Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 2 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The Abjuration of Prelacie in the solemne League and Covenant, vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer. Also Mr Crofton and Timorcus acquit of affoording any Patrociny to his cause. Dr Sanderson stands in terms of contradiction to him in this point.
BUt now this our Oedipus and doubt resolver who hath acquit himself so dexterously in absolving us from the nationall Covenant, marches up after the Seasonable case, to try how he can play the absolver as to the solemne league. And his Doubter making a wide step to the 2d. Article [wherein he allegeth Bishops are abjured, and that Protestant Bishops are meant]. To this he answers, That its not every kinde of Protestant Bishops that is there intended, and that Timorcus (pag. 14, 16.) holds that all episcopacy is not abjured, but that they could in England freely Submit to the primitive episcopacy viz, the precedencie of one over the rest; without whom nothing is ordinarly to be done in ordination and jurisdiction—that they assert its only the English kinde of prelacy (expressed in the Article for that end) that is abjured, which we have not in Scotland. That Mr Vines and Gattaker assert, that its only that complex frame consisting of all the officers there mentioned, that is abjured—that the Assembly of divines was reconcilable to moderate episcopacie,——That Timorcus holds that the English parliament & our commissioners were not against all Episcopacy, (citing likewise Mr Crofton pag. 70: 71.) hence he concludeth that the English preshyterians would not cry out against conformists as guilty of perjury. Ans. I. It is a very pityfull shift to measure our obligation in Scotland against Prelacy, by the 2d. Article of the league, which relates to the Church of England, wherein only that prelacy was existent. For since Scotland, from the time of our reformation never had such a Prelacie as the adversaries acknowledge, they must consequently grant that the prelacie which that article engadgeth to extirpat, is not solely or mainly the Prelacie which we stand oblidged against in that Covenant, but a Prelacy inconsistent with Presbyterian Government (and under that formall consideration) which in the first article we are engadged to preserve. In order to which preservation of our reformed discipline from our own Prelacie, the 2d Article, which doth relate to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland, is subservient as a mean to its end. This is convincingly clear, for I. Extirpation and Preservation being opposite terms, and the last being made use of as to our Church of Scotland, must needs relate to Presbyterian Government as then established, in all its previledges, which clearly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein; And the extirpation, and reformation ingadged to in the 2d. Art. must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland, and that by way of mids leading unto, and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation, engadged unto in the first Article. 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy, together with the solemne league, and restore Prelats to the sole possession of Church Government under the King, declaring clearly that the preservation engadged unto in the first article, cannot consist with our Prelacie. Again, as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation, by this Church principally vowed and intended, so that clause in the end of the 2d. Article, viz. [to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness] amounts both as to us and England, to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Prelacie, that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould, under this formalis ratio as thus opposit to sound doctrine &c. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue.
Next, will this man deny that these officers, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, &c. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d. article, or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant? Sayes he not that it is only a fixed presidency of order which they are for? and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess? have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans and are we not engadged to extirpat these in the 2d. article? how then can he say that it is only that complex frame with all these officers which we are oblidged against. Do not two remarkable clauses contradict this gloss? I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesiastick officers depending on that Hierarchie, what? is it only all in bulk, and not all and every one? this were equivalent to such a wilde assertion, as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evills schism, heresie, profannesse,—which are thus Summed up, whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, this engadgement did only relate to all these evills complexly, and not to every one sigilatim or apart. 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles, is there abjured as I said: but such are Bishops, Arch-Bishops, and I adde, whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government, is also here formally abjured. In the 3d place, Timorcus is clearly against our Informer, for in explaining what is that prelacy which is abjured, he distinguisheth a Prelacie of jurisdiction, and of meer order. The prelacie of jurisdiction, he saith is twofold, the first is, whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction (such as is our prelacy now in Scotland) in which government Timorcus saith that Ministers, do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti, to give him advice, which is all that our Curats are allowed by law, as is said above, and scarce that. The 2d sort of prelacie he calls paternall, wherein the colledge of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or President, who must concurre with them ordinarly in ordination and acts of jurisdiction. He interprets the Covenant expresly to strick against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction; which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government. Now let this man say, since Timorcus (whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point) together with the parliament of England according to Timorcus, do disowne such a prelacie as is here described, and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof, doth not this articlé of extirpation according to their sense, clearly reach and cut off the present prelacie of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops, obtruded upon this Church? can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination & jurisdiction, that all the power which Curats have according to our Law, is to give the Bishops advice, yea and not that either, unlesse he judge them to be persons of Known loyaltie and Prudence. And surely if this precedency of meer order, here exprest, be the only primitive Episcopacie, it is far short of what our Informer pleads for, and will never come up to justifie the prelacie now existent. And if in the sense of Timorcus, and the other divines mentioned, and in the sense of the imposers of that oath, the extirpation engadged unto, cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of meer order; it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense, the prelacie now existent is abjured.
That Mr. Crofton, and the Presbyterian Covenanting partie in England according to him, are not reconcilable to our prelacie, nor the Covenant in their sense, appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant, against the Oxford men and others. In his Analepsis (pag. 74. 75.) he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove [that the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie, and that a Diocesan Bishop, and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limites, not in kind] citing, and approving of Salmasius and Beza's, calling episcopacie a step to the papacy; so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such, is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Croftons judgment, it being with him a part thereof. Again (pag. 78.) whereas the Oxford men plead [that they cannot swear against episcopall government, which they conceive to be of divine or apostolick institution] he chargth them and Dr Gauden, with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti, and not describing of episcopall government: And tells him that episcopall government may denominat a government, communi concilio Presbyterorum, with a Moderator or Chaireman, ordinis causa, which he sayes is of divine institution, and exemplified act. 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority. This he sayes the Covenant strikes not against, and the prelacie which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministrie above other Ministers, and is invested with Prince-like power over them, enjoying an authority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop, of sole ordination and jurisdiction, unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject, and must swear obedience to him &c. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristick of our present Prelats, or affirme that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a meer precedency, ordins causa, which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture, and the Covenant according therunto, will allow. Thereafter, (pag. 72.) He tells these Masters, that Christ gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another, or princely power over Gods heritag…; and puts them to prove, that the office of the Ministry, may in ordination be divided, or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one (which our Informer still begs a supposition of) viz. Bishop or Presbyter, or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ, or his Apostles by their apostolick authority. That the Presbyter (in whom are required the same qualifications, to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience, subjection andrespect, who recives the same ordination, and is charged with the same duty, and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God, with the Bishop, and none other) is an order distinct from, and subject to the Bishop, to be ruled by him, and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence, and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary. Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy. The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy; he further describes (pag: 80. and 81.) the prelacy covenanted against, and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum, to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors—— of a Countie, or many Counties making one di…cess—who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them—that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop, to whom they shall swear obedience—adding, that if the Word of God conclude such superiority, over the Church in one Kingdom, it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church, and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops, as the Archbishops are above the Bishops, and the Bishops above the Presbyters, these not being differences of kind, but degree. Adding further, that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England, but what is pleaded by Bellarmine, & the Council of Trent, for she Papacie. Now from what is said, I darre referre it is this Informer himself, whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy, and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant; the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes. And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy, arch-prelacy, and metropolitan primacy, to stand upon the same basis with the papacy, and to be equally with it, excentrick to the Scriptures; and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops (which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant) to depend (as such) upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy. Next (pag. 81) he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described, wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity, are all of the same order, and governe by common counsel, but the specificall prelacy last described, which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie: So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league, and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant— for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne, &c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus, Antioch, Phillippi, Creet, or the seven Churches of Asia, invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned, he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein; so that he esteemed no Bishop there, but Presbyters. Besides (pag. 82.) he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires & metropolitan primacies, owe their institution to the Church of Rome, or politick constitutions of Princes. He tells us (pag. 84.) out of Cartwright and Whittaker—that the Church in respect of Christ its head (not his vicar, or superiority of single prelats) is a monarchy; in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common (all the Presbytrie) with like authority among themselves (not a superiority over them) it is an Aristocracie, and in respect the people are not excluded, but have their interest, it is a Democracy. The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons; and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors, a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops. In his Analepsis, in answer to Dr Gauden (pag. 2.) he charges him (as before the Oxford men) with an uncertain proposall of the object, and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy, under the general terme of Episcopacie (therein also las…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity) telling them that by good demonstration [Bishop] and [Presbyter] have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers, and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers—adding, that the government of the Church by its Ministers—in their severall assemblies, with a Moderator Ordinis causa, to dispose and regulat what belongs to order—is the primitive episcopacie—which he grants to the Doctor, that the Covenant will not strike against—then (pag. 3. and 4.) he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against. And pag. 5. summeth it up thus—that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride &c. Whilst the Preeminence, prerogative, Paternal power, and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from, and above all other Ministers of the gospel, as the only immediat successors of the Apostles (So our Informer makes them) &c.—are continued. What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion? Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters, as a distinct order from them? and have they not a juridicall authority over them, by our law and practise, and his pleading too? doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert, that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed? are they no more in Church judicatores, but Moderators and Chairemen, set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting? doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting, and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice, if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall.
Again, wheras the Dr, (pag. 18.) did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead, must rise in another qualitie. Mr Crofton tells him (pag. 6.) That if it arise according to the Covenant, it must be in the establishment of Congregational, Classical, Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers, Communi consilio Presbyterorum (this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth) to debate and determine the affaires of the Church, and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power—each having a Prefident to propone questions, gather suffrages &c. and no more. Which mould of government, whither it would not smooth our prelacie to a compleat Presbyterian parity, let the Informer himself judge. It is incontrovertibly clear from these passages of Crofton, that even in their sense whom our Informer alleges to stand on his side, the present prelacie is abjured.
Finally, as for the authors after cited, and that declaration of the sense of the 2d article which he mentions, we say, as it is not clear (nay the contrary is evident) that such proposals in explication of that article, were either mad or approven by all, or the soundest Presbyterians there present, so it is als evident that if prelacy even as by them reserved, be found contrary to sound droctrine, and the power of godliness, that article of exti…pation doth most clearly and formally reach it. Neither are we so much concerned in the problemarick glossings or disputes of any persons in England (they not having tendered that oath unto us) as in the obligation of this oath, and that of the Nationall Covenant lying upon us, to preserve our reformation as it stood then establisht. Moreover this man would take Dr Sandersons advice here that an oath being stricti juris—the meaning is to be kept when clear from the words—but if it be doubtfull, every one is to take care that they indulge not their own affections and inclinations, or give way to too large a license of glossing, to the end they may with more ease loose themselves from the obligation, or give such a sense to others, or take it to themselves—as the unconcernd do see that the words will not bear, both for fear of perjury and ensnaring of others. Thus he, de jur prom. praelect. 2. parag. 9.
The Doubter objects next [that we are not concerned in the parliament of England sense, but in the sense of the Church and state of Scotland, who imposed the oath, and meant it against all sort of prelacie.] To this he answers, that it being a common league of the three Kingdoms, the meaning must be determined by all the three; and that Timorcus shews that the Parliament of England their sense mas with concnrrence of our Commissiners. Ans. 1. We have already made it good, that giving the Informer the advantage of the sense of the 2d. article which he alledges, it will notwithstanding clearly exclude our present prelacy. Timorcus telling us expresly (pag. 16.) that the Covenant, aperily oblidges against Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans &c. which termes he sayes are lyable to no ambiguity, and particularly against all such exercise of prelacie, as is by one single person, arrogating to himself sole and single power in ordination and jurisdiction. Darre this man deny that our present prelates have this legall prerogative expresly allowed them by our lawes? is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only of such of the Clergie, as their Lordships (forsooth) shall judge loyall? so that the prelacie which Timorcus and the English are for, is point blanck cross to the present hierarchie; and the three nations sense of that article will (as we have proved) never be reconciled to his sense and pleading in this point. 2. We told him also that it is not the 2d. Art. Whereby mostly or principally our obligation against prelacy is to be measured, it being that which relates especially to England, where Prelacy was then existent; and whatever sense any there do put upon that Article, yet they never offered to put any glosses upon our great engadgement to preserve our reformation then established, and never imagned nor offered the least limitation of our obligations both by the National Covenant as then particularly applyed against prelacie, and likewise our obligation in the first part and article of the League, to preserve our establisht reformation, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, which consequently stands inviolable according to its native and necessary meaning, in contradiction to our Prelacie or any Prelacie whatsoever, as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the imposing did understand the same.
Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell him [that we are engadged to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian, and that therefor in the 2d. article we swear against all kinde of Prelacie, Prelacie and Presbytery being inconsistent.] To this he answers that if we are in the 1. Article bound to maintain Presbyterie, and in the 2d left at libertie for some kinde of Prelacy, and with all if Presbyterie and Prelacie be inconsistent, then we have sworne contradictions, viz, to admit of no kinde of Prelacie, and yet admit of some kinde of it. Ans. 1. He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude (according to the Genuine sense of that Article) as to any prelacy, or whatever government else is inconsistent with Presbyterian Government, because, 1 the generall oblidgements [to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God—and to extirpat what ever is found contrarie to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness] will (as I have said) necessarily import, both as to us & them, ane engadgement against all kind of Prelacy under this notion and upon this ground. 2. As for [Englands reserving a latitude for a proestos] which he here alledges, Timorcus will tell us (out of Doctor Sanderson) of this rule as to the interpretation of promissory Oaths that tho its granted that promissory imposed Oaths must be interpret according to the sense of Imposers, as our private Oaths according to our sense, yet both these rules are to be limited, so that neither our private sense of our spontaneous Oaths, nor yet the sense of those who impose Oaths upon others, must be other then will comport, with the just signification of the words and phrases, in the Oath, vow, or Covenant, for this were to destroy [saith he] the simplicity necessary to every Oath, and indeed not to interpret, but to coin ane Oath or new obligation. Now the obligation of both Nations in this Oath, is to endeavour reformation according to the Word of God, and to extirpat whatever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness. If therefore a fixt Moderator, or any supposed moderat mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto, no mans glossings whatsoever, can (according to this necessary rule) prejudge the native import, signification, and extent of these generall clauses. In the 2d. place, his contradiction here imputed to us, is but his owne airie imagination, for it is not ad idem, and eodem modo. Wherein he imagineth the contradiction to lye. Our duty to preserve, and our obligation thereanent, being relative to the establisht Government of the Church of Scotland, and the extirpation engadged unto, being relative to another nation and Church, wherein that species of Prelacy particularized in the Article, was existent; so that there is no liberty left for any kinde of Prelacy in Scotland; and for Englands reserving, I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d. article, yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie, their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath, and therfor are not to be admitted. Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull, dissonant to the divine rule, and repugnant to the power of godliness, the oath doth most clearly strike against it.
Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost, objecting that in the Covenant, the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England, tells him that it is in relation to different acts, the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved, of England to be Reformed; that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri, to sweare the preservation of good acquired, before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better, to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed. He adds, that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England, since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England, citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers, that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation, who had first obtained it, and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them. Here let out Informer informe himself, first, that in the sense of the English Presbyterians, [the preserving of our establisht Reformation] is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included; and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri, relates properly to England. 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts, the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind, the other to that in England yet in fieri, wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article, and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first, and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles, to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us, viz. [That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article, and yet the second can admit of some.] For as we have before answered, so Mr Crofton tells him here again, that the acts and objects are different. The preserving of the Reformation, government and discipline of this Church (which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government, according to our two books of discipline, and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such) is a different act and object, from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England. And thirdly, that with Mr Crofton, and the English Presbyterians, it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us, that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern, which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern. For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri, and our acquired good in point of government, the measure of their good to be obtaind, and that the good they were to obtain (according to the Covenant) was the same with ours, and tells him in terminis and expresly, that our pattern is in the first article prefixed, to which they are to be conformed.
From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant, and the sense of the English Presbyterians, who adhere thereunto, it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops; That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl. Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum. Cartwrights Exceptions. Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall. Smectymnuus. Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for th… unbishop…g of Timothy and Titus, cited by Crofton, pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces. Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton (to use his own expression) might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power, tho a simple Presbyter; so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy, and strikes only against that of England. Again, Mr Crofton in the Analepsis, (pag. 129.) answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of [the best reformed Churches] tells the Masters of Oxford, that the sense is [in endeavouring the reformation of England, the word of God shall be our rule, and the best reformed Churches our pattern.] Wherein he clearly asserts with us, that the obligation of the Covenant, reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God: But so it is that the Apostolick Churches (as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert) owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto, so that the Scripture rule, and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto, strikes against, and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish: of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers, above Presbyters. And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy, to a compleat presbyterian parity. The Scripture makes (with Mr Crofton) the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima; So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted, can consist with the Covenant in his judgment; nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule, and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch.
Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled [The case of the accommodation examined, pag. 39. 40.] who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath, for extirpating an evill discovered, and yet for a further advance, rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned, till God should give further light—so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species, did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government, and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions—That, it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre, with that Church convinced of evills, but not so enlightened as to remedies, in Covenanting against the evills in particular, and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God, and by vertue of this general oblidgement, become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things, not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath, and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable. So that no hesitation among them, doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary to that doctine which is according to godliness. What inconsistency will the Informer shew us in this, that one nation vow adherence to its owne establishment in point of reformation and Church Government, and likewise vow assistance of another nation in the removal of a corruption therein, tho the removall will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first, as will be every way like unto this establishment, both nations being notwithstanding oblidged respective, under generall clauses to make this reformation compleat.
The Informer next tells us, that it is doubted by the learned, whither in the first Article there be any obligation to maintain presbyterian Government. His first reason is, because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therin, but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government. Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed, is very insignificant. Our Church, after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship, which Prelates had introduced, and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up, in Presbyteries, synods, and Assemblies, and all the priviledges of these her courts, authorized and establisht both by civill and ecclesiastick constitutions and laws, will any doubt (but the sceptick who will dispute that snow is not white) that the discipline then reformed and establisht, is in that oath sworn to be maintained. He may als well alledge that it is not the doctrine and worship then established, which we Covenant to preserve, as to doubt of the government, since this reformation then established, takes in all the three together, and in the same sense. Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist, grants that there was then in Scotland no such officers, as are enumerate in the 2d article, but an establisht reformed government was then existent. Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say, that it was not Presbyterian government, or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath. His 2d reason is, that Independents took that Covenant, and had a hand in wording that article, that it might not import any particular forme of government.—That the words import no one forme of government, but with this proviso, as reformed. The Seasonable case said this already, to which the Apologist returned answer That the government of this Church at that time being Presbyteriall (as he acknowledged) there could be no other government understood, then what was then existent, established and reformed. That to say Indendepents understood it of their government, will no more reflect upon the Covenant, then upon the Scripture it self, which Independents do alledge will plead for their government. Next, I would ask this man, why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine, and worship, viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this proviso as reformed, but not the then established doctrine, and worship, is understood in that article, and so sectaries may lurk under this generall also. Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesties authority will binde, except his name and Sirname be in it, because some may entertaine a chimera of their own under his Majesties general titles. Alas! what ridiculous conceits are these.
The Doubter next objects [that the English parliament, who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that oath, did by [the reformed government] understand Presbytrie which was then settled here, and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it, whatever Independents think.] He answers, by denying that the English parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian government, for then they would have thought themselves bound to reforme England according to our pattern, but on the contraire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners, that they could never finde Presbytrie necessary by any divine right, and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawfull Church government, but what they call so, and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government. This the Seasonable case also said before him, and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum, but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apology. To this I say first, that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us, nor is their sense therof, principally to be eyed by us, as in his mould of the objection and answer, he seems to suppose. The parliaments of both Kingdomes imposed the oath upon their own subjects, framed by the consent of both according to their own condition, and exigence; so that we are to look mainly to the procedour and sense of our Church and state, for a discovery of the genuin sense and meaning of that oath. Now it is most evident that the designe of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath, was to establish and preserve our Church government then in being, which, he who denyes to have been Presbyterian, in its compleat formes, and courts, he may deny any thing. 2. We told him alreadie, that whatever defection or liberty of glossing any might be guilty of, yet the words and clauses of the Covenant, as to that 1. article, are clear and abundantly significant, and will admit of no evasion. And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was existent, the 2d Article, is as clear and convincing. And therefore whither they lookt upon themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not, we have proved that they stood oblidged, both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article, and also in the more generall clauses mentioned, to extirpate Prelacie root and branch. This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths, if their sense and obligation must vary, turne ambulatory or ambiguous, according as men do shift or turne aside. We told him of Dr Sandersons rule, anent the import of the words of an oath, in their genuin sense in reference to its obligation, whatever liberty men may take to glosse, or interpret, which is the judgement of all sound Casuists. 3. Dare he say, that ever the parliament of England denyed, that de facto Presbyterian government was compleatly established in the Church of Scotland, or will he make them so irrationall as to deny this necessary consequence, that therefore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblidge this Church to its preservation as the reformed Government then existent; and if his consequence cannot but be admitted, surely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense, nor denyed our obligation to maintain our established Presbyterian Government. And besides, they never denyed their obligation to reforme the Church of England according to the Scripture pattern; and that of the best reformed Churches, in conformity to that pattern. And that the Church of Scotland, and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent, were such, was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves, as from their confessions we have made appear.
For confirming this further (because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton) let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point. In that piece intituled [The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40.] He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity—in delivering in writting, and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation, acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford, and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox, exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland, together with the Doctrine. And (pag. 41.) he cites the corpus confess. (pag. 6.) Where the collector layes down this as the ground of that Churches purity of doctrine, and 54 years unity without Schisme [that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles, as it is prescribed in the word of God, was by litle and litle received, and according to that Discipline, the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be] which he prayes may be perpetually kept by the King & Rulers of the church. These English Non-conformists, Beza, the Author of the syntagma, in Croftons sense, and himself together with them, thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government, which Mr Knox introduced, to have been the government of this Church since the reformation, and which King Iames also owned. For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel, Hutton, and Matthews, three English Arch-Bishops, their approving the order of the Church of Scotland, he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world. Again (pag: 39.) he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline, as the great badge and Test of her government; and in answere to the Oxford mens exception against that article of the Covenant, which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland [viz. that they were not concerned in, and had litle knowledge of that government] he tells them, that he wonders how an university conversing in all books, could profess they had no knowledge of these books. So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England, the government engadged unto in that article, is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline, which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Presbyterian government.
Again (pag. 141.) he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone, that the royall assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Covenant, and that, in his Majesties most publick capacity as King of great Britain, France and Ireland, for himself and Successors: and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation, he asks the learned in law [whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne (as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent) be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. &c.] So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant, and to reach all his Majesties dominions. For he tells us in the preceeding page, that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium, wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem, it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus, hath rendred it nationall. Again Timorcus (pag. 70.) asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant (anno 1648.) sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacie. Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer, and doth evidently demonstrat (compared with these passages of Mr Crofton) that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England, both imposers and takers, parliament and people, understood that article of Presbyterian government.
The Doubter here poorly grants [that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense, but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry, we are bound to it in that sense.] Upon this he assumes, That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state, but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense, since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning. Ans. we have already made it good, both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant, the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacie expres…ie, the nations universall taking it so, and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament, as well as by the recommendation of the assembly, from the total extirpation of prelacy, and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts, in consequence hereof, that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense, then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent. Especially the league being framed and entered into by us, for our further security in relation to what we had attained. And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time, and this being also their scope and designe, discovered in their treaties with England, when that Covenant was entered into, I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it, whither ever any demurre here anent, or any other sense of this article, was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath? or whither, the imposers thereof in Scotland, would have engaged in that league with the English, upon any other termes then these, and in this their sense of that 1. article. Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business, that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church, that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league? Nay, when (as Timorcus tells us) it was debated branch by branch, phrase by phrase in the convention house, in the parliament, in the assembly of divines, was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started, that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland, Presbyterian government was not to be understood? in a word, dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England, did in the sense of this oath, and even in imitation of the Scottish, or rather the Scripture patterne, plead for, and had begun to set up Presbyterian government, and are closs to their principles to this day.
But he adds, that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland, because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers, the authority of the respective rulers of both nations, in relation, to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto, and their sense & scope therein to be mainly eyed, and each Nation being properly and immediatly judges, as to their own national end in this stipulation. Thinks this man, that the then representatives of Church and State, did eye any other end as to Scotland, then the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine, Discipline, Worship and Government, as at that time therein establisht. Moreover, the sense and scope of the article it self being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government, it can admit of no other glosse without manifest distortion, and frustration of the imposers designe therein. Next he tells us, that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article, yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie. What poor stuffe is this. Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland, would comport with some episcopacie (which the Informer hath not yet proved) what hath that to do with Scotland? Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government? Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to, we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy, till God give further light, must we therfor be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation, and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate? Nay, this is too dull inadvertancie. As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie. I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland, is, and Beza is so farre from disowning this, that (as we heard) he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy, as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel.