SECT. I. Of the act of Glasgow, with raisons why submission could not be given to Prelacy.

WE love not to insist on the first, and if it were [...] connected with some other things, that mo [...] concearne the cause, and touch upon it, then any ou [...] ­ward interest of ours; we would incline rather [...] it, in perpetual oblivion, then thus to talke the [...] of past and present actions; the mentioning of [...] cannot but reflect on some, whose [...] [Page 4]to us, then they will readily admit themselves to be­leeve: But we must not decline, what in the present case is necessarie for vindicating of our righteous cause, struck at and wounded through our sides. We shall only touch a few instances of many, that might be produced, and are yet fresh in the memories of this generation; and we fear (if Historians prove impar­tial) will speak to the disgrace of these times, in the succeeding ages. As first, That almost unparalleled Act of the Councel at Glasgow Octob. 1662. whereby at one stroke, a number of Ministers above 300, with­out all legal precedour, were violently cast out of their lively hoods, and inhibited the exercise of their Ministery; and thereby a great number of Congrega­tions laid desolate. And for any thing known to the Councel at their making and publishing of this Act, all the Ministers of the Church of Scotland (a very few excepted) might have been throst out and ejected there­by, and so the whole Church laid waste, and dispos­sessed of the Gospel and it's ordinances; in which condition, shee might have continued long enough, to such a hight of prejudice and loss, which the mo [...]-cryed-up good of Prelacy could never have [...] [...]ed sit, in this or the following age. Was it not e­ [...]ent (from the astonishment, that the disappoint­ [...]ent of the designe of this Act had on our Rulers, in [...] did not obey the law in subjecting to Prelacy, [...] [...]mission) that it was passed without mature de­ [...] [...] ou [...] and was influenced by the impatient Zeal [...] instigation of the Prelats, to the precipitation [...] which since hath been lamented, & not [...] by many of; that party, who have never, [...] on [...]ight methods & wayes of cureing [Page 5]the distempers & confusions, caused by this act to the Church of God amongst [...] We remember of none like to this, but that of the Interim of Germany, in the time oe Charl. the V. A precedent, we think, that should not have been imitated, by any Christian protestant State, consider­ing it's wicked designe, & bad success to it's contrivers.

At the passing of this Act of Councel, it was not unknown to all, that the Ministers ejected by it, were, for the generality of them, young men, educated and indoctrinat in the Presbyterian principles; neither could it, in rational judgment, be supposed, that in such a sudden and unexpected revolution of affairs, in Church and state, persons of any conscience, could so suddenly be moved to change the Principles they had received, and so long been in the practice of, without the least offer of any convincing reason to the contrary. In this case, to inflict so heavy a punishment on Mini­sters and Congregations, without any endeavours pre­viously used, for their information, looks to be a streach, beyond the bounds of charity and justice which, according to all laws, Divine, ecclesiastick and civil, allows time and patience, in dealing with per­sons, erring in the matters of God, for bringing them to the conviction of their errours, before the passing & inflicting of a sentence; a piece of justice observed in the-darkest times of Popery, and hottest persecutions on the Church of God, as is evident from the records of these times. 2. Besides, in all executions of laws on persons found transgressing the same, there useth to preceed the sentence, and infliction of the penalty, [...] judicial trial and conviction of the transgression th [...] natural right and priviledge of all subjects, observ [...] all well governed States in the World, wheth [...] [...] [Page 6]or heathenish: For, in the administration of ju­stice to the subjects, there ought to be an application of the law to persons, supposed guilty of it's violation, by a judicial sentence, not only adjudging them to the penalty, but declareing the guilt, as the meritorious cause of such punishments; which cannot be done, without a judicial trial and conviction, by confession or witnesses: But in our case no such thing was observ­ed, no not so much as an hearing allowed us.

Moreover, in this act, the Ministers of the Gos­pel were, under highest paines, discharged and for­bidden the exercise of their Ministery, which they had received from the Lord, and not from the State; and this antecedent to any Church sentence, or ecclesiasti­cal conviction of guilt, deserving so heavy a punish­ment: an encroachment on Church power, with­out a precedent in this Church, and in all others, [...]cept that of the Interim of Germany, condemned, on [...]hat very head, both by Popish and Protestant writters, [...] a reatch beyond the Limits, set to the Magistrats po­ [...] [...] the word of God. Is there not here a Punish­ [...], form [...]ly ecclesiastick, inflicted by the Magi­ [...] without owning of the Church, to whom the [...] of such punishments does properly belong; [...] by whom they were, time out of minde, exer­ [...]ed▪ But this with other Acts of the like na­ture, which followed, was suitable to the basis and foundation, on which the new superstructure of [...]hurch government was founded and built, the [...]premacy. How visible is it from this act, the [...] used for bringing in [...] prelacy, the frame of the [...] of Parliament, anent it and the Supremacy, [...] pro [...]dour in executing of the same; that [Page 7]the designe was not only to subject the Church whol­ly to the State, but to rob her of all power; which the prelates perceiving, laboured to help, in their after outting of Ministers not comprehended in this Act; some of them complaining, that Ministers should be exautorated by the Magistrat, without any Church sen­tence preceding: but more of this afterwards.

But supposing, this to be within the compasse of the Magistrats power; yet how unproportionat was the penalty to the alleaged crime? if there had been heresy in doctrine, or scandals in life & conversation, a justification might have been made of this sentence; but for simple non-conformity to prelacy, that had been by Church & State exploded from amongst us, as an high corruption in the government of the Church; and its reentry barred with the solemnest Covenants and oaths, that ever any Church or Nation came under: we say, for such a crime in such a case, to take from Ministers, as men, their lively hoods; and as Mini­sters, their Ministery (dearer to them then their lives) is a punishment, when weighted in the ballances of equitie and justice, much beyond (we are sure) the de­merit of the cause; especially considering, that the Persones imposeing conformity, and punishing others so severely for refusing it, were the same (for the most part) that had made and enacted lawes, severe enough against it. What? is prelacy a jewel of so much worth, that the Church of God cannot be well without it? have we not found the contrare, from the experience of past and present times? Although we should be judged uncharitable in this, yet we m [...] [...] it, that they, who see not this, do either [...] eyes throw carnal interest, or wilfull [...] [Page 8] [...]inst all evidence, that not only Scripture but the ef­fects of Prelacy in this Church, affords to all men; Or els fight against their light. If we take our measures, by the true interests of the Church, or these things, where­in her true welfare does consist, we shall undoubt­edly and undeniably see, that prelacy is not of that worth and use, to the Church of God, as to inflict such grievous punishments on Non-compliers with it: sure we are, soundness of doctrine, purity of wor­ship and holiness of life have flourished in this Church, without it; and since its erection, these have come under a sad decay.

Obj. But many place the demerite of these severe pu­nishments, in the disobedience to the lawes establishing Prelacy; the now great cry of these engadged in the present course, for justifying of all enormities, com­mitted in the administrations of government?

Ans. To this we say, first, that all Divines and Lawyers assert, if non-obedience be seperated from contempt of authority, (as in many cases it may be) that the demerit of disobedience, is not rigourously to be pursued with punishments, especially of so high a na­ [...], as these inflicted on us, for meer non-conformity; and the reason they give, is because, there are and ma [...] be such things in non-obedience, as will, to [...]teous judges, not only alleviat the guilt thereof, [...] discharge it from disobedience, let be contempt [...] authority; as invincible ignorance, inability, [...] of passion, the tendencie of the thing commanded, [...] s [...]me cases, to the everting of the end of the law, [...]ch in such cases, is presumed not to be the will of [...]-makers) the disposition & profession of persons [...] [...]diei [...]nce-manifested, in all others things &c. if [Page 9]our known and professed principles, extant in our pub­lict confessions and treatises on this head, with our actions in all other matters relating to authority, be admitted and beleved, we will have as much so say, for freeing of our non-obedience to lawes, in this mat­ter, from contempt of authority, as any. Give us the just liberty of our Religion, in preferring of God, our absolute and Supream Soveraigne, to all others; and in yeelding to him that obedience, he requires of us in his word, and none shall be found more obedi­ent to Authority, in all things that do not intrinch on this. We do solemnly professe, and in the sight of the alseeing God, who searches the hearts and reins, that this, and this only, is the cause, why we cannot give obedience, to the lawes establishing prelacy; for upon all the search, we have made, we cannot find a warrant for it in the word of God, that perfect rule of Religion and Righteousness; but find it contrar [...] unto [...]lagainst the precepts and institutions of Christ [...] ­sus, anent the government of his house. This being our perswasion, we are not able to evite the force of these obligations of our Covenants and Oaths, made to God and one another, against it; to the strick obser­vation of which, we are by commands and threathings contained in the word, most indispensibly bound, and from which tyes, no humane power can loose us. Is it not a sad matter in this case, that we meet with no other thing from any, for satisfying our consciences, and bringing us the length of cheerful obedience in this thing, but the cry law, law; which, in the matters of God, can be no sure bottome to our consciences [...] seing we as Christians are under a law, antecedent [...] superior to that of mens.

Secondly. Where the guilt of disobedience is truly sound, yet the sentence passed against it, ought cheefly to respect the matter of the disobedience, and accor­ding to the quality and circumstances of it, the punish­ment should be proportionated: there are no divines or lawyers (that we know of) but hold this; and it is, beyond disput, evident from the judicial lawes of the Iews, enacted and established by God himself, for the administration of justice, in that Common­wealth: for the guilt of disobedience being alike, in all deeds contrare to law, disobedience in smaller mat­ters sould have as heavy punishments inflicted on the contraveeners, as in greater; which all acknowledge to be a strange solecisme in government, contrare to all natural equity and justice, the basis and ends of go­vernment.

Thirdly. And that our non-obedience to lawes erec­ [...]ng and establishing prelacy, is so high a crime in itself, as to deserve such punishments, as have been statute and execute upon us, we do not yet see; especially while we consider. (1.) The little evidence (as hath been said) for it in the word of God; Some of that party [...]e racked their witts, for finding out its divine right and institution, as Ioseph Hall, and some others; but wi [...]h so little successe, as hath forced many of them, to [...]te that plea, and take them to arguments of another [...]ture.(2.) The confessions of some, who plead for the [...] fulness of prelacy, to the well, but not to the being of the political Ministerial Church; which they grant [...]ay be such without it, as most of the former opinion [...]ld.(3.) Others that lean not to Scripture for the [...] of prelacy in the Church, found it upon Ecclesia­ [...] [...] [...]stitutio [...]s, canons & customes; which they take [Page 11]to be the Interpreters of Scripture in this debate, as Dounhame and others with him, that make most use of antiquity.(4.) Others more moderat, pious and more learned, then the rest, do so clip its wings, that they bring it to a meer constant presidency, in the meetings of presbyters, for government; making it a pure non-entity, as to what is established by law amongst us, and for which they bring no Scripture: of which judg­ment was that godly and learned Bishop Usher, who, for knowledge in all the controversies of the Church, especially in Antiquity, was Nemini secundus.(5.) Some others argue for it, as a mat [...]er of indifferency, that may be received or rejected, as Churches and states see it fits their interests; asserting, that all its authori­ty and goodness depends upon and flowes from the po­wer, that brings it in, thus Stillingfleet.(6.) Some of that party have fallen on a new method, for justifying its divine right (being straitened, as it seems, with our arguments, and the weakness of their owne) alleadg­ing that Presbyters were not institute in Scriptur [...]-times, by the Apostles; & that all Ministers, mention­ed in the Scriptures, were Bishops, in the sense con­troverted, as Doctor Hammond; but his evidence from Scripture and antiquity, is so dimme, that (for any thing we know) he hath gained few, or none, to follow him in this.(7) These of the court party, place all its goodness in the authority & lawes establishing it; grant­ing it signifies nothing antecedently to these.(8.) If we shall consider prelacy, and view it in its several parts, as it is by law constitute and setled amongst us, and bring them to the test and rule of the word of God, that we may give judgment of them, according to it; how lite [...] of prelacy will be found to be of divine right [...] [Page 12]the confession of our adversaries: of all that have ap­peared on the feild for its defence, there is none, that ever pleaded scriptural institutions, precepts and instan­ces, for the Lordly titles, eminencies, and wordly dignities of the Prelats, that are now annexed to their office; nor yet for their civil places and power in the State; nor for their several orders, and degrees, as Primats, Metropolitans: Archbishops, &c: Or for the like among their dependents, in their numerous and various distinctions of degrees of superiorities, and subordinations; as Vicars, Chancelors, Deans, Arch deacons, Subdeans, Deacons, Parsons &c. whoever hita­therto did put pen to paper, and contended for the divine right of prelacy, never opened a mouth to plead either Scripture or antiquity for thes [...] (except Doctor Hammond who argues for Archbishops: and what is prelacy, in its constitution amongst us, without them; The only thing debated betwixt us and our Antagonists anent it, is the superiority of one Pastor over other Pastors, and their respective congregations, to the probation of which, from scripture and pure Antiquity, there are two things, that must of necessity be made out from these: first the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdicti­on, and secondly Diocesan Churches made up of seve­ral [...]esse [...] Churches and their respective Pastores and Of­ficers: in these does the essential difference lye (in their owne confession) betwixt Bishops & Presbyters or ordinare Pastores; none of which two hath been proven from scripture and antiquity. And if that, which diffe­rences prelats from other Pastores of the Church, be [...]or made to appear from scripture, how will their office [...] of divine right? and how can it be expected from [...] [...]ho are under such strait divine engadgments [Page 13]against it, that we should comply therewith; and submit to the lawes, injoining conformity thereto. We complaine of the subdolous and uning enuous way of our opposites, in this debate, who always keep in generals, and never condescend on the particular differences be­twixt Prelates and Ordinate Pastores; nor undertake to prove these: and the truth is they cannot: for they are forced to confesse, that it is clear from antiquity, that Presbyters have ordained, sometimes in conjun­ction with Bishops, and sometimes without them: And for diocesan Churches with one fixed pastor over-feeing other Pastores and their flocks, we cannot meet with the least probable evidence, from scripture and pure antiquity: we find no argument from our adver­saries concluding this. It is empty arguing to say; there were Apostles, there were Priests and Highpriests in the Old Testament; there were seven Angels in the seven Churches of Asia; therefore there must be Bis­hops now: If they will from scripture make out the difference now assigned betwixt Prelats & Presbveers, in these instances of the Apostles, Priests and Angels, we shall yeeld the cause. Let none therefore blame us, in holding to this as a necessare consequence of our Anta­gonists succumbing in the probation of these things; that a parity among the Ministers of the Gospel, in point of power or office, is of divine right; for if in the institution of the Ministery, there be alike po­wer given to all called thereto, there can be no superio­rity of one above another by divine right.(9.) It is a question much debated among the Popish school, men, and in which they are not agreed to this day; wh [...]ther their Prelacy be an order or office distinct from that of Presbyters; or only a different degree of the same [...] [Page 14]with Presbyters, including no power formally distinct from theirs: which last opinion asserts, that all power, acclaimed by the prelats, is formally in Presbyters; so that by office they are empowered to, and may doe all that the prelats pretend to. How hotly and stifly was this question tossed the Councel of Trent, betwixt the Italian, Gallican and Spanish divines? which for this cause received no decision in this Councel, but was left undetermined as before; As is to be seen from the Hi­story of the said Councel.(10.) If any will consider our adversaries arguments for prelacy, and compare them with the arguments of Papists, especially Bel­larmins for the Papacy, they shall finde, that they plead as strongly for the Pope or an Universal Bishop to the Catholick Church, as for the Prelat or Bishop, now controverted betwixt us, as wil be made appear by a particular condescension, if our intended brevity would suffer it. We referre such as question this to the arguments of both; and upon an impartial collation of the same, we nothing doubt, but it will be manifest. Doth not the much courted and endeavoured reconciliation with Rome by the prelatical party, in former and later times, with their concessions to them, for making way to this agreement, speak this with full evidence? As their denying the Pope to be the Antichrist; their granting a primacy to him over the Catholick Church; their purgeing the Romane Church of Idolatry and superstition; their asserting the diffe­rence betwixt Papists and us, in doctrine, worship and government, not to be fundamental, nor on their part damnable, &c. All which discover to the world the native tendency of prelacy, and what it will (if [...] [...]nue) ultimatly resolve into.(11.) Do not [Page 15]the opinions of prelatists, their practises, the ways taken for bringing in and establishing of Prelacy among us, reflect upon and condemne all the reformed Chur­ches and their divines, (except Scultetus) who, in their confessions; treatises & reformations conforme there­to, disclame prelacy, as no office of divine appointment? As will be evident to any that peruse them. We know there was a Pamphlet emitted in the beginning of prela­cyes last introduction, that undertakes to prove the con­trare; but it is so destitute of all evidence of truth, that we wonder exceedingly at the impudence & affrontedness of the author, in alleadging of Calvine, Beza, Bucer, &c. for prelacy; who in their practise and writings have argued and debated against it. Did not this Author know, that their writings are extant, and others as much versed therein as himself? But the unjust know no shame.(12.) As prelacy or prelatical government, in its constitution and exercise, is a compound of addi­tions to the Word of God, which for want of its au­thority we reject; so presbytery or presbyterian govern­ment, in the confession of our Opposites, is, in all its parts, of divine institution or right; which we offer to make out from scripture and the concessions of our An­tagonists, who first yeeld all our Church Offic [...]rs (except Ruling elders) to be of divine appointment, (Doctor Hammond only excepted) granting, that presbyters or ordinare Pastores and Deacons, to be institute by the Apostles, and alwayes used in the Church to this day? they likewise grant the power of ordination and jurisdiction in Presbyters, till of la [...] As also the meetings of Pastores lesser and greater, for government and discipline, and all the particularities of power anent these, asserted by and formerly exer [...] [Page 16]among us. We think strange of Stillingfleet, in denying of Presbytery to be of Divine institution, who yeelds all we seek; for if all the former be of Scriptural insti­tution and practise, must it not be of divine right, even as to its forme? We cannot for bear to declare our resentments to the world, of the high indignities done to our Royal and great Master, Christ Jesus, and his blessed word, the holy Scripture; in that. 1. The forme of the government of his house is asserted to be mutable, at the pleasure of men, and made capable of any forme they please to assigne to the same. Was it ever heard in the world, that the forme of any govern­ment was taken from the Officers thereof, and not from the Supream head, in whom the Legislative po­wer is lodged? All that ever treated of governments, and spoke to their different forms, did always found their forms on the head, and not on the Officers of it? Is not Christ Jesus the Supream and only Head of the Church, by divine appointment? Are not ordinare Pastores or Presbyters found institute in the word, with all the parts of their power, that we afterwards grant to them? &c Will it not then necessarily fol­low, that the forme is of divine right, both in the head and officers; which is truely Monarchicall, and not alterable at the will of any?2. For making way to this, the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scrip­turs, as to matters of obedience and practice in the Church, is denied, and thereby the fundation of the Protestant Religion is shaken. How inconsistent is this with their granting the perfection of the Scrip­turs, in maters of faith? For if all maters of obe­ [...] be first and primarily Maters of faith, must [...] they be perfect in these also? How our [Page 17]Oppo [...]its will defend our arguments for the perfe­ction of the Scripturs, in matters of faith and manners, against the Papists (who in this speak more consequen­tially then the Prelatists) and maintaine the former affer­tion, is unintelligible to us. For our arguments plead as much and as strongly for their perfection, in the one, as in the other. But must it not be a desperat cause that needs such a prop to support it?(13.) In the last place, We humbly offer the following particulars to be consi­dered by all; nothing doubting that, when they are duely and seriously weighted, it will soone appear that our exceptions against Prelacy, are not light and groundless. As 1. There is no good to the Church and immortal souls attainable by Prelacy, that may not be win at without it. It is a sure truth, that every ordinance of Divine institution hath it's proper good to the Church, in order to which, as it's end, it was appointed by Christ, which is not easily reachable by other ordinances: As will appear to any on a particular condescension: for as there is nothing defective in di­vine institutions; so there is nothing redundant and su­perfluous. Now we desire to know, what is that good to the Church and immortal souls, that cannot be ob­tained without Prelacy? let our Antagonists give in­stances. If they think that ordination and jurisdiction is the good that the Church hath by prelacy; we offer to prove from Scripture and antiquity (as hath been done before us without a reply, yea and granted by many of them) that Presbyters have the power of ordination and jurisdiction; and the truth is, it was never que­stioned by any, but yeelded by all, till of late; for we have not only instances in Scripture and antiquity, for Presbyters exercising ordination and jurisdiction; but, [Page 18]the reason, that all gave for it, was, that the ministe­ry conferred by ordination, consisting of the power of order and jurisdiction, as it's integral constituent parts, persons ordained receive the power of both: If this be a truth, why may not the Church have these by Pres­byters, as much to her advantage and benefite, as by Prelats? But son e say, there can be no unity or peace in the Church without Prelacy. The contrare is evident from the Churches experience, in former & later times; for as the Church was never more rent, and filled with contentions and schisms, then under & by Prelates, of which there are innumerable instances in history; so there hath been much flourishing, unity and peace, under Presbyters, in Churches that wanted Pre­lats; as is to be seen in the present case of the reformed Churches, and will be evident to any that is acquainted with and seen in the records of the Church: what unity & peace hath the Churches of Britan and Ireland beyond other reformed Churches. Yea is there not more of these among them, then is with us, at this day? But what sayes unity and peace in the Church, if they have not truth and righteousness for their cement and foun­dation, which are seldome the attendents of Prelacy? But some place the good of Prelacy, in the oversight and inspection, it takes of Ministers and their respe­ctive flockes (of which they use to boast much;) But reason and experience do fully convince, and leave us beyond all Doubt, that this good, is as easily and better wine at, by Presbyters, in their associated and presbyterated meetings, lesser and greater, then by prelats: what can prelats do in this, that may not, and hath not been done by Presbyters, to the great benefite of the Church? as is manifest from the experience of [Page 19]this Church in preceeding times, and now not alittle confirmed by the contrare? Mworeover in the act of re­stitution Parl. 1. S. 2. Act 1. it is given for one Rea­son, induceing to the bringing in and establishing of prelacy among us, that it is most suitable to Monar­chy. What good this does or can bring to the Church, we cannot divine: we wish it had been instanced in the foresaid act: we know, the government of the Church, considered in its due latitude and extent, accor­ding to the presbyterian principles, is truely and proper­ly Monarchical; for is not Christ Jesus the Supream and immediat head of the Church? and do not her officers act in her government in an immediat depen­dance upon and subordination to Him, as her King? So that if the Churches government being Monar­chical be the good intended and meant, in this ex­pression, it is as much attainable without prelacy, as by it; but we suppose, that this is not the good understood. Next, if by suteablenesse to Monarchy, be meant, that kinde of Authority and Domini­on in Church officers, in and over the Church, that is exercised by kings and Monarchs, and hath been assu­med by prelats, fince ever they appeared in the Church: this is expressy discharged and forbidden to Church officers in her government. Matth. 20, 25. Luk. 22, 25. How much Emperours, Princes Kings and States have smarted by this dominion, is known in history? Some say, it is the superiority and subordination of Church officers and judicatories, that is understood in this act; This may be had, and hath been attained in the Church, under presbyterian government, both as to officers and judicatories; the Pastour is superior both to Elders and Deacons &c. the classicall presbytery [...] [Page 20]above the congregational eldership; & the provincial sy­nod above the presbytery &c. Obj. there is not the superiority of one above the rest; Ans. but what good doth this either to Church or State? we know it hath brought much evil to both, but never any good, that might not have been wine at, yea and was not actually attained, without it; they that judge otherwise, are bound to give instances, which we earnestly beg they will doe: we know this brought forth the Pope, and did mid wife Antichrist into the Christian world. But the thing, we suppose, that is truly intended, is the bringing of the Church into a slavish dependence upon, and subjec­tion to the Magistrat; for which, we confesse, pre­lacy is every way fitted: how excellently did it serve the Pope, in establishing of his Dominion, and in bringing and keeping of all in subjection to him? and albeit since the reformation, the prelats changed their head, in taking on the Magistrat in the roome of the Pope, yet they retaine their use, which exceedingly en­dears them to worldly Princes, that affect domination in the house of God: but (is shall be proven afterwards) this is contrare to the fredome of Christs kingdome, his absolute supremacy and dominion over the same; and is inconsistent with Christain princes their professed sub­jection thereto; so that this is no good, but and evill destructive of the true concerns of the Church. 2. It is no small discovery to us of the evil and corruption of prelacy, that it is much approven, allowed and cryed up by all persones of profane, dissolute and debau­ched lives (except where it crosses their wordly inter­ests) and the reason of this is obvious to all, for as corrupt and wicked nature does dislike all that is from God, as opposite to its wicked inclinations and wayes; so it [Page 21]loves, and is in much liking with all that is friendly to, and does encourage it in these. Is it not visible, that the encouragement, which flagitious and wicked persones find for their impieties, under the wings of prelacy, is the true reason and cause, for which it is so liked and cryed up by such? In this it is contrare to Presbytery in its due and faithfull exercise, which hath been, and yet to this day, is hated for its impartialitie, strickness and severitie against all sorts of scandal, in all ranks of persons high and low: for this we appeal to the general sense and observation of all in these landes: can we think that course to be of God, which for this reason is approven by the generality of the wicked? 3. Besides this, does not the prelates opposition to the godly (whom in rationall charity all are bound to judge such) in reproaching, oppressing & persecuting of them, to a strange hight of severity, who in profession differ only from them in a point, that depends on the meer will and pleasure of the Magistrat; we say, does not this declare, godlines to be their quarrel, and it to be inconsistent with, and contrare to their interests, which, we are sure, cannot be th [...] effect of these means and wayes institute by God in his word, whose end and tendency is to promove godlines, and not to perse­cute and destroy it; as is now done. And whoever consider the constitution of prelacy, the rules for its ex­ercise (to wit, the doctrines and opinions of prelats about Church-power and government) and the hight of Dominion, they lay clame to over the Church) will see, that of its self, it must be an enemy to true god-lines, while it crys up its forme, and layes it self out for advanceing of it, in opposition to its power. 4. It is received for a sure truth, among all protestants, that [Page 22]as the renewed nature of the Godly does hate, and is an enemy, to all that is contrare to, and destructive of true godliness; so it is the evidence and signe of the evil and sinfulness of a cause, when it is disliked & opposed by the generality of the truly sober, judicious and humble Godly. If we shall apply this to prelacy, as it is established and exercised amongst us at this day, have we not cause to suspect its corruption, and to judge its descent not to be of God? seing it is uni­versally disliked and hated by the truely Godly; which eminently appears in persons converted from wicked­ness and sin, in which they lived before conversion; what ever likeing they had to prelacy, or hatred to presbytery, immediatly upon their conversion, they drink in an aversation from and hatred of prelacy, and love to the contrare? We know, this was objected by Independents against presbyterians, when the con­troversy about Church government was hot betwixt them? But. 1. This objection was without any true cause, as Independents were forced, afterwards, and at this day, to confesse; they finding upon trial, that the Godly of the Presbyterian perswasion, were ex­ceedingly more numerous, then the other.2. The difference betwixt them is very small (which may be incident to persones truly Godly, and consistent with their grouth and exercise of godliness); and if there were a healing condescending temper, might be heal­ed and removed; their difference lying mainly, in the authoritative subordination of Church judicato­ries [...]d con [...]stitution of Churches, as to the qualities and engadgments of their constituent members; which when their one ness in all other things about govern­ment, and their concessions to one another, in the [Page 23]little they differ about, is considered, might be quick­ly accomodated and taken up. But it is other wayes with prelacy, in its constitution and exercise with us; which, in its effects, attendants, and the basis it is setled upon, is found to be such a corruption in the government of the Church, and inlett to others in Doctrine and Worship, that it becomes truely hateful to all the Godly, that give themselves up to the con­duct and light of the Scripture, and make them their rule in the exercises of religion and godliness: far be it from us to think or say, that there is none of the pre­latical gang, truely godly or pious. We know there hath been, and do beleeve, there are some such a­mong them; but O how few, and how much have these few been looked upon, and persecuted by the rest, with an evil or jealous eye, so as they have been judged more ours, then theirs? we have not forgot the distinction, that on this head, was made in for­mer times among the Bishops themselves, and how they were distinguished into Puritan and Court Bishops. Will not one of these two follow, either, that the generality of the Godly, (whom Christians walk­ing according to the rule of the word must esteeme to be such) are under a strong delusion in their opinions about, and opposition to Prelacy; Or [...]els (which is most likely for the reason formerly given) that Pre­lacy savours not of godliness, but in its native tenden­cy is an enemy to it; which sayes it cannot be of God, but for trial and correction? 5. As the maine and chief qualification, the prelats require in their intrants into the ministery, and in the people they admit to ordinances, is submission to, and owning of the [...] conforme to the present law, how ins [...]fficient, and [Page 24]scandalous soever they be, (which is overlooked and dispensed with in them); so their bitter opposition to and uncessant persecution of pious, able and faithful ministers, that comply not with prelacy, declares to all, that it is not the good of the Church (that con­sists in true knowledge and godlines) they seek; but the extending and establishing of their tyrranous do­minion over all, by ministers and professors submit­ing thereto, without gainsaying of their impositions and commands. How contrare in this, is their way to the rules given in the word, for calling & ordaining of ministers, 1 Tim. 3: 1, 2, &c. Tit. 1: 5, 6, &c. and the practise of the Apostle Paul, Phil. 1: 15. who rejoyced Vers. 18. that Christ was preached, altho out of envy and opposition to him? Can that course be of God, which must be supported by such wayes and means, that crosse the directions and rules of the word anent Ministers, and disappoints the ends of the Gospel and Ministery? Beleeve this who will, we cannot.

SECT. II. What moved Ministers to submit to the act of Glasgow: & some remarks upon the acts against conventicles, and such as refuse to depone against delinquents.

IT Hath been often Objected to us, both by friends and enemies; why did Ministers and Congregati­tions obey so quickly that act of the Councel at Glasgow, in leaving and deserting of one another; seing, by vertue of their divine mutual relation to one ano­ther, [Page 25]as pastors and flocks, they were bound to cleave together, in performing and doing of all mu­tual duties, which by divine precepts and engadg­ments, they were bound to observe? Ans. As we will not altogether justify our cariage, in that and several other particulars, in our way thorow these sad times; (being willing to take with, and humble our souls for, all our imperfections and failings, that shall be discovered to us by any;) so there were some things, in the circumstan [...]at case, that may plead for us, and alleviat the offence taken at our too general practice in that matter; As. 1. The sudden­ness of that act, which allowed very little or no time for deliberation, and coming to any solide resoluti­on, in a matter of such weight and un usuall practice, anent which, we had so few precedents in former times. All know, how puzling surprisals use to be; and if there be not a present divine hand to guide and support, under the power of temptation, with which surprisals are ordinarly attended, all are in ha­zard, thorow the byasse of corruption, to miscary, and in their resolutions to turne to the wrong side: Ministers and Professors are men of the same corrup­tions and passions with others; and whatever obli­gations be on them for truth and righteousness, and the leading of others, in the same; Yet throw dark [...]ness, the influence of corrupt affections, and temp [...]tations concurring therewith, (to which they are obnoxious as much, if not more, then others) they are ready to slip; in which, for the gospels sake, they should be pitied and prayed for.

2. It had no little influence upon us in determining our resolution to this, that our party, in our nighbouring [Page 26]Churches in England and Ireland, upon the emission of an act of Parliament, disenabling all Ministers▪ that did not conforme to Prelacy, for the exercise of their Ministry, had quit their charges, and removed themselves to other parts; not thinking it safe to themselves, their people, the interests of religion, as it then stood, to justle with Authority, in con­tinuing their Ministery with and among the people, contrare to the new lawes made against them; while we confidered this leading example, with the rea­sons moveing them to it, we thought our selves as much pressed therewith, as they. And, no doubt, if we had followed the contrare course, our Loyalty had been sadly reproached, and their practise made use of to aggravat our disloyal disposition with which we had been often branded, although faisly) to a great hight of contempt; which had, we grant, too much weight with us.

3. The maine designe, we had under considerati­on at that time, that did most exercise our thoughts, and take them up, was, how we might be preserved from the grand corruption, Prelacy, that did then enter into the Church: many questions, in order to i [...], were debated among us, for our mutual streng­thening against the assaults of our common adversa­ries, which we, in rational fore sight, did apprehend would come upon us; never dreaming of this course, that was followed with us; which with one stroke cut the Gordian knots of many difficulties, with which we had often grapled, in our exercises and de­bars. In this unexpected course of providence, clearing our way, under many difficulties, we then thought it our happines, in being rid of, and deli­vered [Page 27]from many a snare; which, no doubt, made us give place more easily to the penal part of that act.

4. We being at that time unacquainted with suf­fering, and contending for the truth, in opposition to prevailing corruptions, in this way, it is not to be expected in rational charity, that we could come so suddenly, to that hight of resolution and courage, as to venture on the ut most of hazards, that then did threaten the contraveeners of that act, and the laws upon which it was founded. Suffering for righteous­ness Phil. 1: v. last, is imported to be a gift, as far above the strength of nature, in our sinful imperfect: state, as that of faith; as all finde when it comes to be their case. It is easy for onlookers to censure and condemne the failings of others, in persecuting times, but it is not so easy to suffer: it requires the Spirit of power, love, and of a sound minde, which is not quickly wine at by them, whom Christ calls to take up and bear his crosse. We grant this gives no discharge of guilt, in not doing and suffering, as God cals; yet it cryes for compassion and forbea­rance from others, who, on this consideration, should be spareing in their censurs, knowing they are in the body, and liable to the like snares and in­firmities.

5. As that deed was too much influenced with fear, and other corrupt passions and affections, bot [...] in Ministers and People, (which did visibly predo­domine at that time,) so there was a palpable deser­tion on the spirits of all, that rendered all counsells dark and perplexed, and in all deliberations, inclined to that which was freest from suffering, and positive compliance with Prelacy. Altho this doeth not [Page 28]diminish fin, nor warrant any sinful neglect, nor give any true ground of excuse for it; yet it cals for charitable constructions from others, where since­rity is apparent in the maine; as then it was to the conviction of all; yea to the refuting of these h [...]rd, unchristian, and bitter censures of many, who judg­ed our former professions of Zeal for the work of re­formation, in preceeding times, to have flowed from a corrupt byas [...]e to the world and the things of it, discovered, we grant, in too many, formerly seeming Zealots, by their compliances at that time; from whom they tooke their measures, in judging of others.

6. It is to be adverted, and ought to be of great weight, in the consideration of this busines, that Ministers, consulting their congregations, especi­ally the godly and judicious among them, were ad­vised to lye by for some time, and the truth is, they seemed as unwilling to venture on the hazards of suf­fering, that threatned all, as Ministers. This we know was the reason, that most determined not a few, to that resolution and practice: and what could Ministers do in this case, especially, in so su [...]den a revolution, anent which they had the leading exam­ple of others, in other parts of the Iland?

Notwithstanding of all these, and much more, that might be said for charitable constructions of Mi­nisters and Congregationes practice in this, at that time; yet we judge it the infirmity and sin of Con­gregations and Ministers, that they did not cleave to one another as Pastores and flocks. We doe not plead for Ministers keeping to the accessories of the Mi­nistery, as kirks, stipends, manses, glebs, &c. [Page 29]which was, by divine precept, their right, but not in their power to hold; but we assert it was sin, that they continued not in the exercise of the Ministery▪ pastoral over sight of the flocks, keeping up the go­vernment of the Church, we had been in the posses­sion of; and peoples not adhering to their Mini­sters, in hearing, and receiving of ordinances from them, and not affording them all due incouragement and maintenance; all which was done by Ministers and Churches, in times of sorer persecution then ours.

If the rigour and severity, that by this act, and its full exccution, with others that followed there­on, for a considerable time, (which we forebear to mention) had ceased, and gone no furder, we would have looked on all, as little, and laboured to have borne the same, with that patience, meek­ness and resolution, that becomes Ministers & Chri­stians, professing the name of Christ Jesus: but the engines and devices, that afterwards were set on foot, as the High commission, and several unchristian & illegal practises; with the over violent pressing of the people to a conformity in their capacity; with such illegal and inhumane usages by military force, (which alone without any stated and formed designe, gave the rise to that insurrection, in the Year 1666. and the blood that followed thereon, to the the full con­viction of our Rulers, who then searched unto the bottom of that affaire) were straines so high; that cannot be justified by the most extended rules of Christian moderation and equity, that Rulers are bound to follow, in the exercise of government: although this heat of violence, was for some time, [Page 30]a little cooled with a shour of blood, and other dan­gerous consequences like to ensue; yet afterwards, fuel being by the Prelats brought and administrat unto it, it againe begins to take fire, and to break forth into strange kinde of laws, made (as it seems) to give a legal face to its proceedings; which in its former height it wanted; the the bounds of which it cannot yet keep, but (according to its genious) over the hedge it leaps, and gives a straine beyond these. It would be tedious to take an exact view of all the particular lawes made against us, by which, the foundation of our past and present sufferings have bin laid, and are like to be continued: therefore we shall only give instance in a few, from which, we may take our measurs, judging of the rest.

As, first, Parl. 2. Carol. 2. Session 2. Act. 5. intituled, an act against conventicles: As this act con­demns all assemblies, convocations and meetings of the subjects, not expresly warranted of his majesty; (which will make many meetings and convocations of the subjects, now in use, illegal and unlawful) so by consequence, reflects on the meetings, and assem [...]blies, that Christ Jesus while here, his Apostles, Ministers and Christians held, in the primitive times; who not only keeped their meetings without, but against the acts and edicts of the magistrat, in these times: for if it be laid downe for a foundation in go­vernment, that the only right of convocating the subjects is proper to the Magistrat, what ever be the causes, occasions and ends of them; then the Apost­les, Ministers, and professours will be found trans­gressors and enemies to government; who, although inhibited and discharged from meeting, yet did not [Page 31]forbear to assemble them [...]e [...]s for worship and g [...] ­vernment. What a miserable strait are we brought to, th [...]t the me [...]ing [...] of the Lords people, now called Conventicles, cannot be condemned, but on the same grounds, the assemblies of the Church in perse­cuting times, must be judged dangerous, unlawful & seditious? But this is not the worst; for in this act not only prea [...]hing and expounding of scripture, by Mi­nisters of Christ Iesus, (although in a family beside their own) is judged to make a conventicle and an unlawful meeting; but prayer also (a common duty of Chri­stianity,) is declared to be of the fame force; so that no nonconforming Minister or any other may pray together, on any occasion, or for any cause what so ever, but they shall be reputed keepers of conventi­cles, and hable to the penalties adjudged by this law to such. Is prelacy come to this height of opposi­tion to godliness, that it cannot stand and be secured, except the worship of God in Christian societies be laide aside, and its exercise discouraged (to which there needs no such incitments in these times, the generality of professors being prone enough of them­selvs to prove negligent and stack in this matter) under the odious names of Conventicles, and by such penalties against them? Are we such odious abomi­nable creatures, that none must joyne in Christian com­munion with us, in these means and duties of wor­ship, that are of common obligation on all Chri­stians; but it must be forborne and laid aside? or if we once open a mouth to and for God, in any society; we shall bring ourselves and others under the hazard of so severe penalties, which, in the pursuance of this law, have been inflicted on some, to the astonish­ment [Page 32]of its hearers? But moreover all such meet­ings, beside the imputation of sedition and other [...]orrid evils, with which they are branded, are re­presented, as the seminaries of separation and rebel­lion: a charge, if true, that maketh them merito­ [...]us of far heavier punishments, then some of these decreed against them: but from whence can this come? Not from the nature of these exercises, con­fidered in themselves, which are nothing, but the performance of some necessary commanded duties of Religion, which all know to be the greatest means to, and cements of union and obedience, in Church and State: not from the mater that is preached and prayed; our principles for worship, doctrine, & government are known, being extant in our publict confessions, which are of a contrare tendency.

If any say, we preach principles of separation and rebellion. They, who assert this, are bound to make it out, of which we have heard nothing as yet, and should have been condescended on, and given for the ground of this act, and not the performance of these truly religious exercises, done by persones authorized and enabled thereto, by the commands of God. We require of all engadged against us, to do us that piece of common justice, they owe to all men, in the like case, that they will instance in the doctrines we pre­ach, and in the mater we pray, wherein our meet­ings are become the seminaries of separation and re­bellion, if they can: when this is done, we shall either give a satisfying answer to the charge, or els succumb to this act.

It is like, some place this charge, in our disobe­dience to the law. Then it comes from the law and [Page 33]the Law makers, and not from these meetings and the persons that keep them; for antecedent to this law they were not in themselves seminaries of sepa­ration and rebellion, according to this objection: and if this be the effect of the law, it had been more safe to have forborne it, Whose work should be, rather to prevent and remove the seeds of rebellion, then thus to sowe them But this law in its narrative sup­pons these meetings to be such, antecedent to its enacting; but gives no hint at any reason for this hea­vy charge.

Others again fix the truth of this charge on our meetings, for our withdrawing of the people, from the allowed publict worship, and the persons autho­rized by law to dispense the same. If the act had only circumstantiated and described such meetings, as had this effect, and not taken in all religious Chri­stian fellowship in the duties of worship, something might have been said for justifying of this act, in a conformity to the principle of Church government, now setled by law, without a wound to true piety; but to make all meetings of Christians, wherein any part of worship is exercised (without an expresse licence from the prelat) seminaries of separation and rebellion, is in effect to condemne Christ, his A­postles, Ministers and Christians, who, in opposi­tion to Heathenisme, Heresy, Profainness and shisme, have, under severe laws made against them, assembled and met together▪ for communion in the worship of God; whose assemblies have been ac­counted unlawful Conventicles, and loaded with many of these evils, that are now charged on ours. Dar any, professing himself a Christian, say, that [Page 34]the meetings of Christ, his Apostles and Ministers, in houses and feilds, (who had the occasion of the Synagogues, the ordinare allowed places for meet­ing in worship) were guilty of separation and rebel­lion, (although charged with these) or did sow the seeds of these evils? Although none will affirme this, yet we undertake to make it out, from the frame of this act, as it now stands. Oh that such a law should be found in the records of this Nation, which will speak (if ever we returne to ourselves) to the shame and disgrace of these times. But, as to our separa­tion from the authorized publict worship, with which▪ some with great confidence, brand us, we shall consider it afterwards, and see whether they or we be the separatists.

We forbear to speak to the penalties statute in this act, against the contraveeners of it; which on many accounts might be made to appear, to be far beyond the demerite of the crime, and an imitation of the popish cruelty, who punished the Professors of the truth▪ with punishments equal to those in­flicted for treason; in which this act is not short, that adjudge the keepers of field Conventicles, to death and confiscation of goods.

In the next place, it adds not alittle to our grief, under our present sufferings; that although there be penal lawes against Papists, and other heterodox per­sons, yet no notice is taken of them, nor any execu­tion of the law upon them; yea in one act of Parl. Caroli. 2. Session 2. Act. 7. they are exeemed from the guilt and severity decreed against us: which seems strange to us, when theirs and our principles, even in matters of civil government, are compared; theirs, [Page 35]in the confessions of all Protestants, are found to be incompatible with, and subversive of that obedience and allegeance, that is due from subjects to magi­strats, supposed by them heretical: which was the true cause of the severe laws, made against them, that for some time, (from the beginning of the re­formation) were put to some execution; but as to any execution now, slackened and and laid by, as an almanack out of date. Are their principles and designs changed, or their number any fewer? yea is it not encreased, beyond what they have been since the re­formation? But poor we are laid open to the lash of the severe laws, enacted against us, and all wayes taken to crush us and our cause, who owne no other principles, but these, that are either implicitly or explicitly asserted, by all Protestants, which are known to the world, to be corroborative of govern­ment, and such as make way for all just obedience from the Subject to the same.

To make way for the full and sure execution of this law, there is another enacted Parl. Caroli. 2. Session. 2. Act. 2. Intituled an act against those, who refuse to depone against delinquents; which is particularly de­signed, for comeing at full information, against Con­venticles and Conventicle keepers; as is expressed in the body of that act; but so conceived and framed, as it answers to that oath de super inquirendis, used by the Papists in their inquisition; (condemned by all Protestant Divines, for its opposition to justice, mercy and equity) for first, no sort of persons are exeemed, the Father against the son, the husband against the wise, &c. were the relations never so near, no exception of them is made in this act, [Page 36]which use to be admitted in all other crimes, except that of treason. Next by this act, the deponent (whoever he be) is oblidged to answer all interro­gations and questions proposed to him, although he hath had no previous consideration of them, which in all other crimes used formerly to be allowed; that so the deponent might answer from mature and sure knowledge, which here is not granted. What a [...] foundation is hereby laid for the molestation of the subject? Shall we be that unmerciful and unjust to all men, yea to our nearest and dearest relations, as to reveal that of them▪ which, if keept secret, brings no prejudice to Church or State: And if revealed will ruine them, in this present world; and that for a mater, that antecedent to the law, is no trans­gression before God; but the doing of a necessare duty? An invention (we must say) framed against the good and dousciencious, who cannot escape by this law; and for the encouraging of the bad to the persecuting of such, who throw the power of their lusts, are at liberty to say, and do, what they list▪ Are these the fruits of Prelacy, that most endeared it to us? Whither are we gone? Shall we thus fight against heaven, to reach a poor handful of persons, that are able to do nothing, but to look up to God, and sigh to him, for these evils, that, no doubt, are procureing and bringing dismal and sad dayes on this land? We forebear to anatomiz these and other acts of the like nature, and to give judgment to every clause and part of the same; but leave them to the impartial consideration of all concerned, to whom the effects thereof may afterwards speak more, then we love to utter, at this time. Only, in all humi­lity, [Page 37]we offer two things, to be observed (which are the observations of not a few) that these and o­ther acts do pave the way to all sort of cruel persecu­tion, if a furder declension in religion shall happen to follow▪ (which we beg the Lord in his rich mercy to this nation would prevent.) Rulers are subject to [...]erre, in the matters of God, as well as others; (as the instances of all ages leave beyond debat;) and if others shall arise after us, that incline to popery, or any other false Religion, are there not lawes made to their hands by us, that will facilitat their work, and make it most easy? What have they more to do, but to rescind some, very few in regaird of these that once were, and to execute those they finde in force and on record, for the persecuting of all opponents, to the height of crulty. Next there needs no act of Parlia­ment to this change, and introduction of another Religion: an act from the King, reco [...]ded in the Councel bookes, and sufficiently published (which is declared to be of sufficient force and obligation a­bout this mater) is enabled by law to do all. An act without a precedent in this nation, when confidered in its full latitude and extent.

From what is said anent these acts, any may gather the true reasons of our refuseing the Bond (lately framed by the Councel) that takes us engaged against Conventicles, (as they are called) and was enforced by violence on us. Not pretending to much know­ledge in the lawes, we have alwayes understood, bonds to be voluntare, and first to proceed from per­sons found guilty, and sentenced by the judge, con­forme to the law; which the clemency of the Ma­gistrat doeth often suspend or remit, upon the guiltys [Page 38]offered and voluntare engagment for better behavi­our, in times comeing; and never required of nor imposed on persons, not proven nor found guilty. The truth is, if this violenting imposition of bonds, be thus allowed and practised, what ground will there be thereby laid down, for the trouble and molesta­tion of the subjects? And who can promise to him­self security from the oppression of others, that, out of malice or covetous designes, may, on any pre­tence, give information against others, altho ne­ver so quiet and peaceable?

SECT. III. The Ministers preaching and peoples hearing vindi­cated: and foure Objections answered.

HAving thus far opened our hearts, and touched at some things, that are truly greivous to us; not so much for what we have suffered, as for the fear of what is like to be the consequences of the en­gines, framed and set on foot, for perpetuating ours and the Churches oppressions, in this and the fol­lowing generations: we shall in the next place give an accompt of our practise, in preaching and hearing of the Gospel, dispensing and receiving of ordinan­ces, at and from the hands of the ejected Ministers; the new cause of these heavy acts, sentences and pu­nishments inflicted on us, for the same: in doing of which we shall, first, in all singlness of heart, bring forth the true grounds and reasons, binding our con­sciences, to these practises, and then shall take off the exceptions that are most used against us.

Our practise, in this mater, we build on such foun­dations, that all Christians, especially Protestants, by vertue of their professed subjection to Christ Je­sus, (our only King and Law giver in the house of our God) are bound to owne and adhere to, and from which they cannot recede, without contradicting of the said profession, and doing manifest violence to the law and word of Christ, the holy Scriptures, our only statute and law book, in all matters of doctrine, worship and government. If on bringing our case to them, it shall be found, that our condemned practice in these stands justified, we hope with much assurance, we shall be acquited in the sight of God, and in the consciences of all that have any feeling and sense of true Religion; the censures and talkings of others against us (which do not a little afflict us, for the sad consequences thereof to themselves) shall not much move us.

Therefore first, the Ministery of the Gospel be­ing, by positive institution and appointment from Christ Jesus, as Head and King of his Church; and the persons qualified for, and called thereto, in his own way, without dependance on the Powers of the earth, being thereby constitute his Ambassadors and messengers, and in special delegation sent from him as such, to preach the Gospel, to treat with sinners for reconciliation, and obedience; they by vertue of this institution, and their special delegation or mission from him, are bound to exercise the Ministery &c office, they are invested with, till it be taken from them in the way, by which he coveyed and confer­red the same upon them. If this be a truth (as no Christian that doth acknowledge the divine autho­rity [Page 40]of the holy Scriptures, and subjecte themselves to its light and direction, will get refused) will it not follow that Ministers, in their ministerial capacity, are first and immediatly subject to Christ, and not to men, in their ministrations of the Gospel? for they as his Ambassadours, having and deriveing all their power from him, are oblidged on highest paines, be reason of their special relation to him, and their co­mission from him, (which containes all their in­structions) to do the work of the Ministery, & can­not be superseded therein by any, far less by them, that acknowledge Christs authority, in and over the Church, to be superior to, and above all other au­thorities whatsoever. If they had their power and mission from men, well might they submit to these, in taking it from them; but it not being so, they cannot think themselves discharged of their office, but in the way, by which He conferred the same upon them. Beleeve us, in this lyeth a great part of our difficulty: we are sure, Ministers are Christs messen­gers, sent by him, whom they are bound to serve, in preaching of the Gospel and dispensing of ordinan­ces, for the salvation of sinners, from which obli­gation none can loose them, but Christ Jesus, their only master and head in this work. (2.) It does also natively flow from the former truth, that all, espe­cially those in and of the Church, are, by vertue of Christs supereminent, supream, and absolute au­thority, and their professed subjection to him, in­dispensibly bound to subject to the ministerial autho­rity and its exercise, in the persons of those whom he sends, and that on the account of their ministerial power & office, which is truely Christs and not theirs; [Page 41]they acting according to the instructions contained i [...] their commission: for they are Christs servants, serv­ing him by special delegation in the Gospel, to which they are impowered, commissionated, and in­structed by him; they bear his name, stand in his stead, and represent him to his people, as his Am­bass [...]dou [...]s, being sent by him to all finners, for at­taining and carrying on the great ends of the Gospel, th [...]r conversion, edification and eternal salvation And, seing it is so, we must first renunce Christs authority and dominon, over his Church, before we can refuse and reject that power and authority of the Ministers of the Gospel, who are thus sent by him to us: the t [...]uth is, th [...] not receiving of them, is a rejecting of him; a matter that should be tenderly & seriously laid to heart by all; for it draws exceeding deep, upon all sorts of sinners high and low: so that they not depending on any other infe [...]our authority and power (except that by which they were sent) their obligation to the work of the Gospel cannot be annulled by men. Let us say it, in this we con­tend not meerly for the ministerial authority, (that for the fountaine and ends thereof should be dear to us) but for the prerogative of Jesus Christ, whose right it is, as King of his Church, to constitute & send Ambassadours in his own name; if there be any thing, that is the proper right of Soveraignity, this is one, which is the native consequent of it, without which it cannot be: shall we allow this in point of right to earthly Soveraigns, and deny it to Christ, the only Head and High priest of our holy profes­sion▪

Secondly, Moreover, Ministers in this relation [Page 42]they stand under to Christ Jesus, have the Gospel & its ordinances committed & intrusted to them, to be dispensed in his name, for the conversion and edifi­cation of sinners; for which they are called, the stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4: 1. this is a talent they have received from their great Lord and master, of which they must shortly give an account; and which, while they have it, they are commanded in all highest paines to use, for the gaining of sinners to him, in the ways he directs them to in his word. Now let all judge, what a strait Ministers are cast into, in these times: If they forbear on the inhibi­tions of men, to dispense the Gospel and its ordi­nances to sinners, thus committed to them, they prove unfaithful to their master, betray their trust, and incurre his heavy displeasure and wrath: If they answer their trust and aime at faithfulness therein, in preaching of the Gospel, and labouring in the work thereof, to gaine sinners, they provock men and expose themselves to all sorts of suffering. But they, knowing the love and terror of the Lord, have on mature consideration of this mater, chosen and pur­posed, in their master's strength, to venture on the wrath of men; seing they cannot, in this juncture, both please their Master & them; resolveing to prefer the necessity of suffering, to that of sinne, the much commended and cryed-up choise of Moses, in the like [...]ase, proposed to all in the word for their imitation.

Thirdly. Besides this trust of the Gospel, there is likewise the heavy trust of immortal souls (to whom they are sent) committed to them, of whom they are to give an account, and for whose blood they must answer, when they resigne and give up their [Page 43]stewardship, and lay down their office and trust a [...] his feet, from whom they received it. Do any think, the threats and inhibitions of men, will dis­charge them of this trust at their master's hand? If they think so, they shall do well to produce some­thing from him, that will signify so much to them, without which they cannot judge themselves ex­eemed from the care and oversight of souls; whose blood will cry aloud in the ears of their master, if they do not their part, in what he hath commanded them, for saveing of such. We have heard of no­thing yet from our Rulers to satisfy our consciences in this mater, but peremptory lawes and acts, com­manding them to obey the same, under great penal­ties: If we were assured upon clear rational grounds, that their voice and commands were the voice and commands of Christ Jesus, releeving us of this pres­sing burden of immortal souls, once laid on us, how quickly and cheerfully should we obey their present laws: but nothing can we learne from them or any other, to ascertane us of this. Let any, that hath any true feeling of the natural state of souls, judge, what a cruelty it must be in us, to behold souls perishing throw ignorance, wickednesse, hypocrisy & a Spirit of delusion, in all parts of the Land, while we have the dispensation of the Gospel committed to us, the mean that Christ hath appointed in his house, and useth to bless with power to the salvation of sinners? Will not our neglect, in slighting of this, make us guilty of their blood, and accessory to their eternal perdi­tion? We are assured of this from the word of God. While we reflect and think on this, we dar not, for fear of men and the sufferings that threaten us from [Page 44] [...]m, stand by and look on, but labour, as we can, in our ministerial capacity, to prevent the ruine, we see coming on immortal soules, come of us what will.

If it be granted to us, that our obligation to obey God, in all he hath commanded us in h [...]s word, is antecedent and superiour to the tyes on us for obedi­ence to men; and that the commands of men should and ought to give place to the commands of God, (as we expect will not be demed by any, that inter­taine the true notion of a God head, much lesse by them that professe subjection to the holy Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience) then our practice cannot be condemned, but must be justified, which is but a necessare consequence of this truth, so univer­sally received and closed with by all men; (except those who have debauched their consciences, throw the predominant love of temporal things, to a sla­vish subjection to the lusts and sinful commands of others) for are not Ministers commanded to preach the Gospel, and the people to hear it, to assemble and gather themselves together for that end? How many are the commands and precepts of God to us in his word, about this mater? In a thing so clear and evident through the Scriptures, it is astonishing to us to think, that men professing themselves Christians dare issue out commands, so directly opposite to the commands of God, and the obligation on Ministers and Christians to obey Him, before all others. We grant, when there is another duty on foot and called to, hic & nunc, the Magistrat may, yea ought to super cede the practice of that, that would hinder the duty, necessare and called to, for the time (to which in the circumstantiat case there is an obligation and [Page 45]call antecedent to the Magistrats command [...]) bu [...] [...] lay on, and fix a stated cessation from the practice of commanded duties, on those, that are under an obligation of serving God, in the maters forbidden by men, is beyond the power of any; to do so, is to frame and state a war with God, and to fix our­selves in opposition to him. Are not Ministers and Professors then in a pussing strait, who must either disobey God, or men? To them that ask us, why do we preach and hear, to the offending of our Ru­lers, and the causeing of so much trouble to the Coun­trey? Our answer is, God in his word hath com­manded us so to do; they that sus [...]ean the relevancy of this reason, but yet deny the consequence, are ob­lidged to give us something, that takes off our ob­ligation of obedience to God, in these things, in our case; (sure we are they are commanded) but nothing can we meet with from the Scriptures of truth, to answer our arguments, and satisfy our consciences, but the cry of hazard from some, and sharpe severity from others.

Fiftly, We hold according to the Scripture, that as the Magistrat cannot, jure Magistra [...]ico, exautorat the Ministers of the Gospel, or take their power and office from them; so he hath no power to untye the obligation on Ministers, and Professors, for obedi­ence to God, in the least of his commands. It is a principle in politicks, held by all, that no inferiour power can disannul a power, or hinder its exercise, that is immediatly derived from, and dependant on a power superiour, except they show a warrant from the same: but in this matter it is so: we know all will grant, that Gods supream authority and dominion [Page 46]is superiour to and above all authorities and [...]owers▪ seing they derive the same from and hold them of him, who is truly Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. And seing the Ministerial power, as to [...] [...]ing and exercise, in the Church, is immed [...]atly [...]om God, throw his Son Christ Jesus, by positive in­stitution and appointment in his word; no other po­wer can exautorat these, that are cloathed with it, but they must shew a warrant for it from God in the Scriptures; there being no other way, by which God makes known his will to the sons of men; if there be, let it be shown, and this will end the de­bait, and bring us to a quiet and cheirful subjection to the present laws, about the maters controverted. We meet with confident assertions, but no proofs, without which, we cannot look on our selves, as loosed from the obligations lying on us, to use and exercise the Ministerial power, by vertue of the in­stitutions and commands of God, given anent it in the word. We know the Ministery was institute without a dependance on the Magistrat, and exercis­ed in the Church, not only without, but against his will and command; and God was obeyed, while the Magistrat did countermand & oppose himself there­to, to his outmost; which sayes, that Ministers and professors did not then dreame of a dependance on, and subjection to the Magistrat, in the Maters of God: The truth is, to give the Magistrat a po­wer to dissolve powers institute by God, and to su­percede our obedience to him, in the things he hath commanded, is to make him equal with, if not to exalt him above the Almighty God; the only Abso­lute and Universal Soveraigne of all Creatures in hea­ven [Page 47]and in earth. Is not this to substitute the Magi­strat, and to put him in the place of the Pope, that Anti-christ, the man of sin, who in nothing so much, as in this, now under debat, exalted him­self above all that is called God, or is worshiped, as is prophecied of him, 2 Thess: 2.4? The conse­quence of this usurped power, now given to, and as­sumed by the Magistrat, in & over the house of God, is such, that we tremble to think on that, which will (if things continue in this present course) be the issue of it. As we finde, in the accomplishment, that Luther did prophecy, in saying that there should arise a Civil pope in the Church, who should extend his power over the same, as far as ever the Ecclesiasti­cal Pope had done; So we fear, that the troubles, tryals and persecutions of the Church, shall come near to that hieght, they were at, under the Pope of Rome. This strange inhansing of things, divine and humane, speaks some thing to fall out, that will make the present and succeeding generations to trem­ble; for God will not alwayes be mocked, nor suffer his Glory to be taken from Him.

Sixtly, When we consider the sinful and evil consequences, that would of themselves follow upon our obedience to the Magistrat, in the mater now controverted, we dar not, for all that is dear to us in this world, comply with what is required of us; nor desist from serving of God in the Gospel of his Son; for (1.) If the former reasons, for our non-obedience, do hold and prove concludent, would not our obedience to what is enjoyned us, confirme the unjust usurpations, made on the Church, and wreath the yoke of bondage about her neck, to [Page 48]the enslaveing of the consciences of all, and the losse of her just rights and priviledges, purchased for, and granted to her, by Jesus Christ? As our comply­ance would have made us accessorie to the Magistrats sin, and brought us under the guilt of all the sin and wickeduesse, that hath ensued on the same; so we should not only have been cruel to the Church of God, and the souls of professors therein, but we should have brought the ruine of the Church on our own heads; for not only he that is active in and concurres with the causes of evils, is accessorie to all the bad and evil consequences of them; but also he that labours not in his capacitie and station to hin­der them, when it is in his power to do: having therefore nothing left us and within our reach, to with stand these usurpations and corruptions, under which the Church now groans, and by which she is in hazard to be destroyed, but the Gospel of Christ, that we find yet commited to us; we dar not give over preaching and hearing of the same, which the Church in all ages hath found to be the power of God to her preservation, and recovery in evil time.(2.) While we think on the following ages, and the obligations that are on us, for transmiting the Gospel to them, in its purity and power, (as our worthy predecessours did before us) & what are the means and wayes, prescribed to us in the word, for effecting of this great good; and with what suc­cesse these have been essayed, in the former gene­rations of the Church, to the benefite of succeeding times; we finde ourself straitly tyed, both against positive complyance with what is required of us, and the o [...]ission of that, which God hath com­manded, [Page 49]and put within our power, for resisting of these evils; which if yeelded to and not withstood, would bring our children, and theirs after them, into the darkness of ignorance, Idolatrie, superstition and prophanness, from which [...]od in a great measure deli­vered us. We dar have no hand in the blood of our children, or those, that are comeing after us; which we know, the neglect of these means, that are ap­pointed for propagating the Gospel, would bring upon us, and make us accessorie to. It is not un­known, what advance and progresse these times have made in the foresaid evils, since Prelacy reentered amongst us; and what furder length they would have gone, if it had not been for the obstruction, they have met with, from the Gospel preached, by 2 persecuted and despised hand full, in whom the foo lishnes of preaching hath been the wisdom and the power of God, to the salvation of this Church.(3.) Although the solemne tyes, and obligations of the Covenants, under which these nations once came, be decryed, and all endeavours used, that are within the reach of these Lands, to disannul, dis­grace, and make them void; yet finding, on the exactest search we have made, that they remaine in [...]orce on us, and this Church, either to the duties contained in them, or els to the Judgments and plagues denunced in the Word of God against Cove­nant breakers; we cannot to any thing that will bring us under so hainous and land-destroying sins, as Covenant breaking and perjurie; which we can­not evite, if either we comply with the corruptions, ejected by these Covenants out of this Church; on do not, in our stations and capacities, according [...] [Page 50]our power actively withstand and oppose the same; and labour not for the preservation and advancement of the doctrine, worship and government of this Church, as it was at our taking on of these obliga­tions; which binde us not only to Negatives, or non-complyances with the ejected corruptions; but to endeavour the preservation of these concerns, in our capacities, according to our power. Albeit this seem light to others, yet it is not so to us; for till the mater of these Covenants be disproved, from the Word of God, and made to appear to be un­righteous, antecedent to the Lawes of men, (which none hath yet done) we must judge our selves bound by them to the observation of all they containe, in this present case of the Church. We may not, so far as our knowledge leads us, have any hand in fur­dering, and advanceing of the ejected corruptions, whether in doctrine, worship or government; but must of necessitie, set ourselves, in our stations against them; lest we be partakers of other mens sins, and consequently of the plagues, that God hath threatned [...] word against them.

We shall to [...]onider next, some of these exceptions, most con [...]nly used against us, with which we are publickly and privately branded, and stigmatized, [...] rendering us odious and hateful to all. Excep­ [...] I That we refuse to give that obedience to [...] [...]gistrat, his lawes, and commands, that un­ [...] the [...]ine of damnation, is enjoyned to all sub­ [...], in the Word of God? Answer. Because this [...] the constant cry of our opposers, and given for the [...]oun [...] of thes rep [...]o [...]ches of dissoyalty, rebellion [...] [...]edition so unjustly cast upon us; we therefore most [Page 51]earnestly beg of all, they'l weigh impartially the fol­lowing Answers, in the ballances of truth and Justice.

First, As we chearfullie grant Magistracy to be the Ordinance of God, and by divine institution, to be immediatly derived from him; by vertue of which, all, especially Christians, are bound to subject them­selvs to those cloathed therewith, and to obey them in all their lawful and just commands; so we complean of no little injustice done to us, by our adversaries, who for our non-obedience to the present lawes about prelacy, do charge us, with being enemies to Magistracy, and disloyal to them, that are now invested there with; contrare to our known doctrine anent this mater, presented to the world, in our publict Confessions of faith, yet extant amongst us, and our constant practise conforme thereto. If sim­ple non-obedience, in some particulars, that greive the conscience, be a sufficient ground for this charge, will not the Confessors and Martyrs, in all ages of the Church, be held guilty of disloyaltie and sedition, who, for not obeying of Magistrats, in their sinful commands, have suffered greivous and hard things? None can on this ground condemne us, but they will be found to justify the persecutors of the Saints, and to condemne them; if our reasons, for non-obe­dience in our case, were taken from the unlawful­ness of authority, and our Rulers clame thereto, the charge were most just; but seing they are brought from the sinfulness of the mater commanded, while we acknowledge the authoritie, and grant obe­dience thereto in all other things, how malicious and unjust is the charge? Reproaches & lyes will be fo [...] another day a weak covering and an unsafe [...]

Secondly, We suppose it will not be denyed to us, that the power of Magistrats is not simply absolute, but several ways bounded and limited; as. (1.) By its own nature, which is properly civil and politck.(2.) By its objects, Truth and Righteousness, to which it is astricted, and beyond which, in its exer­cise, it cannot, jure, go.(3.) By the absolute and universal authority of God and his laws, from which it and other powers are derived, and to which they are subordinat. All these limites are set to Magistracy, which it may not transgress; and beyond which, obedience is not due to these, that are installed in it. By the first it is distinguished spe­cifically trom other powers, as immediatly fountain­ed in, and descended from God, as it; as the power of Parents, of Husbands, Ministers of Christ, &c. some of which did exist and had being, before Ma­gistracy was in the world. We assert that these powers, being specifically different from Magistra­cy, and as immediatly derived from God, the Ma­strat cannot, jure, disannul them, hinder their ex­ercise, nor dissolve the obligations on those vested therewith, to those duties to which they are antece­dently bound. It is true, the magistrat hath a power about these powers; but it is only cumulative, and not privative of the same: he is to see, that all do their duties in their several relations & capacities, and that Truth, Righteousness, and Peace be keeped, and flourish amonst them. By the second the ma­gistrat is bound up, and tyed to, truth and righteous­ness, and hath no power to go beyond, far lesse to do contrare to them; they being the essential objects and ends of magistracy, for the preservation and ad­vancement [Page 53]of which, it was first institute & brought into the world. By the third the magistrat is so sub­jected to God and subordmated to him, (as all other powers are) that not only the right of precedency, in the mater of authority and obedience thereto, is Gods, and not the magistrats; but the magistrat is that much subjected to his law, as that he hath no jus, or power, to command any thing to the contrare: his commands here are nullities, as a non habenie Pote­statem: so that non-obedience in this case is not dis­obedience to him; but obedience to God; for as God hath not given power to any of his creatures against himself; so in the Collation of the magistratical power and authority, there is an obligation convey­ed with it on the persons called thereto, to improve and use the same for him, and the furtherance of obedience from others to his laws; for the magi­strats power being of God, makes him the Mini­ster of God, for the good and not the hurt of others. Hence it is evident and beyond disput, with all sober minded men, that the commands of the magistrat, do not binde any subject, where God commands the contrare. Court parasites and flutterers may extend this power of the magistrat, beyond these, who through the love of their worldly interests and lusts, (when favoured and advanced by Rulers) more then from any true respect to their just authority and pre­rogatives, keep no bounds in their assertions about the magistrats power; but the true markes, and Land marks are set by God himself, and will not be removed, but to the prejudice and ruine of these that labour to overturne them. If we make it not out (as hath been hinted above) that, that which is [Page 54]commanded is sinful, and contrare to the commands of the must high God, let us be used with all severity; but noe are is granted to us, all accesse denyed, and every door shut up.

Exception 2. But our adversaries not finding sufficient ground, for the former charge, take them to the actions, done in the times of our late troubles and confusions, charging all that was then done up­on our party and their principles. Ans. We are confident that, when the carriage & actions of the true Presbyterian party, in relation to the Magistrat, shall be searched after, and known; they will be a suf­ficient confutation of these malicious Calumnies cast upon us, from this head: we know, for justifying of this charge, all the enormous actions of former times are fathered on our party, and their princi­ples; but contrare to all justice; for we are sure, if the actions of the late preceeding times were duely differenced, and distinguished into their several kindes, & drawn up to their true fountaines & heads, that these of them, that are not justifiable, shall be found to rest on persons and parties of designes, in­clinations, and principles different from ours, who for worldly respects and designes, betook themselves to, and sheltered under the wings of the Presbyte­an party, while in power and succesful (as it useth alwayes to be in such cases:) of these there were dif­ferent yea contrare sorts, that winding into the favour of leading persons in those times, did climb up to that height of reputation and power, as to influence their counsels and actions, to the committing of se­veral enormities, that we dar not, yea will not justi­ [...]: but after-alterations gave sufficient discoveries [Page 55]of them, who Proteus-lyke, changing into every forme, stroke in with the party, that did for the time predomine: let preceeding actions then be distin­guished into those, that we judge right and resolve to stand to, as the native effects and product of our designs and principles (how much soever now mis­represented;) and these that were influenced and brought forth, by the predominency of persons and parties of different designs and principles, in our counsels; and also betwixt those, that were the actions of particular persons, and not of the party; as likwise betwixt those usual infirmities, that men in this sinful state are incident to, in the best of acti­ons, and those grosse and wicked aberrations from the paths of Righteousness, that are but seldome in­cident to men of honest intentions, and well in­formed consciences: we say, do us the justice, thus to difference former actings, while Presbytery was in the rise, prevailing and prosperous against its ad­versaries, and we will quickly wipe off the dirt cast upon us by persons, that keep no bounds of charity and justice, in their censures of the late times: let Histories be consulted (partial as they are) and it will quickly appear, what were the true genuine de­signes, and actions of our party then, and what not; but thus to charge the whole party & their principles, hand over head, with all the enormities of these times, lookes rather like a Spirit of bitter malice, then of meekness, sobriety, and judicious love, that speaks no evil, without clear rational grounds, the great ornament of the Professors of Christianity. Is it not known, and beyond all disput evident, what the Presbyterians did in opposeing the change of g [...] ­vernment, [Page 56]and all the sad practises committed before and after, in relation to it: so as the then pre­vailing party confided more, in the prelatick and cavilier party, then in the Presbyterian, finding them more truely averse from, and contrare to their de­signes and ways, then the other? But some alledge, that we did raise & put them in a capacity to do what they did? O how weak is this argueing? If it hold, the holy and righteous God will not escape the cen­sures and imputations of thi [...] men; all the wicked­ness and mischief done in this world will, by this me­dium, come upon him, as the cause and author of it; from whom they receive all that power, strength, and capacity, that enables them to do wickedly. Shall those that do good to others in educating, supply­ing, & affording them all necessaries, abused by them to sin and ryotous living, be judged the authors of their wickedness? O folly! If our intended brevity could suffer it, we would make it out from undeniable instances, that the government had not such sure & stedfast friends, as the Presbyterians, who were true­ly such, and acted according to their professed prin­ciples; who stood to it, when others (who are now the only favorits) turned their backs upon it, in going all the length of compliance with the Usurpers, that was required; while the generality of true Pres­byterians refused, for which they were discounte­nanced, and looked upon, as a party that was to be supprest. If persons that speak thus at randome a­gainst us, could, by clear mediums, knit the pra­ctises, they charge upon us, to our professed designs [...]nd principles, how would they triumph; but none [...] these have we yet seen and heard. We know, the [Page 57]late wars are fathered on our party, as the first cau­sers and beginners of it? But groundlesly, as will ap­pear to any, that will be at the paines, to search out the true causes and grounds of them: we are con­fident that, as any, who is truely unbyassed, comes to the through knowledge of these, they will find our adversaries in the blame, and not our party, who for Religion, liberties, and self preservation, (for all was at the stake) were then forced to armes, throw the insatiable pride and tyranny of the then Prelats; but too much of this. Only we must say, if things now hold on in their present channel, in which they have run these few years past, we doubt not, but many will justify and allow, what once they condemned.

Exception 3. It is with no little considence as­serted by some, that although the Ministerial power be immediatly from Christ, by divine institution; yet, the exercise thereof is from the Magistrat, so that Ministers may not convocat the subjects, preach, and dispense ordinances, without l [...]berty from him? Ans. (1.) We desire to know, whence our adver­saries have learned this distinction? Su [...]e not from the word; there is not the least footing for it there; if it be, let it be produced. We know its original from whence it came, that man of sin, the Pope of Rome (from whose Arsenal. the All of the Hierarchy hath been brought, and this among the rest) who for gaine, and fixing of an universal absolute depen­dance of all upon h [...]m; invented this distinction, that was unknown to the Christian world before he arose.

But, (2.) We assert, that the exercise of the [Page 58]Mini­sterial power, is, as much immediatly from Christ▪ and independant on the Magistrat, as the power it self. First, because we finde this power was exercised in the Church, in the primitive times and afterwards, without any dependance on, and acknowledgment of the Magistrat anent the same: this none will get refused. We desire then to know, what it is, that now suspends the exercise of the Ministerial power on the Magistrat, that was not then? Christianity adds no new power or right to the Mag [...]strat, it only qualifies and disposes him, to use his power aright; but gives none that he had not before: for if a heathenish Magistrat should exercise all that power about the Church and her pastours, that is by Scrip­ture allowed to the Christian Magistrat, he should not exceed, nor go beyond the limits of the Magi­stratical power. As we finde several heathenish ma­gistrats, in the Scriptures, doing a great part of the work ascribed to the Christian magistrat; (as Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, &c.) so they are commended for it. It is to us ridiculous, to say, that the heath­enish magistrats power is not intensive & habitualiter as great, as the Christian magistrats. 2. All moral power does necessarly include, and hath flowing from it, an obligation to its exercise, if moral and Physical impediments hinder not; it not only gives right to such and such acts, and makes them valide; but it binds the persons cloathed therewith to such acts, so that the omission of them in their season is their sin; for the end of the power tyes the person, that hath it, to intend and seek its accomplishment, in such and such wayes, as is proper to the nature of [...]he power; as might be instanced; but in a mater so [...]ar we forbear.

Thirdly, How comes this distinction to be given and made use of, anent the ministerial power, and not anent others, about which the Magistrat may exercise his power also? may not Fathers, Husbands, &c. do the duties proper to their relations, without leave from the Magistrat? if they may, give us a reason why Ministers may not do the duties, proper and specifick to their function, without the magistrat? their power is as immediatly from Christ, and is as little dependent on the magistrat, yea and lesse, then theirs; never one hath undertaken this task, but they, who make the magistrat the fountaine of all power: which is most absurd; seing the magistrat did finde other powers existing and in being before he was.

Fourthly, As the power of ministers is from Christ by divine institution: so they are under an obligation, for its exercise, by divine commands, which the magistrat hath no power to imped, as hath been said. They that are cloathed with the ministerial office, are commanded to exercise it, who, in no place of Scrip­ture, are directed to the magistrat, for his license; If they be, let us see it: no doubt we had heard of it, ere this time, if any such thing were.

Exception 4. There is one exeption used against us among others, and urged with no little vehemency, in the matter of our loyaltie and obedience to Autho­ritie; to wit, our non-appearance before the Councel, on summonds given out against some of our number, at several occasions; which is held forth to be, and strongly aggravated for a high evidence of our con­tempt of our Rulers, and the authoritie wherewith they are cloathed: for which up wards of 80. of [Page 60]Gentlemen, Ladyes, Ministers and yeomens are in­tercommuned; and the subjects, under the same pe­naltyes due to such, inhibited all manner of assistance to, and converse with them. Ans. Not likeing to dip into, and discusse the severitie of this sentence of intercommuning, passed with such solemnity against us, nor yet to canvasse the legality or illegalitie of it; but leaving it to others, better versed in, and acqua­inted with our Lawes; we offer the following con­siderations to all, which we hope will, to the unby­assed, not only alleviat but justify our non-appea­rance. (1.) Beside what the law of nature hath provided and teaches all men, anent self preservation; we suppose, it will not be denyed, but granted to us by all, that, if many of the precepts and examples we have in the word of God, do allow flight to Mi­nisters and Christians from the unjust violence and oppression of Rulers, when it is within their power to decline it; then our non-apperance before the Councel wil not necessarily inferre a contempt of their authority, or any true disloyaltie and disobedi­ence to them: Otherwise Christ Jesus our blessed head, his Apostles and others, will be found as chargeable with this crime, as we; from which all Christians do free them. While we think on these precepts and examples of Christ, his Apostles and Christians, who lived in Scripture times, we can­not avoid these two conclusions, which in despite of all contradiction do make out the former inference, as 1. That passive obedience to the unrighteous de­crees and punishments of Rulers, is as undue, as active obedience to their unjust commands: injustice in sentences and punishments, binds no more to sub­mission [Page 61]to these, then unrighteousnes in commands [...]yes to obedience, where the infliction of such pu­nishments is evitable; for Rulers are not enabled by their authority to injustice more in the one, then they are in the other; and consequently there can be no obligation on their subjects from their authoritie, to give themselves up to their unjust punishments, more then to yeeld obedience to their iniquous commands: & if it were not so, Christ and his Apostles sinned in not giving this obedience: which is most absurd. Obj: 1. But this is contrarie to the doctrine of many Protestants, who teach that passive obedience is due, and should be given, where active obedience is not? Ans: 1. We know of no Protestants that teach so, except those who were prosy lited into court parasit­es; it was neither the doctrine nor practice of most Protestants, as is clear from their writings and Hi­story.2. We desire to know of them that thinke other­wise, what this allowed flight is, If it be not a remov­ing of ourselves (when the circumstances of cases permit) from the decrees and sentences of Rulers, appointing us to unjust punishments? which is no­thing, but a denying of passive obedience to such sen­tences. Who can evite this? Some there are who grant this, in sentences that reach the life; but not in sentences that only touch the body and estate, as imprisonments, fines, exile, &c. But give not any just instances, or sound reason for what they assert. Concl. 2. Hence also we gather from the foresaid precepts and examples, that non-submission to un­just sentences, when within our power, is not in­consistent with that respect, esteem, love, honour and obedience, which, by vertue of Gods com­mands, [Page 62]we are bound to give to Rulers; and conse­quently is no contempt of their authority, nor any true disloyalty; els Christ in allowing himself, and his Apostles in practising this flight, had been contem­ners of authoritie and disloyal to it: which all Chris­tians assert to be false. Hence it is evident, and will be so to the unprejudged, that if our Opposites fasten not this charge on the mater, they will never be able to do it from our non-appearance simply and abstra­ctedly considered. Obj. 2. Our Rulers summonds being properly their commands to us. for our appe­arance before them, (which is lawful and in its self just) we were bound to have appeared, both on the account of their authority, and the thing command­ed? Ans. This being the objection of greatest seem­ing strength, and most used to our reproach, we shall consider it a little, and (1.) Waveing the de­bate about the nature of summonds, and leaving their native import, use and consequences to Lawyers; We assert, that when the commands of Superiors, (altho lawful in their immediat object or matter) are, in their stated designe, so connected with irreli­gion, injustice, oppression and unrighteousnes, that they become the engines and means of oppression and violence, or of any thing truely sinful in its self; we say, such commands participat of the nature of their ends, and become unjust: as for instance, when Rulers in order to oppression and persecution, command any subject to witness his knowledge of the Orthodox opinions and practises of such and such persons, the subject in this case ought not to obey such commands; which our of this case and the like, that are abstract from such sinful ends, he not only may, but ought [Page 63]to obey; or if a master or father should require his ser­vant or son to bring to him such a woman to such a place, they knowing it is for commiting of unclean­nes with her, they should not obey; which, when without respect to this wicked end, they are bound to do. If this were not a truth, the officers and soul­diers, that apprehended Christ and Crucified him, were innocent and blamlesse: which all grant to be false, for it was the injustice of the ends of their lawful Rulers commands in this thing, that made their obe­dience to them undue and unjust, so that they were truely culpable and guilty of Christs blood, as well as their Rulers.(2.) Supposeing but not granting, the summones to be good & just in themselves; yet it is a Maxime agreed to by all Divines, that where two things morally good, doe t [...]yst in Christians practice, the one of one or two degrees of goodnes, the other of three or foure, that the last should be chosen and pre­ferred to the first: but so it fell out to be in our case. To our thoughts on this matter, it was beyond question, that our non-appearance at these times, to which we were cited, was a greater good (supponing the other to be good, which we do not yeeld) both to the Magistrat, our selves and others, then our ap­pearance could have been; for th [...]reby the Magistrat was withheld from unjust oppression, he should have been guilty of, the Gospel preserved with the people in its purity, much suffering to others prevented &c. while we had no good to expect from our appea­rance, but a meer act of obedience.(3.) That non-obedience, in some cases and things, to the commands of Rulers, is no true disobedience, as (1.) In things without the Magistrats line and reach, [Page 64]altho the things commanded be just and good in themselves: suppone the Magistrat should command a person unordained, to preach the Gospel, dispense the Sacraments, &c. this being beyond the Magi­strats line, it were no disobedience in any subject, not to obey such commands.(2.) In things con­traire to mercy and justice, that one Subject oweth to another, if the Magistrat command either the not doing of these, or the doing of the contrare; not obeying here, is no disobedience. The truth is, if the mater commanded be not just, and, antecedent to the Magistrats commands, not necessare; not obeying is no disobedience; and the reason is, becaus no power can justly crave obedience, when it acts either beyond, or against its true adequat formal ob­ject: but of this above.(3.) When Magistrats commands are opposite to Gods, (which hath often fallen out) obedience to God can be no disobedi­ence to the Magistrat. But in our case we undertake to prove, that altho the thing commanded, to wit, appearance, be within the compasse of the Magistrats power, that it was contrare to mercy and justice; yea and things commanded and allowed us of God; which will exeem our non-appearance from disobe­dience, & consequently from contempt of Authority.

Knowing and being morally certaine, that the un­just violence, designed against us, would have inevi­tably followed on our appearance, we chused rather to forbear it, and to use the flight Christ allowes to his servants and people, in the like cases. It is a Maxime in Morals or practical divinty, accorded to by all Divines, that of two penal evils, when the election of them is in our arbitriment, the lesser is [Page 65]to be preferred to the greater: And to any that con­sider the case, we then had before us, it will be manifest, that flight was much preferable to the seve­rity, we were to expect on appearance, of which we were assured, not only from the standing lawes of the Kingdome, but likwise from the preceeding carriage of our Rulers; who, altho slow and negli­gent enough in the execution of the lawes against Papists, Quakers, and other heterodox opinious and wicked practises; yet punctual and strick, in puting the law to more then its full execution against us; to which they have been, and are instigated by our enemies, the Prelats, to such a hight of keenness, that if the mater contamed in our summonds cannot be made to appear, we are put to answer such interroga­tories, and required to give and subscribe such oaths, engadgments and bonds, to which, they know, we cannot without destroying of our principles yeeld; for refuseing of which, many of our party have been cast into prisons, fined, banished, &c.

Thirdly, It had no little influence on us in deter­mining our non-appearance, that the usual legal forme of procedour in judgment, allowed to and used vvith others, is not observed towards us; from which we could not expect justice, but all severity. On our appearance we have no accuser, often no ly­bel condescending on, or containing our crimes, with the circumstances; no witnesses produced; but an oath administred to the empannelled, for expiscating of accusations against ourselves and others, and that in crimes made by law capital; and the oaths of these, whom the law calls, socij criminis, sustained for valid probation; wayes of procedour condemned [Page 66]by the law of God and nations, except where the Papists cruelty takes place. And if all these sail, the subscribing of engagments and bonds is p [...]oposed & required (as is said above;) on the refusal of which, a prison is the best we meet with. Let any man of ordinare reason and justice judge, whether appea­rance before Rulers, who, by following of such methods and wayes in judgment, declare themselves resolved to have at the persons arraigned, whether [...]ure or not; we say, let any judge, whether appearance before such, when it is in their choise to appear or not, be rational and safe; except where the supposed guilty intends by their appearance, to prevent greater severity.

Fourthly, Among other things, that came under consideration with us against this appearance, was the oath de super inquirendis, lately framed into a law, and now pressed on us, which (for the reasons for­merly given) we dar not take; for besids the severe punishments (as imprisonment, arbitrary fines, exile to forraigne plantations, &c.) we were to look for, for refuseing of this oath; if we take it, we are, contrare to all natural equity, mercy and justice, made the accusers of ourselves and others, contrare to the provision made in the act establishing and im­poseing of this oath, which declares that the oath taken by any shall not militat in judgment against the takers of it to su [...]h & such penalties therein specified, and yet the mater of their lybel useth to be diawne from it, and if they deny their deposition, an oath is adduced for probation against them: And it is not intelligible by us, how such an oath can be sustained [...] valide probation against others, and not against [Page 67]the deponent; seing a person's own confession of his crimes is judged sufficient against him, much more should this oath, which necessarly suppons and in­fers confession, even judicial.

But Fiftly, In the next place, the evil conse­quences, that by our appearance, we were certane, would have redounded to many, made us forbear it; for if we had appeared, we were sure perpetual im­prisonment, or exile from our native countrey, had en­sued thereon; whereby we should have been put out of a capacity, for labouring the preservation and ad­vancement of the Gospel in this Church, of which we are members, and to which we, as Ministers and Christians, are so straitly tyed and bound; the people should have been robbed of a faithfull Mini­stery, an [...] he benefite of the word purely dispensed by them; the rod of persecution, now on the back of this Church, should have been more sharpened against the remnant of our party; the people exposed to more shakeing and winnowing temptations, to the endangering of their stedfastnes; our adversaries of all sortes more emboldened to vent & spew out their venemous doctrines, and to carry on their designed defection to a greater hight: all which being more then probable, yea to us morally certane, we durst not do that, which would have opened the door to all these evils. These arguments do suppone, and lean on the unjust oppression, intended and prose­cuted against us, which is made out both as to mater & designe, in the precedent and subsequent discourse.

Sixtly, It was never a piece of disloyalty and diso­bedience to Magistracy even for persons confessedly guilty, to keep themselves from the stroke of the law [Page 68]to run away from it, and to escape out of prisons, if they could effect it, and consequently not to enter into prisons, when cited thereto, must be as free of disloyalty, especially when the cause, for which any is in hazard thereof, is righteousness, as ours is at this day.

SECT. IV. Our practice cleared from separation; where it is also proved unlawful, to submit to the Ministry of the Curats.

Exception 5. The ejected Ministers preaching, & dispensing of ordinances, and peoples runing to, and hearing of them, in this manner, and with­drawing from communion with the Church, in the allowed publick ordinances, is separation; which is against the principles and practises of the Presbyte­rians in foregoing times? Ans. because this, in acts of Parliament, publict Sermons, and in Pam­phlets, is with great confidence asserted; we shall take it a little into consideration; and see whether the Prelats and their Creatures; or our Ministers and the people adhering to them, be the separatists: a sinful separation, we grant, there is, but who are the Causers of it, and guilty thereof, before God, they or we, let our following answers and reason de­termine, to which, that they may be more clearly apprehended, we premise. 1. That it is not every sort of separation, that is sinful and evil; some kinds of it are duty and commanded, as our Protestant divines make good against the Papists, as Joseph Hall, [...] all that writ on that subject: for it is our part, [Page 69]to separat from sin, and Professors joyning together in it, with which the worship of God comes too often to be vitiated, and polluted: for this we have many precepts and commands in the word Ephes. 5: 11. with other Scriptures.2. To make non-pre­sence▪ or absence from the meetings of Christians for worship and goverment, sinful separation, there must be first a stated habitual absence, secondly Such reasons and grounds for it, as will not justify it; for if the absence be not ordinare, it is not esteemed separa­tion; altho the reasons of it be not justifiable pro hic & nunc: and albeit the absence be ordinare and habi­tual, yet if its causes, whether moral or physical, be right and warrantable, it is not sinful separation; for absence from the meetings of Christians in wor­ship or government, is either sinful or not, accord­ing to the causes or reasons of it.3. The grounds that will justify and warrant a withdrawing, in or­dinare, from such meetings, must be. (1.) The want of a just authority or right, in those that dispense the ordinances of worship and government: The Pharisees question proposed to Christ, Matth. 21: 23. did suppone a commonly granted, and re­ceived truth, which Christ does not deny, but tacitly yeelds; that they who act publickly in the Church must have a just authority & right so to do: we ought to have some rational convincing evidence of this, & if it be wanting, it will warrant this withdrawing; much more, if its want be positively clear.(2.) Cor­ruptions in the worship of God, so knit to them in their use, that they cannot be used without the use of these corruptions, will also allow a withdrawing from such roeetings; as all in these grant.(3.) Sinfol [...] ­cumstances, [Page 70]as such places, times, causes, per­sons &c. That in their connexion with, and res­pects to things, that are truely sinful and evil, beco­mes so, prohic & nunc; as fasts, thanksgivings, &c. when observed at such times, and for such Causes, as are evil.(4.) Unsound and heretical doctrine, taught in ordinare, in such meetings, Matth. 24. We grant it is not every error and erronious doctrine, that will justifie a peoples withdrawing, from or­dinances, dispensed in the assemblies of the Church, (there being nothing besides that may justly cause it;) but only such as is truely heretical and subver­sive of the foundations of Religion, Righteousness, & peace. When poison is administred in stead of whole­some food, a people are bound to see to their own safety, that they be not destroyed by that, which was intended for their health.(5) There are some things in the stated case of some times, and other circum­stances, that will give sufficient ground for this with­drawing, that will not do it at other times; as in the beginnings of defection, under the contests betwixt the orthodox and unsound party, usually some things fall in, that will call for a secession from Church assemblies; which have often fallen out in the Church, and is evident from history; particu­larly in the time of the Arminians, predomining in the Church of Holland; and many others that are to be seen in the records of the Church.4. Although in some cases, a negative separation be lawful and right, where a positive is not; yet in some cases, a positive separation is lawful and duty: it is hard to determine of cases in this matter, except where the ease hath been, or els is existent: there are two cases [Page 71]in which this is allowed; intrusion, and an universall infection of the worship and government of the Church, with superstition, idolatry and tyranny, to the polluting of all its ordinances: we hope there will be no controversy anent the second, seing it is the doctrine, and hath been the practice, of the re­formed Churches, in their secession and departur from the Church of Rome, on that very head; who not only withdrew from the communion of that ido­latrous Church; but erected themselvs into distinct Churches, with officers and ordinances, conforme to the commands and institution of Christ: and when the mater is seriously and impartially weighted, there will be found, as little ground of controversy about the first; anent which we take these two to be evi­dent truths. (1.) That Churches are not bound to subject to, but to withdraw from these intruded upon them; partly because the just rights of the Church are wronged and taken from her, which all ought to maintaine, and not to quite, & partly because she is enslaved thereby, and subjected to the lusts & tyranny of men, and a preparative laid downe to oth [...]rs for doing of the like, in times coming.(2.) That this intrusion is either on Churches that have bin and are setled in Christs way, with able and faithful Ministers; or else on these that want & are vacant for the time: If it be on Churches that are under the setled inspection of faithful Ministers, they are bound to adhere to these, and not to give place to the intruders, from whom to withdraw, can be no sinful separation; the intruders, and these that fall off to them, are the separatists: if the Church or Churches be without faithful Ministers, they also [Page 72]are obleidged to refuse the intruding Ministers; and if this unjust and violent intrusion on them continue, they are oblidged to provide themselves of Ministers, that under their oversight, they may have and enjoy the benefite of the Gospel and its ordinances, to which by the commands of Christ, and the necessity of the means of eternal life, they are straitly bound; for as unjust intrusion brings nothing with it, to make a people yeeld to the intruders; so it untys no obliga­tion formerly on them, for endeavouring of their setlment with a faithful Ministery. If we thought these, in thesi, were questioned by any, we could with great ease make them out to the conviction of all; but taking them for granted, we surcease any further probation. Therefore5. We desire, it may be also considered, that there is a vast difference betwixt hearing of, and submiting to Ministers, in the exer­cise of their Ministery, in the general; and doing of these to such and such Ministers: the question be­twixt us and our adversaries, is not whether we should hear and submit to Ministers in their Mini­stery, for this we do not deny; but whether we should hear and submit to these, that were our Ministers & set over us by the holy Ghost, before this change in the Church; or these sent from and thrust in upon us, by the Magistrat and Prelates? It is no little wrong done us by our enemies, who give it out to the world, that we contemne a Ministery & ordinances, and are against hearing; while our practice, declares the contrare to all, and for which we are dayly suffering. We hold that, as it is our duty to withdraw from, and not to subject to the Prela­ [...]s, and their Creaturs; so it is likwise our duty, to [Page 73]cleave to our former Ministers, in hearing of the Gospel, and receiveing of ordinances from them, as we can, & have access: we have given reasons for the affir­mative, & shall, the Lord willing, do the like for the negative.6. It would also be adverted, that there is a great difference, betwixt a Churches bringing in, and carrying on of a defection willingly, in a Church way; and the Magistrats doing this of him­self, without the Church, yea forcibly, Ecclesia renitente ac reclamante; although there should be no difference, as to the mater; yet there is much as to the maner and way, to influence, regular and diversi­fie ministers and Christians carriage under them: all in the Church are to subject to the power, proper and peculiar to her, which they ought not to do to others, usurping this power, and taking it out of her hands.7. In this mater a difference or distin­ction is to be made, betwixt the personal scandals and corruptions in ministers walk, and administration of holy things; and these that may be, or are found in the way of their entry, which may be such, that although they do not invalidate their ministerie, in their dispensing of the word and its ordinances, to the rendering of these nullities; yet may give suffi­cient ground to peoples withdrawing from and not subjecting to them, as their lawful and sent pastours.8. There is a great difference betwixt a Church re­gularly constitute according to the Word of God, in her ministerial political being, enjoying the exer­cise of all ordinances in purity, that comes after­wards, while under that constitution, to be intruded upon by the sole power of the Magistrat, and perse­cuted in officers and members for adhereing to her [Page 74]constitution, in opposition to the intruders, and the corruptions brought in upon her by them, against her consent; and a Church declining from her former purity, in doctrine, worship and government, abuseing her power to the bringing in and furthering of the said defection, and universally concurred with, and submited to in the same. The first is our cas [...], & concerns the state of the question betwixt us and our opposites, in the charge of separation th [...]y lay on us.

The question then betwixt us, and our adversa­ries, is not whether we may lawfully separat from publict ordinances, for the corruptions and personal miscarriages of fellow-worshipers, whether mini­sters or others; as one in a little manuscript doeth maliciously or ignorantly state it: we are still of the same minde with our worthy predecessours in their debats against the Brownists and Separatists; as our practice this day doeth confirme, in our assemblies and meetings for worship, differing in nothing, as to this, from what it was before. Neither is it, whether it be simply or in it self sinful, to hear & receive ordinances from these, who have entered by, & submitted to the prelates, abstract from our present case; for we grant the case may be, in which it is lawful yea duty to hear, and receive ordinances from such; yea and hath been. But the true state of the question, is, whether a Church or Churches consti­tute according to the rules of the word, provided and settled with ministers, regularly called and submit­ed to, should yeeld to the Magistrats and Prelates, violently ejecting their ministers, and thrusting in other ministers upon her, not only without, but against her consent; in subjecting to such, hearing [Page 75]and receiving of ordinances from them; while the Magistrat does all this, for furthering and perfect­ing a course of d [...]fection, contrare to solemne Co­venants and oaths, by which they were oftener then once, ejected and cast out of this Church? To this we answer negatively; that the Church should not subject to such in hearing, and receiving of ordinan­ces from them, but ought to disowne, and with­draw from these, thus entered into the Church, and complying with the introduced corruptions.

This conclusion we prove thus. First, They who have no just authority, nor right to officiat fixedly in this Church, as the proper pastores of it, ought not to be received, but withdrawne from: But the Prelates and their adherents, the Curates, have no just authority nor right to officiat in this Church, as her proper pastours: Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawne from. It is expected, they will not deny the first proposition: all the debate will be about the second, which we make out thus. They who have entered into, and do officiat fixedly in this Church, without her authority and consent, have no just authority and right so to do: but the Prelates and their Curats have entered into this Church, and do officiat therein, without her authority and consent: therefore they have not just authority, &c. The first proposition is clear, and we suppose will not be gain­said by our Antagonists; seing the power of mission, of calling and sending of ordinare fixed pastours, is only in the Church, and not in any other, as all Divines do assert. The Second is evident from maters of fact: for there was no Church judicatory called or convocated, for bringing of the Prelats into this [Page 76]Church; all was done immediatly by the King & acts of Parliament, without the Church (she being by violence disenabled to meet in her officers for fear of opposition from them;) a practice wanting a pre­cedent in this and (for any thing we know) in all other Churches. Object. 1. But our Prelats were consecrat by the Prelats of the Church of England? Ans. What signifies that to the Church of Scotland, and their just right to officiat in her (suppone the office of prelacie were right and institute?) Does any think, the Church of England would acknowledge the authority of Prelats consecrat here, and subject to the same, if all were done not only without but a­gainst her consent; we suppose not. Either the Church of Scotland, at that time, had no power of mission, or els she had; if she had none, wanting prelacy, then our Ministers were no Ministers of Christ Je­sus, and all ordinances dispensed in her for many years were nullities, which some of our adversa­ties, we hope, will not say: if she had the power of mission, how came she to be neglected and usur­ped upon by another Church, to whom she was not subordinat? Object. 2. But Presbyters cannot con­secrat Bishops, they being an inferior order. Ans. if it could be shown from Scripture that Bishops are not only an Order and office different from Presby­ters; but that they have a different ordination to their office, from that of Presbyters, it would say much; but nothing of this can be made to appear from the Word of God. But. 2. We ask whether consecration be different from ordination? If it be one with the same, why may not Presbyters conse­crat? and if they may ordaine (as we undertake to [Page 77]make out from Scripture and Antiquitie) what ne­cessitie was there for going to England for it, seing it might have been done by the Presbyters of this Church? If consecration differ from ordination, sure it is a humane custome and invention, for which we have nothing in the Scriptures and pure Antiqui­ty, that only speaks of ordination, the only way, in which all Pastors entered into the pastoral office. 3. The truth is, as a Church Ministerial and poli­tick, constitute according to the Word of God, with all officers of divine appointment, hath the full power of the keys of the kingdome of God; so there is no sort of officer, necessare by divine institution to her edification, but she is enabled, to furnish her self with such, without a necessitie of seeking to other Churches for them: and if it be so, the Pres­byters of this Chruch, being her representatives, their consent should have been had. Although we had no just exception against the office of the Pro­lates, as it is constitute and declared by law (as we have) but their violent intrusion in this Church, it puts a sufficient bar on our subjection to them, so that we may not, yea cannot owne them as the law­ful pastors of this Church, Obj. 3. The Magistrat consented to and procured their consecration? Ans. If any will make it appear, that the Magistrat is the Church (as Erastus does insolently assert without all probation) yea a member of it, as such, or hath the power of mission, we shall yeeld the cause and quietly submit: but when we search into the Scrip­ture, we find the Magistrat, as a Professor of Chri­stianity a member of the Church without all Church power [...]et be to be the fountaine of it) and subjected [Page 78]as such to the care and oversight of Church Officers, in the exercise of their ministerial authority and power. We grant, it is his part to put the Ministers of the Church (when negligent in furnishing of her with officers) to their duty anent it; but not to thrust in officers upon her of himself without her con­sent. Obj. 4. But the Curats have entered by the Church? Ans. 1. This we deny: the contrare is clear from constant practice; for the Curats come in upon congregations only by the Bishop and Patron, who are not the Church, nor have any power from her for what they do, in this: all their right and power is founded upon, and derived from the supre­macy, and acts of Parliament, and not from the Church; in which the Bishop acts as the Kings de­legat and substitute, only impowered thereto by his law: so that the Curats having and deriving all their power from the Prelates, cannot have the same from the Church; none gives what he hath not. But. 2. The prelates, not being the lawful governing Church, any that enter congregations by them, cannot be said to enter by the Church; no more then if a Minister should enter into a congregation of this Church by a Minister or Ministers of the Church of France, or Holland, without the Ministers of this Church, can be said to enter by the Church here; for the Mini­sters of other Churches are not the governing Church of this Church. The antecedent is to us clear; for as the Prelates have entered without the Church; so the lawful Ministerial ruling Church, although scattered and persecuted, is yet existent and in being, who by the unjust and violent intrusion of others, have not lost their right of ruleing this Church; but [Page 79]in point of right and obligation do continue to be her lawful pastours; for violence, persecution and in­trusion, do not dissolve the relation betwixt the Church and her Pastours, either general or particular; there being nothing in our case, that can justly do it; other wayes, it should be in the power of the Magistrat, to undo and destroy the political Mini­sterial Church, both formally and effectively which is ab [...]ord. We ask at any, who think persecution and intrusion do in our case annul the pastoral relation be­twixt Ministers and Churches; whether the Magi­strats violent ejecting of Ministers, and puting of Mahum [...]tan or Popish Priests in their roomes, will discharge Ministers and Congregations of their ob­ligations to one another? if they think not, then how can these untye their obligations, in our case? We ask a reason. If they judge persecution and intrusion by the Magistrat in [...]his case, to have this effect; then it will inevitably follow, that the Magistrat can destroy divine commands flowing there from, contrare to the practice of divine relations, & obligations to the obe­dience of the Church, in the primitive times, who, not­withstanding of the Magistrats Edicts, threatnings, & much actual violence, performed the mutual duties of pastours and flocks.

Arg. 2. All power of the Prelates and their crea­turs in the Church is by law fountained in and derived from the Magistrat, and in its exercise subordinated to him; (as is evident from the act of restitution. Parl. Carol. 2. 1. Ses. 2. Act. 1.) which derivation and subordination they owne and homologat, by their compliance with what the law does require, in or­der to it: therefore such we cannot, we may no [...] [Page 80]owne, receive and subject to, as our ministers under seing they acknowledge & subject themselves in their ministery to another head, then Christ Jesus, which by law is set in and over this Church. That the force of this Argument may be more perspicuous and clear, we shall put it into forme thus: Those that receive and derive their Church power from, and are subordinat in its exercise to another head, then Christ Jesus, should not be received and subjected to, as the ministers of Christ in his Church: But the Prelats and their Curats do receive, and derive their Church power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to another head then Christ Jesus: there­fore they ought not to be received and subjected to, as the ministers of Christ in his Church. We sup­pose the first proposition will not be denyed; all the debate will be in the Second, Which we prove thus; These officers in the Church professing them­selves such, that derive their Church power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church, beside Christ, doe derive their power from and are subor­nat in its exercise to another head, then Christ Jesus: But so it is, that the Prelates and their creaturs, do derive their Church power from, and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church, beside Christ; therefore the Prelates and their Curates do derive their power from, and are subordinat in its exercise to another head, then Christ. The major proposition is evident: for whoever hath a supream Architectonick power, in and over the Church, must be an head to the same, and the fountaine of all Church power: it is a repug­nancy [Page 81]to be supream, & have an Architectonick power, and not to be the head of that Society, to which any is such. Now to the Minor, that the Prelats and their Curats have their power from, and in its exer­cise are subjected to a supream Architectonick power, is beyond disput clear, from the act of restitution, for­merly mentioned, and other acts to be mentioned af­terwards; and will be so to any that consideratly peruse the same; of which we are to speak at more large, under the last head; but for the time, we propose these three from these acts, for making out of this argument. 1. They are expresly made to have a dependance upon and subordination to the King, as supream to them, in their Church judica­tories and administrations.2. The government of the Church, in its ordering and disposeing, is annexed to the crowne, as one royal prerogative thereof, which not only suppons the government to be in him, as the fountaine thereof, but to be exercised with that dominion, that is suteable to his regality.3. The giving of Church power to Church officers, is sup­poned to be the effect and deed of his lawes, and acts, without which, all power in the Church is declared to be null and void. Objec. Although the Kings Majesty be supream governour in all causes, and over all persons Ecclesiastical; yet he is not head to and of the Church? Ans. If he be supream governour in such causes and over such persons, in Linea directa, no question, he is the head political to the Church; for GOVERNOUR & HEAD are equipollent terms: whosoever is supream Governour to any society, in this sense, is a proper political head to it; it is needless to quarrel about words, if the thing be granted. And [Page 82]that this subordination or supremacy is direct, or in Li­nea directa, is, we judge, clear from the fore mentioned acts, seing they not only make the King the fountaine of Church power; but moreover in the act anent the the National Synod, he is made the All of the same, and without him, it is nothing. The like of these, the sun never shined on, except these made by King Henry the 8. of England; which being scrupuled at by all sorts of persons, at home & abroad, they were, in Queen Elizabeths time, forced to alleviat the mater by removeing the title head, and some mitigating explications allowed, and ordered to be given to the subjects, at the taking of the oath of supremacy; but no such explications allowed here.

Arg. 3. If the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats, and their Curats thus thrust in upon them, were constitut and setled in Christs way, as Pastors and flocks, in the just possession and actual use of all ordinances, con­forme to the rules of the word; then it is no sinful separation, for Churches, in adhering to their Mi­nisters, not to receive nor submit to the Prelates and their Curats: But so it is, that the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats, thus thrust in upon them, were constitut and setled, in Christs way, as Pastors and flocks, in the just possession and actual exercise of all ordin [...]ces, conforme to the rules of the word: Therefore it is [...]o sinful separation on their part, not to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats, in hearing and receiving of ordinances from them. We suppose, the consequence of the major proposition is evident, and will not readily be [Page 83]denyed by any; and if it shall happen to be, we prove it thus. If there be divine obligations on Mi­nisters and their Churches to the performance of the mutual duties of Pastors and flocks; then it can be no sinful separation, for Churches, in adhering to their Ministers, not to receive nor submit to the Prelats and their Curats; But so it is, that the Ministers and Churches, required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats, were under divine obligations to the performance of the mutual duties of Pastors and flocks: Therefore it is no sinful sepa­ration for Churches not to receive nor submit to the Prelats and their Curats. The consequence of the major proposition leaneth upon these two, and is infallibly made out by them, first that th [...]e is a di­vine relation of Pastor and flock, betwixt Ministers and the Churches, over whom they are set; and secondly that they are bound by divine commands, to do the mutual duties of such, contained and prescrib­ed in the word of God: none that acknowledge the Ministery to be an ordinance of divine instution, and the Scriptures to be the rule of religion and righte­ousness, will be able to refuse these. We conceive none, even of our Antagonists, will deny the Mi­nor; if they do, will it not follow that the Church of Scotland, before and at the Prelats introduction, was no Ministerial political Church? which is false; as we undertake to prove; when ever our opposites give their reasons to the contrare. But we know the greatest debate will be about the Minor proposition of the first argument, to wit, that Ministers and Chur­ches, required by law to receive and submit to the. Prelats and their Curates, were setled in Christs [...] [Page 84]as Pastors and flocks, in the just possession, & actual exercise of all ordinances of divine appointment: This for mater of fact is beyond all denial, for the Chur­ches of Christ in Scotland, before and at the Prelates late entry among us, in the Year 1662. were, for the generality of the, furnished with Pastors, and in the possession of all ordinances; The debate then will run upon the jus of that constitution, that was existent and in being at the Prelats introduction: a­gainst which there is nothing, that can with any colour of reason be objected, but one of these three: Obj. 1. Prelacy was wanting in that constitution, which it should have had? Ans. 1. To the validity of this objection, it must first be made out, that Prelacy, as it is established by law, and in use and ex­ercise, among us, at this day, is of divine right, or an office institute in the word of God; which is not yet done, and for any thing we have yet seen, ne­ver will; Let our adversaries in this great debait. consider the reasons and exceptions we have given in against i [...], and answer them: yea, we undertake to prove, that it is not only without, but against the word of God.2. We ask at the Patrons of Prelacy, whe­ther they judge it essential to the constitution of the Ministerial political Church? If they judge it essential, doth it not necessarily follow, that all the Reformed Churches of France, Holland, &c. are no ministerial Political Churches; and that all ordi­nances dispensed in them are Nullities; yea that the Churches of the vallyes of Piemont, called the Albi­genses. (which by all historians have their original deduced from the Apostles,) were not such, seing [...] the confession of all, they never had Prelacy from [Page 85]their begining of Christianity to this day, which is contrare to the sense and judgment of our Worthy Reformers, who alwayes esteemed them pure Chur­ches. The truth is, the consequence is so necessare, that the most of the Prelatical party of the Church of England, admit no Minister of the reformed Chur­ches to officiat among them without reordination; by which they fix a desperat Schisme between them and these Churches, while they desire and endeavour reconciliation with Rome: which speaks out the ten­dency of their principles? If they think Prelacy not essential to the Political Ministerial Church? (as some of them do grant?) then our Church constitution, as to all essentials, was right, our Pastores bound to feed, and people to submit, hear and receive ordinances from them; Obj. Although Prelacy be not essential to the esse; yet it is usful and necessare to the well being of the Ministerial Church? Ans. 1. As hath been said above, we know of no good, to which Prelacy is said to be necessate, that is not easily attainable without it; yea and is not win at in the reformed Churches.2. Then the former obligation on our Pastores and this Church must continue; for if Pre­lacy be not essential nor necessare to the being of the Ministerial Churches, the obligation, which flowes from, and is dependant on it, cannot be discontinu­ed by the introduction of Prelacy upon us; it should rather confirme and strengthen this obligation, in the opinion of such, then dissolve it. It is, no question, the foresight of this and other consequences of the like nature, that forces the most of the now Prelats, to maintaine the absolute and essential necessity of Pre­lacy in the Church, against the evidence of Script [...] [Page 86]and Antiquity. Obj▪ 2. But what was done in the Year 1662. for the introduction of Prelacy in this Church, was but a repossessing her of it, that had been eject­ed An. 1638? Ans. 1. The ejection of Prelacy Anno 16 [...]8. was but the pu [...]geing of Presbytery from Prelacy, that had been brought in upon it, after Prelacy had been cast off by this Church in her first Reformation of Religion from Pop [...]ry: It is evident from Histories, the books of discipline first and se­cond acts of Parlt. Particularly that of the Year 1592. the National Covenant, and the records of the ge­neral Assemblies, that with the Reformation of Re­ligion in doctrine and worship, Prelacy was also re­moved and cast out of this Church, as an high corrup­tion in her government. So that from the Refor­mation of Religion from Popery; Presbytery had the first possession. It is true, the B [...]shops that then were, did continue in their bishopricks, and keeped their places in Parlt. but without all Church power or jurisdiction, that they had formerly exercised in the times of Popery predomming in this Church; And when their Bishopricks came to va [...]k [...]horow death, their places were not filled w [...]h others, as formerly had been done, till Morions Regency, who for the legal right of their revenues (which he laboured to enhance for his owne use, and could not legal [...]y come at, without some shadow of them) endeavoured to bring them in (of which he repented at his death, as is to be seen in the history of the Duglasses) which occasioned a hot contest betwixt him & the Church, at that time, in her assemblies, who stootly opposed prelacie, and never gave it over, till by law and pra­ [...]ice it was wholly cast out of this Church, Anno [Page 87]1592. But King James afterwards falling too much in love with wordly designs and interests, for faci­litating the much courted and desired succession to the crowne of England (to which Prelacy was then judged necessare) laboured by sinister and subtile wayes, the introduction of Prelacy upon the Church, (which then was most averse therefrom) that he gave not over his designe in this, till he had setled it by law Anno 1612. and brought it in upon Presby­tery: but Prelacy not being content with this esta­blishment and exaltation, it attained to in the fore­said Year, never ceased working by its impositions, till it came to that hight of usurpation on Church & State, that procured its ruine Anno 1638. All this is so clear from the preceeding records, particularly Spotswoods history, that he must be either an utter stranger to these, or els impudently malicious, that denyeth it. Do men think, we are such ignorants of and strangers to these things, that we are not able to discover the vanities and lies of some of that party, who have put pen to paper, and contradicted all this; as the Author of the seasonable case, and others, who contrare to all evidence, will maintaine the possessi­on of Prelacy in this Church since the reformation?2. Supponeing Prelacies possession in this Church since the reformation (which is notourly sals) till its last ejection Anno 1638. as it was in England; yet till its divine right be proven, it can claime no jus or right in the Church of God, whose concerns can­not be antiquated and proscribed by length of time; Otherwise most of the popish heresies, idolatries and superstitions, should have night as good clame, for their being in this Church, as Prelacy; and it is li [...] [...] [Page 88]if ever Popery aime at its restauration, and come any length towards it, in this Church, it will build it self on this foundation, among others; as Prelacy does this day, in the laws establishing it. Obj. But the Magistrat bringing in Prelacy, and commanding all to receive and submit to it, (Prelacy being, as some say, a thing indifferent) all should obey? Ans. leaving the debat about the Magistrats power to the last head of our discourse, where it shall be con­sidered alittle; we say 1. Whatever power the Magistrat hath about the Church, and her concerns as such, it is astricted and subordinated; to the Word of God, which the greatest Patrons of Erasti­anisme do yeeld, as Vedelius; yea Erastus himself, and all of that Sect: hence the Magistrat may not command any thing in the Church, that is contrare to, or without it; and if he do, none are bound to obey such commands, as all Protestants grant: there­fore till it be made to appear, that Prelacy is allowed and appointed in the word, our non-obedience or non submission to it, altho commanded by the Ma­gistrat, cannot be justly condemned. It is true, Stil­lingfleet is at much paines to prove it to be indiffe­rent, but on such grounds as shake the foundation of our faith, the perfection of the holy Scriptures; and with so little successe, as we remaine the more confirmed in the contrare: wo were to us, if we had no better grounds for Presbytery, then the strongest pleaders for Prelacy have yet shewed for it.2. The Magistrat with the subject being under the divine ob­ligations of Covenants and oaths against Prelacy, have no power to command its reception, neither [...]n the subject give the obedience required, without [Page 89]horrid sin against God: If in such a case, a power in the Magistrat to do, and command contrare to such divine obligations and engagements, and an ob­ligation on the subject to obey these, be asserted, is there not a door opened to the introduction of any Religion what soever? And a power granted to and established in the Magistrat, to make void all obliga­tion of obedience to God? Which, to us, is terri­ble to think on. Are not our Antagonists then forced, either to assert this power on the Magistrat; Or els to prove the mater of these Covenants to be sinful and unjust, and consequently not obligatory on this Church? One of these two they must do, before they can expect our obedience to the present lawes anent it. We grant, some of that party have un­dertaken this task, as to the last; but with so small fruit, that on a serious and impartial perusal of their Argueings about it, we continue more confirmed in the contrare, then before the said perusal: whether this proceeds from our dulness and incapacity to reach their arguments, or the weakness of the same, we leave it to the unbyassed to judge.3. We assert, that whatever the Magistrat may do, either in causing or dissolveing of Church relations and engagments; yet he cannot do this, immediatly and of himself, but by the Church; and the reason is; as the fixing and establishing of Churches relations and engag­ments betwixt Ministers and Churches, does arise and flow from Christs institutions and precepts in his word; so the application of these to individuals in the Church, either in causing or dissolveing them, is in the Church, and not in the Magistrat: he may com­mand the Church to act her part in this, but cann [...] [Page 90]do it himself, for the power of calling and mission belongs to the Church, not to the Magistrat; as all Divines ancient and moderne assert, and as, we sup­pose, is sufficiently proven afterwards.

Arg. 4. The way of the Curats entering into Congregations puts a bar on our subjection to them, that we dar not owne them, for the lawful pastors of this Church: for as their entry is without the Church, and the way that Christ hath setled in his hous for that end, so they have come in on congre­gations, in wayes, which we judge corrupt, and without all warrant from the Word of God, & the practice of the primitive times: In the search of Scripture, and pure Antiquity, we find, that ordina­tion by Ministers, the election and call of the people, was the way, by which Ministers entered into con­gregations, and not the institution and collation of the Bishop, nor the presentation of Patrons; which, as they have their pedegry and origination from Po­pery; (a part of the tyranny of that Hierachy) so they are but late human inventions, derogating from, & vi­tiating the institutions of Christ about this mater, and that several wayes; as 1. This way of their entry, by the Bishops institution and collation, does suppone, that their ordination does not sufficiently impower them, to the exercise of the Ministery, without a fur­ther licence; which is contrare to the end of ordinati­on, & the nature of the Ministerial power; that, by ver­tue of its ends and the commands of Christ, does bind the persons invested therewith, to its exercise, with­out which, he cannot prove faithful to his Master, [...]or attain the ends of his Ministry, the conversion [...] edification of sinners. It is true, the Bishops [Page 91]dominion, in subjecting of his Creaturs to him, is strengthened thereby; but it everts the very end and nature of ord [...]na [...]ion, that, by this device, is only made to give po [...]entiam remotam, not proximam.2. The Pa [...]ons presentation, as it takes away the peoples right of election and consent, granted them by Christ Jesus; so it suppons ordination to give no right to the mantainance; or, at least, su [...]pends it; (the effect of presentations being, in the grant of all, to give a right to the stipend;) which we assert, according to the word, to be the effect of ones being the Pastour of such a people, who, by divine com­mands are bound to maintaine him in all outward necessaries for his incouragment in the work, and enabling him to do those duties, both common and special, which he cannot do without it; To say, one is the Pastour of such a congregation; and yet hath not just right to the provided maintenance, is against the commands of Christ, and the practice of the Church in many ages. But, as this is amongst the many other pieces of slavery, unto which men, throw ambition and lost, have subjected the Church of Christ, so the Curats, entering this way, we can­not receive, nor give up ourselves to them, as our guids and Pastours under Ch [...]ist.

Arg 5. M [...]ny Congregations, into which the Cu­rats are entered, are under a standing obligation to their former Pastours; not only on the account of the pastoral relation betwixt them, but for the en­gagments they came under to such, an their call and reception of them; which is not dissolved by any, thing we have yet seen: sure we are, the Magistra [...] can not do it: Obj. Solomon, for the Crime of T [...] ­son, [Page 92]Committed by Abiathar against the state, ba­nished him from Jerusalem, (where the Tabernacle was) and Confined him to Anathoth, his owne in­heritance, by which he habitually disinabled him, from exercising the priests office: Therefore Magi­strats may depose and exautorat the Ministers of the Gospel. Ans. How wide and inconcludent is this consequence? it is only said in the text 1. Kings 2 26, 27. that here moved him to Anathoth, which is but a Civil sentence. Obj. 2. It is said vers 27. that Solomon thrust him out from being priest unto the Lord. Ans. Solomon did this consecutive, and not formaliter; it was a necessare consequent of his de­served sentence of banishment, to which he was bound, on the justice of the sentence, to yeeld and submit: a consequent that will necessarlie follow on the deeds of others, to whom our adversaries will not grant the formal power of exautorating of Mi­nisters; suppone a man by smiting, or a physician by administring unwholsome physick, do habitually disinable a Minister to the exercise of his ministrie; will it therefore follow, that he doeth depose him from his ministrie, or hath the formal power of so doing No wayes. And seing the Scripture is plaine in shewing the accomplishment of the Lords word, spoken against the house of Elie by Samuel, in removing of Abiather, and in him, Elie's house, from the High-priest-hood; and also the way how it was done; not by a formal sentence of deprivation devesting Abiather of his office, but by a civil sentence of confinement to Anathoth, that necessarly remo­ [...]ed him from the Tabernacle, and disinabled him to [...]o his office there; why do men contend? But am­bition [Page 93]to gaine its designe will keep at any hold, how weak soever. Obj. 3. As this deed of Solomons did discharge Abiather of his former tyes and obligations, to the exercise of this office in the Tabernacle, and opened a door for bringing in another priest in his roome; so we think the Magistrats sentence now does the same, to the ejected ministers, seing they are bound to submit to civil sentences, and the Church may not want Pastours. Ans. Although we yeeld the Antecedent, yet we deny the consequent: for 1. because the parallel betwixt Abiathers case, and ours runeth wyde: because (1.) Abiathers sentence was just, his crime deserved it, and much more: but ours is not so; as the preceeding and subsequent reasons make out. 2. Abiathers sentence was personal, and terminated on himself only, and did not reach the rest of the preists: ours is against all that do not con­forme. 3. His was founded on a civil crime against the State, and person of the King, to wit, treason. Our alledged crime is Ecclesiastick, for not com­plying with a course of defection from the truth and wayes of Christ, to which we and all stand engaged by solemne Covenants and oaths, which tye us, in our several capacities and stations, to withstand the contrare corruptions, now brought in upon us. (4.) Abiathers punishment, to which he was formally sentenced, was purely civil, confinement to such a place: Ours, altho it be partly civil, yet is mostly Ecclesiastick; (which is not within the power of the Magistrat) we are not only robed of our lively-hoods and contined; but inhibited the exercise of our Ministrie, and stated by sentence, in a habitual ces­sation from the exercise of it, which is truely dep [...] ­vation. [Page 94](5.) Abiathers sentence and punishment was not [...]o s [...]cred, in a time of defection, and for withstanding of it: outs is passed in such a time, and for resisting of the same, and out of designe, on our Rulers part, to carry on their intended defection. 2. The iniquous commands, sentences and punishments of men (where invincible force is not) does not un­tye our obligations to God and men; that we by the authority of God are under, for serving of him and others in our day.

Arg. 6. If congregations have a just right and power of electing and calling of their Ministers; then those that come in upon them without this, are not to be esteemed their Pastours, nor to be subjected to as such by congregations, but to be withdrawn from: But here it is so; the Curates have entered on congregations, without this election and call of the people, their just right and priviledge. All the de­bat will be about the Antecedent of the first proposition, which to us is clear from Scripture and purest Anti­quity, as our orthodox Divines prove against the Pa­pists. All that Bellarmin hath to say to this, is the power of the Church to alter and change these and other things of the like nature; the very answer of our adversaries: but how or from what this is made good, is not yet showne us: Antiquity is so clear and full in this, that it is a wonder, that they, who plead so much for prelacy from it, can be able to cast it here: it the Prelacy, controverted among us, had but half of the evidence from Antiquitie, that the peoples right and power of election hath; it had gon far to have determined the question in its behalf, with some that yet stand aloofe from it: this shews, it is [Page 95]not the evidence or inevidence of arguments, that resolves many, anent the debats of those times; but interest and lust that sweys them more, then the love of truth. But more of this afterwards.

Arg. 7. Hearing of, submiting to, & receiving of ordinances from the Curates alone, and not from others, is enjoyned by law, and required as the signe of our compliance with, and subjecting to the pre­sent lawes, bringing in and establishing of Prelacy, with other corruptions, which we dare not owne. Hearing, and receiving ordinances from such, hath a twofold bar put upon it to us; an unqualified in­strument or object; and the respect that by the law it is made to have to the corruptions obtruded upon this Church, as the signe of our compliance with and subjection to these. The command of God a­bout hearing, does constitut the object and instru­ment (what and whom) we should hear: As we are not to hear all doctrines, but these that are sound; so we are not to hear and receive all, that pretend to come in Christs name, but these, of whose mission we have some rational evidence; at least against which, we have no just exceptions. This, as to the Curats, is made out by the former arguments. But besides this, the signe appointed and determined by the law, and required of all in this Church, is that they not only withdraw from, and do not hear the ejected and non-conforme Ministers; but that they hear and submit to Ministers, that comply with and enter into this Church, by the Prelates: which to us makes hearing and receiving of ordinances from them, a practical approbation of, and compliance with Prelacy, and other corruptions, contained in [Page 96]the law: for such is the connection between the signe and the thing signified, that he that yeelds to give the signe, doth in all rational construction approve the thing signified. Obj. But hearing and receiving is a duty commanded by God, which being so, can­not cease to be such by the Magistrats command en­joyning it? Ans. In this answer our Opponents do or­dinarly triumph; but to unfold its vanity and insuf­ficiency in this mater, let it be considered. 1. That Gods law in constituting of duty does not only de­termine the act, but the objects and instruments, a­bout and by which, they are to be exercised, & with­out which they are not duty, nor acts of obedience to God, so that is not the act simply, that is made a duty, but in its respect to such and such objects and instruments: as for instance, praying is a duty, not simply in it self considered; but in its respect to God in his son Christ Jesus, for such and such things, he commands and allows in his word; so it is in hear­ing, whose object and instrument must be such as is appointed in the word, other ways it is not duty, but in many cases, a pofitive sin; for the commands of God about hearing, do restrict it, in its objects and instruments, without which, it is not duty; so that we must carefully see, what it is we hear, and whom. Let our adversaries first answer our former arguments, and prove that they are those, whom by the commands of God we are appointed to hear; and we shall yeeld.2. The thing commanded by the Magistrat, in this case and mater, is not a duty; let them prove it that assert this. We grant, hearing of the Gospel, and receiving of the ordinances, is dury; but only as it suppons and takes in lawfully [Page 97]called and sent Ministery (known to be such,) to whom the dispensation of the word is commited: none will say, it is a duty to hear the word and receive ordinances from those, that are not sent, or have no just authority to dispense the same: the Magistrats commands in his present laws, restricts hearing of the word, & receiving of ordinances to such & such, in­hibiting these as to others; which commands not hav­ing the due instruments appointed by God in the per­formance of this duty, do not enjoyn a duty but a sin. Obj. 2. If the Prelats & their Curats be Ministers of the Gospel; then they are to be heard, & ordinances should be received from them; for the Ministerial power gives to the persons invested therewith, not only a right to preach the word & dispense ordinances, & maketh their acts valide; but it bind; them to the doing of these; and all others to submit to them in the exercise of their power: as is apparent in all relations, & the mutual duties, that the persons under them owe to one another; so that if Ministers be bound to pre­ach the Gospel, and dispense its ordinances, the people must likewise be oblidged to hear and receive ordinances from them? Ans. Albeit we should yeeld the Prelats and Curats to be Ministers; to the denying of which, they have given and do give to many, too much ground, by their open avowed perjury, enmi­ty at and opposition to true godliness; their renunc­ing of Jesus Christ for their immediat Supream head, by subjecting themselves to another foraigne Supream in the Church; and their wicked and flagitious lives) yet the consequence will not hold: for. 1. The true state of the question is, whether we should receive & submit to them, as the lawfully called & appropriat Pa­stors [Page 98]of this Church; which for the former and sub­sequent reasons we deny: And we would gladly see how they will prove it, for although intruders upon the Church be Ministers, yet their intrusion puts a suf­ficient bar on peoples reception of and submission to them; as we have made out both in thesi & in hypo­thesi: wherefore in so far, as hearing & receiving of ordinances from Prelatical Ministers, in our case, is an acknowledgment of this, we refuse it.2. Peoples obligation to subm [...]ssion to Ministers, does not im­mediatly flow from the being of the Ministerial power and authority, in those cloathed therewith; there a [...]e, besides this, other things that must con­cur to the causing of this obligation, which, if they be wanting, will make it void, or at least suspend it; as the rational evidence of its being in persons pretending to the Ministery, the removal of just im­pediments, the Churches call, &c. so that there are somethings either physical or moral, that, if they fall out, will suspend this obligation in actu secundo, while it remaines in actu primo; as inability of body, just suspension for a time, fundamental heresies, in­trusion, &c. now many of these being existent on the part of the Prelats and their Curats, in our pre­sent case, we finde ourselves under no divine obliga­tion to hear and receive ordinances from them. We shall not here urge the judgment and practice of our worthy reformers anent the Romish Priests, Jesuits, and others in orders, among them, who sustained, the validity of ordinances dispensed by such; and yet held, that they should not be heard, nor ordinances received from them. The instance of the pharisies and the scribes, Matth. 23. will not be found to mi­litat [Page 99]against this, till it be made out, that they were intruders, which yet none hath done.

Arg. 8. It is of no little weight to us, when added to the former, that the generality of these vio­lently thrust-in on congregations, are either insuf­ficient or scandalous; (creatures we confess fitted for carrying on of the Prelats designes, against this Church and us) by whom the poor people were, and yet are in hazard, throw Ignorance, Piophannes, Atheisme, and a Spirit of delusion, abounding in all corners of this Land: who, in stead of preventing and cureing of the same, do rather further and ad­vance these Church-destroying evils; as we do not make personal scandal, of it self, a sufficient ground of withdrawing from ordinances, dispensed by a Mi­nister, guilty thereof; yet when these are found in the carriage of those, whose entry is corrupt, and such as cannot be justifyed, we cannot but think ourselves under straiter tyes to be ware of, and fly from such: partly because of the little or no ground we have to expect any spiritual advantage from their administra­tion of holy things: and partly for the precepts we find in the word for avoiding and shuning of such Philip. 3. with many others. Shall we give up our­selvs to the guidance and conduct of such, in the wayes of life, having nothing to engadge us there­to, but the meer pleasure and will of men, who, we know, are carrying on corrupt designes, tending to the overthrow of Religion in its purity & power? What a folly and madness were this? It is said, that our charge, in this, is false and unjust. But we ap­peal to the experience and observation of the genera­lity of Professours in this Church, good and bad▪ [Page 100]who have been & are witnesses to their deportments.

Arg. 9. Besides these there were several things, in the stated case of the time, and the circumstances of it, that withheld, and yet withhold us, from sub­jecting to the prelates and their curates; which we wish were laid to heart by all as they are concerned. As 1. For making way to the introduction of prela­cy, the very foundations of civil government were shaken and unhinged, by the disannullig and res­cinding of such a series of Parliaments, for many years, in the most of which, there were, accord­ing to ancient customes and lawes, all that, a­mongst us, is held and reputed essential to the Con­stitution of Parliaments. By this deed not only the Constitution of former Parliaments are struck at; but (as is to be seen in the reasons given for it, in the act rescissorie) a preparative is made, for the changing of the Government, by any that, in after ages, have a minde for, and power to effect it. Although the Parliament of England, at that time, was as highly prelatical, and as much made for the Kings designes, as ours; yet they forbore such a deed, anent the Long-lived-Parliament, albeit they had the same reasons and grounds for it, that we pretended.2. This change made in the Church, was accompanied, and yet is, with such a speat of enimity at, and op­position to true godlines, in its necessare exercises; that the persons that savoured any thing of Religion, sobriety and conscience, came under a cloud, and were discountenanced, even from the highest to the lowest, as persons not fit to be intrusted in any place of office or power: while these that were known to be of dissolute lives, and given to all sorts of wickednes, [Page 101]were mu [...]h made of, countenanced and intrusted, as the only confidents of the time; from whence it came to pass, that wickedness and prophanity finding it self encouraged, and reyns loosed to it, abounded in all parts of the land, to the grief of the truely god­ly, and the great scandal of the Protestant reformed religion at home and abroad. If it were not for too much prolixity, this might be made to appear from a multitude of undenyable, but lamentable instances; which for brevities sake we forbear, not loveing to stir in this filthy puddle.3. As to the Government of the Church in particular, the case was wholly al­tered, from that of our worthie Predecessors, in the former Prelats time: fo [...], as prelacy was then sub­tilly brought in upon them, by degrees, and not all at once; so they continued in the possession of the Government of the Church, that had been se [...]led by law, and never legally or actually disinabled to meet, and exercise the same, in their fixed and ordi­nare judicatories: but continuing as formerly in Presbyterated meetings, had the Prelats thrust in upon them; as is evident from history, even of Spotis­wood; But in our case, Prelacy is at the first raised by law to its greatest height; Presbytery discharged, cashiered and ejected out of this Church; all lawes for it, either in late or former times, being disanul­ed and abrogated; the meetings of Ministers in their fixed Presbyterial and Synodical assemblies inhibit­ed, under severe penalties by acts of Councel, which became so universally obeyed, that Presbytery had neither a legal nor actual being, in the time that Pre­lacy was erected & brought in upon this Church: So that at its actual introduction, we were, conforme to [Page 102]Lawes, required to come in, submit to, and con­cur with the government setled by them, which was purely Prelatical and Erdstiuml;an. They that deny this must contradict the law, and make the law ma­kers liars. if the laws and actings conforme thereto have any sense, that may be rationallie deduced the­refrom. Hence, what was required was directly contrare to our principles & known judgment, which to this day, we never saw any convincing reasons, to make us relinquish, Here we cannot, but complean of the palpable injustice, done us by the Author of the seasonable case (falsly so called) who contrare to all evidence, makes the case now and then alike. But notorious lies and untruths must be made use of to fill up the roome of truth, so shamefully desert­ed by that party.4. The government of the Church that then was, was by law totally subverted, and Prelacy brought in its place, at and by the meer authority of the King; the government thereof by a preceeding law or act being wholly put into his hands, (the authority of Parliament interposed af­terwards for the establishing of prelacy, being by this only corrobovative and precarious;) as if it were only of his frameing and making, and had no higher derivation, but that of humane authority; which we look upon, as an high derogation of the Regal and Supream authority of Christ Jesus, the alone Head and King of his Church; and a dreadfull pre­sumption in changing the laws and ordinances, ena­cted and instituted by Him in his house; which all Christians, especially Protestants, esteem sacred and inviolable. Can we, according to the principles we have received and drunk in, from the word of [Page 103]the liveing God, allow of this forme of Govern­ment, this way introduced into the Church? Those that love ease, and things of this world, may think light of all; but it is not so to us, who are, through grace, resolved to owne no other Head of that body, (then Christ Jesus) of whom we professe ourselves members. The recent and fresh memory of the Na­tional and Solemne League and Covenants; under the tye of which this Nation and Church came ofte­ner then once; all rankes and degrees of persons, Noble and Ignoble, from the Kings Majesty to the lowest Subject, being solemnly engadged thereby against the evils and corruptions ejected by them. The obligation of which had been enforced, and legally secured by a continued series of lawes and practises, for a long time, that seemed to promise all imaginable securitie, to the work of Reformati­on, against the out most assaults of its adversaries: nothing was left undone, that could be attempted by rational men in this case. While all these things were in being, and recent in the memory of all, at home and abroad, at one dash, in so little a time, to raze to the foundations, all the former, superstructure, and build up the contrare; and that by persons, who, (for their generality) had been so active for, and so deeply engadged in former proceedings, is strange to think on; especially considering the verbal secu­rities, and engagments made unto us, immediatly before this change. We say, in this case, to give the concurrence and complyance required, in joyning with and receiving the Prelats and their Creat [...]rs, is, beyond all question, an approving of all that was done contrare to our fixed judgments & these obligations, [Page 104]we, with th [...]est of this Church came under. Let any man of conscience put himself in our case, & sup­pone our judgment & principles to be his owne; and then [...] him judge, if he would not finde himself ne­cessitated to carry, in this matter, as we have done.

Obj. Some assert that they, never having taken on the personal obligation of the Covenants, are not bound by them; for which they offer irrefragable arguments, but yet see it fit to hold them in. Ans. However there are two things we are sure of, First, All Ministers, that entered into the Church in the time of Presbyte­ry, were taken engadged for the government of the Church, that then was, in opposition to Prelacy: and in or near the time that Prelacy was a bringing in into this Church, Ministers in many Presbyteries & Sy­nods, declared their resolutions for adhereing to Pres­bytery, that then was in being, & had been exercised in this Church, for many years preceeding that time; but it is like (as their after carriage did make out) that these are knots they can easily loose; seing they are, able to master & overcome far greater. Next. That Church Goyenants in the maters of God, which by vertue of divine commands & institutions do antece­dently bind, do obleige all in the Church, both in the time or afterwards; and that with this adventitious and supervenient obligation of a Covenant, beside the former. He hath a stout conscience that will get this denyed, it is so evidently manifest from Deut. 29: 10. &c. they must be arguments of iron & steell, that will break this Scripture in pieces. These who assert the contrary, shall do well to try their strength, on what the answerer of Mr. Gilbert Burnets first dialogues hath on this Subject, that have not yet received a reply. [Page 105]But it seems it is a piece of new policy, to make up the weakness of arguments, with big swelling words.

We might here consider a little (if our purposed brevity could permit it) what one, in a certaine manuscript, hath undertaken to prove in several pro­positions: but his mistaking of the question in the se­cond proposit [...]on, makes us easy work; it being a truth we do not deny, and in which we close with our predecessours: so that all his citations of ours are to no effect: for we grant that the sin of fellow wor­shipers is no just ground for withdrawing from pub­lict ordinances, where there is no just exceptions beside; will it from thence follow, that we should submit to and hear the Curates in our present case? we must hav [...] other arguments then any he there pro­duceth▪ before we subject to such: neither is it a suf­ficient argument, he useth in the 6. proposition; that they are Ministers of Jesus Christ: Suppone it be so, yet the consequence is wide: we aske at them, if they think it lawful to hear and receive ordinances from our ej [...]cted and inhibited Ministers? If they do; how comes it that they do not hear our Mini­sters, but disswade the people from it? If they judge hearing of us unlawful; they must either say that our Ministers are no Ministers; or els that Ministers may be withdrawn from and not heard, although they be Ministers of Christ Jesus: and consequently it will follow from their own opinion, and practice anent us, that there are some things for hearing and receiving of ordinances, from any person, beside there being Ministers of Jesus Christ: Or els the charge of schisme, and separation, will fall as heavy on themselves, for not hearing and receiving of ordi­nances [Page 106]from our Ministers, as on us. But enough of this. Whoever reads that manuscript, will find it sufficiently answered in this short touch, for all his argueings are against his owne shadow, and misse the mark he should shoot at.

To shut up this wearysome and unpleasant sub­ject; In the last place, we are charged with all the profanity, wickedness and enormous practices, that are commited, and do, since the erection of Prelacy, abound in the Land: yea our meetings for worship, (now branded with the anciently odious name of Conventicles, with which assemblies of Christians in the primitive times were noted, and designed by their persecutours) are given out and represented to the world, as the cause inductive to these horrid & abominable scandals, which are boldly asserted to be acted & commited at them, in a paper of greivances, given in from the Diocesan Synod of Glasgow, in Prelat Lightons time, and presented to the then Kings Com­missioner, the Duke of Lawderdal, and the honou­rable privy Councel, by the parson of Glasgow, Mr. Arthur Rosse, and now Prelat of Argile, that impu­dent and viperous Calumniator, who, from the pulpit, & other places, useth to father all the scandals of the time, on our party and their meeting? Ans. passing that Prelats malicious and venemous railings against us, (as not worthy of our notice) whose not-our and manifest lies, his bitter invictives, and ill grounded assertions; (which not only speaks his heart and tongue to be set on fire of hell, but renders him distiked and odious to many of his owne party) we say. 1. From whence came that fearful deluge of all sorts of profanity and wickedness, that filled the [Page 107]before, at, & after the last erection of Prelacy, and for a considerable time, when there were few or no Cou­venticles? We have not forgetten (and we hope, the sober and humble, that mourne for the abomina­tions done in the midst of us, will not) with what a Spirit of impietie Prelacy entered into this Church, and followed it, for a long time: could our meetings for worship (called Conventicles) be the cause of these, when they were not, and had not a being?2. We beg of our opposites, that they will assigne us the cause of the open reigning scandals, found in them that follow not our meetings, but keep and adhere to theirs, espe­cially in the places, where there are no Conventicles, but an universal subjection to Prelacy? That there are such impieties reigning without any control, in these parts, is past all denyal? And what will our adversaries give for the cause of these? Surely they cannot, with any shew of reason, Father them on our meetings.3. Is it not observeable, yea observed by all, that, in places drowned in ignorance, sin and wickedness, where Conventicles have come, and at this day are in use, a sensible reformation in persons and families hath ensued thereon, and that to the restraining of these scandalous impieties, that pre­vailed in these bounds before, and the shameing of these that yet live in them: can that be the cause of scandals, that in experience, is alwayes found to be the effectual means of restraining and removing of them?4. While we cast our eyes about us, to discover the grounds, on which they fix this greivous and heavy charge, it does not appear to us, so much as to give the least degree of probability to it; yea, the evidence of the contrare is so clear and full, that [Page 108]we cannot think, our adversaries do beleeve themsel­ves in these and other reproaches, they load us with. Sure we are, they cannot binde this charge on the doctrines we professe, and are preached in our meet­ings, which are contained in our printed Confessions of faith, long since emited to the world, especially in the Confession of faith, the large and shorter Ca­techismes, composed by the Assembly of divines at West Minster. We earnestly beg of our Antagonists, that they will give instances, in any of these doctrines, (if they can) that of themselves do tend to licenci­ousness and profanity? Upon a review of the whole of our doctrine, in its several parts, we cannot pitch upon one, except the doctrine of justification by faith only, throw the alone merits and blood of Christ Iesus, maintained by all protestants, except some, who of late do assert the interest of good works, as a preexistent condition of a sinners justification before God, which yet is not directly and positively done, but by indirect wayes and hints, as is to be seen in Mr Gilbert Burnets first dialogues, Patrick the Pilgrim, and the Author of the whole duty of Man, who resol­ve a sinners justification before God, in his serious purpose and endeavour of good works, at least, as a preexistent condition of it: which is not only against the doctrine of all protestants till of late (as is to be seen in their writings) but directly against the great Apostle Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Gal­latians; whose arguments in that mater, when our adversaries have answered them, we shall consider at more length. All the reasons they give for this charge, from the head, are so fully answered by that Apostle in the6. Chapter of the Epistle to the Ro­mans, [Page 109]and 2. to the Galatians towards the close, that we judge it needlesse to insist any further on this. We do not charge all of the Prelatical party with this corrupt doctrine; some of them, particularly doctor Tully, hath so clearly and soundly asserted and vindi­cat the doctrine of Protestants in this mater, against the exceptions and arguments of the contrare minded, that he if living deserves thanks from all the Protestant Churches of Christ, in this and other parts of the Chri­stian world: A doctrine that hath been esteemed funda­mentall among them, and given as one great cha­racteristick betwixt us and Papists; yea, it hath been looked upon as the note and signe of the resurgentis aut cadentis ecclesiae, as she holds to or departs from the same. We are not so antiprelatical, as not to love truth, wherever we find it, and the assertor thereof for its sake, although differing from us, in some other things.5. It is thought sufficient ground for this charge, that some, yea many of the persons that come to and haunt our meetings, are found not to be conscientious and Christian in their walk, but flagitious or, in many of their practises, scandalous? We cannot think our adversaries are serious in this, & do beleeve as they speak, seing. (1) This does fall as heavy, and will, to onlookers, reflect as much, and more, on the objectors themselves, as on us; whose meetings for worship are found to be the sinck of all debauched and profaine persons thorow the Land; can they refuse this? It is like, the foresight of this forced them to say, in their lybel of greivan­ces against us, that the abominations mentioned in one Article, were commited at our meetings, and not by persons present at them; otherwise their as­semblies [Page 110]for worship should have been as chargeab [...] therewith, as ours: but in this our Antagonists [...] like to the persecutours of the Christians in the pr [...] ­mitive times, who charged them for having these [...] the like abominations commited at their assemblies as is to be seen in Church Histories. The Lord deliver us from, and rebuke the lying Spirit, that is entered into and possesseth many.(2.) But if the presence of wicked and scandalous persons, at the assemblies of Christians for hearing of the word, and performing of other acts of worship, be sufficient ground for chargeing the wickednesse and impieties of such on them, as the cause inductive to scandals; will not the assemblies, that Christ, his Apostles, Ministers and Christians keeped in all ages, be as lyable to this charge, as we, who excluded none, but admited all to the hearing of the word, and some other acts of worship, as is manifest from Scripture and Hi­story? whatever our adversaries will say for clearing of. Christ Iesus, his Apostles, &c. will acquit us.(3.) Do not men know, that in preaching of the Gospel to sinners, we should designe and labour their conver­sion, as much as the edification of the converted? Is not the Gospel, with which Ministers are intrust­ed, the mean and power of God to the one, as well as to the other? And seing this is our designe, as it hath been our practice, so it is our resolution, not to ex­clude any from our assemblies, how wicked soever they have been, or are: Truth is, to charge us and our meetings, with the sinnes and scandals of those that frequent the same, is to reproach the Gospel of Christ, and to Father all the wickednesse of its hearers on it, contrare to its grand designe, which is to save [Page 111]sinners from sin, and all the miseries that follow upon it.

SECT. V. Some Reasons, why the Indulgence was not accepted.

IN the next place, we come to the head of the In­dulgence, the not allowing of which, hath been re­presented, as a full evidence of our pivish, wilful and stiff disposition to unpeacableness and distoyalty: but we hope, when our carriage, in this mater, is seriously thought upon, and the reasons that deter­mined us to this refusal, are weighted in the ballan­ces of the sanctuarie, this charge will be found light: and we are confident, that upon trial, it will ap­pear, we are not against, but with all expressions of thankfulnes, shall be ready to intertaine, and receive any libertie for the Gospel its true interest, and our selves (that is consistent with our known principles) that the Magistrat shall be pleased to grant us. We look upon it, as an unjust state of the question, in this mater, which hath been offered by some: whe­ther the Magistrat, jure, may, or have it within the compass of his Magistratical power, to give liberty, to Ministers and people, for serving and worshiping of God in his Son Christ Iesus, accord­ing to his word; this we do not deny, but chear­fully grant, that although the exercise of Church po­wer, that is properly such, be independent on the Magistrat; yet the peacable exercise of it is truely from him: it belongs to him, no doubt, to en­courage, [Page 112]countenance and protect the Church, a­gainst all enemies, and to relieve her of oppression when under it: to this he is impowered, and oblidg­ed, both as a Magistrat and as a Christian. Neither is it with us a question, whether the Magistrat may command Ministers to the duties of then function; nor whether he may exeem them from the hazard of suffering, to which they are obnoxious by law, for their non-conformity; nor yet whether he may con­fine Ministers, simply and abstractedly considered from our present case (which is only proper to the Magistrat, and not all to the Church.) All these and much more we yeeld to the Magistrat, about per­sones and maters Ecclesiastical, according to the Word. But the true state of the question to us, is, whether the Magistrat Jure Magistratico may of him­self and immediatly without the Church, & the pre­vious election of the people, assigne and send Mini­sters to particular Churches, to take the fixed and pastoral over sight of them; prescribe rules and dire­ctions to them, for the exercise of their Ministery; and confine them to the said congregations. The question thus stated being complex, and consisting of several branches, conform to the acts of Councel anent the indulgence; we must of necessity (for giv­ing a just accompt of the grounds of our dissatisfa­ction therewith) speak to them severally, in some as­sertions with the reasons subjoyned.

Assertion First, The Magistrat, by vertue of his Magistratical power, cannot of himself and im­mediatly, assigne or send Ministers to particular congregations, to take the pastoral charge and over­sight of them. For 1. We finde not in all the Word [Page 113]of God, any such power, given to, or exercised by the Magistrat, in the Church: none hath yet given any instances of this: If there be, let them be produced, and we shall acquiesce. All acknowledge the Church not to be founded on the law of nature, but on positive institution, and supernatural revelation; and therfore not to be governed in wayes and me­thods of Mens invention, but in these that are reveal­ed by the Holy Scriptures; without which there can­not be a Church; so that she owning her being, constitution, and all to them; there must be some evident proof produced from these, before we can yeeld to any such power in the Magistrat: how long shall we exspect this:(2.) Also, we finde the Church in the possession and exercise of this power, from the times of the Apostles, to the breaking up of the reformation by Luther, and others in Germany: as is manifest from Scripture and History. We grant, there was for some time, a considerable debate be­twixt the Pope and the Emperour of Germany, about the investiture of Bishops; which gave the rise to other Princes claming of the same, & seasing upon it: but what says this to the mission of Ministers, & application of their Ministery to particular congrega­tions? For as Prelacy was the invention of men, and the cause of horrid contentions in Churches and Sta­tes; so neither it, nor the practices occasioned there­by, can be any regulating precedent for us: besides, in all these contests about investiturs, betwixt the Pope and Princes, the mission of Ministers was never questioned, but alwayes acknowledged, as proper to the Church, and not to the Magistrat, which will be clear to any that will be at paines to [Page 114]read Church History.(3.) The sending of Mini­sters to particular congregations, is an act of govern­ment, purly and formally Ecclesiastical, and not Civil; and therefore incompetent to the Magistrat: Let any consider it, in its causes, mater, object and ends, and they shall finde it so: for the persons sent are Ministers; the work they are sent on, is to preach the Gospel and dispense its ordinances; these they are sent to, are the Churches of Christ; the end for which they are sent to such, is to gather in and per­fect the body of Christ; this is finis operis. We know of nothing that can besaid against this; But that it is not purely Ecclesiastick in the efficient cause? Ans. To this we reply, First, That all use in morals to sustaine the validity of the Arguments, taken from the nature of the act, to the undueness of it to such, and such causes: for it is by the respect of such acts in morals, to their mater, objects and ends, that the bounds are determined, and set to them in their effici­ent causes; for instance, if the mater, object & ends of an act be properly civil, it is granted by all, to be undue or incompetent to a Minister of the Gospel, & so of other acts, in their moral specifical distinction, by which, in the law of God, they are assigned & made due to such and such efficients. But Next, Upon this reason, it shall be as lawful for the Magistrat to ordaine, and send persons without ordination, to preach the Gospel, which is every way absurd.(4.) The sending of Ministers to preach the Gospel, and to oversee Churches is an act of the potestative missi­on, (one part of the keyes of the kingdom of God) granted by Christ to his Church, and never to the Magistrat: from no part of the word can it be made [Page 115]appear, that Christ hath given this power to the Ma­gistrat; we finde it given to the Ministers of the Gospel, Matth. 16:19. with several other places of Scripture: But, as to the Magistrat there is al­tum silentium. But that this sending of Ministers, is an act of potestative mission, we hope will not readily be denied: of any do; we ask, whether Ministers go to such congregations, on a special delegation from Christ, more then to others? If they do, then it must flow from this power of mist on in the Church; If they go not, on this special delegation, then they run unsent, and are not the Pastours of these flocks, more then of others; and consequently they have no obligations upon them to feed these, more then any other congregation: which is absurd. For, beside the power of preaching and dispensing of ordinances, there is alwayes a special delegation of the person, to such and such a people, by which he becometh the Ambassadour & messenger of Christ Jesus, whom they are bound to hear and submit to, as such.(5.) This act of sending Ministers to con­gregations, suppons several things, that are beyond the line and cognition of the Magistrat, as such; as the trial of Ministers gifts; the knowledge of the spiritual State of the congregation; the sutablness or unsurablness of Ministers gifts to such and such a peo­ple; ability to judge and cognosce in these, as the mater and ends of this work require; with many other things, which not being granted to the Magi­strat as such, the work, to which these are necessarily requisite, cannot belong to him: for every work, to which God calls any, hath its proper furniture of gifts and abilities, without which, none is to look [Page 116]upon themselves as called thereto.(6.) Some of the great Patrons and zealous Promoters of the Ma­gistrats power in this, and other things belonging to the Church, yeeld, that this power is in, and re­turns to the Church, when the Magistrat is either heathenish or heretical, as Vedelius; yea all are con­strained to grant it. How rational this is, and how consistent with their arguments (the force of which is thereby utterly broken). let any judge: we ask, when this power is granted to be in the Church, whether it comes from Christ Iesus, or the Magi­strat? (For a derive power it must be:) It cannot be from the Magistrat, who does not willingly part with any of his power; neither does religion robe the Magistrat of his power, nor depose him from his regality, and the prerogative thereof; as Protestants maintaine against the Papists: if it be derived and come from Christ (as it does) we desire to know, what way it is conveyed to her, in this case, and not in the other, when the Magistrat is Christian? As we finde no difference of cases anent this mater given in the word; so we finde the same institutions, pre­cepts and examples therein, by which the Church is impowered and oblidged, to exercise this govern­ment without the Magistrat, to continue, not only without any restrictions to times & cases, but without any repail. We hear nothing from our adversaries, to answer this, but ineptia, foolish rovings. The truth is, their Arguments conclude, with as great force, against all power of government in the Church, under persecuting Magistrats, as Christian: for is there not in this case the erecting of an Empire in an Empire, which our enemies accoundt [...] [Page 117]anddo not Ministers, and Christians, owe as much subjection to the Magistrat, in the one case, as in the other?

Assertion 2. That the right and power of Ele­ction and calling of Ministers to particular congrega­tions, is in the congregations themselves, to whom they are sent, by divine right; and not in the Ma­gistrat: and therefore should not have been assumed by the Magistrat, and taken thus from them. That this power of election of Ministers, is not in the Ma­gistrat, either by divine, humane or Ecclesiastical laws, needs not to be much insisted on, seing Scrip­ture and antiquity, for a thousand years after Christ, gives not the least ground for it. We desire to know from our Antagonists, Prelats and Erastians, from whence came this power; or who were the givers of it to the Magistrat? When they have condescended on the orginal derivation of this power, and made it out to be just, then we shall consider it; which by none of these parties hath been yet done; except by Vedelius: but on such grounds, as give every parti­cular member of the Church as good clame thereto, as he; as will be evident to any that considers his Ar­guments: for Scripture and antiquity they have none. The first part of the proposition, is that which is most stuck at; The peoples right and power of ele­ction, which is denyed by our adversaries: but we thus make it out, as our Divines have done before us. (1.) From Scripture practice and example, Acts. x: 15. to the end, Chap. 6: vers. 1. to 9. and 14: vers. 13. where we have Arguments both from the more to the lesse, and from the lesse to the more; which are acknowledged by all, to be concluding Topicks. [Page 118]and much used in the Scripturs. When our adversa­ries have the like from Scripture and antiquity, how use they to insult; but poor we must not be al­lowed this liberty.(2.) It is evident from the con­stant practice, use and custome of the Church, from the Apostles times; till the Popes of Rome inhansed and swallowed up all power and priviledges; either in taking them a way, or bringing them into an ab­solute dependance upon them. For this we appeal to the records and histories of the Church, yea to the histories of the Pops, PLATINA and others: in many of which, we shall not only finde the uncon­trolled use of the peoples election mentioned; but its right just fled and defended, and many canons of Councels made for its regulation, and against the encroachments, that were by some made upon it, in a mater so clear, and gra [...]ted by the adversary, [...]e need nor spend time. If any ask us, why we plead an­tiquity here, and reject it anent Prelacy? Our Ans­wer is, because we finde in this question, as it is stated betwixt us and the adversaries, antiquity full and clear, which it is not in the other: Let the State of the question about Prelacy, as it is now agitated betwixt us, be in every part of it, brought to the pure times of antiquity; and if it can be evidenced & made out, even as to the sole power of ordination & jurisdiction, and superiority of some Ministers over other Ministers of the Gospel; and we shall yeeld the cause and quietly submit: but in the business of the peoples right of election, it is beyond all con­tradiction clear, even in the confession of our An­tagonists.(3) All relations amongst rational creatures that are not founded on nature, & are free, there is al­wayes [Page 119]requisite mutual consent, from which, as its proper cause and foundation, it does result; as is to be seen in all sorts of such relations. It is not denyed, but yeelded by all, that there is a particular special relation betwixt a Minister and the Congregation, he in ordinare serves: we desire to know, what is the cause or foundation of it, if it be not this? All other relations of this kinde are founded upon consent; and why not this?(4.) The good effects that have come to the Church by the free and voluntar election of the people, where it hath been admited, and in use. con­firmes us not alittle in this perswasion: we have ob­seved in universal experience, that not only a more universal and chearful subjection hath been given to the Ministry of those, that entered this way into congregations; but a faithful and able Ministry hath been more generally propagated, to the great advan­tage of immortal souls: if we may gather the nature of the tree, by the fruit, we cannot say, this is evil; but truly good.

Assertion 3. It belongs not to the Magistrat to prescribe Rules, and give Directions to the Mini­sters of the Gospel, for regulating the exercise of their Ministry, as is done in this indulgence. Our reasons for this, are (1.) We see no precept, institution, and example in all the Scriptures, impowering the Magistrat to this: we hope, none will expect we should receive and subject to a power, that hath no warrant nor foundation in the word; seing all church power owes its descent and derivation from it: our Antagonists themselves grant, that not only the po­wer they ascribe to the Magistrat, is in and from the Scriptures; but the regulation of its exercise, [Page 120]should be conforme thereto; so that there will be no debat about the consequence. The great Patrons of Erastianisme plead the instances of David and Solo­mons ordering the courses of the Levits and the priests, and of other things relating to the worship of God, in the time of the old Testament; but to little pur­pose: seing they acted therein as Prophets, and at the directions and instructions given from God, by the Prophets; and not as Magistrats; as is clear from the very letter of the Scriptures, in many places, 2 Chron. 29: vers. 25. and 35: vers. 15. with others: If the Magistrats of our time, did produce such war­rant for what they assume to themselves, and do in this mater, how readily should they be obeyed? But the Objection of greatest seeming strength, is that of Hezekias practise, keeping of the passeover in the second moneth 2. Chron. 30, 2. which conforme to the in­stitution Exod. 1 [...] should have been observed in the first moneth? Our Ans. to this is, first, if this pra­ctise be pleaded for a leading example to Magistrats; it will warrant Magistrats to change things institute by God, which, we hope, all will say is absurd. Obj. It was but the circumstance of time that he changed? Ans. a command or institution makes circumstances, determined by it, as unalterable by men, as the substantials of the ordinance it self: does not this, if it be concludent, impower the Ma­gistrat to change our Sabboth, from the first to the second, or any other day in the week, as he plea­seth? What may not come in at this dore? Next, Our satisfying Answer to this is, that what Hezekiah, the Princes & Congregation did, they did it, at or by the word of the Lord concerning this alteration, and [Page 121]not of themselves, as is express vers 12.(2.) As it is usual for commissions given to Ambassadors, by those that send them, to containe all necessary in­structions, for regulating their carriage, in the dis­charge of their ambassage; so we finde in the Word of God rules, precepts and directions, given to the Ministers of the Gospel, about the ordering of the worship of God, and the exercise of their Ministery in all its parts; which not only impowers them for this work, but brings them under as strait Obligati­ons to observe the same, as the work and maine sub­stantials of the ambassage, on which they are sent: for this let 1 Cor 14. two Epistles to Timothy with other Scripturs be consulted; and we doubt not but this will be beyond disput with the unprejudged. If the Erastians could give us such commands and pre­cepts in the word, for the Magistrat power in this, how would they triumph, and so they justly might; for they should have no such willing and cheirful as­senters to them then we; if any such thing could be shewed.(3.) This power in the Magistrat would subject Ministers to and bring them, in the exercise of their ministerie, in a dependance on him; the con­trare of which we have proved before, and shall do more after wards: The truth is, we tremble to think on the consequences of this dependance, for thereby the Magistrat may suspend the ministry, in these parts and exercises of it, that Christ Jesus cals them to, in the stated cases of the times, in which they live; as for instance, when heresies are abounding, and Professors taken with the infection of that leaven, he may put them on the preaching of doctrines not apposite to the present case, and discharge them from [Page 122]medling with doctrines contrare to the present er­rours; as our Magistrats have done anent some do­ctrines in these times: he may likewise forbid them preaching against, or censuring of these sinnes that are reigning in the place and time, in obeying of which, Ministers shall cross the commands of Christ to them in his word, and bring themselves under the guilt of the blood of soules. If Churches and Ministers be not, in the commands, precepts, and institutions of God, exeemed from the power and im­positions of men, what a sad case will they be in?(4.) The Church had and exercised this power from Scripture times in all ages, till within these hundereth years. We grant the Magistrat exercised a power a­bout, or anent the Church; but never came this length: when they did reforme, & gave any redress of corrup­tions, creept into the administrations of holy things, they did it by the Church; whom, in her officers, they did convocat, and require to consider the ma­ter, and to make constitutions about it; but never essayed to do it immediatly, and by themselves; as Church Histories make evident, beyond all contra­diction.(5.) It is the natural right of all moral power, to order and dispose its owne exercise, in and about the Maters that are proper to it; as might be made to appear by instances of these of the Parental, Marital Powers, &c and the reason is, partly, be­cause the objects and other circumstances are so many and various; that it is not possible to prescribe rules, comprehensive of all particular emergents, relating to their excercise, but must be lest to the prudence of those invested with them, to do therein, as they see fit and expedient, in the cases that are before them [Page 123]and partly such are fitest, as having more knowled­ge and experience about such things, that belongs to their power, then any others. We see this yeelded to others, and why then not to Ministers, who may, in rational judgment, be presumed, to have more solide knowledge and experience, in and about the maters of God, as any?(6.) All divines (except those called Erastian, who are but of a late edition in the Church) yea the Prelatical ones, doe grant a diatactik power to the Ministery of the Gospel, about the worship and government of the Church, and the exercise of their Ministry relating thereto: and till ERASTUS the phistrian arose, it was be­yond controversie among all Church writers, whe­ther Historical or Polemick; even those, who con­tended for the Magistrats power, against the usurpa­tions of the Popes; as is to be seen in their Tractats; from which we might adduce citations not a few; but fearing they wold prove too tedions, if insetted here, We forbeare.

Assertion 4. Albeit we grant, the power of confinement be proper to the Magistrat, and not at all to the Church (for to him only is the sword g [...] ­ven, to be used against evil doers;) yet in the com­plex case, which we had before us, we durst not approve of the ind [...]lgence, with such a clause; seing we had not (as may be clear to any from what is said above) any other thing, in this mater, to ingadge us, to an acceptance thereof. For the act of in­dulgence confines the Ministers of the whole party: if it had been but some few, that this confinment reach'd, we would not have said much to it, al­though the sentence had been unjust. But while we [Page 124]considered the present universal necessity of the Church, and the obligations on us, to use our Mi­nistery, for answering the same, we could not, with quietness to our consciences justifie nor allow of it as a favour, with such a restraint on our Ministry. If the confinment had only touched our persons, and personal concerns, we had with all patience and submission yeelded thereto; but a restraint being put on the exercise of our Ministery, in this necessitous condition of the Church, when Papists, Quakers and other subverters of truth and godliness, do multi­ply and abound, without all crub, we could not close with this indulgence; which, by vertue of the con­finment, puts us out of capacitie, for affording that relief to the Church and immortal souls, which our office binds us to. (2.) As there are many duties and parts of our Ministerial function, which we can­not performe and exercise, but in a conjunction with others; so this indulgence cuts off from all accesse to the same, and leaves us in much worse case, then we were in before. Have we not the Gospel of Christ to maintaine against its present adversaries? Are we not bound to propagat the same in the pre­sent and succeeding ages? Do not scandals of all forts abound, to the overthrow of truth and piety? and does not the care and burdine of seeing to and providing against the evil, that in these times, thre­aten the ruine of the Church, lye upon us in our mi­nisterial capacity? And we cannot singly and apart, doe what is necessare in this case, but in a conjunction with one another: no doubt, our subjecting to this confinment would render us accessory to, and bring us under the guilt of all these evil and their consequen­ces [Page 125]to this, and the following generations. Poste­rity, no question, should have all cause to curse and charge their blood upon us, which is trembling to think upon. (3.) If we may guesse at, and be as­certained of the ends and designes of mens actions, by the native effects and consequences of them; it is to us apparent and beyond denyal, that the project and intention of this contrivance, was quietly to ruine and bury our cause; seing by this confinment, and other things in this indulgence, all endeavours to­wards the succession of a faithful ministery, are cut off, and we brought unto an immediat dependance on the Magistrat, in the maters of God, and hindered to propagat the truth, in opposition to its adversaries, in other parts of the land; being thus shut up into a lit­le corner of the same, & cast by two's & three's and fours, into congregations; where, for the most part, there is little or no use for us; If the Apostles and other Ministers of Christ, in Scripture times, had been thus dealt with, and in policy confined, as we are; do any think, they would have submitted to, and obeyed such a confinment, which would have frustrated the ends of their office and work; and made them guilty of disobedience to their Master, from whom they received commands, inconsistent with such a sentence? And shall we subject and be con­sentient to a deed, that in the designe and effects thereof will infallibly destroy the cause, which, by all sorts of obligations, we are engadged to maintaine and advance to the utmost of our power? God for­bid. We are not ignorant, that the confinment, with a permission to preach and exercise other parts of our ministry, in the places, to which we were to [Page 126]be confined; was a piece of policy, invented to co­ver the too visible encroachment on Church power, in the first act of Indulgence (which was known af­terwards to stumble many) that the mater might be more smoothed, and goe the better down; while the designe was the same; which was (as is said) to bring our ministry in subjection to the Magistrat, in the maters of God; and without noise to obstruct the spreading of the Gospel, and to ruine our cause; for attaining of which, we have not yet seen a more succesful like piece of policy, then this of the indul­gence.

Resolveing (as bath been said) to unfold our hearts, and to keep nothing up, anent what is truly greivous to, and bu [...]dens our consciences in the com­mands and impositions of these times; we shall adde other reasons to these, which, with the former are the grounds of our dissatisfaction with and non-ap­probation of this indulgence: as (1.) In the Narra­tive of the 2. act of indulgence, it is declared, that this pretended favour is provided for a remedy against the evil of Conventicles, (by which we understand the assemblies of the Lords people for hearing of the word, and partaking of other ordinances from faith­ful Ministers of the Gospel) which the execution of laws made against the same, hath not suppressed. As this narrative speaks to all, the designe of the indul­gence; so it shews, what we are to expect as its con­sequence, if approven by us, to which we dar have no accession, directly nor indirectly; for by our al­lowance, and submission, we shall not only prove active in hindering the propagation of the word for the future; but also shall consequentially cond [...]mne [Page 127]the former practice of the Lords servants and people, in preaching and hearing of the word; that hath been blessed, and made not a little succesful, to the ad­vantage of the truth, and the benefite of many souls.(2.) Many by this indulgence were assigned and sent to other congregations, then these they had formerly served their Master in, before this revolution in the Church: As we judge the former relations to parti­cular flocks (over which the Holy Ghost, and not the State, had made them overseers) to be yet in force, and not dissolved by all the violence used a­gainst us; so we think our approbation of this indul­gence, would not only justify the unjust usurpation, and violence in casting them out; but likwise would have made void the former, and yet standing relation to these respective congregations, in which we darre have no hand, but in the way Christ hath appointed, and was formerly used in this Church; seing it will, no question, both strengthen the Magistrat, in his unjust encroachments on the Government of the Church, and be a practical acknowledgement of him, in all he hath done in this mater.(3.) By one clause in the 2. act of indulgence, appeals are allowed and authorized from the indulged to the Prelats Courts; which does subject, and directly subordi­nat them to these, in the exercise of government and discipline, which is known, to be contrare to our Covenanted and well grounded principles. The truth is, we look on this, with other particulars in that indulgence, as a device framed of purpose, for gain­ing all these ends and intents upon us, which by vio­lence hath been formerly designed against us, for establishing of Prelacy and Erastianisme.(4.) As [Page 128]some of the Rules are impracticable, so others of them do not a little reflect upon the practises of Christ and his Apostles, recorded by the Evangelists, who preached in houses and fields. If we understand our Christian profession aright, we must take ourselves bound by many commands and precepts in the word of God, to imitat Christ and his Apostles, in their performances of the duties of Religion and righte­ousness, which are of purpose related in the Scrip­turs for this effect. Do we not find from these sacred records, Christ and his Apostles preaching in houses and fields, as occasions offered, never declining to teach and instruct the people in these, as the present exigence required, although they had the opportu­nity of and accesse to the Synagogues, which is deny­ed us, as to the places allowed for publict worship? Do not these practices of Christ and his Apostles say that, as preaching in houses and fields, is in it self no [...] sinne but lawful; (except we resolve to make Christ [...] transgressour) so in the like cases, and under the like c [...]lls, we are bound to do in this, as Christ did be­fore us; who can get this shuned?

Amongst the many designes aimed at, in this in­dulgence, and in part obtained by it; we know the deviding and breaking of our party, was a principal one; which at first actuated, and set on foot this de­vice amongst us; but, we hope, without the fruit our adversaries exspected to have reaped thereby, to the advantage of their cause: for, whatever diffe­rence there hath been, or yet is amongst us, in our practice, in relation to the indulgence, we are all agreed in the preceeding exceptions against it; and if there had been accesse for representing the same to our [Page 129]Rulers, our unanimity and concord in these had been more discovered, and made known to the world, then it is. There is no charge with us of our known and professed judgment, about the Govern­ment of the Church, in its true distinction from: and independence on the Magistrat, as is afterward ex­pressed. What ever was our perswasion in this, re­presented to the world in our publick confess on of faith, we yet, throw the grace of God, resolve to cleave to: having never seen or heard of any thing, in all the times that have gone over our heads, to cause us alter our apprehensions of this mater in the least. Some (who take hold of all occasions to repro­ach us) are pleased to represent some their acceptance of this indulgence, as contradictory to, and inconsi­stant with our former professed principles anent Church Government: yet any that considers what was shortly hinted at, to the Councel, at the re­ceiving of this indulgence; and what was more lar­gely declared by them to the congregations, at their first entry, will be sufficiently convinced of our con­stant adherence to our former principles; which by this acceptance is not at all changed. It is expected from the lovers of our righteous cause, that noth­ing shall be done by them, to ward the furtherance of the evil intents of this indulgence: but rather an endeavour to counteract and ineffectuat them, that our opposites may have no benefite therefrom, to the prejudice of the interests of Christ, for which we contend.

SECT. VI. The nature of Church Government, as distinct from and independent upon Magistracy, explained.

HAving proceeded thus far, and dispatched the first three things, we proposed to speak to, in the beginning, we shall now enter on the last, the Supremacy Ecclesiastical, that is now by law annexed to the crown, established in his majesties person and successours, and sensed by law and practice. Let none wonder, we take this ticklish subject into considera­tion, and dar adventure, to give an accompt of our thoughts of the same, to the world: for we solemnly professe, that on the exactest enquiry and search, that we have been able to make about this mater; we finde it, as diametrically opposite to our true Covenanted principles, as Prelacy; and in its effects, we fear, shall prove as destructive to the Church, and work of Reformation, as any thing that appeared on the field against it: Times past and present speak much to this, but the future will say more: the storme, that this Supremacy threatens to this Church and nation, is such, that it is the part of all that wish well to Zion to pray inflantly day and night, that it may be graciously averted. The truth is, as we look upon it, as an high corruption in it self tending to the subversion of the Churches concerns, in doctrine, worship, and Government; so it lies at the bottome of our non-conformity to the law, in Church maters; and is not only one, but a maine reason, why we [Page 131]cannot joyne in Church assemblies, especially for Government; which thereby, in our apprehensions, are made nullities. That our procedour in speaking to this, may be distinct and clear to all, we shall observe this method. 1. We shall consider & speak to the Government of the Church, and shew what it truly is.2. We shall prove its distinction from, & independency on the civil Government. And3. Shew how far this Government of the Church is by law lodged in, and exercised by our Rulers, contrare to Scripture and the practice of the Church, till these hundered years past.

For more light to the whole, we shall premise these preliminary considerations or propositions, which, we think, will not readily be denied by any. 1. Propos. it is out of our rode, and inconsistent with our intended brevity, to insist on the tearms GO­VERNMENT & CHURCH, & what is usually sig­nified by them; these we leave to the Criticks and all that write on this subject: but all are agreed in this, that GOVERNMENT is a tearme importing power and authority; which is nothing els, but a right to rule others; and an obligation on these invested there­with to use the same, for attaining the ends of Go­vernment: So that Government makes its acts due & bindes them to all these acts, means & wayes, by which Government is enabled to reach its ends. 2. Propos. All created power & authority is originall in God, as the & first cheif cause thereof, & derived from him, as the universal Supreme Monarch, and Go­vernour of all in heaven or earth; hence it necessarly followes, that, as the power that cannot prove its [Page 132]descent from God, is not to be admited; so all just powers are directly subordinat to him as the universal head of all, 3. Propos. that the Church of Christ, not being founded in nature, but on supernatural re­velations, her Government must wholly depend upon & flow from it, in these things where it differs from other Governments; so that the All of this Go­vernment is by positive institution and warrant from God supernaturally revealed. 4. Propos. That Christ Jesus, as Mediator, being made the head of the Church under God; and thereby her Govern­ment fountained in him: all powers in the Church must be derived from, and subordinat to him, as the Supream. 5. Propos. Beside the invisible and in­ternal Government, that Christ Jesus exerciseth by his Spirit, on the souls and consciences of his people, (that consists in the inward light and power of his Spirit guiding and enabling them to that obedience, he requires of them in his word;) there is likwise a true visible Government of the Church, institute by him, and visibly exercised in her, in his name, as her Supream. 6. Propos. The Government of the Church (as shall be proved afterwards) is not properly, and in linea directa subordinat to the Magistrat, for 1. It hath its derivation from another fountaine, Christ Jesus; who being the Churches Supream head and governour, all power in her must come from and de­pend on him.2. The Magistrat cannot take away, nor change the Government of the Church, which he may do in Governments and powers subordinat to him: yea, he cannot impede its exercise, in these in­trusted with it; seing they are under obligations for it, antecedent & superiour to these of the Magistrat. [Page 133]7. Propos. That the holy Scriptures, being the word and law of Christ, as King of his Church, must be the instrument and rule of the Churches Govern­ment, according to which she ought to be ruled, not only in these acts of faith and obedience in the inner man, but also in the outward. 8. Propos. Although powers specifically distinct be not subordinat to one another; yet there may be and is a mutual subordi­nation of persons, invested with these powers, so as the persons are in different respects superiour and in­feriour to one another; as Jesse was to David (sup­posing him to live in his son Davids reigne;) which subordination of persons does not take away the de­stinction of these powers; nor the mutual subjection, the persons owe to one another: hence we assert, that as Magistracy does not destroy the Ministry, nor loose the persons cloathed therewith, from the sub­jection they owe, as Christians, to Ministers, in the right exercise of their Ministery; so neither does the Ministery destroy Magistracy, nor untye Mini­sters, as subjects, from that subjection and obedi­ence due to Magistrats from their subjects; Mini­sters are bound to this as much as any. 9. Propos. As in all Governments, there are somethings that is intrinsick (although visible) wherein its nature and specifick essence does consist, and somethings acci­dental and separable from it, that belongs not to its esse, but BENE ESSE; so there are in the visible Government of the Church, somethings essential & intrinsick, (of which afterward) and somethings accidental and extrinsick, without which it can subsist, even in its exercise. 10. Propos. These things, in and about which, the Government of the [Page 134]Church is conversant, are of diverse sorts; some are purely spiritual, as the Word, Ministery, Sacra­ments, and all Ordinances of divine appointment; Others are of a mixt nature, partly spiritual & partly civil, as the necessary circumstances and mods of worship and Government; which, although civil in their own nature, and common to other actions; yet partly by reason of the general divine appoint­ments, impowering the Church to dispose and or­der these; partly by reason of their necessary conne­ction with things purely spiritual, are truely Eccle­siastick, and become a part of the object of the pro­per power of Church Government, called by all Di­vines DIATACTICK: Some are properly & purely civil, in their owne nature and immediat ends; as Churches, Stipends, Manses, Glybs, &c. which, although they be by general precepts secured to the Church, and belonging to her; yet they are for­mally civil, and come directly under the Magistrates power, as other civil rights and proprieties do, about which he does execute the judgment of truth & peace. 11. Propos. It is to be adverted, that there is a two­fold subordination of powers in Government; one in LINE A DIRECT A; and another in LINE A OB­LIQU A: in the first subordination, the power sub­ordinated is derived from, and comprehended in the Supream, and may be impeded, suspended or regu­ated in its exercise, yea totally dissolved by it; and when exercised, it is in the name and authority of the Supream, and wholly dependant, in its regulation, on it; so that both the power as such, the person in­trusted therewith, and its exercise, is subjected to the Supream. In the second kind of subordination, [Page 135]the subordinated power, or rather the person in its exercise, is only the object of some acts of another power; but the power is not derived from it, nor JURE, impedible or regulable by it: It is in this last sort of subordination, that Magistrats and Mi­nisters are subordinated to one another, without all subordination of the powers, in their exercise; for as Magistrats may, yea should command Ministers, when negligent, to the duties of their function; so Ministers ought, in Christs name, to command Christian Magistrats to do the duties belonging to their office; and to rebuke them authoritatively, when found acting contrare thereto. 12. Propos. These subjected to created powers, whether Magi­stratical or Ministerial, being under the supream, absolure and universal Soveraignity of God, have a power of judgment and discretion granted to them, for cognoscing on the commands of their superiours, as to their justice or injustice, or their consistency with, or repugnancy to the commands of God; by which they are to walk in giving or not giving obedi­ence to their superiours.

The way being thus paved, our next work is, to shew, what we judge to be the Government of the vi­sible Church, which we shall do in these Conclusi­ons. Conclus. 1. The Government of the visible Church largely considered, is either Supream or Sub­ordinat: to the Supream belongs the legistative po­wer, as the making and enacting of lawes, instituting of ordinances, appointing and impowering of officers; and to be the fountaine of all power in the Church. This we assert to be only in Christ Jesus; and visible in his word, ordinances, officers, and the [Page 136]conveyance of all Church power: in this, none share with him either Magistrats o [...] Ministers. Conclus.2. The subordinat power of Government in the Church, is in her officers, that Christ hath appointed and called thereto; which power, is only and im­mediatly from Christ, and exercised in his name, over all in the Church, which distinction of Church Government makes not different Govern­ments in the head and members; it being one and the same Government, truly Monarchical, not Aristocratical, nor Democratical. Concl.3. This derived and subordinat power in Church officers, when considered with respect to its mater, in and about which it is exerced, is diverse: Schoolmen and Divines distinguish it, into the power of Order & Jurisdiction; but for explications sake, and avoiding of all ambiguity, we shall consider it, in the variety of its objects or mater; and its divers acts about the same.

As (1.) To it belongs the dispensing of the ordi­nances of worship, in the publict assemblies of the Church, in preaching of the word, praying to (as the mouth of the assembly) and praising of God: in these they act, as the Authorized servants of Christ, in performing and directing of the worship of God in the Church.(2.) The convocating of the Assem­blies of the Church, for these divine and holy exer­cises; on which all in the Church are bound by di­vine precepts to attend▪ as the institute means of wor­ship, conversion, and edification.(3.) The receiv­ing, ordering, and distributing of the Charitable contributions of the Church, for maintaining of the poor, and doing of other pious works.(4. Try­ing, [Page 137]receiving, and admiting of members into the Church, confirming and sealing of the same by Baptisme.(5.) Administring the great ordinance of the Lords supper, to the worthy and obedient, con­forme to the institution of it in the word.(6. Eje­cting and excluding the impenitent and obstinatly scandalous (after due trial and conviction) whether in doctrine or manners, from the Sacraments, and Comunion with the Church in these.(7.) Trying, calling, and ordaning of persons fitted for and will­ing to engadge in the Ministery; according to the rules of the word.(8.) Deposing and exau [...]orating of Ministers from the Ministery, who, by heresy or scandals, declare themselves unworthy of, and un­fit for the same.(9.) Trying, and censuring of scandals, in persons found guilty of them (after due conviction) for their recovery, and keeping of the Church pure.(10.) Associating into stated & fixed meetings, for carrying on, and doing of the former and subsequent work, whether more general or par­ticular, in their due and allowed subordination.(11.) Trying and judging of doctrines, whether sound or heretical, according to the rule of the word of Christ, and censuring of persons found unsound in the faith.(12.) Disposing & ordering the necessary circumstan­ces of worship and Government, for decency and order, and the avoiding of confusion.(13.) Re­solving of doubts and cases of conscience, incident to the Church, on any occasion or emergent.(14.) In­dicting of dayes of publict solemne fasts and humilia­tion, or of thanksgiving, as the dispensations of judgment and mercy call to the same, &c.

Conclus. 4. This Government of the Church, [Page 138]as it is in the hands of Church officers, and exercised by them, is purely Ministerial, without all dominion in them; and only executive in applying the will of Christ to the members of the Church, as they are found conform or disconform to the same. Concl. 5. This subordinat power in Church officers is only declarative and nuncupative, and not properly decisive; they have not power to determine what shall be true or false doctrine, sin or duty; and what censure shall be inflicted on persons heretical or scandalous; but only to declare and apply the will of Christ, and what he hath determined anent these in his word. This power suppons its object, and does not make it. Conel. 6. It is wholly limited, regulated by, and restricted to the word and law of Christ, as its basis and rule, beyond which it cannot go; and if it do, its acts are nullities and not obligatory on any. Concl. 7. It is purely spiritual, in its mater, manner and ends; and not at all civil: it essentially respects the inner man, and wholly labours (in the wayes appointed) the saving, edifying and perfecting of it. Concl. 8. This power is not properly coercive, coactive, and compulsive; but only exclusive: that is, if it be not obeyed by them, about whom it is exerced it does de­barre them from, and deny them the benefits, that are offered to all, and promised to the obedient. Concl. 9. This power, in the hands of the Church officers, is truly Christs, and when acted in his name, conforme to his lawes, is the exercise of his Supream dominion in and over the Church; By which he truly and vi­sioly reigns over all in her: so that obedience to this power, is obedience to Christ, as King of his Church; and the contr [...]re is high rebellion against him. Concl. [Page 139]10. Although this power be only Ministerial, and declarative of the will of Christ; yet it is authorita­tive, and binding on all the Church, without ex­ception of persons; and that on a double account, first on the account of divine commands enjoyning submission and obedience to its exercise, in the per­sons of those invested therewith; and also on the ac­count of its respect to, and derivation from Christ, whose power and ordinance it is; and whom, in its exercise, it doeth represent to all. Concl. 11. This po­wer is exercised, either singly & a part by every officer (according to the nature & measure of their power;) or in conjunction with one another, conforme to the precepts of the word, and practises of the Church in Scripture times. Although every officer of the Church in their several orders, have the whole power belong­ing intrinsice to it; yet there are some acts thereof, they cannot exerce, but in a conjunction with others, as ordaining of persons for the Ministry, Trying and censuring of scandalous and heretical Professours or Ministers, &c. for which there must be fixed meet­ings of officers, general and particular. Concl. 12. The ordiner officers of the Church (the extraordinar [...] being ceased) are of three orders, Teachers and Pastors; Ruling elders; and Deacons. These we finde to be of divine institution, and no others: Many others have been brought into, and obtruded on the Church, but all of humane, or rather of diabolical invention; as, alace, their effects have sadly made out to the Church of God, in former and present times. In every one of these divine orders. we finde no institute superiority, in the same order, of one a­bove others; as a Pastor of Pastors; or an Elder [Page 140]of Elders; and a Deacon of Deacons: These who have assumed and exercised this superiority we can­not owne, as the Officers of Christ, nor subject to them, as such, till they prove their institution and mission from him; which yet they have not done. The outmost essey hath been for Prelacy or a Bishop, who is pleaded to be a Pastour of Pastours having the oversight of them and their flocks; but no­thing attempted for making out the divine right of Pri­mats, Archbishops, Archpresbyters, Archdeacons, &c.

This is that lowly and humble Government of the Church, that Christ hath institute in his word, and put in the hands of his Officers, commanding them to exercise and dispense the same to all in his house, under high paines: of which in the second place we assert these two. 1. That it is distinct and specifically different from the civil government of the Magistrat. And2. That it is independant on it. These two conclusions we now undertake to prove, against the Erastians of our time, who assert, that when the Church comes to be embodyed with the Commonwealth, her Government becomes one with the Government of the State, and does not dif­fer from it.

In opposition to these, we affirme, that when a Nation, State or Kingdom turnes Christian, in its Rulers and Subjects, the Government of the Church remaines specifically different and distinct from the Government of that State or Kingdome; as it was before its conversion to Christianity. The reasons perswading us of this, are 1. The Government of the Kingdome, that is not of this world, is distinct and different from the Government of the King­domes [Page 141]that are of this world? But so it is, that the Government of the Church is the Government of a Kingdome, that is not of this world. Therefore the Government of the Church is distinct and diffe­rent from the Government of the civil Magistrat, that is, the Government of Kingdomes that are of this world. This Argument leans on these three. 1. That the Church is a Kingdome,2. That she hath a Government; And3. That she is not of this world, although in it. All which are beyond disput clear from the Scriptures. All that our adversaries say to this, is, that the visible Church of Christ, is not pro­perly, but metaphorically called a Kingdome: But how evident is the contrare? for is not Christ Jesus the Churches visible Head and King? Is she not ruled by his visible Lawes, Ordinances and Officers, that are properly and truely such? and are not all these from above, and not of this world?

Argum, 2. That Government whose supream Head, Lawes, Ordinances and Officers are specifical­ly different from the Head, Lawes, Ordinances, and Officers of the civil Magistrat, must be distinct from it: But so it is that the head, lawes, ordinances and Officers of the Church are distinct from the lawes, &c. of the civil Magistrat: Therefore, &c. The rea­son of the first proposition is clear; for that which makes one Government differ from another, is dif­ferent heads, lawes, Ordinances & Officers: where these are either numerically or specifically different, the Government is different accordingly: it being comprehended in all these: but that the supream head, laws, ordinances, and Officeis of the Church are specifically different, from these of the civil Go­vernment, [Page 142]who will deny it, that professes himself a Christian? Obj. But all these come under the in­spection of the Magistrat, when he turns Christian. Ans. 1. Either these continue in the Church, un­der the Magistrats Government, what they were be­fore; or they do not: if they do, the Argument holds, and proves the Government of the Church, to be distinct from that of the Magistrats, when Christian: If they do not continue, we ask from whence come▪ this alteration, and how will they prove it? No­thing here from our adversaries, but Altum silen­tium, or nugae, destitute of all reason. But, 2. The tearm INSPECTION, or OVERSIGHT, is am biguous; if by it we mean the countenancing, protecting, and encouraging of this Government of the Church, we yeeld [...]t: but what sayes that to the confounding of the Governments; or making the Government of the Church, the Magistrats: if by inspection we understand, the devolving of the Go­vernment of the Church on the Magistrat, as the fountaine of it; the ordering and disposing of its ex­ercise, the changing thereof at pleasure, in whole or in part: this we deny, and long have we looked for proofe; but have hitherto met with none.

Arg. 3. The Government of the Church for­merly deliniated is incomp [...]table with the civil Magi­strats; therefore it is distinct from his Government. We hope, none will refuse this consequence. The antecedent is thus proven. (1.) The subordinat Go­vernment of the Church is purely Ministerial, not dominative or imperial; it is only declarative, and not decisive, not coactive and compulsive; it is exercised in Christs Name, and in his stead, and is the repre­sentative [Page 143]of his special presence in his Church: these are incompatible with the Government of the Magi­strat, whose power is Supream, Magisterial, and Imperial, coactive and compulsive; and exercised in his owne name, &c.(2.) The Magistrat cannot, yea may not exercise the Government of the Church, being disenabled thereto▪ by the commands and in­stitutions of Christ, who hath laid the burden thereof on others, and not on him. The most grant, the Magistrat himself may not exercise some parts of this Government, as ordaining of persons for the Mini­stery, excommunicating, &c. and why he may do o­ther parts and acts belonging to it, and not these, We desire proofe: all our antagonists arguments in this conclude for the whole. Obj. But some Magi­strats have exercised both powers, as Moses, Samu­el, David, Solomon, &c. Ans. These were both Magistrats and Prophets; and it is evident from the Scripture, that what they did either in constituting or in exercising of the Government of the Church, they did it as Prophets, and not as Magistrats: we find Magistrats, that were not Prophets, attemp­ting it, & reprehended for so doing, as Saul, Uzziah: which says, that it did not belong to their Magistra­tical Office.

Arg. 4. That Goverment that is founded upon and regulated by another rule and instrument, then the law of the civil Magistrat, is distinct from his Go­vernment: But the Government of the Church is founded upon, and ruled by another law or rule, then the Magistrats; the law and word of Christ: there­fore, &c. the first proposition is clear, for the Go­vernment of the Magistrat does flow from and is regu­lated [Page 144]by his owne lawes, of which he is the sole foun­taine:) The second, we suppose, is undenyable among Christians, who acknowledge the Scriptures for a rule of Doctrine, Worship and Government to the Church of Christ. Obj But there are somethings neces­sare to the Government of the Church, not contained in the Scriptures? Ans. This we deny. For 1. What the Scriptures containe, anent the Government of the Church (if reduced to practice) is able to attaine its ends, and more is not necessary: Let the Church have these, and the work will be done: we make & feigne necessitles, but no more is necessar to the ends of the Church Government, then what is deter­mined by the Scriptures anent it.(2.) The ability of the Churches Government, for reaching its ends, lyes not in the innate sufficiency of its instituted me­ans; but in the Spirit of Christ, working with, in, and by them; by which low, weak and despicable wayes, Christ carries on the salvation of his people, that the excellency of the power may be of him, and not of us.(3.) The Scriptures being a full and per­fect rule for all maters of faith and obedience, what it containes of, and anent the Government of the Church, must be perfect and sufficient: sure we are, the Churches Government is a good work, and its exercise, acts of obedience to Christ Jesus; anent which it is said I. Tim. 3. The Scripturs are able to make the Man of God perfect, throughly furnished to every good work.(4.) We enquire, when the Church is without a Christian Magistrat, and under the feet of a heathenish persecuting one (in which case our opposits grant her a Government distinct from, and independent on the Magistrat) whether [Page 145]the Government exercised in her, be able to attaine its ends. If it be (as the experience of the Church in this case puts beyond doubt) why may it not do the same, under a Christian Magistrat?

Arg. 5. That Goverement that is exercised in the name of another distinct Supream Head, besides the Magistrat, is distinct from the Government of the civil Magistrat. But the Government of the Church is exerced in the name and authority of ano­ther Supream head, not subordinat to the Magistrat. Therefore, &c. What can be said to the first proposi­tion, we understand not; for all Governments one with, and subordinat to the Magistrat, are exercised in his name and authority: But this Government of the Church is exercised in her, in the name of Christ Jesus, by his Officers, as is clear from the word.

Arg. 6. The designations, denominations and relations, in and with which the Church is represented in the Scriptures, do also confirme this truth; she is called the Body of Christ, the Kingdome of Heaven, the City of God, the House of the living God, the new Jerusalem. As all these do necessarily import a Go­vernment in the Church; so they insinuat the same to be different from all other Governments: Which we may mould into this Argument. That society which is the body of Christ, &c. must have a Go­vernment distinct from the Government of the civil Magistrat: But the Church is that society, that is only the body of Christ, &c. Therefore, &c. Obj. But all these are said only of the invisible Church? Ans. But the contrare is clear from those Scriptures, where these Epithets are given to the Church, 1. Cor. 12.1, Tim. 3.15.

Arg. 7. That Government whose immediat and essential ends are specifically different, from the im­mediat and essential ends of the Magistrats Govern­ment, is distinct from the Government of the Ma­gistrat: But here it is so: the essential & immediat ends of Church Government, are different from the essential & immediat end of Magistracy; as will be clear to any that compares them together; The ends of Church Government are the saveing of the foule, the con­version and edification of sinners, &c. The end [...] of Magistracy, are, the outward publict peace and prosperity of the common wealth, the execution of justice in the maintaining and preserving of proprie­ty, &c. with these the Churches government does not medle, nor intend them, of it self Obj. The Magi­strat ought to intend, and endeavour the spiritual hap­pinesse and wellfare of his subjects? Ans. We grant this, but as all others ought to do it; for every one in their station are bound to designe and labour the eternal salvation of these under their charge; this being a common end, that all Christians, in their several capacities, should seek after, in their love to one another: the first proposition is evident, because the specificall distinction betwixt powers, habits and acts, is taken from their Objects and immediat proper ends; Where these differ, they are by all Philosophers constitute into different species's.

In the next place we assert. That as the govern­ment of the Church does specifically differ from the government of the Magistrat; so it is independant thereon, and not directly subordinat thereto. A truth (how much soever it be decryed) we are not shamed of, nor affrayed to profess & maintaine: and [Page 147]whosoever will lay aside prejudice and earthly inter­ests, and consider these reasons with us, will be forc­ed to acknowledge it.

Arg. 1. The Magistrat is not the fountaine of Church power; it hath not its derivation from him; and therefore is not directly subordinat to him: The consequence is founded on this truth, granted by all Lawyers and Divines, that all power directly subordi­nat to, and dependant on the Magistrat, is derived from him as the fountaine thereof: the antecedent we prove thus. (1.) The Magistrat as a Magistrat is not a member of the Church, but as a Professor of Christianity, which intitles others to this priviledge, as much as him; Therefore he cannot be the foun­taine of Church power as such; for whoever is the fountaine of power to any society, is a member, yea the noblest member of it; Obj. But as a christian Magistrat he is a member of the Church? Ans. 1. What then? will this prove him to be the fountaine of Church power? so might Christian Husbands, Parents, &c. argue as justly for this clame: the truth is, he being only a member of the Church, as a Christian, and not as a Magistrat, Magistracy gives him no more priviledge, then any other power, civil or natural, when the person tuines Christian; for the benefite of membership goes on grounds and reasons common to all Christians, and containes no speciality to one more then to another. If any think Magistracy does, they shall do well to prove it, which none hath yet offered to do. 2. If men un­derstood well, what it is to be a Christian, a disci­ple and member of Christ's Church, they would quickly see its inconsistency with the said profession, [Page 148]does not persons, turning Christians, profese subje­ction to Christ, his Lawes, Ordinances and Servants? which is repugnant to the fountaine of the Church power.(2.) He may not exercise Church power; Therefore is not the fountaine of it: all yeeld, that these who are the fountaine of power to others may exercise it themselves, it being in them, and others acting, as their delegates, in its exercise: that the Magistrat may not exercise Church power, is clear; for Church power, being by positive institution from Christ, they that exercise it must have a com­mission from him, which none hath prodduced for the Magistrat: Erastus asserteth it, but without all proofe, of which it is so destitute, that the most of his followers have left him in this assertion.

Arg. 2. All Church power is lodged in and im­mediatly descended from Christ Jesus, as the Su­pream Head and Ruler of the Church, and Superiour to the Magistrat: Therefore it is not subordinat to the Magistrat: The reason of the consequence is clear, for it is a repugnancy in a power to be immediatly subordinat to two Supream powers, in one and the same respects; especially where the one is superiour to the other: The antecedent is manifest, for Christ is only head of the Church; all power in her is insti­tute by him; exerced in his name; astricted to, and regulated by his word; and accomptable to him. All notes of power immediatly descended from him. Obj. But the Christian Magistrat, as Christs substi­tute and vicegerent, is under him, the nearest and im­mediat fountaine of Church power; for subordinata non pugnant? Ans. Long hath the Pope of Rome con­rended for this, and on grounds more plausible, then [Page 149]these, on which the Magistrat goes. But Protestant Di­vines answer to the Papists on this head, furnish us with irrefragable answers to the Magistrats clame; which we desire our adversaries would consider & an­swer at their own leasure: we finde not the Magistrat in­rolled among the officers of the Church, far lesse sub­stitute for Christs vicegerent; if there be any Scrip­ture for this, bring it forth? We know of none as yet alledged by our adversaries; but what will plead as strongly, for the heathenish Magistrat, as for the Christian: And if they do, what traitours were the Apostles, Ministers and Christians of the primitive times, that did not acknowledge the heathenish Ma­gistrates for their head in the Church; but resisted and disobeyed their lawes and edicts against them, for crying up of another K [...]ng, in the maters of their Christian Profession.

Arg. 3. All Church power was institute by Christ, in an immediat subordination to himself; without any acknowledgment of, or dependance on the Ma­gistrat: Therefore it is not dependant upon, nor sub­ordinat to him: The antecedent is clear from the Hi­story of the New Testament, where we find, that Christ moulded and constituted the Church by his Apostles, and furnished her with a Government and officers, to be exercised in his name; and all this he did without consulring, or advising with the Magi­strat, or suspending of her upon him; the Magistrat all this time resisting & letting himself, for crushing of this Church & Kingdome of Christ; which he erected in the midst of their Kingdomes, making use of their rage and violence to establish and propagat it, for some Hundreds of years. All this is so evident, that [Page 150]our adversaries are not able to refuse it; what is there then to hinder the consequence, that we draw from this deed of Christ? If our opposites in this mater could shew us, that the Church had no government institute by Christ; nor exercised any, all the time that the Ma­gistrat thus opposed himself to her; or that Christ had declared his will, that she should be subjected to the Magistrat in her Government, when he should be­come Christian; they would soon end this strife: but nothing can we learne from them to this purpose.

Arg. 4. As this Government was institute by Christ and his Apostles; so it was exerced in his name in the Church, without dependance on the Magi­strat, till Constantine the great's time; and from thence downe ward, till the Reformation of Religi­on brack up in Germanie: till which time, it was never questioned by any, until Erastus the Physician arose, who laboured not only to subject the Church to the Magistrat, in all her concearnes as such; but denied all Government to her by divine institution, that is distinct from the Government of the Magi­strat; contrare to full and clear Scripture, which he most insolently and wickedly endeavours to wrest & pervert. So then if the Government of the Church was in Scripture times, and downwards, till within these hundered years, exercised without dependance on the Magistrat, both heathenish and Christian; then it must yet be independant on, and not directly subordinat to him. Here our Antagonists are put to strange shifts; The first three hundred years, they must grant; and may we not take this for a yeelding of the cause? Scripture and antiquity hath been held for a sufficient plea, for maters of doctrine and pra­ctise: [Page 151]debates in Polemical divinity hath run on these two heads; and whoever made out their assertions from these, have been esteemed to carry the cause: all that our adversaries have to say to this, are these two. 1. That the Government exercised in the Church was not by divine institution and precepts; but by confederation of Churches and officers. To this we reply. 1. If the Epistles to Timothy, to the seven Churches in Asia. Revel.2. and 3. Chapters; with other places of Scripture, used by our Divines, in this mater, prove not the contrary, they have no sense: We beg of our adversaries, they will, for saving us a labour, answer Mr. Gillespies Arguments from Scrip­ture, in the second part of his Aarons Rod blossom­ing.2. Besids they are not able to make out what they assert, to wit, that the Church did exercise her Government in these times, by confederation and mutual consent; and not by institution and command: for as there is nothing in Scripture and pure antiquity for this; So the Churches being gathered and consti­tute by the Apostles, we presume, they continued in the constitutions, which the Apostles left, according to the precepts and rules they gave them; to which we find, in the word and Church History, their practice con­forme. When the persecutions of the Church ceased, upon the Magistrats turning Christian, we find her continuing, in the exercise of the former Govern­ment, (but with the addition of some corruptions, which grew to a sad hight afterwards, throw the excessive munificence & bounty of Constantine the great, the first Christian Emperour) and exercising the same [...], as formerly; as is clear from History; that speaks of these times. Here our adversaries speak [Page 152]of some instances of the power, the Magistrat did exerce in the Church; as convocating of Synods, labouring in the peace of the Church, lorely rent at sometimes, through lad heresies and schisms; And that saying of Constantines repeated by them, ad nau­seam: vos estis Episcopi ad intra, Ego ad extra. But how is our Antagonists conclusion made out by all these? will it follow, that becaus the Magistrat did convocat Synods, its Government is derived from, & subordinat to him? No wayes, for (1.) Albeit the Magistrat have a power to convocat the officers of the Church, anent maters relating to his owne con­science and duty, whether about Church or State; yet this is not privative of the Churches power to convocat her owne assemblies, either for worship or government; as we find she did in the primitive times, not only without but against his consent; yea when the Magistrat became Christian, she retained and exercised this power in assembling into several Synods, without the Magistrat. It is true, we do not read of general Synods assembled, after this, but by the Magistrat, till the Pope of Rome, claimed this power, and usurped therein on the Church and Magistrat, as he did in all other things, but the vastness of the Empire, and large extent of the Church (which exceeded its bounds) made this in point of prudence necessare, for without the Magistrat, it could not easily be done. But(2.) Convocating of others, is not alwayes, in its self, and infallible signe of a superiour power and dominion over judicatories convocated; as in limited Monarchies, and not absolute, where the Supream power is lodged in the King and States of the Kingdom; although the [Page 153]King have the power of conve [...]ning the States; yet they share wi [...]h him, in the leg stative and executive power, while in being: therefore the illation is bad and not concludent.(4) What imaginable advan­tage-can accrew, to our adversaries assertion, by that saying of Constantines, formerly cited? We grant [...] the Magistrat is the overseer of things without the Church; but this will not prove, that th [...] go­vernment of the Church, is in and from his hands, and subordinat to him; they must first make it ap­pear by good reason, that ner Government is ad ex­tra, which they have not yet done, nor never will; for although it be visible in its institution and exerci­se; yet it is as intrinsinck to, and within her, as her doctrine and worship; which by this sence, will be as much derived from and subjected to the Magistrat, as her Government; seing the one is as visible in its dispensation, as the other.

Arg. 5. The Magistrat may not, yea cannot jure impede and hinder the exercise of the Churches go­vernment: therefore it is not derived from, nor sub­jected to him: the reason of this consequence is, what ever power is derived from the Magistrat, and subordinated directly to him, he may suspend, hin­der its exercise, yea he may totally remove and an­nihilat it: this is yeelded by all, and taken for a sure Maxime in Politicks: but the Magistrat may not do this, in the Government of the Church; and that becaus it is of divine institution, and the persons in­trusted with, and called to its [...]xercise, are under the obligations of divine precepts and commands for it, which the Magistrat cannot hinder, nor by any deed or command of his, make void. These that deny [Page 154]this divine institution of Church Government, we refer to the forecited book; where it is strongly plea­ded & made out from clear and express Scriptures in the New Testament. Likwise as he cannot impede its exercise, so he may not nullify its sentences, by himself, which he may do in the sentences passed by all powers, derived from and subordinat to himself.

Arg. 6. The Christian Magistrat, is by vertue of his Christian Profession, bound to subject himself to the acts & exercise of Church Government, in the hand of Church Officers; and is as much obleidged to yeeld thereto, as any other: Therefore Church power is not directly subordinat to him. The antecedent is clear; for all are commanded submission and obedien­ce to Church Officers, in the exercise of their power, in watching, overseeing, and ruleing of the Church Heb. 13.7, 17. to which exercise of their power, we finde Magistrats in the word submitting, as UZ­ZIA, who was by the priests, confor me to the law, separated and secluded from the holy things of God, and communion with the Church in these; yea, it is given for the maine cause of all that heavy wrath and judgment, that came on Zedekiah 2. Chron. 36.12. that he humbled not himself before Jeremiah, the Prophet, speaking the word of the Lord to him, Obj. But this subjection in Magistrats to Church Of­ficers, is properly to Christ, and not to them? Ans. we confess, the subjection is primarily and cheifly to Christ Jesus, whom such, in the exercise of their Office, doe represent; yet the subjection is to them too, whom all, without exception of any in the Church, are commanded to receive, hear and obey: so that in the dispensation of holy things, they are [Page 155]superiour to all in the Church, Magistrats and others, as their constitut Rulers, Overseers, Governours and Watch men, whom they ought to obey; when a­cting in their Office, agreable to the law of Christ: which obedience is not CATACHRESTICAL or ABUSIVE (as VIDELIUS speaks) in the Ma­gistrat, but proper and really, a debt they owe to the Ministers of the Gospel dispensing holy things, as much as any other member of the Church; their obligation to it being of the same kinde and nature, with the obligation of others. If any think other-wayes, let them produce their reasons and Scriptures. 2. If the fiery and zealous promotters of the Ma­gistrats power, in and over the Church of God, did consider the true and real prejudice they do to Ma­gistrats, by exeeming them from that subjection, that they, with all others, owe to Church Officers, they would (if there be any sense of Religion and its advantages remaining with men) hold their hand; and should have little thanks from Magistrats, for their preposterous zeal, who, by their opinions in this mater, do really exclude Magistrats from the Communion of the Church, and the benefite of the ordinance of Church Government, which in its de­signe and effects is for saving of the soul, as well as all other ordinances. Other Arguments might be adduced, as the want of power in the Magistrat to alter and change the Government of the Church; or to nullify its just sentences passed, &c.

SECT. VII. The sinfulness of the Ecclesiastick Supreamacy manifested.

BUt judging these sufficient to the conviction o [...] the unprejudged; we come to the other part of ou [...] task which is to shew, that this visible intrinsick go­vernment of the Church is assumed by, and given to our Rulers, in the present standing laws of the King­dom; which we shall make out from the acts of Parliament; particularly act of restitution. Parl. 1. Sess. 2. Act. 1. act anent the National Synod Parl. 1. Sess. 3. Act. 4. act against Conventicles Parl. 2. Sess. 5. act a­gainst Keepers of Conventicles and withdrawers &c. Parl. 2. Sess. 3. Act. 17. act against unlawful ordinati­ons Parl. 2. Sess. 3. with others of the like nature. But, before we enter on the probation of this, it will be necessare, for clearing our way to it, to con­sider alittle two things, in the beginning of the nar­rative of the act of restitution, repeated in several acts: where, first, the Government of the Church is called the external Government of the same: the tearm, EXTERNAL, being Notourly ambigu­ous, should have been explained, & all not left to guess at its meaning: EXTERNAL is by some opposed to the internal invisible Government of Christ on the souls of his people; and so by it they understand, the visible intrinsick Government of the visible Church: that this is meant by the tearm EXTER­NAL GOVERNMENT, in this and other acts, the following Arguments undertake to make out: but [Page 157]some others oppose the terme EXTERNAL GO­VERNMENT, to this intrinsick visible Govern­ment of the Church, formerly described and assert­ed to be distinct from, and independant on the Ma­strat; and by it they do understand, these humane adjuncts and accidents, that are civil in themselves, and not made sacred by divine institution: some plead this to be the sense of these terms, in the acts of Parlt; but how groundlesly let our subsequent rea­sons determine. Secondly, It is there said, that the ordering and disposing of the external government of the Church belongs to the Crowne, &c. it is hard to sense this; for ordering and disposing, when done by persons in authority, is a part of government in it self; and if it be so, the Phrase is equivalent to this, the governing of the external government of the Church: which is a strange sort of speach, as if a government needed a government to governe it: What if this were said of the government of the government of the State? Would it not be reputed non sense? But the truth is, all governments do necessarily imply a power to dispose and order all things relating to it, as a part of the same; & with­out which it were imperfect; and it is without disput evident from the experience of the Church under heathenish Magistrats; that the government of the Church had this, which by this act is taken from her. Next, we ask, whether this ordering and dipos­ing be an act of the Ecclesiastick or civil government? If it be of the Ecclesiastick, it is againe non-sense, at the best; and is as much as if it had been said, the Ecclesiastical governing of the Ecclesiastical govern­ment of the Church; a perfect tautology, But if it [Page 158]be an act of the civil government; how comes it, that in this and other acts of Parliament, it is called the Kings Ecclesiastical Government, in opposition to the civil? Obj. It is only objectively so called. Ans. Then it is properly and formally civil, the phrase, objectively Ecclesiastical being CATACHRE­STICAL and ABUSIVE; a very improper speach; yea as improper, as if we should call Church po­wer or Government, in the hands of Church officers, objectively civil, or civil. Thirdly, In the last place we desire to know, whether this ordering or disposing of the Government of the Church be necessary, or not? If it be not necessary, why is the Church troubled with it? If it be, we ask againe, when it was exercised by the Church, whether it was an act of civil or Church Government? It could not be of the civil; for the Church had none under persecuting Magistrats; if it was an act of the Ec­clesiastical or Church Government; then it was pu­rely and formally such; and not truely civil, although exercised about things civil in their owne nature, and seing it was so, how comes it to be the Magi­strats now? To any considerat and unbyaffed reader, it will be manifest, that these words or expressions come from mindes, designing the enhansing of the intrinsick vis [...]le Government of the Church, and withall labouring to cover it; but all in vaine.

Now that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Church, formally and intrinsically such, is assumed by, and given to the Magistrat, in the present stand­ing lawes, will be apparent to any that consider these things, in the forecited acts of Parliament. (1.) That Church officers, in the exercise of Church go­vernment, [Page 159]in their Church assemblies or judicatories, are put in dependance upon, and subordinated to the King, as Supream to them therein: this makes the King the fountaine of Church power, & the Church officers to derive and hold their power of him; which makes our King the proper Head of the Church, & substituts him in Christs roome to her.(2.) The go­vernment of the Church, thus subjected to & depen­dant on the King as Supream, is, in the act of restitution, extended to and made to take in ordination, acts of discipline, inflicting of Church censures; yea to all causes and matters formally Ecclesiastical; to all, about which Church power is exerced, he is made the supream.(3.) All Church power and jurisdi­ction, as it was exercised in this Church (before the late introduction of prelacy) without this deri­vation from and subordination to the Magistrat, is rescinded and annulled; certainly in these times, the Magistrat had and did exercise a power about Church matters; as is to be seen in the laws then made in their behalf; but this does not now content, with­out this supremacy; which imports another power acclamed by the Magistrat now, that was not then.(4.) This supremacy, and (as it is called) the Royal prerogative of the Crown, is given for the maine rea­son of the change made in the Government of the Church, in overturning and casting out of the true government, that then was, and bringing in ano­ther in its stead, without the authority and concur­rence of the Church: a fair opened doore, for bring­ing in the like alteration and change in doctrine and worship, when there is access to it.(5.) Prelacy by this act is restored, not only to the former height [Page 160]it was at, and had attained by law and practice, before its last ejection out of this Church; but also to all that ever it was, even in the times of popery; which when considered, in the constitution and priviledges it then had, was an humane Office founded on the Supremacy of the Pope; but now, by this law, on the Magistrat: which sayes, that although the per­sons be changed, yet the Supremacy is the same.(6.) In the act anent the National Synod, the no­mination and election of persons, by who [...]n the go­vernment of the Church is to be exercised, under the King, is asserted to be the Kings, by vertue of his royal prerogative and supremacy, in causes Eccle­siastical; so that the constitution of Church judica­tories is made dependant upon him: a thing never heard of nor practised in this or any other Church, till of late.(7.) The right, being and constitution of the National Synod of this Church, is wholly dependant upon, and derived from this law; So as it is no Synod of this Church, that is not gathered, and constitute conforme to it; although a Synod in this Church should have all, that made Synods lawful, and their acts obligatory, in former times.(8.) The particular constitution of this National Synod, as to its members, (which in this act are nominated and regulated thereby, for all future times) is determined for its' times and places of meeting, and put wholly in the Kings hand, and asserted to be his right, by vertue of his Supremacy over this Church: It is no Synod that is not thus convocated.(9.) The maters to be handled, debated, and concluded in this Synod (a thing alwayes judged intrinsick to the Church) comes only from the King, & are to be pro­posed [Page 161]from him, by the Arch-prelat of Saint Andrews and no other: a fearful restraining of the divine liberty of the Ministers of the Gospel, who may not speak of maters of doctrine & manners, (although necessary for the times) contrare to the freedome, that is commanded them by their master, anent these.(10.) The King's, or his Commissioners presence is made essential to the constitution, and of binding force to this nationall Synod: It is no Synod, although con­stitute after the paterne of Church Synods, in the primitive times; if it want this.(11.) No mater debated and concluded by the Majority of this Sy­nod, is obligatory on this Church, and its mem­bers, if not approven and allowed by the King or his Commissioner. This suspends the intrinsick obligati­on of Synods on the King; so that no canon, act or constitution, do binde the members of the Church, if he assent not: As this secures the Cou [...]t, in their carnal liberties and sinful wayes; so it shuts the door on all endeavours of reformation by the Church, when Princes are vicious.(12.) In the act asserting the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastick, the King & his successors are enabled and impowered to medle with all maters and meetings Ecclesiastick, which brings the doctrine and worship within his verge, and sub­jects the same to him, as much as the government.(13.) They are impowered to enact and emit consti­tutions, acts, and orders, anent maters and meetings Ecclesiastick, as they please and think fit, and are not, in the making of these, astricted to any rule, but their pleasure, O HORRENDUM!(14.) All these acts and orders they may statute, independant on the Church, Parliament, or any other, by their sole au­thority, [Page 162]never granted to any of his predecessours be­fore.(15.) These acts and constitutions insert in the book of Councel, and duely published, are de­clared and made to be of full force and obligation to this Church and her members. No need of Synod [...] here▪ which by this are wholly subverted.(16.) All former lawes, acts and clauses of them, contrare to and inconsistent with this, are made void, cassed, annulled; which takes away the Protestant Religion, th [...] Word of God as the rule, the concurrence of the Church in the assistance of the constitutions Ec­clesiastical, that was provided and secured by former acts of Parliament: a wide door for Popery.(17.) In the act against unlawful Ordinations (as they call them) the Ordination of persons to the Ministry, by Ministers of Christ Jesus, that have not conformed to Prelacy, (which was held unquestionable & valid for its substance by all, till this late gang of Prelats arose, in which they are degenerat from their pre­decessours) is, by the sole authority of the Magistrat, made void; and all Ministerial acts, and Church be­nefites depending thereon, declared to be nul. An act that unchristians and condemns all the reformed Churches, making their Churches no Ministerial political Churches, and all Ordinances, dispensed in them, nullities: which their practice at this time in England does confirme; while Romish Priests turning Protestants, are, without ordination, made capable, and advanced to Church places and prefer­ments, of which the Protestant Ministers of other Churches, conforming to Prelacy, are dented, till they be reordained. Other mediums contained in other acts of Parliaments, for fixing of the preceeding [Page 163]conclusions, we passe; having hinted at some of them above; judging these sufficient, for the conviction of the uninteressed & unprejudged; who through the power of lust and earthly interest, have not cast off the light of the word, but keeps in subjection to it.

We shall in the last place answer some objections; in which, we have to do with two sortes of per­sons; first, the high flowne Erastians of our times, who will admit of no government in the Church, but that which is in and from the Magistrat whose de­signe, (as is evident from the act asserting the Kings Supremacy) is, to take all Government out of the Churches hands; and to put it on the King & his Councel, to be only exercised by them: which, throw the dislike of Prelacy, is not sufficiently la­mented, laid to heart, nor resisted by many, as its dangerous consequences, to all the concerns of the Church, do require. Besides these, there are who, (upon what principle is not yet known,) think that the Supremacy, as it is now asserted by law, is not formally Ecclesiastical, but only objectively so; which is strange: some of the objections of the first sort, we have met with, as we went along the for­mer heads; we know of no other, besides these, of any considerable strength; but one.

Obj. That the Magistrat being the keeper of both tables of the law; of the table of Religion, as well as of the table of Righteousness; ought to have a care of Religion, and hath power given him to exercise it about the same? An [...]wer, This being the Achilles of the Erastians, and semi Erastians; of VIDELIUS in particular; We shall returne these answers to it; [Page 164]and shew it cannot bear their conclusion. 1. What­ever power the Christian Magistrat can clame by this, the heathenish Magistrat hath the same; he is by his Magistratical office constitute, in actu primo, a Keeper of both tables; as is evident from, Rom. 13: 1, 2. If he do not exercise it, it comes not from any defect of power in his office, or the institution of it; but from his blindness and unbeleef, which indisposes him to answer his trust, and to do the work of his office; to which, upon the revelation of the Gospel, he is bound: and seing it is so, either the Church, in exercising of her Government independantly on heathenish Magistrats, usurped on his office & po­wer; which the adversary dare no say: Or els the Christian Magistrat hath no more power in & over rhe Church, then the other had: and therefore the Church, in exercising her power under the Christian Magistrat, does not usurp upon him, more then on the other.2. The Ministers of the Gospel are, by vertue of their office, Keepers of both tables of the law, of the table of Righteousness, as well as of the table of Religion: will it from thence follow, that they may medle with the Magistrats office, and assume its exercise; or that the same does depend on them? No wayes: and yet the consequence is as good in the one as in the other: by the same medium we shall prove Ministers, have as good right and power to manage the affairs of the State; as the Magistrat hath (in our adversaries sense) to manage the affairs of the Church. We know they will reject the con­sequence with disdaine, as to Ministers, and ask for our proofe, for which, we grant, they have just cause▪ so we deny the consequence as to the Magistrat, for [Page 165]which they have not given us yet any colourable proofe; but dictator-like assert it. The truth is, every man in his capacity is a Keeper of both tables of the law; but in doing of it, is to hold within the com­passe of his station, the nature, and limites of the po­wer granted him; and is not to invade the office and power of others, nor the work proper thereto: as is evident from multitude of precepts in the Word of God. So if Ministers, notwithstanding their being Keepers of the tables of the law, may not invade the Magistrats office and power▪ So neither may Magi­strats invade the Ministerial office and power.3. The acts and wayes of the Magistrats keeping of the tables of the law, should answer, and be agreable to the nature, extent, and limits of his office & power; within the verge of which, he is to walk, as all o­thers are to do in theirs: As Ministers are to keep both the tables of the law by preaching the word, dispens­ing of Ordinances, and exercising of discipline, ac­cording to the rules of the word; to which they are impowered by the institutions and commands of Christ, without dependance on the Magistrat; so the Magistrat is to keep them likwise, by command­ing all to their several duties, protecting them there­in by the sword, which is given him for that end; executing of justice in punishing of evil doers, and rewarding the good, &c. but is not to medle with the Government of the Church, in whole or in part▪ but to see that it be done by these, whom Christ hath called to and intrusted with it.

It is objected by others, that it is not the intrinsick visible and internal Government of the Church, that the Magistrat assumes, in the acts of Parliament; it [Page 166]is only the external Government, that is expressely so called, in the act of restitution? Ans. This is materially Answered above; but that we may be distinct, there are two things belonging to the Church. (1.) The outward and external adjuncts or accidents; As the Biotica or Mundana, Stipends, Manse Glybs, outward liberty and peace, &c.(2.) The proper and true objects of Church Go­vernment or power, that are intrinsick to it, although visible; as the Word, Ordinances, Ministery and necessary circumstances &c. It is not the first of these, but the second that the act of restitution with other acts do truely mean, as is undoubtedly made out by the former arguments; as particularly the first three: that it is the Church judicatories; the maters hand­led in and by them, proper thereto, that constituts the King Supream; these being essential and intrin­sick to the Government of the Church, in its several parts: he that is made supream to these, is made supream to the Church, and all that appertaine to her.

Obj. 2. But it is only the ordering and disposeing of the Government, that is declared to belong to the King. Ans. It is so said in that act, but it is evident from the mater and frame of it, that it is the Government in whole that is truely meant and in­tended, as is formerly proven. But 2. Ordering and disposing of things, proper and specifick to any Government, is a part of the Government it self; and to whom the Government belongs, the ordering of it belongs likwise: by the same reasons that any shall undertake to prove, that the ordering and dis­poseing of the civil Government belongs to the Ma­gistrat; [Page 167]we shall prove the ordering and disposing of the Churches Government does belong to Church Officers: [...]no Government can be perfect without it, or able to attaine its ends, and therefore must neces­sarily be implyed in, and intrinsick to it.

Obj. 3. But there are some acts of Church power the Magistrat may do, as convocating of Synods, determining of circumstances, indicting of publict fasts and thanksgivings? Ans As we deny all formal Church power to the Magistrat, and all acts formally proceding therefrom; so we grant there are acts, First, some common as prayer, rebuking, in­structing of others, and others of the like nature: which, when they come from a Church Officer, are authoritative and acts of Church power; that are yet performable by others, in their stations, and (so to speak) are charitative. 2. Some are proper and only belongs to Church Officers, as preaching of the Gos­pel, dispensing of the Sacraments, exercise of Church discipline, &c. We doe not deny, but chierfully grant (wishing with all our hearts, there were many such Magistrats in the Church) that the Magistrat ought to rebuke, to exhort, admonish, instruct & pray, &c. As all others in their stations and offices should do; but from thence it will not follow, that he may exercise formal acts of Church power, more then others; or that the Church power is dependant on him: the Consequence is wide. But to the par­ticular instances; as, that of convocating of Synods or any Church judicatory, we say, it is within the verge of his power, as a Magistrat, who may and ought to command all within his dominions, to their several duties, and Ministers among others, as they [Page 168]ought to doe to him, so the Magistrats convocating of Ministers, is but a putting of them to their duty, which in the Magistrat is no act of Church power; but an act of his office he owes to all. 2. This act or deed of the Magistrat, is not privative of the same in the Officers of the Church, who may & ought come together of themselves, as the necessities of the Church requires. On the by, it is an evil consequence; the Magistrat may gather Synods; therefore Ministers may not doe it: It is like to this, others may rebuke, admo­nish, &c. Therefore Ministers may not doe it. For although the Magistrat have an imperative power, over all; yet it is not privative of any power in others, that is proper to their station and office. (2.) As for the determining of the circumstances in Govern­ment, we reply, there are two sorts of circumstan­ces relateing to these, first some extrinsick, and not in themselves simply necessare, although convenient; as Churches of such and such formes, pulpets, or­naments, &c. These, being in their natural use civil, belong to the Magistrat, and are directly under his power, to order and dispose, Next 2. There are some circumstances intrinsick to the actions of worship and Government, and so connected there­with, in that degree of necessity, that they cannot be performed without them; and come within the compass of divine commands, on which, the mo­rality of individual actions, as to their goodnes and evil, pro hic & nunc does depend; as such and such persons, doctrines, times, places, helps, &c. which all moralists and divines make to specify all humane actions, as to their morality in individuo. Of these we assert, that the determination of them, [Page 169]as they respect worship and Government, and are connected with them, belongs to the Officers of the Church, and not to the Magistrat: we have given some reasons for this before, as 1. we see commands given to the Church about them, and not to the Magistrat; 1. Cor. 14.2. If the determination of these were in the Magistrats power, it should be likewise in his power, to hinder, impede and obstruct all right worship and Government, in its exercise, at his pleasure for whoever hath these things in his power, without which, the actions of worship and Government cannot be performed, hath the actions in his power to hinder or not.3. The consequen­ces of granting this to the Magistrat are mischeivous: for by this, if he do not wholly hinder the exercise of the Ministerial office and power; yet he may re­strict and limit it so, as to bring them under dread­ful unfaithfulness in their Ministry or office; he may binde them up from preaching such and such do­ctrines, that, at such and such times and in such cases, God calleth them to preach. As for the (3.) Instance, for indicting of dayes for solemne fasting and humiliation or of thanksgiving; we say, that we reckon it among these common duties of Religion, that every Chirstian, in his station, is bound by the command of God to observe; and according to the extent of their power to see them observed by others under them, when the dispensations of mercy and judgment cals them to these; as is clear from the precepts and examples we have in the word; so that all Christians, in their several capacities, offices▪ powers and extent of the same, have the power of indicting and keeping of such times and dayes; as [Page 170]Masters in families, pastours in congregations, or in their associations, and Magistrats, &c. From this it will not follow, that Magistrats, Masters of Families, &c. their indicting of such dayes for divine exercises, is an act of Church power; although it be such in the Officers of the Church, and as it comes from them: no more then others rebuking, exhor­ting, &c. is an act of Church authority and power, although it be so from them. 2. That it only belongs to the Magistrat to indict dayes of publict fastings, or of thanksgiving, & not to the pastours of the Church▪ where hath our antagonists learned this? We grant the Magistrat participats with others in this power; but the nature of these duties, the precepts, and examples of the word, impowers others in their ca­pacities, as much as him: it were easy to make this out. We acknowledge, for the more harmony in this publict work, and convenient following of it, with benefite and advantage to Church and State, it were expedient, that Magistrats and Ministers did previously consult, and agree about publict fasts and thanksgiving: but to affirme this, to the privation of the power and obligations, laid on others anent it; is not only an encroachment on the divine rights of others, but a loosing of these bonds, with which God hath tyed them; and what is this but to fight against God in the persones of his Creaturs.

Obj. 4. Seing Ministers are bound to give an accompt to the Magistrat, when required, of what they do, in the Government of the Church; will it not follow, they are subordinat to him in so far, in its exercise? Ans. No wayes; for (1.) They stand oblidged to do the like to all others, over whom [Page 171]they are set, and do rule; when their carriage in the Ministry is stumbling and offensive to them; to which they are oblidged, both by general and particular precepts; and yet it will not follow, that in their Mi­nistry they are subordinat to such.(2.) The Magi­strat, by vertue of his professed subjection to Christ, is bound to give an accompt of his actings in his Go­vernment to Ministers and others, when he proveth scandalous and offensive: which many of them have done. To this they are obliedged, both on the ac­compt of their promised subjection to the word, its ordinances; and Christs servants, dispensing the same; and likewise on the accompt of Charity and love, that binds all, not only to endeavour the pre­venting, but removing of offences, when given; to which the Magistrat is as incident, in his capacity, as others; as alas sad experience puts beyond de­bate!

Obj. 5. But as the Government of the Church▪ and its exercise, is the object of the Magistrats po­wer and its acts; does he not act about those im­perially, and Architectonice? And if it be so, is he not Supream to & above the Ministers of the Church, and they subordinat to him? Ans. This is the obje­ction of the greatest seeming strength; but on a seri­ous consideration of it, its weakness will soon ap­pear. We yeeld, without any advantage to our ene­mies cause, that what the Magistrat does as such, a­bout Church maters and officers, he does it imperi­ally and with dominion, and (as they use to speak) Architectonice: but what then? It proves the persons to be subordinat to the Magistrat in these his acts; but not the power in its exercise; nor the maters a­bout [Page 172]which it is exercised, for (1.) The Magistrat, when he by his irreligious and unjust carriage in his office, or other wayes, becomes notoriously scan­dalous to the Church, is lyable to Ministerial admo­nitions, rebukes, seclusions from the Sacraments, &c. And is thereby subordinat to Church power, or the Ministers of Christ in exercing it about him; and yet the Magistratical power, and its exercise, is not subject to them, whatever resistence our opposits make to this mutual subordination of the persons of Magi­strats and Ministers: yet they must either deny the Christian Magistrats the benefits of the Gospel & its ordinances, dispensed by Ministers; or els yeeld this truth. Is it not clear in other powers or relations? as suppone, one is both a Magistrat and a Son, is there not here a reciprocal subordination and superiority of persons with a coordination of powers, as is hinted above? We plead no more for the Ministers of the Gospel, and the Government of the Church com­mited to them. We grant a great difference in other respects, betwixt the Magistrat and Ministers; they act as meer servants, without all dominion in them; He with dominion and Magistratical authority over the persons of Ministers: yet for all this the powers are coordinat, and in their exercise not directly sub­ject to one another.(2.) These powers, their ex­ercise, and respective objects becoming reciprocally the object of one another (as the Ministry and its objects being one part of the Magistrats power, the Magistrat and the objects of his power, being like­wise a part of the object about which Ministers exer­cise their power) under different formalities and specifications, there arises or results, not only a [Page 173]sweet harmony, and a mutual subserviency to one another, in advancing of their respective ends; but likewise an indirect subordination to one another, in the exercise of their powers, without any depen­dance of these powers upon one another. But this subordination is only of the persons, and not of the powers: which by being the mutual objects of one anothers powers, does not subject the power, and its exercise, but only the persons; for any thing or power becoming the object of another, does not subordinat it to that power; the Word, Ordinances, &c. are not, by being the object either of the Mini­sterial or the Magistratical power, subordinated or subject thereto; so that the Ministerial power, its exercise, and the maters about which it converses, are not by being the object of the Magistrats power subordinated to it. This breaks the force of our ad­versaries Argument which lyes mainly in this.

Obj. 6. It is only this sort of Supremacy and subordination, that the act of restitution does mean? Ans. It is not so, as is clear from the words and frame of the acts; for it is the Church assemblies, their proper maters, their constitution, the intrin­sick obligation of their conclusions, that are subor­dinated to the Magistrat; so that all is nothing with­out him.

Obj. 7. All Divines, even the Presbyterians and independents in the Church of England, grant the Magistrat to be Supream in all causes, and over all persons Ecclesiastical; none of them scruple to take the oath of Supremacy, as it is established by law in that Kingdom? Ans. All Divines do not grant this, as is to be seen in the writings of many; and for any [Page 174]thing we know, it is not yeelded by the Presbyteri­an, and Independants, in the sense controverted a­mong us; neither can it, seing it quyt overthrows, all Church Government, in its distinction from and independency on the civil Government of the Magi­strat, which is contrare to the known principles both of Presbyterians and Independants; and if the Pre­lats themselves durst speak their minde, conforme to their owne principles, they would not in this differ from us (as Thorndike more free and engenuous then the rest of his party does declame and cry out against the oath of Supremacy, as the great crying sin of the Church of England,) but to an excesse, would assert all, and much more, then we do, in this mater, were it not for fear of offending the Magistrat, on whom now they wholly depend, and whose Crea­turs they only are [...]; which hath in our times recon­ciled the Prelatical and Erastian principles, at least in appearance, that are most contrare to and distant from one another, yea more then theirs and ours. And although the Presbyterians and Independants, in the Church of England, do take the oath of Supremacy, yet it is with such explications, allowed & assented to by the Magistrat, that give it a sound sense, which was stumbled and scrupled at both in Queen Elizabeth and King James times, till its sense was explicat, and allowed; as is to be seen in the instructions given to justices of the peace, by Queen Elizabeth, for admini­strating the said oath; & Bishop Ushers explanation of it, approven by King James: In which sense it is under­stood & taken to this day among them. But to under­stand this mater aright, and to avoid the labyrinth of generalities & ambiguities, with which, some divines [Page 175]perplex & intricat it; it would be considered. 1. That there is a two fold proper supremacy, one civil, and another Ecclesiastical, about Church power, meetings and maters.2. There are two Kinds of Causes, of those they call Ecclesiastical; some that are only extrinsically such, but in their nature, im­mediat ends and use; civil, that, for their more remote ends and respects to things truely and properly sa­cred, are called Ecclesiastical, as lawes made for the Church & her concerns, outward liberty and peace, external rewards and punishments, &c. Againe some causes Ecclesiastical are intrinsically and formally such, as who shall preach the Gospel, & be invested with the Ministery, or who shall be deposed from it, who shall be rebuked, admonished and excom­municated; or received and admitted into the Church, &c.3. The terme CAUSES is not here to be un­derstood in a physical, but moral and juridical sense; that is, for questions to be decided by those, who are impowered, either by God or men, to this work.4. Causes or questions, as they are the object of power & its exercise, are either proper and immediat; or els improper and remote. Hence we say. 1. That the Ma­gistrat is Supream Governour in all things or causes, properly civil, relating to causes and persons Eccle­siastical: the judicial cognition and definitive judg­ment of these belong to him, and not to the Church: in this sense we admit the oath of Supremacy, & declar­ed ourselves willing to take it, which was refused us.2. That the Magistrat is not the supreme Governour in Causes, and over persons formally Ecclesiastical▪ This we assert belongs to Christ Jesus only, and not to the Magistrat, as hath been proven above. This is [Page 167]the supremacy, we deny to the Magistrat, and for which we have declined to take the oath anent it, that is now established law, being perswaded (for the reasons formerly given) that this is the supremacy granted by law; and understood in this oath. But3. That causes and persons formally Ecclesiastical, are not the proper and immediat object of the Magi­strats power, but only improper and remote, and the reason is, becaus in the execution of Christs law given to the Church, the judicial cognition and de­finitive judgment about these belongs not to the Ma­gistrat, but to the Ministers of the word; as for in­stance, it is not the Magistrats part to cognosce and determine, who is to be received into the Church, and who not; this is proper to the Ministers of the Gospel: and so of other causes and questions of the like nature. Obj. Then the Magistrat, in protecting, countenancing and furthering of the Churches acts and sentences by the sword, must be a blinde execut­er of them! Ans. This must be said out of envy and malice; for (1.) the Church is the executer of her own acts and sentences, and not the Magistrat, who only puts to execution his owne lawes, that he is pleased to enact on her behalf.(2.) It is known to all, that we grant to the Magistrat, (and to all in the Church,) a discretive judgment to cognosce on the Churches acts and sentences; and if he finde them not to be just, he hath a definitive judgment, anent the execution of his own Lawes made about them: for the obligation that arises from Churches acts and sentences on all in the Church, to the obeying and furthering of them, is only conditional, and not absolute; that is, none is bound to obey and advance [Page 177]the Churches sentences, except their mater be just and righteous, which must be first known before they finde themselves obliged to this. But here the im­mediat object of the Magistrats power and its exer­cise, about Church acts and sentences, is properly civil, and not Ecclesiastical, to wit, whether he will execute his owne law or not. These things are easy and plaine, and if ambition and worldly inte­rests had not determined many to the contrare, there would be little controversie about them.

Obj: 8. The Magistrats power and its exercise a­bout Church maters and meetings, being indepen­dant on the Church; what he does in relation to Church concerns, determinations and sentences, he may doe it antecedent to these, without the Church. Ans. We deny the consequence to be universally true: for some of the Magistrats sentences about Church maters and meetings doe necessarly suppone, the Churches sentences and acts, for their object; as these of ordination, excommunication: acts of regulation &c. must necessarly pass, before the Ma­gistrat can reach the persons and things, to which they are applyed: for instance, before the Magi­strat can doe justice to a Minister in his maintenance, he must first be ordained, & by it have right thereto, on the Churches act of ordination; which must first be known to the Magistrat, and by him given as the ground or reason of his sentence, for the Ministers legal right to enjoy and use the provided and allowed maintenance; and so of many others. We grant, in some cases and things, a power to the Magistrat about Church maters and meetings, which he may exercise, antecedent to the exercise of Church power; [Page 178]he may, yea, no doubt, he ought to command Ministers when negligent, to their work or duty, without a Church sentence, yea contrare to it: but to say, that the exercise of his power, in many things and cases, is not necessarly subsequent to the acts and exercise of Church power, is most absurd, & abhorrent to all right reason; seing there are many things that the Magistrat ought to doe to and for the Church, that necessarly suppone, not only the being, but the exercise of Church power, without which the Magistrat cannot doe: how shall he punish con­tumacious, heretical and excommunicat persones till they be first dealt with by the Church, conforme to the rules of the word, and declared to be such, &c. The reason of the consequence is weak; for all created power suppones its object, and in its exercise must be subsequent and posteriour to it; which is not inconsistent with the independency of any power on another; as is to be seen in the instance of the marital power, and others; the power of the Magistrat about it presupponeth the conjugal relati­on, & its acts, before it can put the laws in execution, anent it, in application to the persones under that relation. The designe of this objection is obvious, which is, to evert all Church Government, the necessity and use of it: but before it have its full in­tended force, it must first be proven, that Church power and its acts are competent to the Magistrat, and may be done by him; as that he may ordaine, depose, receive into, and cast out of the Church, preach the word, dispense all ordinances, &c. which no Erastian hath yet done; for if these be in­competent to the Magistrat, and are to be done by others, the former conclusion will hold.

Conclus. Haveing thus, with all Christian ingen­uity and plainness in the words of truth & sobernes, discovered our hearts anent the foregoeing particu­lars: we expect that much charity and justice from all, (even our Antagonists) that before they give out their censors, they will seriously consider, what is said, and in the ballances of Scripture and true rea­son, impartially ponderat the reasons and grounds of our judgment and practice: least, in stead of fighting against us, they happily be found to fight against God; for seing the grounds, on which we build, are of common obligation on all Christians, and on which, our Christian profession leans; none can refuse our conclusions, but they must either contra­dict and shake the foundations of the said profession; or els shew their inconsequence, and inconsistancy with these: we have not insisted on, nor much made use of particular places of Scripture, nor wrangled (as many in their debaits doe) about the sense and application of these, nor laid the stress of our argu­ments from antiquity on citations from particular fathers and historians; but on the series and threed of these ancient records; to which we appeal, anent the maters debated in the preceeding discourse: as any, that deals candidly and impartially, will, on trial, find. The issue of our adversaries arguments, in the defence of the Antitheses, resolving in these three, the imperfection of the Scriptures; the manifest and violent perverting and wresting of them; the pro­fessed and open contradicting of their authority, by Hobs Leviathan, and others more gross, (if grosser can be) do sufficiently declare, what the tenden­cy of the contrare opinion is, and what we may [Page 180]expect, will be the result of the same, if things continue, for sometime, in their present channel. All Protestants, before these debats entered on the field, esteemed the perfection of the Scriptures, the chief and principal foundation of the reformed pro­testant Religion; and builded thereon their doctrins, in opposition to popery: which, the patrones of prelacy doe now strick at, and labour to shake, in denying their sufficiency or perfection, in maters of obedience or practice; whereby they break the force of all the arguments, that the Protestants used against the Papists, for the fulness and perfection of the holy Scriptures: and the truth is, prelacy cannot be mainta­ined without this assertion; as is to be seen in the most eminent assertors of it: for if we hold the Scrip­tures to be a perfect and full rule of faith and man­ners, and not to be receded from, in maters of doctrine, worship and Government; the prelacy con­troverted, having so little evidence from them, it cannot stand, and if this sufficient regulation of the Scripturs be refused, what a wide door is opened to humane inventions; and what may not men bring in at it, to the corrupting and polluting of all the Churches concerns? We grant, the admitting of the Scriptures, for a pairt of the Churches Canon and rule, seems to draw a barr on much of the Romish trash, (which is condemned thereby;) but does not the prelates boldness, in violenting and forceing of them, in answering of our arguments, and main­taining of their concepts, remove this barr, and lay the door open, for what they will for howbeit the Scripture speaks, against the worshiping of Creatures, Images, Angels and Men, and chargeth these pra­ctises [Page 181]with idolatry: yet Thorndike, and most of the now prelatical gang, purge the popish masse, the worshiping of the host, of the virgine Mary, Ima­ges & Saints, from idolatry and superstition. How impudently bold are the Erastians, in wresting the Scriptures, used by their antagonists; in which they are not inferior to the Socinians, and the most noted hereticks of the Church; but we must say, with lesse shew of reason; as will be evident to any, that will compare them together in their comments. What se­curity can the Church promise her self from these mens principles and wayes, who build their con­clusions, on such foundations, which if once ad­mitted overturns all? But alas! when to enlarge the Magistrats power, and to give support to their wild assertions about it, the divine authority and doctrins of the Holy Scriptures are boldly contradicted; and all Religion ultimatly resolved into the Magistrats Conscience and Lawes; as Hobs Leviathan, Parker & others, undertake to make out, against the founda­tions & superstructu [...]s of our Religion, are they not thus pulled done to uphold the Magistrat, & to extend an immense power in him? but, we hope, to the ex­ternal shame, confusion and ruine of the cause for which they contend. How much doe we finde that saying of Pauls 2. Timoth 3.13. verified in these men, evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, decei­ving and being deceived? but our confidence is, that their folly being made manefest to all men, they shall pro­ceed no further: for the cause which they oppose is Gods, and that which he must owne and plead; seing the Royal prerogative of his absolute Soverai­gnity and Supremacy, are intrinched upon, and [Page 182]struck at [...]y his Creatures, the wormes of the earth; who, contrare to their indebted and professed sub­jection to him, assault his throan, and invade the regalities of his high and glorious Crowne, which he will uphold. OH that all, ingadged in this warr a­gainst the Lord and his anointed, would read and consider the Second Psalme, and yet hearken to what is there foretold anent the issue of it, which will be sad and heavy to them, that obstinatly set themselves in opposition to Christ and his Kingdome. Let none, that side with Christ in this quarrel, be affrayed or ashamed, to appear in its defence against all sorts of opponents; for as we have the full light and eviden­ce of the Word of God, to justify its righteousness, from the reproaches of men: So we have the righ­teous and Almighty God to take our part, who, on the account of his justice and Supream dominion, is ingadged to owne them, that owne him in this cause. In contending for these, we contend not for honours, dignities and the riches of this world; but only for the Lawes, Ordinances, and Servants of Christ Jesus, and that obedience and subjection to him in them, that he requires of all in his word; yea for the Royal dignities, & supereminent prerogatives of his righteous and glorious Crowne, which the Fa­ther hath placed on his head; giving him a name a­bove all names, that, in the name of this JESUS, all knees should bow, yea shall bow. Who needs to be affrayed, who owne such a King, and have him on their side, who in his own persone overcame & Tri­umphed over all his enemies; & yet againe will doe so, in the persones of his weak, contemned and persecuted servants & people. The Lord build up the walls of Je­rusalem, & make her a peacable habitation. Amen.