up formerly five Diocesses of our Prelats Further if he but gave his simple opinion upon demand in this matter and was not a projecter and procurer of it what needed any opposition to make him lay it aside and not prosecute it any further And how will he or they either convince knowing men that it flowed from his condescendence that that Order was laid aside when it was the deed of these in power here who perceiving the inexpediencie thereof and the prejudice redounding to many Ministers thereby procured the annulling thereof This also we may say further It was no sooner laid aside but they were upon new projects prejudiciall to the Church as is asserted in the Declaration 3. They say that we have done worse our selves for bringing the Ministerie into bondage by clandestine capitulations about Intrants to the Ministrie Answ We wish they had spoken out what they think needlesse to mention and if they had spoken truth it would have appeared how falsly they have charged us with any such clandestine capitulation and how much more falsly they have charged us with bringing the Ministrie under bondage In the mean time for our part we deny that there was any such thing And Mr. Rutherfurd who in his late Preface to his Survey chargeth this on a meeting of Correspondents from Synods hath given in print as much under his hand as that Engagement he speaks of amounts to so that if the rest be of his mind they quarrel not the thing it self but that they have not the credit to do it alone VI. In answer to what is said of their design in their three Proposals at London they give us an account and that in a different character of what we say of the first concerning their seeking a Commission for Plantation of Churches pag. 62. and in more than three pages following speak highly to our observations thereupon but never a word of the other two Proposals which the Authors of the Declaration laid most stresse upon for proving their Conclusion and therefore subjoyned them to the former in a different character that they might be taken notice of These Witnesses foreseeing how truly all these three together might prove the charge did therefore shufle in these as was said before with the businesse of the Conference where these same things were debated That so they might set their thumb upon them as if there were nothing of them here and then cry How weakly is it argued to conclude their attempting the ruin of this Church c because they desired a Commission of Plantation having power of disposing of the legal maintenance of Ministers As if because one of them and possibly the weakest of the three do not conclude it therefore all the three together will not And as if to endeavour the imposing upon Ecclesiasticall-judicatories in Ecclesiastick affairs by the Civil Power were but a peccadillo not worth the noticing by men who are writing Apologeticks of their respect to the Government and answering Calumnies as they call them cast upon them in that matter and when that is one of the particular and weighty charges laid at their door We believe it is no incivility to desiderate ingenuity and candor here and to suspect that this tergiversation speaketh no excesse of honesty in this particular And they know that if all the circumstances of their carriage and way in prosecuting these Proposals and other projects at London tending to the same end were laid open to the world it would give such a character of their respect to Presbyterial Government as would be little pleasing to them But what do they say even as to that Proposal 1. They tell us that they finding the inconvenience of putting the disposing of the legall maintenance of Ministers into the hands of a peculiar Court and then of the Council they did supplicate to have all that way altered and that Ministers might have full accesse to their stipends without Bonds or Engagements c. And that there might be a Commission for Plantation of Churches who might also do the duty of the Civil Magistrate anent Ecclesiastick matters c. Answ We have never heard more of the first part of their Supplication which we heartily wish were granted that they are pleased to tell us here and therefore fides penes Authores and if they have done good service in preserving the Liberties of this Church as they are pleased to take a good Testimony to themselves with a reflection upon their neighbours unbyassed men do perceive their Proposals do witness and one day which neither they nor we can get declined will declare But why do they huddle-up so darkly the matter concerning the power of disposing the Legal Maintenance of Ministers to be given to that Commission under these generals that thâ—y might do the duty of the Civil Magistrate anent Ecclesiastical matters which are the tearms they give us of their Supplication Or why do they make only a supposition of their desiring it when it is in terminis in their Proposal We shall wish them more candor than thus to deal with us and the world in print speaking so to the thing upon supposition as if it were in doubt whether they had done it or not And if their Supplication was so general there have been moe injuries than one in it to desire that all the duties of the Civil Magistrate in reference to Ecclesiastick affairs should be laid upon the shoulders of that one Commission For such a power taken in its latitude might not only include the late Order to which we spoke last in a new dresse and all the power which the Prelats had by vertue of their High Commission but all the power which Civil Courts or any Magistrate did exercise in Ecclesiasticis 2. They tell us it was no fault to endeavour to translate the exercise of that Power from one subject to another the Council being otherwayes necessarily diverted that they cannot conveniently attend it Answ But upon supposal of the resolution of the Civil Powers not to alter the former way of disposing of the Legal Maintenance which they had not only accounted inconvenient but even now pag. 62. had taxed it as a bondage upon the Ministerie by our Capitulations It had been more honestie for them not to condemn themselves in what they allow than thus to meddle to involve more in the guilt of drawing Ministers into such bondage The Council is beholden to them for caring for their ease though few Ministers are wearied with long attendance in that matter But we know these Witnesses better than to believe they would be so officious as to go to London and prosecute this Proposal so vigorously only for the Councils ease if they had not their own interest wrapped in it 3. They say that suppose their design in that Proposal had been to call the Authority of these late Assemblies in question as is charged on them in the Declaration yet not only that but
well known at home and abroad that we believe he needs not write Apologeticks against the slanders of their tongue or pen which they have either in this Piece or upon other occasions most unjustly cast upon him They are pleased to let out reflections tart enough upon persons both dead and alive to which we shall only say That such reasonings of theirs are no dainties to us to refute mens Arguments and overcome them in their cause by branding their persons and that as we think the graves of the dead who are gone out of the world without publick scandall ought to be inviolable So if those who are alive be not studying so much the more to approve themselves to God sure they make a bad use of that scourge of their tongue wherewith they have been so much and so often smitten these diverse years bygone And whereas they are afraid we should forget we have some among us who were Prelaticall and therefore do so often tell us of it and do tell us also which indeed we never knew before and having searched this testimony they would have us credite we find it an untruth disowned by him upon whom they father it That some of us of late did professe our respect to the Congregationall way and our dislike of the subordination of Kirk-Judicatories pag. 10. We wish them to consider that this reflection of being Prelaticall as they tearm it doth not reach some of us only but others of the worthies of Christ elsewhere who did not at first see the evil of that way And as we desire they may not forget that the most part of those who were honoured by Christ to be most eminently opposite to that course yet alive as it hath pleased the Lord in great and remarkable mercy to preserve them in His Church to this day some two or three at most only excepted are also opposite to the way of these Witnesses So also that they do not charge that too hardly upon any of us which they know may be retorted upon some of themselves And we are confident that who so know their way and their confidents and bosome friends of whom chiefly they have been making use in promoting their cause will easily discern who run neerest to Independency Papists were wont to be thought no fit men to defend the Protestant Religion and it may be thought they are none of the fixedest Presbyterians whose not only persons but projects in reference to that Government are owned as their own cause by men whose principles are known even the Witnesses themselves being judges to be opposit to that Government and that even when real Presbyterians unconcerned in us or our differences save in so far as they are friends to Truth and to us for the Truths sake do disown yea and act against their way But passing these and many the like passages We shall take notice of their Book as it is an Answer to the Declaration wherein three things will be worthy our pains to enquire after 1. How they have acquit themselves in Answer to that Charge of their small respect to the established Church-government and their encroachments thereupon 2. What entertainment they give to the Overtures of Union 3. What their Doctrine concerning Subordination is which they do twice speak to But we shall speak to all in one place Before we can enter particularly on these Two Exceptions against the Title and whole tenour of the Declaration must first be removed out of the way First Their sense of the whole scope and tenour of the Declaration is That however we pretend to Union and Peace in it yet for the matter of it it looketh like no such thing but is an heap of bitter invectives and reproaches and that like rude painting without the words in the Frontispiece it would never have been owned for any such thing This charge they set-off both with Scripture and a poetick vein pag. 4 5. And again pag. 74. they quarrel our raking into the bowels of by-gone actings while we make an offer of peace c. This challenge we take it doth relate to the Narrative of the Declaration premitted to the Offers of an Union wherein some account is given of their former irregular actings and projects And we shall not insist to regrate how much the Scriptures are wrested or misapplyed throughout this Piece and how unsuitable in our judgment it is to let loose a poetick humour upon so sad a subject which calleth for our mourning rather than our mirth as they have of late begun the taking up of that way in their Pasquils put in peoples hands But as to the matter it self had we to do only with these Witnesses we could easily answer them That whatever others unconcerned might judge of the suitablenesse or unsuitablenesse of that Narrative in reference to the scope and purpose of the Declaration yet if that Narrative be true of which we shall hear afterward what they say and if they be the persons chiefly guilty of carrying-on these courses it were more fitting they were laying them to heart and testifying their abhorrence thereof by joyning with their Brethren than thus to carp and quarrel when their faults are laid open before them in love And to speak it seriously though we are content to bury all those provided they would hearken to an Union in the Lord yet we are confident the Lord is ill pleased with their way therein and requireth they should repent and mourn more for the wounds they have given their Mother than their practice hitherto declareth them to have done But to expresse our selves further for the satisfaction of all we do ingenuously professe that so far as we know the mind of those who emitted that Declaration their scope in that Narrative was no other than what is expressed in the close thereof pag. 8. Namely that it flowed not from any design either to defame or irritate or to charge these destructive courses upon all of them But they conceived and we do still conceive that Narrative was necessary in that way of application to them Not only to vindicate themselves before the world and all good men that they contended not about trifles in their opposition to these encroachments nor yet only to prove their love to peace in that they would follow and were willing to agree with those who had so far injured the Church and them But that even in order to Union they held it their duty to inform those with whom they were dealing what the tendency of their courses was which possibly many who went on in the simplicity of their hearts and joyned with them in some things could not discern never suspecting that their Leaders would so far wrong the Government they pretended so much to maintain and the prime Actors being carried-on in the heat of their passion and contradiction were not in a frame seriously to consider of the matter that so they might choose rather to close with us
than to continue in that posture which could not but inevitably draw them to many the like courses still the longer the worse And however the matter of Union succeeded wherein their acquaintance with the humours of such as these Witnesses made their fears far exceed their hopes which the event since hath sadly confirmed yet they thought it necessary to have this on record as their Testimony in behalf of the Church of Scotland against these usurpations and encroachments and an exoneration of their consciences in discharging their duty to their Brethren if so be they will still run-on in courses which draw-on so sad consequences rather than joyn in the work of the Lord. As these things may sufficiently vindicate the Authors of the Declaration in this particular so we do not think this needed have hindred peace had these Witnesses been very earnest for it For though it was then complained how they had defamed their Mother-Church and Brethren and now we are sure they owe us nothing of this coyn in this Pamphlet yet we sincerely professe we are so far from being irritated however grieved that for our part we thirst the more for an Union in the Lord as perceiving there will be no end of fruitlesse jangling while we continue at this work and are content that upon an Union there be the fairest way can be devised for burying all these things in oblivion Secondly They have another quarrel at the Title of the Declaration for whereas it is called A Declaration of the Brethren who are for the established Government and Judicatories of this Kirk they challenge this upon a twofold account 1. That the Authors thereof should claim to such a title even in reference to those of their own judgment it being but the deed of a Juncto acting in an extrajudicial capacity and not proceeding from any Church-authority That many of our Brethren were not privie to it nor are satisfied with it and that it hath not been owned as they were made to expect by Church-judicatories nor tendered to the Protesters by them But that Synods being put to it by them did refuse to declare themselves whether they would owne it or not till the other Brethren should first declare themselves satisfied therewith This is their language pag. 7 8. But afterward finding it was owned by Judicatories they adde a Postscript pag. 119 120. wherein they quarrel partly the wronging of the liberty of Presbyteries and Synods that such a Paper should first be published by private persons and then endeavours used to engage the Judicatories in the approbation thereof and partly the different wayes of Presbyteries in order to that Paper some not having as yet owned or tendered it some approving but a part of it others all of it some taking Instruments in the hands of civil Notaries of their tendering thereof to their Protesting Brethren and some upon the Protesters refusing to condemn the practices and proposals mentioned in that Declaration as contrary and destructive to the Government having declared them to be such as dissent from the Government it self To all this we give this return 1. We need not trouble the world far lesse do we owe these Witnesses in the posture they now are an account how or by whom that Declaration was contrived As they pretend themselves not altogether strangers to the mind of their Brethren in these matters pag. 4. So the publishers of that Declaration can give a good account of the sense of their Brethren throughout the Land which gave a rise to that business yea themselves might have spared this challenge had they remembered the Conference for Union Anno 1655. As we suppose they did not think they were treating with a Juncto then to make peace with them only but did expect an Union in all the Judicatories of this Church had they agreed and yet themselves did treat but in an extrajudicial capacity and those with whom they treated were but some very few in comparison of those who are opposit to them and acted also in an extrajudicial capacity though they knew the mind of their Brethren through the Country So they may remember that the Declaration containeth little or nothing for matter and substance but what was treated on there Their Proposals for extrajudicial Committees were rejected there though indeed they had not then gone the length to seek to have them imposed on this Church They will not complain that the Overtures for Union mentioned in the Declaration were not heard of there since they tell us afterward that more was then offered pag. 75. And for their irregular actings they were not omitted in the Remedies for bygones and Cautions for preventing the like in time to come And as to the slanders they cast upon this Church and the matter of the Order concerning Intrants to the Ministery we hope they do not believe it is a Juncto only that are dissatisfied therewith From all which it doth appear that what was spoken-to in that Declaration had been looked on formerly by themselves as the judgment of those who were opposit to them and yet they must enquire whose it is and who do own it 2. As to the after-approbation of the Declaration by the Judicatories we shall not insist to tell them how ill it rellisheth to hear them condemn the publishing of extrajudiciall Papers or want of regard to the liberty of Judicatories whose practice it hath been those years by-gone to trample on Judicatories and to obtrude their extrajudiciall Papers upon them We do only remark that they are very industrious to find quarrels for in the beginning of the Pamphlet they leave it as an imputation that that Paper was not owned by Church-judicatories and when they find it otherwise they start a new quarrell But to the thing it self As upon the one hand it hath been the constant practice to deal in these matters of Union iâ— an extrajudiciall way and so the publishing of that Declaration in that same way cannot be quarrelled So if Judicatories have voluntarily without the encroaching of any upon their liberty to engage them judged it necessary to approve it for the matter that so it might be more effectuall for promoving an Union we see not what wrong is done to Judicatories thereby Nor do we see any contradiction betwixt these two that materially it was their judgement before though it had not been the ordinary way to publish matters of that kind first by the Judicatories seing we wanted a Generall Assembly and no other Judicatory could declare for all the Church and that since they have formally owned it to prevent all cavillations against it such as now those Witnesses urge to render it uneffectuall as being but a privat Paper 3. It being now as we are informed generally owned by the Judicatories and that before we had any knowledge of this their Answer 's coming to the Presse say what they will to the contrary it is not very much to edification that
their endeavours to overturn and reject all Judicatories where they are not the plurality that they may have at least an equal hand in all things by their Committees of equal numbers as is frequent in this Pamphlet In the mean time they ought first to prove their way to be sound before they be so industrious to make so many proselytes Next they purge themselves of the crime partly in that though the Commission of the Assembly 1650. be in their judgement still in force yet after these of their judgement who are Members thereof had sitten in that capacity only till they had with the advice of other Brethren of their judgement published Causes of Gods controversie against the Land they have not since acted in that capacity And partly that having offered that we by our selves and without them would purge the house of God and we doing nothing but rather polluting it it was no affecting of domination to take some other course wherein yet they were content we should have more than equall share with themselves pag. 72. Answ 1. Though they boast also of this their condescendence about the Commission pag. 38. Yet as it was the highest of domination in a National Church That a party should judge of the nullity of her supream Church-Judicatory and thereupon continue themselves in a power which was extinct by the meeting of that Judicatory and which upon the same grounds they might perpetuate over the whole Church so long as they pleased That they should also usurp upon their Brethren who were joyned in that Commission with them by the Assembly 1650. in conveening and meeting themselves without calling to them to meet with them That they should meet without their Commission or a copie of it whereby they should know their Members and the Quorum of the Commission and the power and work committed to them and without which they were in mala fide to act And that they should obtrude upon a whole Church and the several Synods such things to be Causes of Gods controversie as were approven duties and had been owned as such by the former Assemblies of this Church as hath been already made out in former printed Papers As we say those pranks did speak the highest of usurpation that hath readily been heard of in a R. formed Church So it is well known that after they had published those Causes of Wrath they have adjourned the meeting of that Commission from time to time and at last did vote in their meetings to set it up again and act in that capacity and had done so if the Council whom they supplicated for that end would have owned them in it So that their ceasing to act since in that capacity is to us no evidence of their coming down in their spirits As may further also appear from the other courses they have since taken up as more compendious for attaining their ends than the way of that Commission For beside as is said that they have no copie of their Commission nor do know the tenor of it and the number which make a Quorum they are but a very small number of the Members of that Commission And if they could make a Quorum yet few moe so that they behoved to be constant Prelats attending on this thing Withall had that Commission right to meet they know if he who was Moderator thereof would conveen all the members they would not signifie much in that meeting and therefore it speaks no great want of a desire of Domination not to insist on that 2. As to the matter of Purging and the means they have projected for making it effectuall we have spoken thereto before and it will come in afterward Only we shall leave to unbyassed men from what hath been said to judge whether their means savour of ambition or not and whether the Church-judicatories and their Brethren have the credit of an equal share let alone more than an equal share as they affirm which indeed is to us a mysterie in managing these trusts And as to the occasion putting them on these courses we owe them thanks indeed that they desired us to purge by our selves when they by their irregularities and dividing from us have made it scarce practicable yea and altogether of none effect did others follow their principles and example But we desire to know where we neglected to try any upon any scandall where-ever we did forbear to censure condignly when any thing was found and wherein this Church hath been polluted by admitting so many or so vicious men as should put them upon these extraordinary remedies Would they as is said before have as purge whether we find guilt or not or else they will fall upon some odd courses Sure where themselves have power and made triall of men of our judgement they have not found so much as to need all this noise And we think it were safest for them to content themselves that they deliver their own souls in their respective stations in thess matters without stretching themselves so far without their line In the last place They shut up this Apologie with a remark that it is one of Satans policies when he cannot find faults in the outward carriage of men in a good work to charge them with inward abominations and mischievous designs which cannot so easily be refuted as justly denied pag. 73. Answ But as to our case in hand there is no need of secret or inward search to find these things which are engraven upon the skirts of their actings And if the things themselves do not make-out our charge to all unbyassed discerning men we shall passe from our compearance Having considered what they say for their own Vindication from alleaged aspersions we proceed in the second place to take a view of their thoughts concerning the Overtures for Union held-out in the Declaration passing their challenge against the Narrative premitted to it as being spoken to in the entry Here we may be the more brief partly because somewhat hath been spoken to this purpose in the Representation where an account is given of the Conference for Union and the breaking it off Partly because the things quarrelled and spoken-to here have many of them occured often before Yet we shall give an account of the whole matter in these particulars 1. This is in general a brief and sad account of it that our tearms of Union are rejected and no other offers made by them but what we may gather from their exceptions made against what we offered They professe indeed pag. 118. that our divisions are among the deepest wounds and greatest afflictions to their souls and that they would redeem a sinlesse Union at any rate that might not pollute their consciences and widen the breach with God And yet why do they leave it to us to make better offers pag. 9 And why would they not here publish to the world what they would be at in order to Peace which they so
Judicatories thereupon doth not only hold out the constant practice of this Church but is the very thing wherein the Learned before us do hold the being of Presbyterial Government to consist and which they presse as the duty of all who live under that Government This might be confirmed by many instances of particular Divines writing on this subject Such as Beza in divers of his Epistles which come afterward to be spoken unto Also Zepperus De Polit. Eccles Lib. 3. cap. 6. where he asserteth That no man though he think he have just causes ought to alter any thing of established Order before the Determination of a Synod Likewise Mr. Edwards of late who in his Antapologia pag. 153 154. putteth this as the main difference betwixt Subordination in the Classical Government and that which Independents profess to be due unto Synods by particular Congregations That in the first there is such Subordination and dependance such stated and fixed meetings that if men should escape one they do not escape all But in the other they only submit to hearing and counsel upon it but not to determinations unless it like them In the one they are bound and must do in the other they may do or not do The whole passage is worth the Readers perusal in the Author himself But we shall passe these and many others and at this time shall content our selves with two Testimonies which may be in stead of many One is that of the Reformed Church of France who in their Ecclesiastick Discipline printed in French do not only urge the keeping up of Ecclesiastick Assemblies as the bonds and props of their union and concord against Schisms Heresies and all other inconvenients Chap 6. Art 5. But Chap. 5. Art 28. where as may be seen at length in the Article it self speaking of referring debates betwixt any of the People and inferiour Judicatories to a superiour Assembly they do expresly provide That the inferiour Judicatory who refer that matter do first cause the Contradicters to make promises expresse and upon record that they shall not in any manner of way whatsoever sow any thing of their opinions but wait for the meeting of the superiour Judicatories under pain of being censured as Schismaticks And if they refuse to make these promises they shall be censured as Rebels according to the Discipline And Art 29. they determine That a Pastor or Elder breaking the Vnity of the Church and refusing to submit to that which the Colloque hath determined shall be suspenâ—ed from his Charge to be further proceeded with at the Provincial or National Synod As this testimonie is most clear for the Submission pleaded-for So the next is no lesse evident which is that of the learned Cartwright and other Presbyterians in Queen Elizabeths dayes who in their subscribed Book of Discipline as not only it is cited by Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline chap. 26. pag. 305. but printed it self Anno 1644. according to the Copie found in Mr. Cartwrights own Study in the Head of the Assemblies of the Church Sect. last having granted liberty unless it be a plain act and manifest to all to parties who think themselves injured by a lesser meeting or Judicatory to appeal to a greater till they come to a generall Council so that they ascend orderly from the lesser to the next greater They expresly add But it is to be understood that the Sentence of the Assemblies is to be holden firm untill it be otherwise judged by an Assembly of greater Authority Here is our very Overture in substance and almost in terminis which vindicateth us from any Novelty or receding from the received principles of Presbyteriall Government in this matter It will be to little purpose for them to bring in their Praecognitum or Praesuppositum here of which they make use to elude all the Acts of our Assemblies in this matter pag. 52 53. And to say these Divines meant of just Sentences which say they is a thing presupposed of all these who require obedience to Laws that they mean of just Laws For if they had meant only of just Sentences they had ordained them simply to hold them firm without giving liberty of appealing from them Yea the very liberty of appeals for they do not allow liberty of an appeal if it be a plain Act and manifest to all that the Sentence is just and the supposition of the matters being otherwise judged by an higher Assembly doth presuppose a possibility of the injustice of the Sentences and the Appellants deed of appeal proves that he actually judgeth it to be so and yet they appoint the Sentence to be holden firm till it be discussed and judged II. As our Overture is agreeable to the ancient principles of Presbyterian Government held forth by the Learned abroad So we declared also that in this we required no other Submission than what hath not only been the constant practice of this Church till our differences but established also by Acts of Assemblies So that we required no new thing but what this Church had been in possession of by practice and Law As for the practice themselves deny it not only we must except one of whom we will speak afterward And as for the Acts of Generall Assemblies The first time they had occasion to give a dogmatick determination in this point was in the Assembly 1647. where the seventh head of Doctrine they approve in the CXI Propositions tendered to their consideration is That the lesser and inferiour Ecclesiastick Assemblies ought to be subordinate and subject unto the greater and superiour Assemblies Which how far it ought to have place in the matter of Submission to Sentences in the judgement of this Kirk is manifest notwithstanding their glosses on this Act from the judgment of the next Assembly Anno 1648. Arg. 5. Sess 30. Where it is expresly ordered That whosoever after the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against them do either exercise any part of the Ministerial Calling in the places they formerly served in or elsewhere or do possess meddle or intromet with the Stipend they shall be proceeded against with Excommunication And if any suspended Minister during his Suspension either exercise any part of the Ministerial Calling or intromet with the Stipend that he be deposed and after Deposition continuing in either of these faults that he be processed with Excommunication These are so clear testimonies of the judgment of this Kirk that we think it strange any should deny it But these Witnesses think to ende all these testimonies by saying that the Submission formerly practised in this Church was to just Sentences and consequently due to them and that it will be time for them to bring instances of Non-submission and counteracting when we bring instances of unjust Sentences then pronounced So pag. 56. and that these Acts as also Ministers engagements to be subject to the Church-judicatories at their entry are to be understood only of Submission
are not formally declared incapable thereof 5. We desire also they will make it appear to rational men how Submission can be denied to Judicatories upon the account of their corruption whom they not only do not desert as corrupt but do sit and joyn in them as Courts of Christ without any Protestation against their constitution yea and do offer and submit themselves and their wayes and ministeriall actings to be tried by them as their competent and lawfull Judges and yet when it cometh to a Sentence upon what they submit to be cognosced upon they refuse to submit to it because they are corrupt in the current of their actings These we believe will be found very inconsistent by any but themselves for if they will not submit at last deserting of them and Declinators in the entry are the only fit premisses from whence to draw their conclusion For as we heard before from the Divines at Dort such Non-submission is in effect a secession And Mr. Gee in his late Treatise of the Civil Magistrate pag. 178. layeth it as a foundation of all Order that the minor part of a Community must either submit to the major part or else they must make a secession from them and erect a new Society And therefore if our Judicatories be thrones of iniquity that have no fellowship with God as they would insinuate pag. 48. it were fit they spake it out and it should seem more congruous they should have no fellowship with them either III. As to the matters wherein we require Submission We do not urge a Submission in this Question betwixt us in matters of Doctrine or Articles of Faith in Worship Government nay nor Rules of Discipline for in all these we are agreed and through mercy they are established among us We only plead that in the matter of applying agreed-unto Rules of Discipline to particular persons and cases there be a Subordination and Submission observed And that in the matter of inflicting of Censures on Officers or Members or of judging of the Call of Ministers according to these agreed Rules and in the like cases incident in the Judicatories of Reformed and setled Churches there be a sisting of Contentions and an avoiding of Schisms and Confusions by the Submission of persons to Judicatories and of inferiour Judicatories to superiour To clear and branch out this Assertion more distinctly Consider 1. While we do thus limit this Question Our purpose is not to retrench the just power Dogmatick and Diatactick of Christs Courts nor to insinuate any thing prejudicial to the Submission due to them in these respects and given to them both at home and abroad But our scope is only to discover to the world how the case stands between these Disputants and this Kirk We have not only a Confession of Faith Directory of Worship and of Government but also setled Rules of Discipline in matters that fall under the Critical power of Judicatories So that nothing remains in debate but whether in application of these Rules the Sentence and Judgment of Judicatories ought to be acquiesced unto without further contention 2. This being the true case between us we think their instance of Athanasius not submitting to Arians deposing him for his asserting the Divinity of the Son of God And that Arg. 11. making a supposition of our enacting the Masse and all the Heresies of Rome do shoot short of the conclusion and mark For when Church-judicatories deny homage to the Son of God and return to Rome we shall not debate the point of Non-submission only with them but shall run from them as from Synagogues of Satan Likewise they might have spared their Argument about the Subscriptions taken by Prelats pag. 110 111. Arg. 13 For not only is there active obedience imported in these engagements whereas we are only speaking of passive Submission But they did also tye men to approve corruptions in the point of Church-government and in the matters of Gods Worship which falls not within our Question This also might tell them that that instance pag. 50 51. of our Confession anno 1567. concerning Articles of Faith or Constitutions repugning to the Word of God was needlesse As also that great noise they make of all the precious Truths of God and interests of Christ at the stake pag. 49. And that there is no Ecclesiasticall remedy in case of a generall defection Arg. 15. pag. 113. And that salt allusion to the crucifying of Christ pag. 99. and their citation of Gal. 1.8 pag. 108. Arg. 8. These and many the like big assertions whereby they endeavour to render us odious have no place in this Question And it was well told them to this purpose in the Conference for Union where they started these same difficulties That our confidence is that such cases shall not fall out in this Kirk we being united in one Confession of Faith form of Worship Discipline and Government and that it is contrary to prudence and inconsistent with any well ordered Government upon the supposing of a case which can but rarely and we hope through grace never shall fall out in this Kirk to enervate a generall rule and make an open door for Schisms contrary-actings in subordinate Judicatories and Divisions upon Divisions upon every occasion 3. This then being the true state of the Question may we not again resume their assertion pag. 115 116. and take them at their word That if the case were only of particular persons in things of more private interest and personall concernment and of Judicatories imploying their power to edification in the current of their actings they would not much contend about it As to the first this case concerneth only particular persons and that only in such private and personall concernments as fall within the compasse of Church-discipline while the work of God standeth intire in the Church and this hazard may be of very few yea through grace of none at all who may suffer injury and for them in particular sufficient remedies were offered in the Conference for their security And as to the second however they are pleased to play upon Submission upon the account of soundnesse pag. 114 115. yet we assert that as to our principles we are sound in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government As to our qualifications we approve not of nor do we tolerate any manifested and proven iniquity in any of our Members and as to the current of our actings we forbear to censure none who can be found guilty nor to try any of whom there is any suspicion or presumption And we are so far from any crushing and bearing down of Piety that no man is obnoxious in the Church of Scotland to any hazard either for profession or practice of Godlinesse but it is a part of our constant triall to find out mockers of Piety Men may follow all the duties of holinesse and righteousnesse and the duties of edification according to the Word of God and the established
the Apostles were known and professed enemies of the Gospel 2. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel which say they was more hard than their case under Bishops who though they cannot endure the truth concerning Government and Reformation of the Church yet are content the Gospel should be preached and preach it themselves They adde 3. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from men nor by the hands of men but immediatly from God Himself and therefore alâ—o might not be restrained or deposed by men whereas we though we exercise a function whereof God is the Author yet we are called and ordained by the ministery of men and may therefore by men be also deposed and restrained from the exercise of our Ministery Where as their first and second difference speak clearly to the second and third branches of our Question So this last doth fully speak our mind in this As to what they and Mr. Rutherfurd before them in his Preface to his Survey say of privat persons being Excommunicated their Non-submission to abstain from publick Ordinances As Excommunication is rarely pronounced in this Church except in the case of obstinacie and therefore may easily be prevented So we cannot understand how they can avoid Non-submission unless either they will forcibly obtrude themselves on Ordinances till they be thrust-out and so must come to Non-submission at last Or unlesse they get Ministers who will admit of them and so refuse to submit to the Judicatories which will at last fall in with the former case Though we in the mean time would have such a person seriously to consider whether his edification by these particular Ordinances from which he is debarred by the Sentence means simply necessary to salvation not being taken from him and the want of the rest being but his affliction not his sin take the matter in his own sense ought to be laid in the ballance with the breach made on Order in a Church constitute and setled as is said with the contempt and scandall put upon the Judicatories who yet stand invested with power to rule in Christs House yea and with the stumbling of the whole Congregation upon whom he obtrudeth himself who perhaps judge his Sentence to be as just as he counteth it unjust 2. As to the Submission of inferiour Judicatories to superiour concerning which they argue Arg. 7. pag. 107. And again Arg. 15. pag. 113 114. We grant indeed that the power of the superiour Judicatory is cumulative and not privative to the inferiour Judicatories yet it must be understood in a right sense for 1. It is granted on all hands betwixt us that by the Constitutions of this Kirk every Church-judicatory may not meddle with all things but with things that are of particular concernment within their bounds leaving things of more generall concernment to the Church to superiour Courts yea within their own bounds Congregationall Elderships do not meddle with the matter of Adultery Excommunication and Ordination of Ministers but these things come before the Presbyterie 2. Albeit inferiour Judicatories have intrinsick power given them by Christ and may exercise it independently where providence affordeth them no superiour Judicatorie yet in a Nationall Church it is the will of Christ they exercise that intrinsicall power with a Subordination to the superiour Courts so that so long as they hold the Subordination and do not renounce the Judicatories as Hereticall and corrupt they may indeed do all they have right to do yet so as they must be accountable to others in the case of Appeals or mal-administration who may lay as great claim to that promise Matth. 18. as they can And if the superiour Judicatories judge their proceedings to have been wrong in the case now before us it is no more lawfull for them than for private persons to make a Rupture by Non-submission or not suffering and being passive which will prove a remedy worse than the disease Nor doth this Subordination prove that these inferiour Judicatories must be fenced in name of the superiour Seing they know that even inferiour Civil Courts are not fenced in the name of a Parliament to whom they are subordinate And if this hold not it shall be to no purpose for superiour Judicatories to meet unlesse either to approve all that is done or else it please inferiour Judicatories to be convinced by them And indeed now it is no strange thing to see one privat Presbyterie not only reverse and declare null the Conclusions of a General Assembly but judicially declare the Assembly it self null far contrary to the Book of Discipline where it is expresly provided that Elderships or Presbyteries must alter no Rules made by Generall or Provinciall Assemblies Book 2. chap. 7. pag. 81. and no lesse contrary to the opinion of Beza Epist 44. pag. 244. who judgeth it iniquissimum intolerabile c. most injust and intolerable that things concluded in a Generall Synod should be rescinded by the Authority of one Consistorie unlesse the party passe from his right or things be agreed among parties without any detriment to Ecclesiasticall Discipline V. As to the nature of this Submission or manner of performance thereof two things are worthy our consideration for further clearing the truth in this particular 1. That in pleading for Submission in matters of Sentences as is above qualified we do not urge that men in conscience should approve of all and every of these Sentences as just however we do not therefore grant they are unjust as we shall after hear But only that what ever their judgement be they submit and suffer or be passive having done duty and exonered themselves without counteracting And that because 1. However they count them unjust yet they looking through the prospect of passion and interest may be deceived The Judge thinks them just and it may be many others yea all except the parties concerned 2. However it be yet it is better one or a few persons suffer somewhat than that a Schism be made in an Orthodox and well settled Church This being the true state of the Question and indeed a safe remedy appointed by God that when men in a Church cannot in Conscience obey a command then they may with a good Conscience submit and suffer for the Lord 's commanding us to submit and our engaging thereunto doth import there may be cases wherein we cannot give active obedience It is a miserable mistake all along in the most part of this debate that Obedience is confounded with Submission and Suffering That because a Church ought not in duty to domineer over the Flock pag. 52. therefore none of the Flock may lawfully suffer an injury or supposed so rather than do a greater injury by renting the Flock That because Prelats taught falsly that the Sentence of Superiours is a warrant sufficient to mens Consciences to give active obedience to their
shall deny them also any power over our Consciences nor shall we set them on Christs Throne which they charge upon our opinion Arg. 3. as to the acknowledgement of their Sentences to be just or any approbation in our practice and active obedience of what in our Consciences we disallow which is all can be inferred from the principles of Non-conformists concerning the freedom of Conscience mentioned also Arg. 3. Yet it cannot from all these be inferred that there is not a command of God oblieging us in Conscience to suffer unjustly rather than make a Schism and pour contempt upon standing lawfull Authority Nor is it soundly argued that because they do not their duty in their station for which they must give an account to God therefore we are not bound to suffer what we are called to in our stations Or that suppose men should play the Popes in pronouncing an unjust Sentence such as is above qualified against a man as they have it Arg. 14. Therefore the sufferer may lawfully sin too This opinion is so far from dethroning that it doth exalt Christ and doth deny to men what is not due to them and yet giveth to Christ what is due to Him Likewise when they urge so much Arg. 9 and 10. that it argueth the Scriptures of imperfection giveth what is due to them to Judicatories and must infer the infallibility of Judicatories that they must not be contradicted nor contra acted but their will must be a law as they elsewhere tell us There is all along a great mistake in the case For not only is that of not contradicting put in without cause seing men may contradict as to the declaration of their judgement when yet they submit But we never asserted a Judicatory might be contra-acted in no case as we cleared before in laying aside their eleventh Argument and other reasonings we are only now debating about Submission to Sentences qualified as is above expressed And what submission we pay in these we are so far from setting up mens infallibility or from derogating from the Scriptures as to their perfection and sole Authority over our Consciences that it is not out of conscience of the justice of the Sentence but in obedience to the sole command of God bidding us respect lawfull Authority and suffer in such cases that we pay it And it is upon the supposition of the Judges fallibility yea and their erring actually that we presse this Submission as contra-distinct to active obedience So also as to the Scriptures which they cite Arg. 2. That we should not be the servants of men but stand fast in our Christian liberty and obey God rather than men They have borrowed these weapons from Independents who as Mr. Rutherfurd telleth us Peac. Plea pag. 193. borrowed them from Anabaptists and Socinians arguing against the places of Kings Judges and Magistrates But the argument is easily answered that we obey God and not men and are His servants and not theirs in this Submission And that the people of God are free as to the enslaving of their Conscience with the approbation or their practice with doing of any thing that is unjust yet they have not an immunity from stouping to suffer when God calls them to it And let the case be but instanced in a Magistrates unjust Sentence against particular persons and it will say for it self whether their Christian liberty will reach a Non-submission or not Likewise when they urge Arg. 12. that unjust Sentences are null in themselves and therefore cannot bind to Submission and subjection We grant that in foro interno it is a null Sentence not oblieging the Conscience to any approbation thereof Yet in foro externo it is so far valide as a man cannot deny submission thereunto without sinning against God in contemning the standing lawfull Authority of a Church in making a Schism and declining to suffer when God calleth him to it And in this the very Independents agree though they differ about the subject invested with the power of the keyes for they tell us in their Defence of the nine Positions pag. 210. That a Minister derives all his authority from Christ by the Church indeed applying that Office to him to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ Hence being the Minister of Christ to them if they without Christ depose him they hinder the exercise of his Office but his right remaineth 2. While they urge that Ministers are over us in the Lord 1 Thess 5.12 Arg. 1. And that we are to be subordinate to Church-power only in the Lord pag. 95 96. That is so far from warranting Non-submission and contra-acting in the Question betwixt us that it doth strongly assert it For to omit many other things which the Learned finde imported in this to be subject in the Lord as it imports 1. An acknowledgment in our Consciences of their lawfull Authority And 2. active obedience to what they command in the Lord So 3. in the case of an unjust Sentence it requireth such submission and passive obedience as He hath enjoyned us in His Word in such cases which what it is hath been spoken to before and so it confirmeth our Assertion That this is not a forced Interpretation may appear were it but from this one consideration That this qualification of Submission and Obedience in the Lord is not required in reference to Chruch-judicatories only but of children also in reference to their Parents and consequently of all inferiours paying subjection to their Superiours in their several stations as is clear from Eph. 6.1 Col. 3.18 and elsewhere Now it is not to be supposed that the Apostle warranteth children servants or subjects to resist and counteract all the unjust corrections and Sentences of their Masters and Superiours but that they should submit and suffer rather For we find in Scripture that it is the commendable duty of children to submit to their parents even when they chasten them for their pleasure only Heb. 12.9 10. As also of christian servants to suffer unjustly under their bad Masters 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and generally of all Christians to suffer under their persecuting Magistrats 1 Pet. 3.14 15 16 17. and 4.12 13 14.15 16. and frequently throughout the Scriptures And this together with what hath formerly been produced may satisfie that part of Arg. 1. wherein they call for a precept or precedent in Scripture to clear this matter For here we find there is Scripture-warrant for this Submission to which we may adde That the practice of the suffering People of God in all generations is a clearer Commentary to these Texts than all the glosses tending but to sedition schism and confusion of human society they can fasten upon them 3. While they urge Arg. 15. pag. 113 114. That this brings in a Tyranny in the Church and by parity of reason condemneth defensive Arms which are judged lawfull against State-tyranny We are so far from allowing Tyranny or Injustice
Courts of Christ and consequently not to be submitted unto Yea in case such decrees were published we should hold it a case of Confession for Ministers to preach and people to frequent Ordinances so long as they had liberty or opportunity And so though neither the Apostles nor Prophets had been extraordinarily called nor cloathed with a Commission unrepealable as hath been said by any on earth their warrant was sufficiently clear in that case to hold up the oppressed truth of the Gospel against the sworn enemies of Christ and the Gospel who would neither preach Christ nor suffer Him to be preached by any other as we heard from these worthy Non-conformists Authors of the Treatise against the Brownists formerly mentioned But on the other hand When a Church doth owne all the Truths of the Gospel and all the Ordinances of Christ and doth no sooner put out one from preaching of Christ but they provide another to make up that want and do dispense the Ordinances in purity to the people of God In such a case which through mercy is the case of this Church as we have heard Suppose they do erre in discharging one to Preach and another to come to the Ordinances It is not the will of God that persons so suffering should make a Schism by their Non-submission and counteracting upon the account of their personall suffering or prejudice as the preceding Arguments do abundantly prove But having used all lawfull means of redresse by Appeals to superiour Judicatories they ought to acquiesce and submit to the will of God calling them to suffer rather than run upon the many inconveniences formerly mentioned But to clear this further 2. We would distinguish duties commanded us by God wherein we may be restrained by men For there are some morall duties incumbent to Christians simply and absolutely as they are Christians and which are simply in their own power by themselves and independently from others and enjoyned them without any respect to their Subordination or relation to others in the Church So that to their performance of them they neither need a call impowering them thereunto nor are dependent upon the concurrence of any others in or to the same Such as prayer to God and confessing of Christ which are of morall naturall right And there are other duties of morall positive institution which are not in mens own power severally and by themselves and independently from others in the Church but some way in the power of others beside themselves and are incumbent to men as they stand in relation or Subordination to others And are either duties to be performed by men as they stand cloathed with an Office received by the interveening Ministery of the Church such as the ordinary Ministeriall preaching of the Word and the administration of other publick Ordinances Or priviledges which they do enjoy by the Ministery of others who are to dispense them unto them or also by the joynt concurrence of others with them therein Such as the participation of Sacraments publick Assembly-praying and praising The difference here is very considerable Both as to the power of Disciplinary Sentences about them for Sentences of Church-censures are not conversant about performance of duties of the first sort but only of the second nor can there ever in any case a restraint be lawfully put upon men in the matter of praying and worshipping God or confessing of Christ as there lawfully may be in some cases in the second sort of duties And as to the matter of Submission to Sentences restraining men from and forbearing of the performance of them For the first sort are so intirely in our own power that we neither need a call from any warranting us to go about them nor the concurrent acting of any other for our enjoying the liberty thereof And they are so absolutely commanded without respect to any dependence upon any other and are so absolutely necessary necessitate medii for a mans glorifying of God and his own eternal salvation That it must be a sin not to observe them constantly as affirmative precepts ought to be observed yea a double sin not to adhere to them in a case of Confession as it is when these duties are prohibited by men But as for the second sort of duties Albeit as hath been said there can be no submitting to forbear them upon any decree of men prohibiting them in their very nature and kind Yet being duties that are not absolutly necessary necessitate medii and being as to the exercise thereof not wholly in our own power of and by our selves but some way dependent upon others also So that we cannot go about them without a call and warrant from others nor enjoy the exercise of them by our selves Therefore in case the Church who calleth and ordains a Minister will not suffer him to preach Or a Minister who hath the trust of dispensing Ordinances will not dispense the Sacrament to a member the sufferer breaks no command in suffering that injury after he hath essayed all lawfull means of redresse Seing his forbearance is not a voluntary and elective omission of the duty he is restrained from but a patient suffering of an injury under a necessity whereof providence hath brought him unlesse he would commit a morall evil which he is oblieged not to do by naturall right viz. make a Schism in a true Church and bring contempt on lawfull Authority It is his affliction and not his sin nor is it the violation of any commandment but only a cessation from a duty commanded when he cannot do it without the violation of another command of more universall and necessary obligation Neither is he by this cessation deprived of the exercise of any duty absolutely necessary to the honouring of God enjoying of fellowship with Christ and saving his own soul And if they deny these things they must yeeld also that in some cases beside that of an erring Conscience which is yeelded by all a man may be concluded under a necessity of sinning on all hands As that a Minister must either sin by forbearing to preach or sin in making a Schism by continuing to preach when he is deposed by a lawfull Authority in a true Church though erring in that particular As such a case and snare upon men is held by the Learned to be repugnant to the infinite Holinesse and Wisdom of God the Law-giver So we find godly sufferers before us very far from judging their Submission and suffering to be any violation of Gods command calling them to their work Parker on the Crosse Chap. 4. Sect. 14. cleareth that sufferers in the cause of Non-conformity did not voluntarily wilfully or sinfully give-over their Ministery adding It is not the leaving of the Ministery that is a sin but the causes why the end wherefore and the circumstances wherein that maketh the leaving of it sinfull To wit as he expresseth both before and after in that Section when men leave it for their gain
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