Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 2 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The Informers answers to our Argument for the Covenant obligation, taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites, and Zedikiahs Oath to the King of Babylon, weighed. Upon the first argument after a foolish traverse about the consonancy of the Oath to the Law of God, he yeelds the cause in granting that the Oath did oblige the first takers, and their posterity. Upon the second he begs the question and admits its chief scope and nerves. Likewise his answer to Psalm. 15. 4. His reflection on the Assembly 1638, and his argument offered by way of retortion anent our owning of Comissaries though abjur'd in the Covenant, largly scanned.
THus we have seen into what a fascination and labyrinth of absurd inconsistent notions this new proctor hath involved himself, while endeavouring to loose these sacred bonds of our solemn vows and Covenants with God, and that he hath run cross to the scripture, to Cafuists, yea to himself, in this enterprise. We shal now proceed to examine what strength is in the remnant of his reasonings upon this head; And how he acquits himself in his answers to some pregnant passages of scripture pleaded for the Covenant. The first that follows in this dialogue is that remarkable transaction of Joshua and Israel with the Gibeonites, largly and unanswerably pressed and improven by such as have written for theCovenant; which this man thought he could not for very shame passe over; but sure he had better done so, then to have made such a pitifull and superficiall return. Well, let us hear it.
The Doubter now assaults him as to this notion anent the greater good in quiting the Oath, with that instance of the Oath to the Gibeonites, [whom God had commanded to make no peace with, but enjyond Israel to root them out, to whom Josua and the Princes might have said, Gods command Looses us from our Oath, and it will hinder a greater good, yet in that particular they rather dispensed with Gods command, then with their Oath; the acceptablness wherof to God, appeard in his punishing Saul a long time after for killing these Gibeonites, to whose predecessors Joshua & the princes had suorn.] In answer to this, he runs out a great length anent that transaction, to infringe this argument. Which I shall now examine.
But before I enter upon this, I would premise two things, first, that this trifling Informer hath so moulded our argument from this text as quite to divert it from its true channel and scope, which is to prove the oblidging force of ane Oath or Covenant (Lawful upon the matter) both upon the takers, and their posterity, notwithstanding of many circumstantiall sinfull aberrations from the divine rule, in the manner of entring into it. As is most evident in this instance as I shal after shew. And this man could not be ignorant, that this text is thus Improven by Timorcus and Others, who have written for the Covenant, and this argument, and improvement of the text which he presents, is but a man of straw of his ownupsetting. Secondly, that we are not concerned in order to the evincing the premised truth for the proof wherof we adduce this text, peremptorly to determine this question, whither this Oath did contradict Gods positive Law, and how far any piece or circumstances of the divine precepts anent the destruction of the Cannanites, making no leagues with them, justles with this Covenant and Oath, and are found overruled by its oblgation: for our argument stands good and intire, tho we abstract from any positive determination in this point. So that in tracing our Informers extravagant discourse in answer to this objection of his own moulding, we shal rather discover the slippery grounds he walks upon, and the inconsistencies wherin he is involved by his answers, and confident assertion of the Oaths conformity to the divine Law, then positively to resolve and determine any thing in this debate, which this man hath no less ridiculously handled, then impertinently brought in. But to the point.
First, he wonders that we make use of this argument to prove the obligation of our Oath against Bishops. But sure it is ane argument verie Sutable, if ane Oath into which Joshua and all Israel were cheated, ane Oath to heathens, and which had at Least-wise a verie apparent inconsistencie with Gods command, to root out these Canaanites, and not to pitie or spare them, is found so highly obligatorie, and even binding the posterity, how much more the nations Covenanting with God, and with one another for publick and personall reformation. But he sayes, That we mistake this place. Why so? First, if we think Ioshua was forbidden upon any termes to make a Covenant with these Canaanites, but to root them all out, and yet because of this Oath spared them, then (he sayes) we run in a most wild and gross opinion. Severe censure! why so, what is that opinion? that ane Oath (saith he) can bind against a command of God, whither it be a morall or particular Command, its all one. So that as we said before, that ane Oath can bind against commands of men in authority, now we go a greater length, in making them bind againste Commands of God. But I answer, first, that there was a command of God to cut off these Canaanites, without pitying or sparing them, I hope he will not deny, and if he do, it is easie to be produced, Exo. 23. 32, 33. Exo. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2. Nay more, Gods command herein was so peremptory, that where he appointed his people to tender peace to other cities, before they proceeded to destroy them, there is ane exception made (as Iackson observes upon Joshua 9. 7.) of the cities of Canaan Deut. 20. 15, 16. thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the Cities of these nations. But of the cities of the People which the Lord thy God hath given thee for ane inheritance, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth. To this place Jackson points us to clear this matter. 2ly, Its as evident that these Gibeonites had their saftie from this Oath and Covenant. For upon this we have the judgement of all the princes of the congregation, (Josh. 9. 19.) in determining that question about their saftie, we have sworn unto them by the Lord, therfor we may not touch them, because of the Oath which we sware unto them. Yea more, when many hundered yeares after, the injury of Saul is mentioned in slaying them, the ground of their right to Live and dwell among the Lords people, rather then the other Canaanites, is attributed expresly and solely to this Oath; 2. Sam. 21. 2. Now the Gibeonites were not of Israel but of the Amorites, and the children of Israel had sworn unto them, and Saul sought to slay them, wherfor David said what shall I do for yow. Now the command being so express to cutt them off, and upon the other hand, their saftie being first and last attributed so clearlie to the Oath, that which this man calls a wilde and gross opinion, he must either impute to the Scripture-account of this matter, or resolve and accommodat this difficulty, which he is (in maintaining the Scriptures authority) oblidged unto as well as we. 3ly, that which he calls a wilde and gross opinion, is the Judgement of Learnd Divines, particularly of Jackson, who upon the twenty vers. of that 9 of Joshua, having moved this objection, that what the Princes sware was against the express command of God, who had often enjoind to destroy all these Canaanites. Returns this answer. That though one Oath or vow doth not bind men for doing of any thing that is absolutely unlawfull, yet in this case it was not so, because the charge which God gave for slaying the inhabitants of the Land, was a particular command, and so far only to bind their consciences, as it might be obeyed without any breach of the morall Law, as in Rahabs case it is also evident. But, here they could not obey that command of God concerning their destroying all the Inhabitants of Canaan, without perjurie, which is against the Law and light of nature—he adds, that their perjurie would have given great occasion to the enemies of Gods people to blaspheme—So that (saith he) there lay a strong bond upon the consciences of the Israelites, though they were deluded by the Gibeonites. Now I think the account of this difficulty exhibit unto us here by this learnd divine, may make him ashamed of his assertion in this point, & we may retort his objected absurditie thus, if the morall Laws obligation in opposition to perjurie, stood against and counter-ballanced a particular command of God in this matter, much more will the force and obligation of ane Oath, in a matter of far greater importance, stand good against any positive Laws and statutes of men. And if even Gods positive Particular command, could in this case gound no dispensation with their Oath, but God would rather dispense with the particular command, than with it, how much more absurd must he be, who pretends a dispensation with, and a nulling of, such selemn Sacred Oaths and vows to God as we are under, and in such weighty matters, upon the arbitrary commands of men, especially men under the same Oaths themselves.
In the premised distinction of Mr Jackson, the Informer might have discovered the folly of his bold unrestricted assertion; no Oath can bind against a comand, no not a particular command. For Jackson distinguishes (which this man admits yea and positively asserts) betwixt that which is simply and absolutely unlawfull, and that which is unlawful only upon the ground of a particular positive precept, which in some circumstantiat cases may-come to justle with the absolutly binding moral Law, as in the instances adduced by the Informer himself is evident.
4Ly, His own rule anent the lesser obligation overruled by the greater or Prior, will plead for this, and his instances, of MercieMercy and not Sacrifice, of Paul and those with him, their casting the goods into the sea, Davids eating the shew-bread to keep from starving, do confirme the answers above set down. For here particular positive precepts, are overruled by the greater and Prior morall obligations of the 6th Command anent self Preservation. What absurditie then is there in this assertion, that the great morall precept of Not taking Gods name in vain, did over-rule a particular positive precept? Doth he not here see Gods great morall Commands (in the premised instances) binding against lesser positive precepts. And when he saith that whither the command be morall or particular which the Oath binds against, all is one as to his fancied absurditie, he discovers ignorance, and inconsistency with himself, for in all his formentioned instances, moral precepts do overrule positive, particular and lesser precepts. And why shall not also the great morall command anent not taking Gods name in vain, over-rule that positive and particular precept anent the staying of these Gibeonites, and far more our solemn vows, the present statutes of men. Sure, he will never be reconciled with himself here, or assigne a disparity. Hence Iackson having said that the bond of this Oath lay strongly upon the consciences of the Israelites to observe it, though they were deluded by these Gibeonites, addeth that in this the Rule holds good, I will have merciemercy and not Sacrifice, and from his own argument concludes that which he here denyes. So that this case of the Gibeonites (according to Jacksons solution of this difficulty, and that sense of this scripture followed by him and Other learned divines) strongly repells his rule, from the hindrance of a greater good to loose the Covenant, especially since this greater good doth with him still resolve into obedience of mens Laws. Had not the Israelites this ground more strongly to plead against the keeping of their Oath to these Gibeonits, since not only they were cheated into it (and dolus aufert consensnm say Casuists) but it seemd to hinder a farr greater good viz, the obeying of Gods express command to root them out; yet Joshua & the Princes knew not this new knack for loosing Oaths. But the interposing the sacred name of God in ane Oath, was with them so weighty a matter, that it overruled all these pretences.
Thus we have seen how he acquits himself as to his first charge of [a mistake of this place] and that what he calls a gross and wilde opinion, is the sense of the scripture embraced by learnd divines and consonant to his own pleading; so that in this charge he discovers too bold ignorance. What more hath he to say? he tells us 2ly, that we are mistaken if we thank, that Ioshua had no warrand to make peace with any of the Canaanites, but was commanded without once treating with them, to root them all out: because in Deut. 20. 10. he is commanded to proclaim peace indefinitly to any citie he came to fight with, the Canaanites not excepted. Ans. How can this man say that the Canaanites are not excepted, from that offer of peace there injoyned, when as he doth not so much as offer to answer to these pregnant circumstances of the text, pleaded by Iackson and Others to prove the contrary. For, after the Lord hath commanded them to proclaim peace to a city before they assauted it, there is (verse 15.) a limitation. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations (viz: who were devoted to destruction) therfor in the 16. vers. after the Lord hath thus ridd marches, as to the Canaanites they get this precept, But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for ane inheritance thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Can any restriction and exception be more peremptory? and that we may know, who these are who are thus excepted from mercy, and from these offers of peace mentioned, the 17. ver. clears it. But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizites, the Hivites and the Iebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. This additional motive of Gods command is here remarkably inserted; which is the more remarkable if compared with the 2. of Sam. 21. 2. The Gibeonites were not of Israel but of the Amorites, and the Children of Israel had sworn to them. When the spirit of God, is reminding us of this story in pointing at Sauls guilt, we are first told that they were of the Amorites, a people devoted to destruction by Gods command, but excepted from the rest that were destroyed, upon the ground of this Oath, and upon this ground solely.
Jackson upon this passage, holds that the offer of peace, is not to be understood of any city of Canaan upon these grounds, first, because they were expresly charged utterly to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, to the end they might dwell in their room and might not be ensnard by their dwelling among them; and secondly, we do not read that ever Joshua tendered peace to any of the cities, tho it be mentioned as a strange thing, and a signe of Gods hardning their hearts, that never any of those people, did of their own accord crave peace, save the Gibeonites Josh. 11. 19.—Yet we never find that there was peace profered them, and it seems that the Gibeontes did therefore seek it by craft, because Otherwise they saw it would not be granted them; and 3dly, it is expresly noted as a fault in the Israelites, Judges 1. 28. that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. Hence he concludes, that this is only to be understood of such cities as they should besiege that were not of the land of Canaan. And upon the 15. vers. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations, He adds, but these must neither have peace offered them, nor must their women and little ones and cattell be spared when their cities are taken by force; for the following reason (saith he) doth manifestly exclude them from both these favours (citing vers. 18.) That they teach you not to do after all their abominations &c. Sure it had become this Magisteriall Informer to ponder these reasons ere he had obtruded upon us his bold and inconsiderate assertions in this point. The Dutch Annot: on this 15. vers. expresly assert that the cities of the Land of Canaan are excluded from offers of peace, because the Lord had commanded them to be banned (that is devoted to destruction) as is related in the sequel. Mr Poole upon this 10. vers. asserts that this seems to be understood not of the cities of the Canaanites, as is manifest from vers. 16, 17, 18. who were under ane absolute sentence of utter destruction, Ex. 23. 32, 33. Deut 7. 1, 2. Whence they are blam'd that made any peace or league with them, Judges 2. 2. but of the cities either of other nations who injur'd or disturbed them, or commenced war against them, or aided their enemies, or oppressed their friends and allies or of the Hebrews themselves, if they were guilty or abettors of Idolatry or apostacy from God, or of sedition or rebellion against authority, or of giving protection and defence to capital offenders. Citing Gen. 14. Judges 20. 2. Sam. 20. The English annot. upon this 10. vers. do also assert that this offer of peace is not to be understood of the cities of Canaan, for they were to be more severly dealt withal vers. 16, 17. and for shewing them more favour Israel is blam'd Judg. 1. 28. but of cities without the land of promise vers 15. So that our Informer is here runnig crosse to the plain sense & scope of the text, and the current of Interpreters.
But he adds, that there was a difference betwixt these Canaanites and the nations a far off in relation to this allowance of peace to them. First, it was to be upon the termes of relinquishing their idolatry, yeelding up their Lands, and becoming servants. That therfor leagues with them are forbidden, they reserving their heathnish worship. But where will he shew us this restriction, or difference in Scripture? non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit. We have seen Gods peremptory precepts to cut them off, to save alive none that breatheth of these excepted cities and nations. We find also peremptory commands to make no leagues with them, no not for civill commerce, as they might with other heathens afar off, Exo. 23. 32, 33.—thou shalt make no Covenant with them—they shall not dwell in thy land, as these Gibeonites were permitted; so Exo. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2 we have the same precepts renewed. Now, where is this exception, as to these leagues? it lyes upon him as the affirmer to prove and instruct this limitation, which he here affirms, out of the text. God who gives the law must himself also give the exception. And this man must be charged with malapert intruding into what he hath not seen, in presuming to put in his exceptions, unless he can instruct them, which yet he hath not done. I confess God who is above the Law might allow an foreign in certain cases, especially such as this anent their Oath, but looking to his own precept we find no such exception from it. 2ly; he sayes, there was this difference betwixt them and other nations, that if they refused peace, they were to be worse dealt with then any other city that was not of the Canaanites, because (Deut. 20. 16, 17.) in ease of their refusal, nothing was to be saved alive while, other cities were but to lose the lives of the Males only. vers. 12, 13, 14, 15. Now, the violence which he offers here unto the text, is obvious to any that but reads it. For after that (ver. 10.) the lord hath laid down this Law in generall, anent their proclaiming peace to a city before they assault it, and showen (in the 11. ver.) That if the city yeeld, they shall be tributaries—(vers. 12, 13.) God injoyns that if the city refuse peace, every male must be cut off—and (ver. 14.) the Women, little ones, and the cattel must be saved, and its spoile taken. Then (vers. 15.) to ridd marches, and to shew whom all these prescriptions relate unto, and whom not. The lord adds—thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee which are not of the cities of these nations. And then (as I said) in relation to them the severe command followes (16. ver.) but of the cities of these nations which the Lord thy God gives thee, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth. And that these excepted cities and people may be known they are particularly named as in above expressed. He sayes, in the case of their refusall, nothing was to be left alive, and they were to be worse deal; with than others, who refused peace, who were to lose the males only. Wheras the text appeares express, that the Law anent offering peace, and dealing thus according as it was accepted or refused, did not belong to them at all, but that they are very clearly and peremptorly excepted from it. As for his long confused parenthesis here foisted in anent the difference betwixt the peace and a league, and that Ioshua first made a league with the Gibeonites, but knowing them to be Canaanites-brake it, because contrary to the command of God (citing Josh. 9, 21, 22, 23.) and meerly allowed them a peace. It is fl…tly contradictory to the text, for (vers. 15.) it is said, he made peace with them and made a league with them (and this league was) to let them live, and the Princes of the congregation sware unto them. Lo here is the Identity of the peace and league, and the designe and contents of it [to let them live.] The Dutch annot. upon 15. v. [the princes of the congregation sware to them] tell us, that they ratified by Oath that which Joshua had promised them, viz. that they should remain alive. The English annot. in stating the question and difficulty concerning the contrariety of this transaction to Gods command, express it thus, whither Ioshua in making peace with them, and the Princes in confirming it by Oath, did Lawfully or not. And speak to the Lawfulness, or unlawfulness of both Ioyntly without any distinction, but make no exception in the least of the league as if distinct from the peace confirmed by Oath, which certainly in statingthe question they would have expresly excluded, had they imagined any such distinction. That Joshua keept the peace and the league, and that this league & peace was to let them live, is accordingly set down in the same termes when the Princes ratefied it; and all along where the peace is mentioned, The Oath (and by consequence the league which was therby confirmed) is proposed as its ground. They smote them not because they had sworn by the Lord (18. vers.) And (vers. 19.) the Princes determine they must not touch them, because they had sworn to them. And (20. vers.) we will let them live lest wrath be upon us because we have sworn unto them. And (vers. 21.) the Princes said to the People let them live—as they had promised unto them. Lo all along the Oath is most consciencioussly observed, and that as accessory unto, and confirming this whole transaction, both the peace and league, the, scope and sum wherof is still expressed thus [to let them live.] As the text makes no distinction, betwixt the peace and league in this ratefication, so the intendment therof is never extended byond their life and saftie first or last. How then can this man say that Joshua brake the league, since the termes therof were to let them live (ver. 15.) which is acknowledged by the Princes & faithfully performed. The league and peace and Oath here are still one, and fall under the same consideration as consonant, or dissonant to the command; if the peace was contrary to the command so was the Oath, and if the league was contrary to the command so was the Oath also. For it is most evident, that the text speakes of the peace and league indiscriminatim or without distinction in relating this transaction, and of the Oath as accessory both unto the one and the other; so that the Oath was unlawfull, if either the peace or league was unlawfull, and if either was broken the Oath was broken, and Joshua and the Princes were perjured: Wheras the text records their faithfull performance of the Oath as ratefying all that transaction. But it is no strang thing to see men so notoriously blotted with perjury seek precedents in scripture Saints if they could finde them. But this instance will stand in judgement against them if they repent not.
Whereas he saith, that Ioshua brake the league as contrary to the command of God when he knew them to be Canaanites, giving this as a reason why he allowed them a peace only. It is such a flat contradiction to the text, and to it self, as none can be more plain. For according therunto Joshua could not break this league without breaking his Oath which confirmed it, and could break neither the one nor the other, and allow them a peace. Since this peace was the import both of the league and Oath, and all that the Scripture mentions as their demand of Joshua, was peace and their life, and nomore; and this all along Joshua and Israel keept, and precisely because of the Oath. As any who reads the text may see. The Dutch Annotations upon Josh. 9. 15. expone that branch that relates to the Princes swearing thus, that they ratified by Oath that which Joshua had promised them, viz, that they should remain alive. Wherin, as they clearly hold that the Oath was accessory to this whole transaction, so they make it intirely to terminate in this that they should have their life. And upon 2. Sam. 21. 1. Where Sauls guilt in slaying these Gibeonites is mentioned, they paraphrase it thus, that it was contrary to the promise made to them & ratefied by Oath. Josh. I. 15, 18. And whereas we are put in minde in the 2. ver. that [the Gibeonites were not of Israel But of the Amorites]—they paraphrase it thus, that they were remaining of the heathen nations whom God had commanded to destroy —and the other clause of the verse wherein we are put in minde [that Israel had sworn to them and Saul is said to have sought to slay them in his zeal] they paraphas… it thus, that it was irregular fained zeal whereby he thought to mend what Joshua and other godly Governours, according to his opinion had neglected or ill done, but it was directly against the Oath made by Gods name, by his special providence, for which thing God was now greatly provocked, as by this pleague upon the land, & Gods answer appeareth. Wherein, how evidently they stand in opposition to this mans glosses and pleading upon this head, is obvious to themeanest reflection since onelyonly for thatOath they charge guilt on Saul. The English annotations upon (ver. 18.) say, that abstracting from the Princes Oath it had been cruelty to have slain them seeing they had violat a lawfull Covenant. Now how this aggrees with this mans gloss of [Joshuas breaking the league, as contrary to the commandment] let any judge. Jackson thus senses ver. 23.—the curse, which God had pronounced upon the people of this land requires that you be cut off as well as the rest, yet because of the Oath which we have taken this curse shall be upon you in bondage and not in death.
His next instance to prove his supposed limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites is that of Rahab her being spared Josh 6. 17. Which clearlie crosses his pleading & argument here; for 1. the spies upon very strick terms state their Oath: and told Rahab not only that if she should make the least discovery of their busi ness, but likewise that if she or her friends, even so much as one of them, were out of the house when the city was taken; this Oath should not reach them, whatever submission she had made. And 2dly, All Joshuas ground when he commands the spies to secure her and her friends, is their Oath: they are commanded to bring out the Woman, [as they sware to her] and for no other reason. 3ly. I pray, what saved her friends and her relations as well as her self from this common destruction? Surely, they made no peace nor any such submission as this man supposeth necessary to exeem them from the commanded destruction, nor was there any assurance the spies could have touching them, and therefore they could not be upon any other ground saved, but because included in this Oath. Besides, what power had these two men to transact a peace without Joshuas advice and knowledge? the ground of, their transacting with her, is their necessity, and the Womans offer of their saftie. Now I retort his argument here against him; to prove that they were spared upon other terms then the Oath, he adduceth this instance of Rahabs preservation upon the submission mentioned, viz. her making and accepting of peace, and hence concludes that she (and by consequence the Gibeonites) together with her friends, were saved upon other terms, then meerly upon the Oath, and that abstracting from it Israel was obliged to save them. But one might argue thus, if Rahabs friends (at least) might have been Lawfully cut off upon the ground of Gods command to cut off the Canaanites who made or accepted no terms of peace, and were only saved by the spies Oath, then the Oath (according to the Informers own principles) did bind in opposition to a positive precept to cut off the Canaanites: but so it is, that upon the ground of this Oath only her friends wer spared, as this man cannot deny: ergo, the Oath did bind here in opposition to a positive precept. He dare not say that her friends were proselyts, or did in the least directly or indirectly submit. Nay for any thing that the spies knew they might be as cursed heathens as were in all Jericho (for what was Rahab her self before God extraordinarly touched her heart) and consequently by Gods positive precept devoted to destruction with the rest. Yet this Oath, made even to another for them, yea an Oath which had a seeming extortion of fear in the spies hazard, saved and exeemd them from this stroak & curse, so that in this case himself must confess that the Oath did bind in opposition to the positive precept. And this one clear Scripture instance seemes enough to prove the point that the Oath did over-rule a particular, positive precept, though all that he sayes of the Gibeonites were admitted.
He adds, that it is evident, from Iosh. 11. 19. that if other cities in Canaan, had submitted, as Gibeon, Ioshua might have spared them. I answer; the Text sayes that de facto they made no peace, and that God hardened their hearts that they might come against Israel and fall. But this will be too weak to bear the weight of his conclusion that Ioshua might have spared them all. For 1. How can this consist with the plain positive command as to their utter off cutting (often renewed) and with Gods promise of giving Israel their inheritance, to spare them all. For the Psalmist tells us, that he did drive out the heathen with his hand and planted his people, he did afflict the people and cast them out. Psal. 44. 2. And Psal. 78. 54, 55. He brought them to the border of his Sanctuary, even to this mountain which his right hand had purchas'd. He cast out the Heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents. Hence as they were frequently enjoyn'd to cast them out least they should become a snare to them Exod. 23. 33. Deut. 7. 16. Ex. 34. 12. So Israels sparing them when they were planted in that land is frequently reprehended as their great guiltiness Judges 1. 27, 29, 30, 31, 33. And Judges 2. 1, 2. Upon which ground the Lord threatens as a punishment that he will not drive them out: But that they shall be thorns in their sides. And this threatning we find execute, and the same very guiltiness presented as the cause of it, viz. That they did not destroy the nations concerning whom the Lord commanded them. Psal. 106. 34, 35. which confirmes this assertion; and therefore this historicall clause in that passage of Joshua, is to be expounded in correspondence with the plain and positive command, which we have already seen clear. 2ly. Jackson upon that 19. ver. [there was not a city that made Peace with Israel &c.] tells us, that this is added as a reason why the wars with the Canaanites lasted so long—because the Inhabitants did obstinately stand out—and attempted not to procure conditions of peace save only the Gibeonites—Which is far from coming up to his scope and designe. For it is one thing to say that de facto …he wars lasted long—because none offered to yeeld but Gibeon, and another thing to say that Ioshua was not oblidged nor commanded to cut off any but those who thus warred and resisted. Which will be the more weighty, if it be considered in the third place, that as in the command to cut them off, no such restriction appeares, but upon the contrary the Canaanites are excepted from mercy, so we do not find that Joshua offered terms of peace (as this man alleadges he was obliged) unto any of these that were cut off, but assaulted them as those whom God had devoted to be destroyed, in obedience to his holy, though severe command, As we heard Jackson hath observ'd. This will be more clear, (and therin the Informers adversary might puzle him) If we shall again reflect upon the remarkable circumstances of that transaction with the Gibionites. In the 6. ver. of that 9. of Joshua, they propose the matter thus, we are come from a far country, therefore make a League with us. Whatever they had understood of Gods command to cut off the Cananites, this surelie was a strong argument with Joshua. Now remark the answer in the 7. ver. the men of Israel said peradventur ye dwell among us, and how shall we me make a league with you. Sure their offering terms of peace and submission, might have stopped this question and demurre according to his opinion, who holds that upon their submitting to terms of peace, They might have been spared and even incorporat among Gods people, as he tells us from Josh. 11. 19. that all these Canaani…es might have been spared, had they thus submitted So that in his sense their first offer was a ground of peace. Especially since (as is observed by learned Interpreters from their offer in the 8. ver.) they sought peace from Joshua and Israel upon their own termes, and offered to accept any conditions proposed by them. Which was the lowest step of submission. And when they further answer that demurr about the place of their abo…e with this general, we are thy servants, i. e. We offer our selves to thee & all that is ours, which was enough in this mans Judgement, to except them from the stroak threatned, and commanded to be execute upon the rest of the Canaanites. Yet this doth not satisfie Joshua, but again he particularly interrogats them upon these two points, who are ye? and next, from whence come ye? This their free and general concession (as some do judge) giving Joshua just cause to suspect that they were of the cursed Canaanites whom he was to destroy; and then they tell him that wherin the dolus lay, we come from a far countrey. Now, I suppose they had answered to these two Questions thus, we are Amorites, and we dwell here. Thinks this Informer that Joshua would have lookt on himself as obliged by Gods Law to transact with them. What needed then his peremptory Interrogations (after their declared submission) anent their stock and lineage, and the place of their abode? What needed the people murmur, and desire to cut them off, after the contrary of what they pretended was discovered, notwithstaning hereof? Nay thirdly, why is it, that again and again their saftie is attributed solely to the Oath, without the least hint of their submission as having any influence thereupon? Finallie that passage Joshua 11. 19. [no citie made peace—For it was of the Lord that they might have no favour] seems to import no more but this, that favour might have been shown them had they submitted, but how? Even by God the supreme lawgiver (whose mercy is over all his Works) his dispensing with his own Law, and severe positive precepts, (as in the case of the Gibeonites he did) and in what Method it seemd best unto him, but it will be hard to inferr from this a limitation of the precept it self for the reasons already given. So that all that seems to follow from this passage is, that had they submitted, God might have spared them by a speciall dispensing with his own Law, (For he will have merciemercy and not Sacrifice) and Joshua upon Gods appointment. But not that the Law it self did dispense with them.
As for what he adds in further confirmation of this opinion, anent Salomons imposing bond service upon the remains of these cursed Nations, and their posterity afterward, whom the children of Israel were not able to cast out (which, in ane odd phrase, he calls a kindness) and anent these Children of Solomons servants, mentioned Ezra. 2. 55, 58.] Jackson will tell him [That it contradicts not the Law (Deut. 7.) anent utter smiting them, and shewing them no mercy, since, that Law may be meant of the inhabitants that were in the Land at their entring first into it, not of their posterity. Especially these who had their lives previously secured.] Which fully cuts off his argument from this Text. And this is also the answer of Mr Poole and other learned interpreters upon this passage. Besides, that the Nethinims were probably the Gibeonites issue, and were however all of them, by a long tract of time Proselyts incorporat among Gods people and professing the true religion, which providentiall title might abundantly secure their lives
The Dutch Anotations upon Josh. 29. 27. do inferr from the nature and mould of that phrase which signifies [a delivering them over.] that hence it is thought they were called Nethinims i. e. given and delivered over which confirms the answer adduced. However the person who should directly impugne the Informer as to what he maintains in this question (which he hath impertinently brought in without any ground, to make some shift of answer) might further tell him that this being but a practice, cannot be pleaded against a rule, but must be measured by it, which is a principle acknowledged by all.
And here I shall exhibit some remarkable inconsistencies of this man with himself upon this point 1. he supposeth that Joshua and the princes their Oath to the Gibeonites stood inviolable as to this transaction both now and herafter; for he sayes (page 143.) that Sauls slaying the Gibeonites moved God to wrath, because it was contrary to Ioshuas Oath made to their fathers. Now Joshua & the Princes Oath ratefied all the Transaction with them, & was accessory therunto as the text most clearly holds out, viz. both the league and the peace; yet he tells us (page 141.) that as soon as Ioshua knew them to be Cananites, he brake the league as contrary to the command of God, and consequently his Oath confirming it according to his doctrine as being Likewise contrary to the command. 2ly, In that same page he tells us that no peace was to be concluded with the Canaanites, unless they became servants & renounced their heathnish idolatries, and that with the same proviso leagues were discharged with these Canaanites. Yet immediatlie after he makes a distinction in this point betwixt a peace, and a league, and tells us, that Ioshua had first made a league with them, but when he knew them to he Canaanites, he brake it as being contrary to the command of God, and only allowed them a peace. Now both the peace, and the league, were equally allowed and commanded upon thir termes of yeelding up their Lands, and relinquishing their Idolatrie, and both were equally discharged if they did not so, according to the series of his reasoning, as is obvious to any Reader. How then (I pray) could Joshua break his league with them as contrary to the command of God, more then the peace, both which he holds to have been allowed them with this proviso. 3ly. He sayes Ioshua and the Princes sware nothing but what God commanded (pag. 142.) Now the text is most express that they sware the league ver. 15. and Ioshua made peace with them, and made a league with them to let, them live, and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. This league he sayes Ioshua brake as contrary to the command of God, in his second answer; yet in his 3d answer he tells us, that the Oath contained in it nothing contrary to the command. Again, he sayes God commanded to make no peace with them, But upon the termes of submission, relinquishing their idolatrie, and giving up their Lands. To this only he restricts the Princes stipulation, as falling under the command, yet acknowledges the command will include a league also upon thir terms, which els where (as I said) he dstinguishes from the peace, which he holds was not to be allowed them even upon thir termes. And likewise, in his second answer he tells us that they had peace only upon their submission, without mentioning these other termes. Likewise he sayes that on these termes he transacted to spare Rahabs friends, but where was this assurance as to her friends?
4ly, He acknowledges (pag. 143.) that Gods wrath for slaying the Gibeonites was because of Ioshuas Oath, made to their fathers. Yet page 108. he cries out upon his Doubters assertion anent ane Oath binding the posteritie, as a strange fancy, and tells us that Casuists say, that Iuramentum est vinculum personale, binding these only who take it. Now wheras this man wonders much at our argument from this text anent the Gibeonites, let any judge whether his own shattered inconsistent discourse be not rather an object of wonder.
But to proceed, his third answer to the premised argument of his Doubter, from this instance of the Gibeonites, is that Ioshua did nothing contrary to Gods command, which was to spare them upon their submission. Ans. (Besides what is touched anent his inconsistency with himself in this, and what we are to add, anent the impertinency of this unto the point, though granted.) I say first, that Joshua and the Princes were bound to spare them abstracting from this stipulation and Oath, is more then he hath proved, and appears contrary to the command above expressed, and the current of the context where this Oath and stipulation is set down; whether we consider Joshuas peremptorie demands and demurres anent receiving them to peace, after they had expressed their submission, or the Oath its being again and again mentioned, both in setting down the stipulation its self (ver. 15.) and the reason why they were not smitten (ver. 18.) and the Princes judicial determination. (ver. 19.) as the sole ground of Joshuas and the Princes obligation to them, without the least hint of any other, which certainly might have been (and consequently if true would have been, might his impugner say) very pertinently and strongly pleaded by Joshua and the Princes, to quash the peoples murmuring at the sparing of them. 2ly, I might say, that this stipulation and Oath, although cross to a particular positive precept, yet notwithstanding, as matters here stood circumstantiat, was consonant to a generall moral rule of Gods mercy, who loves it better then Sacrifice. And the sparing of these Gibeonites was grounded upon this great moral precept [of the reverence due to Gods name, interposed by a Sacred and Solemn Oath.] Which answer is the verie determination of Joshua and the Princes in this matter. His impunger might here adde that it is utterly improbable, that in the Princes determination of the question [whether these Gibeonites were to be saved, and the stipulation with them held as valid] their submission would have been omitted, if they had understood Gods command with this limitation, which is a doubt that would much puzle this Informer to resolve.
His 4t, Ans. is, that God was angry at the slaying of the Gibeonites, because it was contrary to his command, to give them peace upon their submission, and unto Ioshuas Oath to their fathers, and not meerly because it was contrary to the Oath. Ans. Joshua and the Princes Oath is both in that 9. of Joshua, and the 2. of Sam. 21. mentioned as the only ground of their right to their life, without the least hint of any command anent their having peace upon their Submission, which notwithstanding this antiscriptural Informer (who will be wise here above what is written) sets in the first place, as the principal cause of their right. When the reason is rendered (2. Sam. 21.) why these Gibeonites had a right to live among the Israelites, though they were not of Israel, but of the Amorites, it is expressed thus, the children of Israel had sworn to them, and Saul sought to slay them. Again, since he grants that God was angry at the slaying of these Gibeonites upon the ground of Joshua and the Princes Oath to their fathers, he confequently grants that this Oath, notwitstanding of the cheat by which Joshua and the Princes were brought under it, was still binding and did oblige the posterity, which is the Chief point that this instance is adduced to prove against him, as we shall presently shew. For what he adds after, it is not much noticable. The reasons of the English annotations as touching this Oaths consonancie to Gods Law, we are not in this point concern'd to scanne, since our argument stands good even upon their supposition. As for these who say, that Ioshua and the Princes Oath, was contrary to Gods Law, and do therfore assert that it did not bind. We have shown that as herin they are not ours, so in this assertion they clearly cross the Scriptures, as is evident from what is above touched.
Here we shall again minde the Reader for a conclusion to this argument and instance anent the Gibeonites, that all this mans clamour, about the consonancy or dissonancy of this Oath to Gods Law, is out of the way, and never meets our reasoning from this passage, even as its moulded by himself, so that we may without losing our argument as to its main scope, grant all that he sayes anent the consonancy of the Oath to the divine precept about cutting off these Canaanites, and that it did admit these restrictions which he speaks of. But our argument for the Covenant is here twofold 1. That this Oath and Covenant with these Gibeonites though its matter were of a far lower nature then our Sacred Covenants, and vows, yet did not only oblidge that, but all succeeding generations, And therefore much more our solemn sacred vows, so solemnly and universally sworn, and about the great concerns of Publick and personal reformation, do oblidge all the posterity. Now this being our main Argument, he is so far from denying it, that he grants it upon the matter, in asserting and yeelding unto us, that this Oath consonant to Gods Law, did bind the posterity; for thinkes he that we doe not suppose and hold the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to Gods Law' Why then wanders he out of the way, while pretending to answer this argument, and pleaseth himself, and leads his Reader off the way with unprofitable talk not to the purpose? The consonancy of our Oath to the Law of God, being even his own supposition in this argument. 2ly. From this instance we argue (as I said) for the binding force of the Covenant even upon the adversaries supposition anent the coaction, deceit, fear, or such like irregularities in the manner of entring unto it, (which they use to make a great clamour about) and from this text we conclude that all these will not loose the Oath, when once it is taken. Since here there was a notable cheat whereby Joshua and all Israel were brought under this Oath, taking away both a rationall assent of the Iudgment, and the free sutable election of the will, quia dolus aufert assensum that is, deceit takes away assent, say Casuists, Yet all this did not irritat this Oath when taken. And even as himself states the objection, his Doubter alledges, that the pretence or appearance of a greater good in breaking the Oath, was not wanting,—and particularly pleads, that this Oath did bind the posterity. Now what his roaving discourse anent the Oaths consonancy to the Law, sayes to all this, let any rational man judge; Since both his Doubter and he, do suppose the matter of this Oath lawfull. He knew that his stating the question aright and speaking to it, would have made the vanity of his answers appear, and therfore he started this notion anent the Oaths binding against a precept, that tossing it a little upon his forked pen, the unwarrie Reader might beleeve, he had return'd a full answer to this argument: Whereas he but beats the air in ane airie discourse out of the way, and yeelds the cause when he hath done.
Next he sayes, we use to plead Zedekiahs breach of Oath to the King of Babylon, which the Lord was so much displeased with. But how, and to what scope we plead that text, he durst not set down, nor put into the mouth of his Doubter any formall argument from it; Which if rightly propounded, he knew well his cause would quickly fall before it. This man could not be ignorant how Timorcus, and others, improve this text, viz. that Zedekiah who was of the Kings seed, the son of Josiah (Ezek. 17. 13.) had ane Oath put upon him by the King of Babylon anent his, and the Kingdoms fealty and subjection to him (2 Chron 36. 13.) after he had overrunn the land, and made prisoner Jehoiachin his Brother, and keept Zedekiah himself under his power. That he could neither have the crown, nor his libertie without this Oath of fealty to the King of Babylon, which was forced upon him out of fear, and as a prisoner—yet for the breach hereof (Exek. 17.) he is threatned with the losse of all. Shall he break the Covenant and be delivered—as I live saith the Lord surely my Oath and Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompence upon his head. And in the midst of Babylon he shall die. Here was ane Oath, forced upon a prisoner, and a King of Judah, and upon the matter inconsistent with Israels Laws, made that the Kingdom might be base, yet the breach of it was thus terribly revenged: Therfore much more dreadfull is the breach of our solemn vows, whose matter is of such high importance, and their end so excellent, and the power imposing so native and Lawfull &c. What sayes he to this Argument? he tells us, that the Iews were commanded to submit to the King of Babylon (Ier. 27. 6. &c.) so that the breaking of the Oath was disobedience to Gods command. But who denyes this, and what doth this arguing reprove? doth not his Doubter and himself also suppose the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to Gods command. But how takes he away these nerves, and t…ckling points of this instance and argument for the Covenant. 1. That this Oath was forced upon him as a prisoner. 2ly, taken by Zedekiah out of fear. 3ly, had a very apparent Inconsistency with a greater good, viz. to free Gods Church and people from a heathen slavery. 4ly, was cross to many standing Laws of Israel, yet neither the force of this heathen Invader, in imposing this Oath, nor the fear and bondage of this King of Israel when he did take it, nor the apparent inconsistency of its matter with a greater good, and its certain inconsistency with the standing Laws of Israel, did loose the Oath when taken, nor exeem the breaker of it from wrath and Judgement. And all this because it was upon the matter warrantable, and allowed of God, as we hold the Covenant to be. And therfore neither force, fear, bondage, the greater apparent good in breaking it, nor the inconsistency of it with our present Laws, none of all these pretences (we say) will loose the Oath of our Covenant, the matter of it being warranted of God, and of such high importance as is said. Sure it is obvious to any that this answer of his, sayes nothing to the antecedent or consequent of this argument for the Covenant, nor touches it in the least.
The Doubter objects next [the mark of the blessed man (Psalm 15. 4. vers.) swearing to his own hurt and not changing.] In answer to which this Informer grants, that in many things a man may swear to his hurt and not change. This is sound, and in so far he must grant, that the Oath may hinder many goods and yet not for all that be violat. And in recompence of this concession I readily yeeld to him, that ane Oath will not bind to a mans hurt in every thing, as to take away his own life. And that such ane Oath binds only to repentance, as being iniquitatis vinculum. But what will he say to this argument which he makes his Doubter here mutter out? Why, when it hurts (saith he) those in authority and peoples soules, it will not bind. True, but how doth the keeping of the Covenant hurt peoples soules, or these in authority? we read much in Scripture of the hurt that breach of Covenant hath brought upon both these. But how a peoples keeping Covenant with God wrongs either their soules or these in authority, we would gladly hear. Dare he say that every disobedience to the command of Rulers, impeaches their authority? or that peoples want of the means and ordinances of life, is to be imputed to Godly suffering ministers, whom for keeping Gods Covenant they have chased away from their flocks & families? As for familie hurt, or in relation to things of this life, ther's no question but that ane Oath in many cases will bind notwithstanding therof; Which is the Judgement of all Interpreters. But now the Doubter having spent all his arguments, hath only one poor General left, viz. that we are tender of Oaths. To this he answers first, by acknowledging, that we ought to be considerate before we enter into ane Oath. Very true, and had we all been so, there had not been so many contradictory and ungodly Oaths, standing upon record against Scotland, as this day there are. Withall he sayes, we should be well advised before we thinke our selves discharged of an Oath. And no doubt if he and his party had advised this better with God, with his word, with sound Casuists, and their own consciences, they had not upon such poor grounds as we have seen, first perjured themselves, and pleaded for others doing the like. But yet (saith he) to think we cannot be at all discharged of an Oath, in a thing not necessary, is to be more tender then we ought to be. True: but not to take every matter of an Oath for not necessary, which he may have the confidence to call so, but cannot prove it, and not to admit every ground of discharge as lawfull, which such Adiaphorists as he may pretend, is to be no more tender then we ought to be.
But here, our Informer will reach a blow again at the Assembly 1638, because of their loosing Ministers, who entred by the former Prelats, from their Oaths to them. But where is his discretion and tenderness, who objects this as a fault of that assembly, and yet dare not exhibit, nor offer to scanne their grounds mentioned in their act, in reference to these engadgements? wherein, because that Prelacy is condemned in the word (and consequently the matter of these Oaths,) and likewise found contrary to the priviledges and reformation of this Church, to maintain which, the se Prelats themselves who exacted such Oaths, stood engadged, and such like grounds, they prove them to be Materially sinfull, iniquitatis vincula, and from the beginning null or never obliging, and do not pretend (as he) to loose from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding. Besides, Prelats being removed, this Oath supposing their existing power and office, was ipso facto null and void, as the souldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the armie, and so its root was plucked up. Sublata causa tollitur effectus. Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum. So that he gets but a Wound to his cause, in kicking thus against the pricks.
But he tells us, that he will come yet nearer with an other argument, and so he had need, for the preceeding have never yet come near our cause nor his designe. Well what is this? Commissaries (he saith) were abjured in the Covenant, as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy, yet we ownd them, before Bishops were restored, and why may not he, the abjured Bishops also. But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us, and shew him the disparity of our Commissariot (a meer civil administration, influenced and authorized by superiour civil Governours, as a part of the politicall constitution of the Kingdom) with a Church office. In his first letter anent the Accommodation, printed in that piece entituled, The case of the accommodation examined, he will tell him, that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline. Which he sets down, expresly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjur'd in the 2d Article of the Covenant. Now, the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland, from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer, in all his Spirituall usurpations, is so palpable, that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement. Moreover, we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy. But will he dare to say that the Commissary, whose administration is properly Civil, and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependance upon a Prelat, was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy. Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument.
The Doubter objects this, [that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops, and therfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant.] To this he answers, that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops, we might have ownd a Dean at that time, or a Bishop, as having no dependance upon an Arch-bishop; and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest, might not have been owned and retaind on this ground, as well as the Commissary. Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense; the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastick officer, and the very office denotes a relation unto, and Ecclesiastick dependance upon a prelat, in spirituall administrations: so that Prelacie being laid aside, and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government, the Dean is a meer Chimaera, and so is the diocesan Bishop, and can no more subsist, the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis, or as such, being removed and extinct. But the Commissary (a civil officer and Magistrat) his administration, of its own nature civill, depends upon, and is regulat by, superiour civil Rulers, and so in that case subsists intirely as a part of the civil Government, where prelacie is abolished; and can no more be scrupled at, because a prelat did somtime usurpe an authority over that office, then the office of the Lord high Chancellour, or any other civil office of state, and inferiour offices theron specially depending, because somtime a Prelat was Chancellour, and usurped authority in these matters, ought to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account.
2ly, He sayes, this answer comes near to what he said before, anent the English divines who hold, only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article, which consists of all the officers there enumerat. Ans. 1. It is more then he hath proved, that the English divines do owne (even sigillatim or apart) all these officers, or looke upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article. We heard before out of Timorcus (whom Bishop Lighton in that letter, and the Informer himself cites, as holding that our Prelacie is consistent with the Covenant, and whom they appeal unto in this debate) that they disowne all Prelacie, where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction, all Prelacie beyond a Proestos, and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, Arch Deacons. Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds,—all Bishops not Chosen by the clergie and people—all Bishops who act by Deans, prebends, and exercise their power by Chancellours, Commissaries &c. Doth not the article it self abjure, all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer, we come never a whit nearer him. 2ly, we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil, though usurped upon by the Prelat, so that when purged from this usurpation, and running in the channell of a meer civil administration, influenced and authorized by Superiour civil Governours, as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom, it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy, by his own Confession, and Bishop Lightons. How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacie, contrary unto the Covenant.
But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary, besides that in our late times, he did not depend upon the Bishop, is really and upon the matter with us a Civil, not a Church officer, he thinks to surprise him with a third answer. That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops, yet we scruple not, nor decline their Courts and authority, and if we decline them not (as according to our Principles we are oblidged) how are we free of perjury? and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant, why may not he also a Bishop. Ans. What poor tatle is this? we told him already that the Commissariot is of it self a lawfull Civil administration, not ane Ecclesiastical function, and the prelats usurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull. Wheras the dicoesan Bishops office, is a pretended Ecclesiastical function, and in its very nature a gross corruption, and contrary to the word of God, as is above cleared. Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes. Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article? are they not termd expresly Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured: Nay, doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop. And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here. For in that passage of the letter now cited, he sayes we have nothing but the name of Commissaries, he means in respect of these in England, who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops. Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interprete, about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England, speaking thus, Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis (saltem quousque commissio permittit) in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest &c. That is, that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess, that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court. Didoclavius tells us (ubi supra) that according to the Statutes of England, the Chancellour is the Bishops principal officiall, & the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall.
To conclude, 1. The Bishops power as to Civills, and their deputation of this their power to Chancellours is a most gross usurpation, Contrary to the Scripture, which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life. Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause. Paul speaking of the ministerial duties, saith who is sufficient for these things. The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word. Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling, citing Jerome (super Sophon. cap. 1.) who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secular affaires. And Cyprian, who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament: Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil. Carthag. 4. Cap. 20. Apostol. can. (Can. 6.) Seculares Curas non Suscipite. Likewise Ambrose, who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weakning of the priest. (Lib. 5. Epist. 33.) Smectimnuus (pag. 32. Sect. 10.) cites concil. Hispall. 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chancellours, Commissaries &c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging (Defens. Lib. 1.) that in Ambrose time and a good while after, which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected, the Bishops had no ordinaries, vicars, Chancellours, Commissaries, that were not Clergie men. But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind, and Challeng him to shew any such under-officers of Bishops in those times. So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops, and the primitive Bishops. 2dly, in England, not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop, but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures, and a great part of the Bishops ecclesiastical administration, committed unto him both over Ministers and others; such as suspension, deposition, excommunication: See Didoclav. (pag. 464, 465. de officialibus) Cartwright (2. repl. part. 2. pag. 69.) who shews that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church, but bring it under subjection to their very Servants, yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours, Commissaries &c. 3ly, it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries; but our Law and practice since that time, and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved, hath much reduced them to the state & Quality of other civil officers, whose administration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers. For this we have (as I said) Bishop Lightons own Confession, that we have but the name of Commissaries here, who have nothing to do with Church discipline; Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats. 4ly, B Lighton and this Informer do both plead, that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant, and the Commissaries as then moulded & Existent in the Church of England, that this Oath oblidges against. And so according to their Principles and pleading, our Commissary here, so vastly discrepant from theirs, falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration. Hence finally, the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil administrations, can be no acknowledgement, either, 1. of the English Commissaries Power, which he hath not. Nor 2dly, of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office; no more then the simple using of our civil Laws, and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwells usurpation, was a homologating the wickedness therof, which this man will not dare to assert. An usurper may be in titulo, and such submission and improvement of the civ…l power invaded by him, as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title, and his being possessed of the power de facto, and having as they use to say jus in re, or actual providential possession therof, If there be no active concurrance towards his Establishment, is, as to civills, free of any guilt of the usurpation, and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus. Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists. But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual authority from the Bishop; because, 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation, contrary to the Scripture, so is not the Commissaries office. 2dly, the Pelats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church, which is Christs Kingdom, cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title; and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull. Thirdly, his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat, is an acknowledgement both of the possession, and jus, which this man will not deny, and this is far dictinct, from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession. So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom (his Church) which is toto Coelo different, from acknowledging a possession de facto of, and a Providential title unto, a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world, which are mutable. And as for a testimony against this usurpation, I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts, upon this ground of the Covenant obligation, his party, for the preceeding reasons, had signally cried out against it, as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawfull civil Government, more then he doth upon this Pretence, alledge a homologating of Prelacie, in this acknowledgement. But however, we say, that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacie it self as now Established, doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations, although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such, owned as formerly.
But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant, upon the ground of schisme, which he sayes, we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church, which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacie. This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct, and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue, we will therfor supersed our enquiry here, and pass over to his third dialogue, and Examine therin the grounds of this accusation, which we doubt not to discover, to be as Irrational, as these examined in the preceeding Dialogues.
A Confutation Of the Third DIALOGUE, Upon the point Of SEPARATION.
Wherein upon exhibiting the true state of the Question, the practise of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, and denying of a subjection to Conformists as the lawful Pastours of this Church, from vvhom Gods people are bound to receive the ordinances, is vindicat from the charge of a sinfull Schismatick separation, the true and solid grounds of this practise offered, and the Informers arguments against it, fully ansvver'd.