting of Curats their having the essence of a ministerial call, will not infer our hearing and owning them in every case, and especially in ours (which himself must grant, unless he fall in a palpable contradiction) so its more then he can prove, that this Church of Scotland from its first beginning, till 1649 had pratronages; Which being founded on the Common law, and several ages posterior to the pure Church in this Nation, planted (as we heard) without Prelats by some of Johns Disciples, how absurd is it to assert that it had Patronages from the beginning. Finally, whatever tollerance of these corruptions before they be removed may be pleaded for, yet such as have embraced them now, yea & as a badge of owning this deformation of our once glorious Church, are certainly to be disowned by all who would hold fast their integrity. For what he adds, anent our owning Presbyterian Ministers adhering to our Reformation, tho they have been presented by Patrons, It's both impertinent to the point and already answered, For its not this simpliciter, or only, which we ground upon in this practice, as is often said, but the principles, state, practice, and design, of Conformists in this complex case Beside, who sees not the difference betwixt a Minister owning the principles of our Reformation, and disowning this with other corruptions, although the times necessity did constrain to make use of patronages in their first entry, when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage, and such as owne this corruption both in judgment and practice p. 81after it is rejected, and the Church delivered from it, yea and owne it as an express badge of Conformity to abjured Prelacy. Sure they are very blind who see not the difference betwixt these.

The Doubter alleadges [that patronages are abjured in the Covenant] and the Informer desires to see in in what place. But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or solemn league, he will easily see this; for patronages being a popishcorruption contrary to the Word of God (as we have proved) it's abjured among the rites or Customs brought into this Church; without or against the word; And likewise in being condemned in the 2. book of discipline, to which we vow adherence as unto the discipline of this Church, it must be in that respect also abjured; And as contrary to sound doctrine, the power of godliness, and Government of this Church exprest in the 2. book of Discipline, it is abjured in the solemn League, wherein we likewise vow adherence to that discipline. But (saith he) Since patronages were in use aster the Covenant, why was not this breach discerned, and was this Church perjured all that time. Ans. The forecited act of Parliament shewes that this corruption had been long by this Church groan'd under, and long before that time declared and testified against, both in the 2. book of discipline, and by assemblies thereafter, and if (the interposing of the civill Magistrat being necessary to remove this) the Church still untill that time groan'd under this burden, where can he fixe his challenge?

The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Curats, is [that they are ordained by Bishops.] To which he answers 1. That all whom we refuse to hear, were not ordained by Bishops. He means those who were ordained by the Presbytery, and have conformed, Ans. 1. We have already told him that it is not the Episcopal ordination simply and abstractedly from our case, p. 82which is our ground of not owning them, but the Episcopal ordination of perjured intruders breaking our union and reformation, and ejecting our faithfull Pastours, and testified against by our presbyterian protestant Church which they have thus intruded upon. 2. We have told him that the concession of their lawfull ordination for substance, will no more plead for our owning them in this complex case, then their concession of the lawfull ordination of Presbyterian ministers, will infer an obligation upon Conformists to owne them, which is a consequence that they all deny. And that they must grant, that owning of the episcopal ordination in this complex case, is different from a simple owning of it, in relation to hearing. Even as Presbyterian ministers are acknowledged by conformists to have a lawfull ordination for substance, whom notwithstanding they will not suffer the people to hear. 3. Those who were so ordained and have conformed, having (as I said) eatenus or in so far, renounc'd their Presbyterial ordination, and adhering to the prelatical as the more perfect, this their disowning of our reformation (especially aggreged by their perjury and apostacy) puts them in the same, yea a worse condition as to our hearing them, then those that are meerly ordained by the prelats. 3. He tells us, That on this ground we would not adhere to these whom Timothy and Titus ordained, nor would we have heard a minister for many ages of the Church; Then he tells us of Jeroms, quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, and that ministers have now a hand in ordaining Conformists. That on this ground we would not have heard the members of the Assembly 1638. who were thus ordained, and some now though non-conformists, who were ordained before the year 1638 by Bishops, the valitidity of which ordination is vindicat by …us dicinum minist. Ang…ie: Ans. We have already proven, that Episcopal ordination p. 83is not in the lest warranted by the Authority of Timothy and Titus supposed in these Epistles, but rather a Presbyterial ordination, which is the pattern shewed upon the mount. 2. We have also proven that his prelatick ordination, whereof the Prelat hath he sole and proper power according to this constitution, is a stranger, in the first purer ages, and even in Jerom's time. 3. We have also proven that the granting of the essentialls of their ministerial call who are ordained by Bishops, will plead nothing for owning Curats, who are both scandalous and perjured intruders and have nothing for the most part which may in the least ground a charitable construction that they were ever called of God; and are standing in opposition to a faithful ministry, by them excluded and persecute from their watcthowers, none of which can be said of the instances which he mentions. As for that concurrence which he pretends Conformists have with the Bishops in ordination of ministers, it is according to our Law, meerly precarious and pro forma. And therefore utterly insufficient to found his conclusion.

The Doubter objects, [that tho some of them were ordained by the Presbytery, yet they are now turn'd the Bishops Curats.] He might have added, and turned court or Erastian-Curats, since the all of our present Conformists authority, is derived from the court and subordinat to the supremacy, as is evident in the act of restitution and other subsequents acts. In answer to this he alleadges weakness of Iudgement, strength of passion in the objecter, but really shews both in himself, by telling us, that we may fear Christs threatning; he that despises you despises me, since he hath not yet made, it appear that the men he pleads for have a relaion to this Church as her true Pastours, according to the principles and tenor p. 84of our Reformation. Then he tells us, that Curat signifies a cure of souls. But the True Non-conformist, told his fellow Dialogist, that this term owes its invention to mens vanity, loathing the lowly Scripture style of Minister, and is in effect nothing but the issue of the corrution of the Churches humility, and that what they pretend herein while destroying in stead of feeding, is like to stand in Judgement against them at the great day. For his next interpretation of [Curat] viz. he that serves the cure tho not the Minister of the place, but the substitute of another, We owe him thanks, for one egg is not liker another, then they are to such vicarious substitutes. But he will not have them called the Bishops Curats, as if he were Pastour of the diocess, and they deputed, under him, and Bishop (he saith) hath such thoughts of ministers. What their thoughts are, is best seen by their deeds. We have proved that according to this frame of prelacy the Bishop is properly the sole Pastour of the Diocess. In the 7. Argument against Prelacy.

The Doubters next objection is, [that they are perjured persons, and therefore not to be heard.] He answers 1. That many of them never took the Covenant, and therefore are not perjured, which is already removed, when we did prove from Deut. 29. that it oblidges even those who did not personally swear. Its remarkable that Deut. 5. 2, 3. God is said to have made a Covenant with his people in Horeb, even with us (saith Moses) and all of us alive here this day. They were dead who engadged at Horeb, and many there present were not then born. So Neh. 9. 38. all entered into Covenant, but some only did seal it. Sure the intention, and relation of the Covenanters, and the matter of the Oath it self, will make it thus extensive. Next he sayes, Ministers that took it, and comply with prelacy are not perjured, for the reasons which be gave in the last p. 85conference. Which reasons I have there answered, and proved that there is nothing in our case, which may in the least limit or invalidat its obligation, and upon the grounds which are offered to evince the standing obligation of that Oath, I do affirme that they are perjured. 3. He tells us, That scandalous faults tho deserving censure, yet while it is not inflicted, and the person not convict, his Ministry ought to be waited upon, as Iudas who came cloathed with Christs commission to preach, so long as he was not convict, yet was to be heard. Ans. 1. He grants that scandalous faults, specially of an high nature, and if the man be impenitent, do deserve deposition. Now their faults are both scandalous and of a high nature, such as prophanity, perjury and apostacy, in all which they are most impenitent and avow the same; and as for their being convict and censured, which he requireth as needfull for disowning them, I answer they stand upon the matter convict by clear scripture grounds, and by the standing acts and Iudicial decision of this Church in her supreme judicatories and assemblies, which have condemned and made censurable with deposition their present principles and practices, in opposition to her vows and government. Again, there is a great difference betwixt what ought to be people's carriage toward scandalous Ministers when a redress by Lawfull Church Judicatories may be had, to which people may have recourse, and what the duty of a people is in that case, wherin a prevailing backsliding party, and a persecuting Magistrat owne such Ministers; so that the true Church can have no access for censuring and removing them. In this last case supposing their scandals to be of a high nature, this inevitable necessity of the Churches incapacity for present, may supply the defect of a formal censure (in the judgment of some) and ground a disowning of them, as if they were already cast out, p. 84duplicate page p. 85duplicate page p. 86especially if their entry be by perjurious intrusion, and their profanity and scandals therafter notour to all. Now how applicable this is to Conformists, needs not my paines to subsume. We might also here tell him that there are scandals which are officiall, rendring the man coram Deo no officer, and that in case of their becoming very atrocius Mr Durham will allow to depart to more pure ordinances. On scandal page 129. Although we will not take upon us to determine, how & in what cases, during the Churches incapacity, & discomposed state, a Ministers atrocious scandals after his entry, and perjurious usurpation in the way and manner therof, may supply the want of a formal censure, yet absolutly to deny that in any imaginable case, whether of the scandals and intrusion of the minister, the Churches incapacity to censure, or the peoples clamant necessity, and apparent advantages for their edification otherwise they were oblidged to own him still, and that nothing but this declarative sentence, could loose their tye, would, infer very dangerous consequences obvious to the meanest reflection. Specialy that in performance of supposed duties, flowing from the tye and relation, they would crosse many scriptur-precepts enjoyning the contrary. Shall Christs sheep follow the hireling and stranger, and not beware of wolves and false prophets, strengthen Covenant breakers, and scismaticks, because a perturbed Church cannot draw forth her censure. If it be said that this will open a door for separation, since every one displeased, may pretend that scandals are of an highnature. Ans. 1. The sinful abusive pretences of men, is a poor argument to infringe any truth or duty. 2. This absurdity may be retorted in the other extreme, and under pretence of the mans exterior call who is not (nor can be in a Churches disturbed state) censured, Christs sheep may (as I said) be given up to destroying wolves, the means and opportunities p. 87of their edification lost, and their soules exposed to most imminent hazard of perishing. 2. There is a pure Ministry and Church free of their scandalls, and testifying against them, so that adherence to them rather then Curats is only a non-union to corruption, or a scandalous party of Innovators who have gone out from the fellowship of this Church, and such a separation negative or non-union, as Mr Rutherfoord allowes, Due right of Presbyt. pag. 253, 254. such as he sayes was the carriage of the faithfull in relation to the Donatists in Augustines time, or a separation from the most and worst part not the least and best part, as he there distinguishes, calling the greatest corrupt part the Schismaticks; As before the Jewes came to blaspheme, there was no reason to joyn to them rather then the Gospel Church, planted by the Apostles, to which Mr Rutherfoord sayes, converts were to adhere. 3. We have heard that according to our principles and the tenor of our Reformation, we are to look upon them as Schismaticks from this Church. So that upon this very ground of holding and mantaining this Churches purity and union, they are to be disowned by Gods people. Our Informer will grant that abstracting from a Ministers being otherwise either censured or censurable, he ought not to be followed in a Schismatick course to the ruine of a pure Churches union, but is ipso facto to be left: for upon this ground he pleads for disowning Presbyterian Ministers abstracting from their being any otherwayes censured. 4. Are there not many Presbyterian ministers neither convict nor censured, and whom he dare not call scandalous, whose conversation and walk is both convincing and shining, and such as discovers that Christ is in them, that they have the masters seal and call to preach the Gospel, who have entered into this Church by the door, and are standing in a ministrrial relation p. 88to her, yet he pleads for disowning them, meerly because their Ministry is cross to the prelatick union and order. So he must grant that Ministers may be disowned on this ground of Innovating upon, and standing in opposition to a Churches establisht union and order, abstracting from this formal censure. As for what he adds of Judas, its very impertinently alledged here, for his theft and other wickedness was as yet secret, and not become open and scandalous, which excepts him from the compass of this question, which is anent Ministers guilty of open and avowed scandalls, intrusion into the Ministry, violent ejection of faithfull pastours, and persecution of a pure Church. None of which can be said of Judas.

But now followes in the next place, his main objection and argument from the Scribes and Pharisees, he tells us, what great exceptions might have been made against their life and doctrine, Math. 23. that they were …mies to Christ, neglected Iudgement, mercy and faith: that they were proud hypocrites, and that tho all which Naphtali sayes of Conformists were true (and all sees it to be true and consequently that he gives them no other characters then what they put upon themselves, and cannot more be charged with distemper for this, then our blessed Lord in calling these Pharisees, serpents and vipers, or Paul in calling the Impostours of whom the Philippians were in hazard, dogs, evil workers, the concision, whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their shame though they were (as these pharisees) gross in their lives, and there were leaven in their doctrine, they were not to be disowned, since altho the Pharisees for doctrine taught the commands of men; and took away the key of knowledge, Christ in his sexmon on the mount purged the Law from their corrupt glosses, yet Simeon and Anna turned not separatists, Ioseph and Mary went up to keep the passover, and Christ bids bear them, tho with a c…veat … beware of their p. 89leaven, and their ill example. Here he also tells us, that he hath no pleasure to make a parallel betwixt the Pharisees and our preachers in long prayers, and devouring widowes houses, compassing sea and land to make proselytes, tho we have given too much ground for these comparisons. Ans. 1. To beginne with this last invective (which he insinuats, and Dr Burnet prosecutes at large in his trifling dialogues) If I should rejoyn that its a foming out their o… shame, to make such comparisons, and renders them too like these wandring stars to whom this is attrib…, It were no great overstreach. Dare he say that our Lord did simply condemn long prayers, because he condemned making a shew of them; or that faithfull ministers their travells to keep poor souls upon the solid foundation of our sworn Reformation, and recover them from this plelatick corruption and apostacy, is to proselyte them to be children of hell? It may be with better ground averred that prelatists who are enemies to either long or short prayers in the spirit, and plead for dead formes and lyturgies, and who have d…oured not widowes houses only, but Gods house and Church in this land, and who compass sea and land to proselyte this poor Church to the Synagogue or Rome, are much liker these precedents in the above mentioned characters.

But 2. To his argument, The pharisees were scandalous in their life, corrupt in their doctrine, yet the saints separat not from ordinances, and Christ allowed to hear them. This man might (if he had been ingenuous) have found this objection solidly answered and removed by severals. I answer 1. Its more then he hath proved, that the owning of the Pharisees ministry is here enjoyned, because 1. The command of observing what they enjoyned, will not necessarly infer this; we may observe what morall Philosophers, or papists bid us do under such like restrictions and limitations, upon p. 90which people are enjoyned to observe what the Pharisees prescribed; we may observe what civil Rulers bid us do, but not own them as teachers. 2. There are many things in the context, which seem utterly to repugn to this inference that our Lord enjoyned the owning or attending of their instructions as ecclesiastick teachers. 1. He bids beware of their leaven or doctrine Math. 16. 12. joyning them with Sadducees who denyed the resurrection, and erred fundamentally, sure not to hear them was the best way to evite their leaven, 2. It will be hard to prove that they were Priest Pharisees, since all the Pharisees were not such, as Nieodemus and Ioseph of Arimathea, who were civil Rulers, and consequently any command to obey them, will no more infer hearing them preach, then such a command as to council or parliament. The thing commanded is not hearing them as teachers, but only obebienc… which may be very properly enjoyned as to civil Rulers. 3. The qualities ascribed unto them, such as their sitting in Moses chair, who was King in Jesurun, not Aarons who was the Piest, their loving the chief seats in synagogues, (whereas, if teachers, their chief seat was knowen, and appropriat to them) their paying tithes (whereas, if priests tithes were payable to them) these qualities (I say) seem to import that they were not priests and teachers by office, that hearing of them, or attending their ministry as such, is enjoyned hearing of and atteding their Ministry as such. 15. 4. Christ bids let them alone, which sounds like, owne them not as teachers. He calls them blind leaders of the blind, nay he calls them the stranger whose voice the true sheep hear not, but rather the true shepherd Math. 15. 13, 14, Joh. 10. 4, 5. and such as shut up heaven against men, and hindred such as were entring; all which seem very inconsistent with a command of hearing them. 5 Christ spoke to the disciples as well as the people in this precept. Now its certain p. 91that neither the disciples did eyer hear them, nor could they leave his Ministry, nor is it found that Christ who came to fulfill all righteousness, taught them to do so, by his example. Finally the words of this precept have for their scope to engadge to beware of the Pharisees infectious evills: so that this command to do & observe what they delivered as sitting in Moses seat, which they did then possess, is but by way of concession, which supposes only that which he intended shortly to abolish, and now would have improven for the best advantadge.

2. Granting that they were to be heard, I deny his consequence, that therfore Curats in this our case are to be heard also; the cases are very different, and the disparity when cleared will discover his consequence to be naught, from the hearing of the Pharisees, to the hearing of Conformists. I offer it then in these particulars. 1. These Pharisees Ministry was not of it self actually exclusive of, and a direct intrusion upon the Ministry of faithfull teachers. Suppose they had chased away all Israels Lawfull teachers, and by perjurious violence thrust themselves into their rooms, would our Lord have bidden own or hear them? If our Informer say so he will contradict himself, and overturn the scope of his reasoning in this dialogue, for he thniks that the ministry of Presbyterian ministers, is intrusion, and therupon pleads for disowning and not hearing them. 2. He pleads for owning Curats as Christs ambassadours cloathed with his authority to deliver his message, but Christ doth here (at least for any thing he hath said from this text) only enjoyn to hear the Pharisees interpretation and decision of that nations Municipal or civil Law, anent the rules of external righteousness and civil policy, which two are very different. 3. Christ having guarded the Law from their corrupt glosses, and the disciples from their snares, shewes in this precept p. 92how to make the best advantage of that dispensation, now ready to vanish away, since he was shortly to erect a gospel ministry, and remove all that legal dispensation, and then none of them were to be heard: But this man pleads for disowning our faithfull sent gospel ministers under a standing relation to this Church, and the obligation of Christs standing command, and commission to officiat, and this in favours of intruding hirelings usurping their places, and opposing these faithfull Ambassadours in their masters work and message. Now who sees not the difference betwixt these. 4. They were not in a stated opposition to a faithfull body of teachers, acknowledged and owned by the sound Church of Israel and testifying against them, seeking to root them out, and together with them a reformation, to which all had recently vowed adherence. 5. There was no badge or Test of complyance w…b all their abominations particularly appointed and enjoyned by the Rulers, in this act of hearing them, as there is in our case in relation to the hearing of Curats, rendring (as I said) the not hearing them, and adherence rather to a faithfull Ministry testifying against them, a case of confession, especially this difference will be apparent, if our National vows and Covenant, expresly obliging to adhere to these faithfull ministers, in opposition to them and their course of backsliding, be duely pondered.

Next, as for what he sayes of Simeon and Anna; Joseph and Mary, their attending the temple Worship at that time; as his argument there from is removed by what is said, so to clear this further, I add 1. That its wide reasoning from the godly their lawful concurrence with that Church (now under the rust of old corruptions) in what was good and sound, to our deserting a sound Church and ministry to comply p. 93with abjured corruptions, and Schismatick innovators, reintroduced after they have been cast out. 2. Its as wide reasoning, from their not separating from Gods ancient Church upon the ground of corruptions, to conclude against non-complyance with a party who are not our Church (tho they usurp her name) but are opposed and testifyed against, by our true Church and ministry. We in this case (as I have said) do not separat from the Church of Scotland, her Doctrine, Worship, or ministry, but only from Schismatick backsliders from the union & reformation of this Church. But in the case of these old saints & worthies, separation from the temple, would have imported an absolute separation from the ministry & Church of Israel. In a word, the utter impertinency of all his pleading in this argument, and from these instances, appears in this, that he supposes that its meerly for Conformists personal faults we disowne ordinances administred by them, as if they were ther… by polluted; which has no more truth in it, then that its meerly for Presbyterian ministers personal faults as pulluting the worship, that he pleads for disowning them, but upon the grounds of the present case and circumstances, wherein they stand, he pleads for disowning Presbyterian ministers, and they more justly because of Conformists present case, plead for disowning them, as is said and cleard above.

After this he cites Mr Durham on Revel. 3. inferring from what is said of the Angel of Sardis and Laodicea, that a minister as to his case unsound, may be owned and esteem'd as such. But how impertinent this is to our purpose any may see, for their scandalous carriage in their walk is much more then unsoundness as to their case, which notwithstanding we acknowledge will not of it self, and primo instanti warrand separation from ordinances in every case. But we have cleared that we have much more to lay to the charge of Conformists, p. 94then either inward unsoundness, or outward scandalls simply considered; even their corrupt Doctrine, their intrusion, their stated opposition to this Church her principles, union, and Reformation. As to what Mr Durham adds, and our Informer cites in relation to the ordinances their not suffering derogation in whatsoever hands they be anent a due ministerial respect to the Pharisees tho their rottenness was discovered by our Lord: that Judas was to be received as an Ambassadour with other Apostles—that God makes usefull Instruments sometimes—and that edification doth not necessarly depend upon the holiness of the Instrument, Act. 3. 12. Matth. 7. 23. Its utterly remote from our purpose, as is clear from what is said, for neither can he prove that this practice is a separation properly such, nor doth that case of an Improvement of the pharisees teaching during that time of the legall dispensation, now shortly to be abolisht, meet our purpose, nor the case of Judas hid abominations, correspond with that of avowed perjury and apostacy from the vows and Reformation of our Church. Nor is there here a supposed prior obligation of adherence to conformists ministry, preponderating any objection as to their scandalls. What can this man say, if we shall plead these reasons of Mr Durham, for adhering to Presbyterian ministers, viz. that ordinances ought not to be despised in whatever hands they be, that even the pharisees and Judas himself might be heard, and therefore much more Presbyterian ministers of this Church, that God can make even graceless men Instruments of good; that the efficacy of means depends not on the holyness of the instrument. Now will he admit a conclusion of owning Presbyterian Ministers from these principles; nay, he thinks that maters stand so with them because of their supposed Schism and disorder, that for as applicable as these things are to them, yet they p. 95ought not to be heard. And so by his own confession and pleading this will conclude nothing for him, untill his above mentioned groundless suppositions be made good. Now let me retort of our Informers angry Querie here, how can they Justifie withdrawing people from Presbyterian Ministers, since not so bad as the scribes and Pharisees, if they have either knowledge or moderation. He must then of necessity grant, if he will not contradict himself, that all these grounds will not plead for hearing in some cases, & that the London Ministers assertion anent the validity of the Episcopal ordination for substance (repeated here again ad nauseam) falls utterly short of proving his conclusion. Those Ministers do assert, that the Presbyterian ordination is the more pure and conform to the scripture pattern, what will he then say to this conclusion, that upon this ground (and especially because Conformists themselves owne the validity of Presbyterian Ministers ordination) they are inconsequent to themselves, as well as going cross to scripture and sound reason, in disowning the ministry of the Presbyterian ministers of this Church, and withdrawing people from hearing them. Let him pull out this beam from his own eye, and his answer shall easily serve for us.

The Doubter alledges, that in Math. 23. [We are not bidden hear the scribes and Pharisees, and that the words will not bear that.] He answers that he forbids not to hear as we forbid to hear Conformists. Ans. 1. We have seen that there is more may be alledged from the Scripture as to a prohibition to be their ordinary and constant hearers at least, (which he pleads for as to Conformists) then he can alledge as to a command of hearing. 2. That the tollerance or allowance of a hearing of them during that shortly to be abolisht legall dispensation, is far from coming up to his conclusion of owning curats in this our case. …. He answers, p. 96that Mr Durham speaks of a ministerial respect due to these Pharisees, and that without hearing, this ministerial respect is Lame. Ans. Mr Durhams reason anent a Ministerial respect is in relation to the Improvement of their teaching, & tho granted in the greatest latitude he can imagine, will not inferr his conclusion of owning Curats in this case as is already cleared. Admitting that a due Ministerial respect, will infer hearing in Mr Durhams sense and instance, yet in our case, (which I told him Mr Durhams assertion will not speak unto) acknowledgment of a man to be a Minister, and capable of a Ministerial respect in so far, will not bear this conclusion, else the Informer hath in a clap devoured and eaten in again all this Dialogue in pleading against this Ministerial respect in hearing Presbyterian Ministers, whose Ministerial authority he acknowledges. 2ly, He answers, that our Lord enjoyns obedience to that which they bid do, and that as sitting in Moses chair—and how could that be except the people heard them teach from Moses chair—he that bids obey a Ministers injunctions from the word of God, consequently bids hear him deliver his doctrine from the word. Ans. We told him that for any thing that he, or any of his fellow pleaders, have yet offered from this text, these Pharisees might be civil national doctors and interpreters of Moses Iudiciall Law, and of … municipal Law, from his civil chair, who was King in Iesurun, which will no more infer a hearing them teach and preach as Church officers, then our obedience to the King, Council, parliament and Session, will infer that conclusion. 2. His parallels as to the command of obeying a Ministers doctrine from the word its inferring an injunction of hearing him deliver these doctrines from the word, is (in this case and question) pityfull sophistry and begging of the question, in supposing that these anent whom this injunction was given, were Ecclesiastick Ministers, which he p. 97hath not yet proved. 2. That teaching from Moses chair, is in this case equivalent to Ministerial gospel teaching and preaching from the word of God, which he has not proved either, since (as I said) Gods word contained the Jews municipal Law, which civil Judges might in that capacity deliver and interpret, in relation to external righteousness betwixt man and man in things of this life. Finally, granting they were to be heard teach and expone, which he hath not yet made good from the text, it will nothing help his cause for the reasons often given: so that the separation which he improves this place against, being his groundless supposition alledged but not proven by him, and by us disproved by what is said above, and likewise the application of this hearing the Pharisees to our hearing Curats, being his bare petitio principii, his assertion after subjoyned viz. that this passage will stand against us to our conviction as against the seperatists in Queen Elizabeths time; is but a piece of his ignorant arrogant confidence; there being a vast difference betwixt our case, and that of those separatists at that time, as shall hereafter appear. And beside, Presbyterian Ministers of this Church have much more to say from this text, for their people's adhering to them, then prelatists can plead.

The Doubter next alleadges, [that many Episcopall men have entered upon honest mens Labours, and therefore ought to be disowned as intruders.] He answers 1. That all are not such, that some Conformists have keep… their places they bad before the change, others have entered in to the labours of those that are dead and transported elswhere. Ans. Our Informer doth miserably pinch and narrow a sinfull intrusion by this description; which himself must acknowledge. For should a Presbyterian Minister step into his own Church upon the death or transportation of one of the Curats, who p. 98will question that this man will call it an intrusion according to his principles anent the prelatick Church, and so he must acknowledge that notwithstanding what he here pleads, the Curats entry is intrusion according to our principles; beside that the Ministery of those who have conformed, and were Presbyterially ordained, being an express owning of the principles▪ practices and design, of this prelatick schismatick destroying party, and by their acceptance of collation and presentation, and concurring in the Prelats pretended Judicatories, a ministry compleatly of the prelatick mould, its reductive, if not formaliter, an intrusion; or partaking with the general intrusion and usurpation upon the pure reformed Ministry and Church of Scotland, even as a state officer or Magistrat his taking his office from Invaders, while an army is in the fields against them, doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invader in the exercise thereof, tho it be materially the same office and imployment which he had before. Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commission from an usurping General, and other usurping superior officers, who are dissolving and betraying the true army, expelling the true General and officers contrary to their first commission, doth partake in that usurpation. Considering the Church of Scotland as it stood establisht in doctrine, discipline, worship, and government, and her National and solemn vows, surely this course of Conformity is a most gross intrusion upon her, without so much as a shadow of consent; and so is all partaking therein by consequence, which no Conformist can acquit himself of; and therefore according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation, cannot be lookt upon as any of our true Church her Sons and Ministers.

But here our Informer poseth us with some great queries forsooth 1. Whether Conformists were active in utting p. 99Presbyterian ministers, or came in before they were out, and their places declared vacant. Ans. Whoever is active or passive in outting them, one thing is sure, they are violently thrust out contrary to the word of God, and the rules, order, and Reformation of this Church. So that come in who will, they are Intruders. 1. Because they have come in upon a charge to which faithfull Ministers of this Church have Christs Keyes and commission. 2. Because come in and obtruded by those who are ingrained usurpers, thieves and Robbers; I mean perfidious Prelats (often abjured and cast out of this Church with detestation) and not in the order of this Church, Nor by her door. A poor man is by a number of Robbers dispossest of his house, they put in a seeming neutral, to keep house for them; the poor owner seeks his possession, & complaines of this usurpation, O saith the new tennant and Robbers depute, I am no Intruder, I have a good right, I put you not out, but found your house empty. Now let the Informer use a litle honest application and answer his weightie Querie. 2. He asks, why will those dispossest ministers suffer the people to starve, because they have slept out of their charges. Ans. The people are starved & poysoned too by those that come in; & these Ministers are concerned upon their faith to the great shepherd, to endeavour what they can to save his lambes from the wolves, and give faithfull Ministerial warning of their flocks hazard. Next, he tells us, though a minister be transported against his will, yet the people should submit to his successor. True, when for the Churches greater good, he is transported to another watchtower by her faithfull guides, and true Church Judicatories, but not when the true pastour is chased away by usurping perjured Prelats; and an intruding hireling brought in as their vicar. Its this mans perted self (to use his own phrase here) that blurrs his eyes to draw a similitudinar argument from such an absimilar instance. One thing he did well to add as a proviso, viz p. 100the successors coming in upon an orderly or fair call. And doth this man think that Conformists have this orderly call according to the Reformation and doctrine of this Church? Nay, is he not disputing against this call, and so if this be a necessary condition of a Ministers Lawfull succession, the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconsistency near of kin to a contradiction. As for what he adds of the necessity of a Ministry, and making the best of what we cannot help in our superiours, we say, that were the Rulers using their power for giving one Lawfull pastour for another, and in the method of this Church, and according to the scripture pattern, by Lawfull Church Indicatories, these reasons would say something; but when they have overturned the Reformation of a Church, and contrary to that Churches vows and their own, are obtruding abjured prelats, and a number of profane hyrelings as their deputes, to exclude and ruine a faithfull Ministry, his reasons in this case are naught, and speak nothing to the point. As for what he adds afterward of Ministers, in the year 1648 ejected for asserting their duty to the King, and their submitting while others were put into their charges. I Answer, he will never while he breaths be able to prove, that they were deposed for asserting their duty to the King, and not rather for promoting an ungodly course tending to the Kings ruine, and the ruine of our Reformation, and for other pieces of their scandalous miscarriages, by the true Lawfull Judicatories of this Church. So that upon both grounds, the flocks were concerned to submit to such faithfull pastours, as were set over them in the way and method of this Church, and according to the scripture pattern.

His last answer to this argument of his Doubter anent Conformists Intrusion is, that Presbyterian p. 101Ministers intrusion, is from parish to parish over the Labours of all the Ministers of Scotland, whereas Conformists intrusion (if it be so) is but over one parish. Ans. We told him before, that Presbyterian Ministers, notwithstanding the prelats violence and usurpation, are Ministers of this Church of Scotland continuing still in that relation to her; So that the present presecution and violence, as well as backsliding of the Prelatick schismaticks and Innovators, warrands their more enlarged officiating by the same grounds, upon which the presecute officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where pre…ching the gospel, and on the same ground that Ministers enlarged officiating in the time of our Reformation, was warranted; to which this case of defection is parallel and correspondent. So that their ministerial obligation, and the many scripture commands as to diligence in their testimony, Being by the present state of our Church extended to their officiating in this manner, their Ministry is no Intrusion, but the Lawfull exercise of their office, received from the great shephered, nor is it upon the flocks who are under a tye and relation to the present Incumbents as their pastours, but toward poor starved flocks committed to wolves, who destroy but feed not; and the Curats pretended Ministry being neither of Christ, nor for him, is still an usurpation though over the smallest flock; so that his Instance of the pyrats word to Alexander, and citation of the Apostle's caveat Rom 2. 21. is extra ole… and reaches himself a rebounding stroke. For who (I pray) have usurped the name and authority of this Church, and endeavoured to have it compleatly moulded in their way, and to extirpat all faithfull Ministers and professors within the Nation, is it not 14 usurping Prelats and their underlings, this is a robbery indeed, and with a witness.

p. 102Now follows another argument of his Doubter [that Episcopal Ministers are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy, and therefore cannot be heard without breach of the Oath.] In what respects the owning of Conformists, especially as that practice is now circumstantiat, is a breach of Covenant, we have cleard above, and need not again repeat it. He answers. 1. That Ministers are not mentioned in that article. But if they depend upon that Ecclesiastical hierarchy as Church Officers, why are they not mentioned. Next, its enough for our purpose, that the owning of their Ministry as depending upon prelats, is in this our case abjured. 2. He tellsus, that dependance on that hierarchy doth suppose, and is to be understood of a hierarchy, made up of all the officers enumerate in that Article, as the English Presbyterians sense it, which hierarchy we have not in Scotland. This conceit I have already confuted, and proved that beside this Article, we are by the first bound to preserve the establisht Reformation and Government of this Church, and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath, in the pursuing of its ends; and not to suffer our selves to be withdrawen from this Reformation, and our union therein by terrour or persuasion, is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article, which doth abundantly (as we have said,) reach the disowning of Conformists.

In the next place he tells us, that to binde our selves to disowne Ministers depending upon Bishops, is to binde our selves to sin. I Answer whatever may be said of such an engadgement simpliciter and absolutly considered, yet certainly to engadge our selves against the reintroduction of Prelacy into a pure Church reformed from it, and against all dependers upon, and promoters of that Interest in such a Church, in the capacity of Church officers, and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it, is both a lawfull and necessary engadgment, necessarly flowing from & dependent p. 103upon the abjuration of prelacie it self. That Ministers tho faulty may be heard, will (as we have oft demonstrate) nothing help his conclusion. Since he can not deny that their faultiness in some cases may barr their being heard, as he supposes Presbyterian Ministers faults puts a Lawfull stop in the way of people's hearing them. Then he tells us, that he hath showen episcopacy to be a Lawfull government which none might Lawfully adjure, for this we referr the Reader to what is answered on the first Dialogue where we have proven the contrary, and that it is a government contrary to the word of God, which therefore we were obliged to abjure.

Lastly he tells us, that by this exposition of the 2. Article we were bound not to owne Ministers who were in office at the taking of the Covenant, but to extirpat them since they depended upon Bishops as to their ordination still, even after they had taken the Covenant, unless they renounced their ordination received from Bishops, and had been ordained a new by meer Presbyters, which they thought themselves not bound to do by the Covenant, or they were Ministers without a true ordination all that time, and then all their Ministerial Acts were null since they proceeded from that ordination. And yet (he sayes) we never serupled to hear such Ministers notwithstanding of this dependance upon Bishops in part, if they disowne Bishops for the future. Ans. What a silly knack is it which all this tatle is founded upon, viz. Ministers who received ane ordination from Bishops, or Bishops with Presbyters, in a Church upon which they had usurped, are still to be lookt upon as Ministers depending upon Bishops, even after Prelacy is abolished, and Presbyterian Government established in that Church. So poor a notion that I am sure the least reflection may discover its vanity, ordination being Gods ordinance and appointment, and the Bishop qua Presbyter being vested with a power in it, ordination by the Bishop with p. 104Presbyters (tho maim'd in respect of the Bishop's arrogated power, which is a corruption adhering to it) cannot by any good consequence be said to depend in its esse or nature upon the Prelat, and far less in operari or esse after that corruption is removed and abjured, and Presbyterian Government set up. Doth a souldier or Officers commission or Military power slow still from a Colonel after he is disbanded? Nay this is too gross inadvertency. Were Zuinglius, Luther, and other of our Reformers dependents upon the papacy or popish Prelats after their cleaving to, and embracing the Reformation? Do not all our divines distinguish the essentials of their ordination from these corruptions adhering to it, and assert that they had a Ministry Lawfull for substance, and an ordination to their Ministry, tho coming to them through that impure channell. This man Justifies the Pope's plea, where is your Ministry (saith he and the Romanists) you have no Ministry but what you have from us? do not our Divines tell them that the Ministry and ordination it self being Gods institution, we have them from the Lord, now restored and recovered from their corruptions, and are not dependers upon them for our Ministry? did all our Reformers Ministerial acts flow from the pope or papal ordination as such? Let our Informer take heed of this praemunire, for this dangerous error which he hath fallen into, will expose him to the severe censure of all protestant Churches. 2ly, Hence Ministers who were ordained by Prelats with Presbyters concurring, were no more bound (yea less bound) to renounce their ordination simply, then Zuinglius or Luther were obliged to renounce theirs; especially since their ordination was in a protestant Church, and under Prelats owning the protestant profession (which our Informers charity will no doubt esteem a considerable difference) and their not renouncing it simpliciter p. 105will no more make them still dependent upon the Prelates as to their Ministry, when prelats are removed, then Zuinglius and Luther were dependent upon the Pope as to their ordination, and the acts flowing therefrom, after their separation from the Church of Rome, or infer that they did owe their baptism to the Pope, or the ordination of the popish priest who baptized them, and were concerned to be rebaptized. So that the popish cause and interest is much obliged to our Informer, if his pleadings for our prelacy wil hold good; and it is no bad omen that both interests are thus embarqued together in this man and his fellows reasonings for them, and must stand and fall together, which fortifies our hope and confidence, that as the first hath begun to fall, so the other shall gradually decay, wither, and fall with it.