2. Is it not as great presumption in them to judge that to have been the Assemblies moving cause in appointing Visitations which they have not given-out themselves but only of some few Presbyteries here and there especially in the remotest corners as if they could appoint none but where their Delegats must find guilt whether it be or not Might they not well enough appoint Visitations to try and know the estate of the Church in severall corners and to censure where they found ought amiss without concluding that Synods and Presbyteries were unhealthy to do their work We can instruct they appointed places to be visited where our Brethren themselves would be loath to say Judicatories were not able nor willing either to do that work themselves yea their mentioning the miscarriages only of some Presbyteries as the cause why they appoint them to be visited doth clearly assoil other places appointed also to be visited where there is no mention of any such thing as may be seen from the Commissions themselves But to clear this matter a little it seems these Witnesses have a faculty of forgetting any thing that is not to their purpose For others who were at the Assembly 1648. at which time these Visitations first began those of the Isles and Highlands only excepted and the Assemblies following do very well remember that albeit the enormities of some few Presbyteries did call-for such Visitations and albeit all these Commissions were drawn up in the general and ordinary form giving power to try and censure any faults that should be found and that in some of them in any Presbyterie within a Province as well as another Yet the Assemblies were moved to appoint most of these Visitations neither upon the account of the generall corruption or aversness of the greater part of the Presbyteries to do that work nor yet mainly for cognoscing upon other scandals But chiefly for the trial and censure of such as had accession to the sinfull courses and defections of the time to the prejudice of the work of Reformation Wherein the Judicatories were like to meet with difficulties from persons within the several bounds who were either actually carrying-on or censured for these courses and not as yet reconciled to the Church And therefore the Assemblies did fall upon that way as the most effectual in that exigent for carrying-on the work notwithstanding these difficulties and did choose rather to take that matter into the hands of their own Delegats than let Presbyteries wrestle therein with much disadvantage in several places Which being well remembred will commend much the prudence of the Assemblies but not at all reflect upon the Presbyteries 3. We have already cleared that there is no cause to assert that this Church is in a worse condition now than when many of these were in who are now purged out or that there is any malignant faction among us except they will call them so who do oppose their irregularities and therefore they would first prove that there is a faction standing in opposition to the work of Reformation before they so often cast it upon us 4. As we are not bound to maintain the language of any particular persons against the proceedings of Assemblies who it may be were afterward for just causes put to the door nor yet to believe all that they assert of this kind So that they dare not fasten this upon any Presbyteries or Synods though they are pleased to speak of not a few in them is to us a proof that Presbyteries and Synods were not unwilling to have that work done as they alleage And withall the carpings of some men at the regular and orderly proceedings of their superiour Judicatories who had they been in these times might have learned not to submit to them since they judged not their Sentences just should not stop our mouthes from challenging the usurpations of others They tell us also pag. 38 39. that to avoid this Overture they did offer that the Commission and Visitations of the Assembly 1650. might sit if not by Authority derived from that Assembly yet by the mutual condescendencie and approbation of Presbyteries whereby also they might have power to compose differences Ans But they having before that time approven their own Protestations and condemned two General Assemblies and upon that account sitten in that Commission without so much as a copie of their Commission as a Judicatory to continue so long as they were pleased to protest against any subsequent General Assemblies and to manage all the publick affairs of the Church In that case it was not lawfull for us to accord the Overture of setting up Courts whose Commissions were long ago expired and some of which they had striven to keep up upon the ruines of the Assemblies Nor do we see that Presbyteries except conveened in a Generall Assembly and by giving a new Commission could authorize men to act in so universall and large a capacity where themselves had no jurisdiction or authorize men in no other Provinces to exercise jurisdiction over themselves Secondly That our exceptions against this extrajudiciall Committee are irrelevant To this purpose they speak several things pag. 34 35 36 37. whereof we give this brief account 1. They tell us that they desire none to be in these Visitations but members of the respective Synods Answ But then sure the Committee in whole being of equall numbers will be but a small number if any at all in some Synods where few or none of their judgement are 2. They tell us that no power is desired to be given them but what is Ecclesiasticall and that they are not to proceed by any rule but by the Word of God and Acts of uncontroverted Assemblies where we must at all occasions lay by other Assemblies because they are pleased to controvert and question them Answ But they should first have cleared to us that such a Court so chosen is a Court of Christs institution and that to be equally divided of different judgements and these chosen not by the Synods but the respective parties are Scripturall qualifications of a Church-judicatory 3. They tell us that they desire not their power to be derived from any fountain but from the Synod it self Answ But yet they endeavoured to have it imposed upon the Synods that they should give them that power and the Synods may justly question if they be bound by the Word of God to give their power to persons whom they have not the credit to choice whose election qualifications that they be of both judgements in equal numbers work and way of their calling them to an account are all imposed upon them and prescribed to their hand 4. They tell us the nomination is made by no forinsick persons party or power but by intrinsick members of the Synod it self Answ But they well know that this is not the way of Church-government where nominations go by the suffrages of the Judicatories 5. They tell us we wrong
are they so The Judge pronouncing a Sentence counts it just it may be so do all others but the Party He will not submit to his Judges Verdict Can he then find any Arbitrators to whom he is rather bound to submit than to his Judge Or must all return to his own private judgement of discretion not only as to what he will approve or do but what he will suffer And yet was it ever almost found but that Parties Sentenced were grieved and dissatisfied therewith And might not these Hereticks who were Censured Act. 15. have urged the same plea And did not the Arminians at Dort and do not Hereticks at all occasions condemn the Sentences of their Judges and yet their Judges did not yeeld the Question to them If a comparison be instituted betwixt the Judges and the Party The Judges may safely alleage that it is not so probable they are in an errour as the Party as being a multitude of Counsellours wherein is safety as being lesse blinded with passion and personal concernments in the cause than the Party is and having a more expresse promise though they pretend not to infallibility for direction and assistance in judgement Matth. 18.19 20. Thus Beza Epist 59. pleading the Cause of Christs Courts against some disturber willeth him to consider that though they consist not of sinlesse men yet it is probable that many should be wiser than one If we speak to their procedure they are ready to offer all rationall satisfaction These Witnesses say that it is a Praecognitum in all Sentences to be pronounced by Judges and obeyed by Parties that they be just Sentences pag. 52 53. That Ministers ought to be subject only to lawfull admonitions That Suspension and Deposition should be for lawfull causes pag. 51. That Intrants are engaged to submit themselves to Admonitions and Censures only when they slide and offend pag. 60. And the Judges say their Sentence is just for lawfull causes and upon real sliding though they cannot perswade the party that it is so If they alleage that even in the matter of Transportations the Judicatories are bound to give reasons for the expediency of the same much more should they deal meekly in Sentences pag. 51 52. The Judge declineth not so to do they are ready to give solid reasons for their deed though they cannot perswade the party to see them Yea they are ready to hear what the party can offer against the Sentence though they cannot convince him that his reasons have no force They will grant him that his private judgment of discretion maketh him a judge of his own actions though yet but a subordinate judge as to what he should do pag. 97. but cannot allow it should hinder and bind them up from censuring what is wrong or warrant him not to submit in the point of suffering When we enquire what remedy is there to avoid a Schism and preserve Unity and Order if they submit not They tell us pag. 49. If the Sentence be unjust it ought to be recognized and repealed If it be just and of an inferiour nature that is a lesser degree of Censure if the persons will not submit they are after due procedure to be cast out as those that will not hear the Church c. And what is this but the very constant practice of the Judicatories though parties will not see that they judge justly And what shall the Judge do if after the Sentence of Excommunication is pronounced the party still refuse to submit They offer us no remedy in that case for preserving of Order and avoiding of Schism So that in a word the case cometh to this Not if they ought to submit to an unjust Sentence But whether let all the Judicatories even from an Eldership to an Oecumenick Council proceed never so justly and conscientiously yet the party censured is still supream judge on earth of all their proceedings and his own actings and behaviour in reference to whatsoever of their Sentences So that till he be convinced he must suffer nothing but counteract at his pleasure And if this be a sound principle all sober Christians will judge And when they cry-out so much that we do not purge we desire to know how by this principle we can purge any at all Or if others be not free to make use of it as well as they We shall shut-up this part of the discourse with some account of the judgement of others in this very matter The Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland then at London Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston and Mr. Rutherfurd being of that number in their Reformation of Church-government in Scotland cleared from some mistakes and prejudices pag. 17. do assert that To limit the censure of Excommunication the like may be said of Suspension and Deposition of Ministers and other Censures in matter of opinion to the common and uncontroverted principles and in the matter of manners to the common and universall practices of Christianity and in both to the parties KNOWN LIGHT is the dangerous doctrine of the Arminians and Socinians c. To this we adde a further Consideration of that Objection mentioned before How Judicatories can without wronging Christian Liberty inflict Censures or put men to suffer who professe that after examination of the Decrees or Constitutions they cannot be perswaded of the lawfulnesse of the same To this beside what is before marked further answer is given by Mr. Gillespie in his Assertion part 2. chap. 4. pag. 152 153. 1. That our Divines by these Tenets of Christian liberty and the allowance of a privat judgement of discretion do not mean to open a door to disobedience and contempt of the Ordinances of a Synod but only to oppugn the Popish errour concerning the binding power of Ecclesiastical Laws by the sole will and naked authority of the Law-maker and that Christian People ought not to seek any further reason or motive of obedience And we are so far from this that we not only offer reasons of Laws to be actively obeyed of which he here speaketh but even of Sentences to be submitted unto though the contemners and disobeyers will not see them 2. A Synod must ever put a difference betwixt those who out of a real scruple of conscience in a modest and peaceable way refuse obedience understand active obedience to which he is speaking to their Ordinances still using the means of their better information and those who contemptuously or factiously disobey the same labouring with all their might to strengthen themselves in their errour and to perswade others to be of their mind How applicable this distinction is to the carriage of these Witnesses in the matters of our late differences we leave even to themselves to judge The same Mr. Gillespie in his Miscellanie Questions chap. 16. pag. 207. saith It is no tyranny over mens consciences to punish a great and scandalous sin such as the refusing and opposing of the
Oeconomicall Mr. Gee in his Treatise of the Civil Magistrate pag. 36 37. urgeth that indeed lawfull powers are bound to use it lawfully but yet asserteth it as yeelded by all that this is not simply necessary to the being of a lawfull power but a power that is unlawfull only as to exercise may be for its habit and being included in the Text Rom. 13. and its irregular actings only discarded from it 4. That by the Word of God Submission or passive obedience is required and commended in some cases and that of a different nature from the suffering of guilty persons Matth. 5.10 11. 1 Pet. 4.15 16. And that in some cases the People of God are called to suffer without resisting as hath been the frequent practice of Saints and asserted by all Orthodox Divines writing upon Subjection as contradistinct to Obedience 5. That as Schism is an evil disapproven and never warranted of God So a man may be guilty of Schism who not only maketh a Rent and causeth disorder upon a cause destitute of truth but also upon a cause not weighty and relevant though true in it self This is so obvious to all who are anything acquainted with the Scriptures and with the Writings of the Ancients or latter Divines upon the nature and evil of Schism that it is needlesse to insist on the probation of it Whoso pleaseth to peruse Mr. Baxter in his Explication of the Agreement of the Ministers of Worcester-shire pag. 119. will finde much to this purpose in few words And among others these passages If the Scripture were conscionably observed men would take Church-division for a greater sin than Adultery or Theft Mutinies and Divisions do more infallibly destroy an Armie than almost any other fault or weaknesse And therefore all Generals punish Mutineers with death as well as flat Traitors And a little after Commonly they that divide for the bringing in of any inferiour truth or practice do but destroy that truth and piety that was there before We might upon these grounds multiply Arguments as they have taken pleasure it seemeth that way to make a shew of many which may be reduced to very few But we shall content our selves with these 1. If there be a Submission and passive Obedience due by Christians in any case to the Sentence of a Judicatory and commended of God as hath been presupposed and cannot without contradicting the principles of Christianity be denyed Then certainly it must be due to unjust Sentences For unto just Sentences requiring a duty under pain of Censure active obedience and not passive is due by the Word of God And as for Sentences inflicting Censures it is true Submission to such just Sentences is due by the Word of God but that is not the passive obedience required and so much commended in Saints in the Word but only that suffering which is contra-distinct to suffering as evil doers or for just causes as is clear from 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and 4.14 15 16 19. So that unlesse they will banish a command to suffer according to the will of God or cleanly suffering with a good conscience out of the Bible they cannot avoid this 2. As it is granted that Authoritie and Submission are correlative pag. 45. And that in just Sentences beside the obligation of the matter there is a formal obligation by its coming from such an Authority pag. 46. So in an unjust Sentence albeit Judges have no authority nor warrant from God to do that act and it is null before Him nor doth it oblige the conscience by vertue of the matter of it Yet so long as they continue the standing Authority of a Church somewhat is due to them relative to that Authority and that is Submission If they could make them simpliciter no Judges because they erre in a particular fact they would say somewhat but seing they are still lawfull Judges even when they pronounce that Sentence though they fail in it It must be held as of general verity that while persons continue invested with lawfull Authority Obedience or if obedience cannot with a good conscience be given Submission is due to their actings by privat persons For if Submission and passive obedience or cleanly suffering be due in any case and that not to just but to unjust Sentences and if the Submission be due not by vertue of any warrant given by God to pronounce that Sentence for there is none Then certainly there is a Submission due to the standing Authority of a Judge or Court as they continue still Gods Ordinance though they erre in that particular This consequence is not only owned and urged by Mr. Durham on the Revelation pag. 100. That submitting unto Church-power is a necessary and concerning duty and that without this Submission there could be no Government nor exercise of Power But their own very concession formerly mentioned pag. 45 46. doth put it beyond all controversie For if Authority and Submission be correlative and the one cannot subsist without the other more than one relative can actually subsist without its correlative Then we hope it is no slander to say that Submission is essential to Presbyterial Government seing Logicians have taught us and they grant it that take away a relative and the correlative ceaseth to be And therefore also either must the Authority of Judicatories when they pronounce some unjust Sentence be totally annulled or Submission must be payed as due to that Authority as hath been said This may 3. be further confirmed à pari Magistrates are bounded by the Word of God that they may not by their Commission judge unjustly nor pronounce an unjust Sentence more than Church-judicatories And yet albeit Magistrates do decree an unrighteous Sentence they may not be resisted but must be submitted unto by privat persons unlesse they would resist the Ordinance of God though coming short of the Rule in that particular act Now if this be granted to the standing Authority of Magistrates erring in a particular fact and granted it must be unlesse men will blow the Trumpet of Rebellion to every privat person and condemn Saints in former ages in their suffering under the unjust Sentences even of wicked Magistrates it cannot be denied either to the standing Authority of Church-judicatories Seing the case is alike as to the Authority of both to do evil and Subjection is due only in the Lord to the one as to the other And here we desire the Reader to take notice of a passage of Mr. Burroughs in his Lectures on Hosea chap. 1. ver 10. pag. 111. cited by Mr. Gee Treatise of the Magist pag. 257 258. where having denied that Submission active or passive is due to the Commands of men till it be brought to a Law and they be a Power He subjoyneth When things are brought into a Law understand a lawfull Authority established according to the Agreements and Covenants of the place where we live as the following words are and then suppose this Authority
be abused and there be an ill law made then I confesse if the law be of force we must either quit our selves of the Countrey or else submit or suffer When then it cometh to be a power to be a law it is Authority though abused and we must yeeld obedience to it either actively or passively If it be said that men submit to the force not to the Authority of the civil Magistrate in these cases Ans Not to insist that they know the Church also useth all the force they have and so the case is alike It would be considered That to submit only to the force of a Magistrate pronouncing and executing an unjust Sentence is only that Submission out of prudence and for preventing other disturbances which Mr. Burroughs in the forecited place granteth may be yeelded to unlawfull powers But it is not that Submission out of conscience which he holds to be due to lawful Authority and their laws even when Authority is abused in making them For it is a Scripture Rule that we are to be subject not only for wrath but for conscience sake Rom. 13.5 Which Mr. Gee pag. 112. expoundeth a subjection of conscience as the principle of conscience is contra-distinct from terrour and compulsory punishment And it is known sufferers use not to wait for force to make them submit but do it in submission to Authority Condemned persons wait not till they be drawn to the place of execution but go on their own feet and banished persons will depart upon the charge of a Magistrate Yea where men unjustly Sentenced have been in a capacity to resist force as Christians were in the Armies of Pagan Emperours yet they have submitted to Authority and suffered 4. That which taketh away all use of Appeals instituted by Christ in the case of mal-administration cannot be of God for one Ordinance of God doth not make another of no effect Now this Doctrine of Non-submission and counter-acting doth make void all use of Appeals For as hath been cleared before the Appeal from an unjust Sentence supposeth submission to it in the mean time for let it be holden that such a Sentence is null and not to be submitted unto and let a Church owne that principle and there needeth no Appeal 5. That also which involveth a man in the guilt of Schism cannot be of God But a man not submitting to some unjust Sentence is involved in the guilt of Schism because though he have right on his side yet his personall suffering is not tanti as to be laid in the ballance with the confusion and open contempt of lawfull Authority and other inconveniences attending upon his Non-submission And albeit his Judge must answer to Christ for his unjust Sentence yet he must answer for his Schism if he suffer not patiently 6. To this may be added That it should rub an imputation upon the wisdom of God who hath put this trust in fallible mens hands who may and do erre if Submission were not a safe medium to be acquiesced in betwixt the rocks of sinfull obedience and schismaticall contra-acting in a Church or rebellion in a State For the governing of us not being entrusted to men who cannot erre without this medium men can hardly walk under the dispensations of providence toward them but either they must split on one hand or other Whereas now by yeelding suffering to be commanded of God and a duty laid upon us in such cases we wipe off all imputations cast on Him and may walk in peace of mind though with some personall prejudice VII As to the Arguments which they muster up against this Submission if we hold them at their word pag. 115 116. that in some cases they would not much contend about it of which we have also spoken before we might leave it at their own door to answer them and to clear how in any case they would not contend about what they plead so much against as sinfull For sin in any case and in any matter is sinfull and so not to be yeelded unto And if they can bring sufficient reasons why in the cases they mention in the fore-cited passage they may submit to an unjust Sentence They will save us a labour in vindicating our selves and answering their Arguments against the Submission we plead for But for further satisfaction As we have already in this debate met with many of their reasons and particular branches of them and either answered them or laid them aside as impertinent to our Question which we shall not now repeat So we do offer a brief return to what is or seemeth to be further materiall in their reasonings in these particulars 1. Their scope in a great part of their discourse and Arguments is to evince That because Judges have no Commission or Authority from Christ to pronounce an unjust Sentence Therefore they are not to be submitted unto unlesse men will take their will and arbitriment for a law to their Consciences But this is a great fallacy and confounding of things that are very different Namely of the Rule whereby Judges ought to walk in their administrations and the rule whereby the Lords people ought to walk under these dispensations of providence toward them whereof humane Judges in their administrations are the interveening Instruments We yeeld that Judicatories are limited by their Commission that they may do no unjust act and if they do they must answer to God for it We yeeld also that the rule of their Commission doth regulate also those who are under them as to their approving or giving active obedience to their injunctions But when it comes to the matter of suffering and being passive after we have exonered our selves we do not look to their will as our rule or ground of our Submission but to a peculiar Command of God enjoyning Submission in such cases to prevent schism and confusion This may easily take off the most of their reasonings They urge Acts of Assemblies pag. 51. that Ministers ought to be censured for lawfull and just causes and take much pains to prove that Judicatories are bound to judge according to the Word Arg. 1. and elsewhere And when they do otherwise that they act that for which they have no Commission nor power pag. 96. All which we grant to be true of Ecclesiasticall Judges as it is also alike true of Civil Powers that none of them have a power to judge unjustly and that God who commands us to be subject unto them commands them to judge justly And therefore in the case of unrighteous judgement we neither approve nor give active obedience yea we are free for the liberation of our own souls to contradict even an Oecumenick Council Angels Prophets and Apostles if they determine contrary to the Word of God as they have it Arg. 8. yea and to do more also if they bring in another Doctrine of the Gospel to which the Scripture there cited speaketh Gal. 1.6 7 8. And so
Prelates tenet to that effect and consequently do not speak to the case of passive submission which is the matter in debate betwixt us and for which we hope to give relevant grounds these principles being all granted II. As to the persons or Judicatories to whom this Submission is due We do not urge Subordination or Submission to any Judge incompetent or which is not Ecclesiasticall Nor to any Ecclesiastcal Officer or Judicatory that is not of Christs institution Nor to any corrupt society calling themselves a Church or Judicatory of Christ while they are a Synagogue of Satan standing in opposition to the Doctrine of Christ But we plead for Subordination and Submission in a true Church and to Christs own Courts and Officers in her such as we hold the Church of Scotland now constituted to be For further clearing their mistakes in this matter we shall branch-out this Assertion in these 1. We plead not for Submission to an incompetent Judicatorie or a Judicatory not Ecclesiastical Upon this account among other reasons to be after mentioned as they might have spared Amos his not submitting to Amaziah pag. 100. who was not his Judge and the Apostles not submitting to the Council at Jerusalem pag. 101. which was no Judge-competent to any Officer of the Church of the New Testament there being other Courts appointed for the Government thereof as they conveened a Synod for judging of Doctrine and censuring of Offenders Act. 15. So all their instances of Non-submission of Church-officers in the matters of their Office to Civil Authority in the first instance fall to the ground For we hope it is agreed that Erastianism is contrary to the Word of God and condemned in this Church Though as to this matter we know not what to say of the judgment of these Witnesses For on the one hand they seem to magnifie Osianders observation though none of the most Orthodox Divines nor yet the most moderate of his party concerning the liberty of fleeing to the Magistrate pag. 58 59. and yet pag. 100. they put Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority in one Classe as to the matter of Submission We are sure whatever hath been their practice of application to the Civil Power it hath not been to preserve them from persecution but that they might obtain power to persecute And if they will turn Erastians we can say no further but the more wrongs the worse and omne Schisma parit Errorem as we have too much proof of their many new principles Though indeed whatever their pretences be for their own ends they are known to be alike respective both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority and that the overturning of either or both is alike to them before they reach not their ends 2. We plead not for Submission to Officers and Judicatories not of Christs own institution such as not only Popes but Prelates who drew all things in subjection to their Cathedral Church as is cleared by Divines destinguishing betwixt Presbyterial and Episcopal Government and Synods and were no lawful Church-Officers So that here their arguments conclude not taken from the practice of Ministers not submitting to the Sentences of Prelates in this Church pag. 55. For 1 It is not clear to us that they did not submit to the Censures inflicted We do find the contrary supposed in the Writings of these times both of one side and other that upon these Sentences they were to be put out of their places as is insinuated in a Treatise published anno 1620. by an opposer of Conformity bearing the Title of A Dialogue betwixt Cosmophilus and Theophilus As also in Mr. Struthers Letter to the Earl of Airth in the year 1630. printed 1635. It is true some of them preached after their Sentences But it is to be remembred that whatever was the after-strictnesse of Prelats in their Canons published anno 1636. of which mention is made by these Witnesses pag. 111. Yet at their first dealling with honest men so far as they can remember who suffered by them they did not depose them simpliciter from the Ministery but only desposed or removed them from their Ministery at the Kirk where they served and from the Benefice And this they all submitted unto having by their Protestations and Declinators born testimony against them as incompetent Judges though they preached elsewhere And this is the more probable to us in that never any of these sufferers were pursued so far as we can remember with any Censure by them for their preaching after the Sentence and in that when some of them were permitted to return to their charges there was not any re-admission of them thereunto which had been necessary if they had been simpliciter deposed but a simple returning to their work 2. But suppose they did not submit and let it be yeelded also that their Non-submission was nothing the weaker that the cause for which they were Sentenced was unjust as they urge pag. 55 56. and particularly that they were Sentenced for not conforming to Popish Innovations introduced in the Church or not acknowledging Prelatical Authority which is far from our case as we shall after hear yet they laid the weight of their Non-submission upon their Judges being no Officers appointed by Christ to rule His House which some if not all of them witnessed by their Declinatures in the time of their being Sentenced For they can bring no instance of any one of them Sentenced by Presbyteries only and they not submitting And however they alleage pag. 55. that the Prelats did sometime associate to themselves the Ministery of those bounds where the supposed Delinquent served that is the Presbyterie whereof he was a member which was a lawfull Authority Yet we cannot learn that de facto they did associat these unto them in censuring such as did not submit whatever was their practice in censuring some others for grosse scandals but did proceed in these in their High Commission Court Nor do we think these Witnesses believe they did associate or call these unto them that they might act authoritatively with them as a Presbyterie but they did all by their own Authority 3. Withall it is to be remarked that however some Ministers did not give Submission to the Sentences of Prelats in this Church where Prelacy was but in introducing and was not fully setled to the divesting of Presbyteries of their power Yet the practice of Non-conformists in England where that had been the only Government from the beginning of Reformation was different where they not only submitted to the unjust Sentences of Prelats yea of their Commissaries and Officials but being quarrelled therefore by the Brownists they wrote a Treatise in defence of the Church of England and themselves since published by Mr. Rathband anno 1644. under the tittle of A most grave and modest Confutation of the Brownists wherein they assert That the Church of England being a true Church and Episcopall Government the only Church-government established by Authority though
disallowed by them they held it their duty rather to submit to their unjust Sentences than to rent the Church as may be seen throughout the whole Treatise and especially pag. 39 40 41 42. Some passages whereof we will have occasion to cite afterward In the mean time these principles and practices of theirs may give a sad check to the miscarriage of these Witnesses towards Christs own Courts and Officers To this we shall adde a testimony of Beza no novice in the point of Church-government in his Epistle directed to some Englishes who wrote to him for resolution in some matters of Church-government Epist 12. Pag. 105. Where hoping some other course would be taken with learned and godly men in England by the Queen and others than that either they should be put to do that which is evil against their consciences or be forced to quit their Ministery He addeth Tertium enim illud c. For as to that third course which it seems they had propounded to him viz. That they should exerce their Ministery against the Queen and Bishops will we abhor it yet more and that for such causes as may be easily understood though we hold our peace Who so will read these Epistles may find very much to this purpose and of the necessity of Order for preservation of Doctrine particularly Epist 14. and 24. and 59. and diverse others wherein he speaketh to our case as if he were alive and consulted in it and vindicateth the Government from the aspersion of Tyranny then also cast upon it 3. While we plead not for Submission to a corrupt Society calling themselves a Church or Judicatory of Christ but in a true Church and to Christs own Courts and Officers Such as we hold Ministers of the Gospel and Elders assembled in a Session Presbyterie Synod or National Assembly to be They might well have spared all their parallels with the Popish Church formerly mentioned which we account Babylon and not Zion And that example of Athanasius pag. 57 58. 106. who though he quarrelled not the constitution of Synods as they were made up of Bishops yet he saw well enough they were but a company of Arians not worshipping nor acknowledging the Son of God and therefore not worthy to be accounted one of His Courts But of this more afterward Only as to the matter in hand we desire it may be remembred how much stresse Protestant Divines lay in this Question upon this that the Churches are true Churches to which Submission is required Beza writing to a Church-disturber Epist 5. rejecteth all his pretences of zeal or love in that matter affirming that having acquainted his lawfull Pastors or delated the matter with which he was dissatisfied to the Synod he had sufficiently exonered himselfe as to his duty For otherwise saith he What can be established in a Church I speak of TRUE CHURCHES such as we affirm all our Churches through grace to be though never so rightly or holily but the pretence of zeal and love may overturn it and closeth that discourse with that passage of the Apostle against contentious men 1 Cor. 11.16 When the Remonstrants at Dort gave in their Declinator against that Synod as a Court they ought not to submit unto How sharply did the Divines tax them upon this very account of their declining to submit to a Judicatory consisting of Officers of true Reformed Churches lawfully called and authorized to be a Court of Christ The Synod of South-Holland met at Delph had told them before that if they would not submit to the judgement of the Reformed Churches they could not be acknowledged for Ministers of the Reformed Churches As their Judgment recorded in the Acts of the Synod of Dort pag. 88 89. Edit in folio doth more fully clear The Divines of Hassia tell them that their Declinator did openly proclaim that they held not themselves members of these Churches but had gone out and made a separation from them The Divines of Geneva having answered their exception that Protestants refused to submit to Popish Councils they presse the necessity of Order and Submission to Judicatories in true Churches according to the Rule of Christ Matth. 18.17 And close all with this That the Remonstrants adhering to their Declinator do thereby declare that they renounce Union with the Reformed Churches of the Nether-lands In which case they conceive it is incumbent to the Supream Magistrate to consider what ought to be done And the Divines of Breme look upon their practice as opening a door to all confusion as overturning all Church-judgment and authority to which Christ Himselfe did remit us and making way for a perpetuall disturbance of the Church by contentious men 4. While we assert that in this case we require Submission in a true Church of Christ in Scotland and to His own lawfull Courts and Officers in her in which case we think Submission is due by all who account them such we are to consider 1. That these Witnesses have drawn this Question to a further extent than it was at the beginning For at first when four of their number refused Submission to the Sentences of the Assembly at Saint Andrews and Dundee the reason given out was because they had protested against that Assembly as no lawfull Court nor having any Authority to inflict Censures and so they were not obliged to submit But now they make it the question not only whether they may refuse Submission to an Assembly which is protested against and which consisting of elected Members out of other Judicatories may be corrupted by prelimitations upon elections or otherwise and so have no lawfull Authority But whether submission be due to the standing and ordinary Courts of a Church how lawfull soever in their Constitution as consisting of the ordinary Ministers and Elders in such a bounds if so be their Sentence be wrong upon the matter which reaches yet a sadder blow to a Church-government while they stand Courts cloathed with Christs Authority even themselves being Judges and yet Submission is denied unto them 2. That it is a Question worth our inquiry in this matter whether they do indeed acknowledge the Judicatories of this Church to be lawfull Courts or whether they do not judge them so corrupt as upon that very account they are not to be submitted unto Their joyning with us in the Judicatories without any protestation against their Constitution as corrupt and their other carriage in reference to our Judicatories which they mention pag. 13. gave us some ground not to suspect any such thing of them But now this Pamphlet affords us other thoughts for all along they not only decline to joyn in a Generall Assembly as a lawfull Judicatory where we are the plurality of the constituent Members who yet are the standing Officers of this Church So pag. 84 93. and elsewhere it is put as a stop to all Overtures of Union so long as the execution thereof is put in the hands of