Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Table of contents
The Contents
FIRST PART.
Chap. 1. page 2.
THat the prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared. By the present standing acts hereanent page 2, 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly, Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors, to a Prelat. The absu di…y of this discovered Calvines remarkeable Testimony on Titus 1: 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object. Cleared from 1 Pet. 5: 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters. The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from severall Scripture grounds page 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelats office and some Scripture grounds page 13, 14, 15.
Chap. 2. page 16.
Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelat. that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order, cleared from the matter of fact and Severall Scripture grounds page 16, 17, 18. It maimes and diversifies the Pastorall office, by Anti-Scripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19, … His office many wayes contrare to thevery nature … the gospell Church Government, cleard also at larg… from the nature of the Prelats office and several Scripture grounds page 21, 22, 23, 24.
Cap. 3, page 25.
The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices, in consounding them with ordinary, cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices, and the nature of the Prelats office, according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopall party. Pag 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelats office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus, loaded with absurdities. ibid.
Chap. 4. page 30.
The Diocesian Prelats office takes away the peoples right to call their Pastor. This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31, 32, 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likewayes the preceeding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds, especially 1 Tim. 5: 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatick party examined Page 34, 35, 36, 37, 38.
Chap. 5. page 39.
That the present Prelacy is grosse Erastianisme, proved, from the matter of fact, some Arguments against it under that notion. It excludes and denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civill; contrary to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament, which is demonstrat at large. Page 41, 42, 43, 44, Is in many points ane incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christs mediatory Authority over the same; which is cleared page 45, 46.
Chap. 6: page 47.
Erastianisme denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government. Removes the Scripture land marks, set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastick powers, which is cleared in several points page 47, 48, 49, 50. It is lyable to great absurdities ibid.
Chap. 7. pag. 51.
The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy, and flinching from the point debateable discovered several wayes page 52, 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelats civill offices, yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherin his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear. His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel, and the Priests concurrence in that Court 11 Numb. to fortify the Prelats civil state offices, ad examined page 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. He is contradicted by interpreters in this point, Antiquity full and clear against him. The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the civill offices of Ministers page 63, 64. The Informers endeavours to bring in the Diocesian Bishop under that command of decency and order as lawfull though not commanded and necessary. That the Bishop cannot he warranted on this ground but must as a supposed Church officer, instruct his institution: and mission from Scripture, cleared from several Scripture grounds and the acknowledgment of some adversaries page 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73.
Chap. 8. page 73. misprinted Chap. 9.
The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy, his answers to our Arguments from Matth. 22: 25, 26. Wherin having misrepresented it, he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papists, falls in diverse inconsistencies, and walks crosse to the sence of sound divines upon this Text: Yea of some of the ancients which cleard at large page 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. his answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5: 3. Wherein he also offers violence to the text and joines issue with the Papists, his evasions examined and this Text (as also the preceding) Improven against him page 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.
Chap. 9. misprinted Chap. 10. page 88.
The Informers Answers to our Argument from acts 20. and Titus 1: 5, 7. These Texts emproven against him, and his answers fully examined page 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96. His answers to our Argument from Philip. 1: 1. His absurd and inconsistent shifts discovered and confuted page 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. Arnoldus and Chamier do classe him with the Papists in his answers to this text, he walks crosse to the Dutch, and English Annotations, and to Calvin. page 103, 104, 105. His answers to our Argument from Ephes. 4: …. Examined page 106, 107, 108.
Chap. 10. misprinted Chap. 12. page 109.
The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops. His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament, the subordination of the Priests and Levites. The remoteness and absurdity of his consequence anent the lawfulnesse of the present diocesian Erastian Prelats office, asit is deduced from this principle, discovered several wayes, page 110, 111, 112. That there is no image of our Prelacy in the Jewish Church Government, cleared, The Informer walks crosse to Iunius, yea Bishop Bilson himself, and in the series of his reasoning, introduces a pope into the Christian Church, page 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120. His Argument from the Apostles superiority to the 70 disciples, examined. He begs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately, and Pastors the 70 Disciples, and from a superiority among officers of different kindes, groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind. No Image of our prelacy in the Apostles superiority over other Church officers, page 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126.
Chap. 11. misprinted Chap. 10. page 127.
The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. Their Episcopall office disproved, from the office of Evangelist, ascribed expresly to the one, and by good consequence to the other, from many circumstances of the sacred text, and the judgment of interpreters. page 128 129, (misprinted 127,) 130 (misprinted 128) 131. (misprinted 129.) The Informers answers anent the strict and large sense of an Evangelist, his reasons of deny … to Timothy, the Evangelistick office in a strict sense, … amined: and found inconsistent with themselves, a… contrare to Scripture, 132, (misprinted 130) 13… misprinted 131, (134 misprinted 132) 135 (misprinted 133,) 136, misprinted 134, 137 misprinted 135, 138 (misprinted 136) he denies the powe… in ordination and Jurisdiction to be the proper work of an Evangelist. How absurdly and inconsistently page 139, 140 (misprinted 137, 138) his contradiction to Saravia discovered in severall points page 141, 142 (misprinted 139, 140) 143 (misprinted 151). His answer to the Doubters Argument anent Timotheus his not being fixed at Ephesus, but occasionally left there examined, as also his answer to that Exception of the Doubter [anent Pauls giving the Episcopal charge to the elders of Ephesus, not to Timothy] our Informer pityfully bruilied with this Text, page 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 (misprinted 142, 143, 144, 145, 146) he walks crosse to Bishop Hal, Dounham and Hooker, to Chrysostome, Jerome, Theodorus. His grounds upon which he pleads for Timothy and Titus their Episcopal power, particularly examined. the first taken from Pauls giving direction to Timothy and Titus, how to cary in ordination and Iurisdiction, generally examined page 149, 150, (misprinted 146, 147) his arguing from these directions particularly examined anent their not laying on of hands suddenly, anent rebuke and censures. page 151, 152 (misprinted 148, 149) the Informers next Argument, from the concernment of after ages in these rulers. That neither this, nor the adressing of these rulers to the Evangelists will affoord any help unto him, cleared. The London Ministers vindicat. That Timothy and Titus power at Ephesus and Crete, was not voided after some elders were ordained there, a sandy foundation to support their Episcopacy. The Informer is pityfully in the bryars, in answering his Doub…ers exception anent Timothies ordination, by the laying on … the hands of the Presbytery. The practice of after ages a ground to support the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169. (misprinted 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166.)
Chap. 12. misprinted Chap. 11. according to the misprinted Method (which shall be followed hereafter except in some few pages) page 167.
The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angells, discussed. That the stile of prophetick, writings and of this book do strongly conclude a collectivesense in the term, Angel, proved by several Arguments page 168, 169, 170. Whatever he can alledge is the Characteristick of this angel, proved to be in Scripture apropriat to Ministers. page 171. Many divines ancient and modern for the collective sense of the Word (Angel), yea some episcopal men themselves, page 172, 173. The admitting of the Angel to be one single person will nothing help the Informer, page 173, 174. His answer to the exception from Rev. 2: 24. examined. Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Testimonies of the ancients and the Catalogues of succeeding Bishops. examined. Page 175, 176, 177, 178. The addressing of the Epistle to the Angel. Will not help him▪ as neither Doctor Reynolds, nor Beza their taking the Angel for a single person. Page 178, 179, 180, 181, The Informers new Argument for prelacy [taken for Diotrephes his love of preheminence] wherein he embraces Bellarmines evasions, and offers violence to this, and parallel texts page 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187.
Chap 13. misprinted Chap. 12. page 187.
The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of Episcopacy. That Antiquity is not the Judge in this debate, although he could instruct the matter of fact, proved. Page 188, 189, 190, 191. The Scripture (even by the Confession of the Fathers) the only judge in matters of faith and practice, not Custome and Antiquity. Ibid. The Informers reasoning on this head reduced to a formal syllogism. The Major proposition, the Informer though oblidged offers no proof of. It is scannd, and likewayes the assumption; and the unsoundnesse of both discovered. Page 192, 193, 194, 195, 196. The Informers Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops, largely scannd, and the insufficicy thereof discovered, in the Judgement of sound divines. Several things do invalidat Eusebius Testimony. page 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202. That the first purest Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishops. Jeroms Testimony in his commentary upon Titus, and the Epistle to Evagrius, for the Identity of [Bishop] and [Presbyter], and a Presbyteriall Government in the Apostolick times, largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer, which are discovered to offer violence to Jeromes Words, to be inconsistentent with themselves, and contrary to that sense of Jeromes Testimony which is exhibit by learned Protestant divines, yea some adversarys themselves. Page 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 316, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222,
Chap. 14, misprinted Chap. 13 page 223.
The difference betwixt our present Prelacy, and the ancient Episcopacy, stated and evinced in many points. Such as 1: The power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters, cleared in several particulars. And from the Testimony of the Ancients, and eminent Protestant divines. Chrysostomes Testimony on 1 Tim. I. Homely II. explaind. 2. That they were set up by the Presbyters free choice and election. Proved from Antiquity 3. In referen… to the peoples Interest in their choyce. 4. That they could not, ordain alone. 5. That they did not invade Presbyters decisive suffrage. Cleared also from Antiquity, page 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231. 6. In the point of their ciuil state-offices; which is proved to be contrary to the canons called Apostolick, & other canons of ancient Councills. 7. That metropolitan Primacy is a stranger to antiquity, also cleared. 8. So likewayes Erastian Prelacy, page 232, 233, 234. 9. Our Prelats exclusion of the ruling elder from Church Indicatories crosses Antiquity. 10. Their large and Provincial inspection. 11. Their laying aside the preaching of the Gospell, renders them Monsters to pure Antiquity, and exposes them to the censure of Ancient Canons page 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242. 12. In their fastuous pomp and sumptuous grandeur ibid.
Chap. 15, misprinted Chap. 14. page 243
The Informers pretended Testimonyes out of Calvin, Beza, Blondell &c. For Episcopacy, examined. Their Anti-episcopall Judgement cleard from their ings, particularly Calvines, from his Commentari… upon the controverted Scriptures in this point, severall passages of his Institutions and Commentaries vindicated. page 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251. As also of some Epistles page 252, 253, 254. As also of Beza page 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 360. The Informers two absurdities which by way of … Dilemma he offers unto us from our assertion of the unalterablenesse of Presbyterian Government, and our concession of a Pro…stos early brought in, scannd and retorted upon himself. Page 260, 261, 262, 263. Some passages of Blondel vindicated, and of Chamier, and Moulin, page 264, 265, 266, 267, 268. (misprinted 236) the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii anglicani vindicated at some length, and in special from imputations of a contradiction imposed upon them by the Informer, page 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274 (misprinted 237, 238, 262, 263, 264) a passage of Bucer vindicate ibid.
Chap. 16. misprinted 15. page 275. (misprinted 265.
Severall Testimonyes of the fathers offered by Mr Durham in his commentary upon the revelation, for evincing the identity of Angel, Bishop and Presbyter, vindicated from the exceptions of the Informer his Exception to Mr Durhames testimony of Augustine examined, as likewayes to that of Ambrose and Chrysostome. Page 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, (misprinted 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271) the Informers inconsistences noted, page 281, 282, 283 (misprinted 271, 272, 273.)
Chap. 17. misprinted 16. page 284. (misprinted 274.)
The Harmonious consent of ancient fathers, modern divines and confessions of reformed Churches, for Presbyterian Government in its essential points of difference from Prelacy, exhibit. 1. That there is no diffence betwixt a bishop and Presbyter Iure divino. Page 285, 286, 287 (misprinted 275, 276, 277. 2. In their point of ordination & jurisdiction that these are not in the hand of a single prelat, but that Presbyters have essentiall joint-interest therein page 288, 289, 290 (misprinted 278, 279, 280.) 3. In point of the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers. Page 290, 291 (misprinted 280, 281) 4. In relation to the ruling elder, as appointed by Christ. Page 292 (misprinted 282) 5. As it stands in opposition to Erastian principles and the present prelacy in that respect, and maintains a spirituall Authority in the hands of Church officers, distinct from, & independent upon, the civil powers of the world, ibid.
SECOND PART.
Chap. 1. pag. 2.
A Twofold state of the question proposed, the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both Covenants, the other concerning the obligation of these Oaths against it. That prelacy is abjured in the national Covenant, proved from severall clauses of it, page 3, 4, 5, 6, That it is also abjured in the solemn league and Covenant, proved from several passages thereof, and the then state of our Church. page page 7, 8, 9, 10. The standing force of these Oaths upon the present and succeeding generations proved. 1. from their nature and essenc, page 11, 12, 13. 2. From the subject they affect. 3. Their matter and object. 4. Their end and scope, and even as to Presbyterian Government, page 13, 14.
Chap. 2. page 16,
The Informers Arguments against abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant. Some reasons of his against an Oath in general, or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity, weighed, page 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Mr Croftons Testimony (in his Analepsis) for the obligation of the Covenant upon the posterity, page 21, 22. The Informers reasons against the abjuration of prelacy in the National Covenant, examined. The Author of the Apologetical relation vindicated, together with the Assembly 1638. page 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.
Chap. 3. page 42.
The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemne league and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of the Informer. The Informer alledges it is only the English Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges against, how im pertinently, cleared. page 43, 44, 45. That Timorcus affords no help to him in this answer, cleard ibid. Nor Mr Crofton, which is also cleard; page 46, 47, 48, 49, 50. From several passages of Mr Crofton in his Analepsis. The Covenant excludes our Prelacy, and oblidges to Presbyterian Government in his principles, proved ibid. His objection anent [the sense of the 2 Article offered by the Parliament of England] Answered. As also his Exceptions to our Argument taken from our obligation [to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland] page 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article, refuted. The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton. The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own, ibid. That the English Presbyterians did looke upon themselves, as oblidged to reform according to our pattern, which is the Scripture pattern, proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, The Informers allegeance [that the first Article is ambiguous, and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath, their sense cannot determine its meaning] vain and impertinent. pag 65, 66, 67.
Chap. 4. page 67.
The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth, although its oblidging force for the time past, were supposed, examined. He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy, how poorly and impertinently cleard, page 68, 69, 70. His first ground taken from [the command and authority of Rulers] generally considered, and found impertinent to support his conclusion, though his supposition were granted. page 71, 72. His 2d ground touching [the alteration of the matter sworn] as also his third taken from [the hinderance of a greater good, by the performance] resolving (in his sense) wholly upon the Magistrates command, absurd when applyed, to our case which is fully cleared. page 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a [greater command overruling the lesse] and our obligation to obey the rulers, as prior to that of the Covenant. page 7. ibid. also page 79, 80. His Argument taken from Num: 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists, and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning, while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates lawes, the Informers rules pleaded against him, and according to the mould of his ple ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate, page 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. His impertinent repetitions, some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is lyable. page 87, 88. His Argument from Eccles. 8: 20. weighed. page 89, 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood, resolving still upon the command of the powers, absurd, and contradicted by Casuists, and many wayes crosses his design and pleading, cleared at large, page 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge, examined, as also his Arguments from the Rechabites. page 97, 98, 99.
Chap. 5, page 99.
The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites. His trifling way of moulding our Argument. And in what sense wee plead this passage. page 100, 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz: [that an Oath can bind against a command of God, impertinent to the point, and such as the Informer himself stands oblidged to answer, in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text. page 102, 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand, inconsistent with himself in this point. Page 104, 105, the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20: 10▪ discovered and cleared from Interpreters, and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures. page 106, 107, 108, 109, 110. His grosse and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua. the league and the peace discovered. page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here. He supposes, but doth not prove a limitation in Gods command to cutt of the Canaanites. His absurd supposition that Joshua brake his league with them when he know them to be such. page 111, 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him. As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined. And Solomons imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him. page 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119. The manyfold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed. page 120, 121, 122, 123, 124. The impertinency of all he answersup… this point though granted. His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King of Babylon, examined. As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15: 4, Page 125, 126, 127, 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelats, groundlesse and impertinent to the point, ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion [Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us, and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury] largely scannd. The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points, both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136.
THIRD PART
Chap. 1, pag. 2.
THe question stated and cleared, from our Churches state before, and since the introduction of prelacy; and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party (and this man particularly) plead upon, for the peoples adherence exhibited. [Separation] in many cases not [Schism.] The many groundlesse suppositions that this charge of [Schisme] is founded upon, exhibit, and cleared page 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The state of the question largely drawen forth upon a true account of the matter of fact, and of our principles, a… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of [Schisme], such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church. 2. That they are under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick interest. 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point. 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted; which is cleared in severall particulars, page 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations, which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19, 20, 21. 6. That the Prelatick party will be found in their persecution, the grand renters and dividers of this Church. 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinfull separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large, page 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Finally this practice cannot be that [Schisme] abjured in the Covenant. The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schisme, cleared page 27, 28, 29.
Chap. 2, page 29.
The Informers charge of [internall Schisme] upon non conformists, his Elogies of Schism, and Testimony of Cyprian considered, and this charge [retorted upon him page 30, 31, 32, 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have owne Bishops, liturgies &c.] examined, found groundlesse, and impertinent to the point. His Argument from Rom 14. Examined and retorted upon him. His charge of [Externall Schsme] in separating in acts of Worship, fortified by that passage Heb. 10: 25, Examined, page 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. The doubters argument from 1 Cor. 12: v. 31. [that wee ought to seeke the best & most edifying gifts] advantageously for himself, but fraudulently proposd by the Informer. Considerations to clear and enforce this Argument. The Informers answers examined at large page 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 42, His Argument for adhering to Conformists taken from the reciprocall tye betwixt a Minister and people Ezek. 33: 8. Heb. 13: 17. Mal. 2, 7. 1 Thess. 5: 11, 12. As also from Mr Durham on the revelation page 105, 106. examined at large, page 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. the premised texts impro…en against Conformists plea from this supposed tye and relation. ibid.
Chap. 3, page 58.
The doubters argument from Curats not entering by a call from the people, and that passage Acts 14: 23. cleared and emproven. page 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. The Informers first answer, that several whom we refused to own, entered by this call. ibid. his exception upon the term foreign examined. his first answer touching the use of the word, to expresse the action of onesingle person, proved from Acts 10: 41. examined. the use of the word cleared from parallels, criticks and Interpreters. page 64, 65, 66. His second Answer, that Greek writers use this Word to signifie ordination without suffrages, and that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas, examined. The granting that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas, distinct from the Churches suffrage, will not help the Informer. Page 67, 68, 69. He walks crosse to interpreters in this answer page. 70, 71, 72. His third answer [that wee will thus give advantage to independants for popular election of Ministers] examined, wherein the difference betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared, from the Judgement and principles of Presbyterian writers. page 73, 74, 75, 76, 77. His last answer is that if wee disown Conformists for want of this call we null the Ministry of the Christian world for above a thousand years & upward, and the Ministry of this Church to the year 1649. examined, even the later Antiquity clear for this call, by the testimony of Marcus Antonius de Dominis the Council of Paris anno 559, the examples of Eradius, Ambrose &c. Yea of Bishop Bilsone. page 78, 79, 80, 81. That patronages are abjured in the Covenant, cleared against the Informer, and his exception an… our Churches perjury, because of the use of patronages after the Covenant, repelled. In what sense the prelatick ordination is pleaded by us in disowning conformists. of the term, Curat. The Informer honestly grants that it signifyes one who serves the cure, though not the Minister of the place, but the substitute of another. page 82, 83, 84, 85. His answer anent the charge of Perjury, and reasoning anent the lawfulnesse of disowning Ministers, because of Scandals, who are not censured, examined. His reasoning found frivolous, and retorted upon him. page 86, 87, 88. his great argument from Math. 23. Anent the supposed command of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees, examined. Several circumstances of the sacred text offered to discover how very difficult, it is to prove that there is a command of hearing them, as Church officers. The consequence from hearing of them, though granted, to the hearing of them, denyed upon five grounds: As also his reasoning from Simeon & Anna, Joseph and Mary their attending the Temple-Worship, examined. page 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. Mr Durham on Revel. 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point. page 94, 95, 96. His reasons to prove there is a command of hearing Matth. 23. as above described, examined and repelled. page …7 several answers of the Informer to our charge of intrusion and the queries that he propones thereupon; as also his retorsion upon this charge, examined and found vain and frivolous. page 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. His answers to the doubters Argument anent the abjuration of Episcopall Ministers in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted. His retorsion [that wee were bound upon this ground to disown all the Ministers at the taking of the Covenant, who had been ordained by Prelats, unlesse they renounced their ordination] ane empty knack, reflecting on the reformed Churches, & justifying the popes plea against them; page 103, 104, 105.
Chap. 4, page 105,
The Informers answer to the doubters Argument anent [separation from a corrupt Church.] In what respects and how far this separation is owned. His answer anent [the not separating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, and the asian Churches Rev. 2: 3. Though tainted with most grosse corruptions &c:] examined. The discrepancy of our case from theirs in this point cleard in some particulars, and our cause fortified from Scripture directions to these Churches, page 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113. The impertinency of these instances to our case, cleared from hence several wayes, ibid. The Informers answer to these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6: 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 5: 11, 2. Thess. 3: 6. Rev. 1…: 3. Examined, and found contradictory to his concession anent [a necessary separation from a corrupt Church], when highly corrupted] page 114, 115, 116, 117. His answer to the retorted charge of Schisme upon Conformists [for seperating from this Church, examined, and found naught: He therein cuts the sinnewes of his arguing against us, page 118, 119, 120. His answer and reasoning concerning lecturing examined. God never appointed a dumb reading, the Levites gave the sense of the Law &c. the exceptions anent [the disuse of our first Method of lecturing] and [the want of Circumcision and the passover for a considerable time in the Jewish Church] help him not in this point, page 121, 122, 123, 124, 125.
Chap: 5. page 126.
The Informers answer and reasoning upon the point of scandal and offence, in reference to the owning of Conformists considered. The Informers groundlesse supposition anent the duty of hearing Conformists. Our Orthodox sense of Rom 14. and 1 Cor. 8. in the point of Scandal, cleard at large from the exposition of Chrysostome on the first text, and Pareus on the second. page 126, 127, 128, 129; 130, 131, 132, 133. The Informer upon supposition that a practice is lawfull, and offence flowes from it, holds that the command of the powers will loose the giver of offence from guilt; and remove this liberty of the practice and the nature of offence, how absurdly, cleared in fyve points. page 134, 135, 136, 138. He is herein contradicted by Amesius. The instances of the Brazen serpent, and Gideons ephod improven against him, ibid. His absurd glosse upon Acts 15: 28, [that the things before indifferent were made necessary by the meere determination of the Concil,] largely repelled. Calvin classes him with the Papists herein. His manifold inconsistencies observed, and absurd exposition of [scandalum acccptum] and [datum] which do destroy that distinctione. Mr Gillespie (Eng: Pop: Cerem:) Ames: (Consc: Lib: 5. Cap. 11.) Mr Durham (on Scandal part 3. Chap 1) discover the futility of his doctrine on this head. page 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. The Doubters Argument for presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner contraverted, taken from [Christ and his Apostles preaching in the fields and houses.] The Informers general answer [anent Christs not separating people from the Synagogue] weighed and found frivolous. page 145, 146, 147. Some special reasons wherefore our Lord did not separate the people from the Synagogue, ibid. The special grounds of our Lords practice, offred by him to enervat our Argument, considered and Answered. Such as his bringing in the doctrine of the Gospell as the Messiah, his being head of the whole Church page 148, 149, 150, 151. What actions of our Lord were mitable. Rules hereanent (allowed by sound divines) applyed to the case and practice controverted. [That the law allowes the gospell to be preached purely, and faithfully by some] though granted to the Informer, will help him nothing. ibid. The Informers answers and exceptions to our argument from Acts 14: 19. examined. His answer from the Apostles extraordinary callfrilous, as also from the tendency of the rulers prohibition to silence gospell page 152, 153, 154, 155. His reasoning upon Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the priesthood, examined; as also his citation of Bezaes letter to the Non-Conformists in England. Page 156, 157.
Chap: 6. page 159.
The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church, and their call to officiate therein, vindicat from the Informers simple cavils. Mr Rutherfoord and Mr Durhames acknowledgement that a Minister isnotmade a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church but by his ordination restricted to a flock, will not help the Informer, which is cleard in six points: page 159, 160, 161, 162 His Dilemma which he offers to us viz. that our call to preach, is either ordinary or extraorninary answered & retorted upon him. His Cavills in relationall to the Acts of Councils condemning this encroachment (as he calls it) and the Doctors of Aberdeen their charging Presbyterian Ministers therewith, repelled. ibid. His charge anent [our ordaining others to perpetuat our Schisme] a manifest groundlesse calumny. page 163, 164. His passage cited out of Mr Baxters preface to the cure of Church divisions, answered, page 165, as also his 5 healing advices to his half-proselyted Doubter. page 65, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170. Mr Baxters rules in his cure of Church divisions which he after commends unto us, shortly viewed, & their impertinency to his purpose discovered. page 171, 172, 173. 174. his testimonies out of the jus divinum Ministerii anglicani, and of Mr Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation, in sufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion. The difference between the case they speake to, and our case cleared in 4. Considerations, page 175, 176, 177. His citations from the first author particularly considered, and their insufficiency to bear the weight of his conclusion discovered. page 178, 179, 180, 181, The citations of Mr Rutherford particularly examined in so fa… relating to his scope. page 182, 183, 184, 185 186, 187. In his citations from both these authors, and arguing therefrom, he is found inconsistent with himself, to walk upon groundlesse suppositions, and lyable to a manifest retorsion. ibid. The Informer drawes out no conclusion upon these citations, save this general one at the close viz: That real, much lesse supposed corruptions in the Worship, or administrators will not warrand separation. The impertinency of this position to help him cleard, ibid. He pleads for retractions, and presents at the close a character of Schisme, which is retorted against him page 187, 188.
Chap: 7. misprinted Chap: 6. page 189.
Animadversions upon the Informers preface and title page, prefixed to this Pamphlet. He pretendes conscience & a design of union in this undertaking, how unsoundly, discovered. page 189, 190. 191. His Testimonies out of Zanchy and Blondel to evince their approbation of Prelacy, left by him untranslated, (though he pretends for the advantadge of the English reader to translate all other testimonies) answered.
A Confutation Of the First DIALOGUE, Upon the point Of EPISCOPACIE.
Wherein it is demonstrat, that the Episcopacie now existent, both in its Diocesian & Erastian cutt, is contrare to the Scripture, to the first and purer Antiquitie, the Doctrine and Confessions of Reformed Churches & sound Divines. And the Informers Reasonings for it, from Scripture & Antiquitie, are weighed, and found wanting.