Review and Examination of a Pamphlet, Text (2 of 4)

Review and Examination of a Pamphlet · Text (2 of 4)

p. 40Fourthly, They cloſe the confirmation of the truth of this charge with the teſtimony of the Godly, bewailing the ſame things with them; declaring alſo, that Malignants who were formerly enemies to Reformation, and to the Government and Judicatories of the Kirk, do now cry-up the Judicatories and Miniſters who are oppoſit to the Proteſters; And that now the weapons of Kirk-government are imployed againſt the Godly, which are appointed of God for their defence and comfort. Anſw. We have been ſo long acquainted with their arrogating the title of the generality of the Godly to their party, and with arguing from mens teſtimonies in this cauſe, that they cannot have much weight with us; only it would be thought a ſtrange paradox with them if we ſhould aſſert (as truly we may) that many precious and godly perſons, both Miniſters and others, are deeply afflicted for their irregular and diviſive courſes, and that they will never give over contending, nor joyn with their Brethren in the Lords work, and that they are too laviſh in their charity, in crying-up of all who joyn with them, while they ſpare not to load, even the beſt of thoſe who are oppoſit to them, with calumnies: But as to the buſineſs in hand, we think it not ſtrange that their party be ready to cry-out of the Miniſterie of the Land, ſeing that hath been their Leaders work theſe years bygone, to traduce the generalitie of the Miniſterie in their Preachings, and on all occaſions, and to poſſeſs people with prejudices againſt them, that ſo they might fix them to themſelves. And when we find ſome of their Schollers ſuch proficients, as after they had brought them to abhor the bodie of the Miniſterie, they came at length to renounce themſelves, yea, and all Miniſterie, at leaſt a Miniſterie of the Church of Scotland; and others have not feared to aſſert, and that to ſome of our ſelves, That they would not have the Apoſtle Paul to be their Miniſter, were he not of their judgment, and that they would count it good ſervice to Chriſt to ſtone ſome of the moſt godly and able Miniſters not of their judgment, whoſe praiſe in the Goſpel is throughout the Churches of Chriſt; When (we ſay) ſome have made ſuch proficiencie, it is no wonder they have prevailed with the generality of them to be diſſatisfied with the bodie of the Miniſterie. They have (if they would conſider it) p. 41an heavy account to make for their miſ-guiding of people in this particular, and for miſ-employing their zeal and affection, (which ſhould be taken up mainly about their own condition) upon theſe controverſies and debates, and by teaching them to reject their Teachers who are neither erroneous, inſufficient, nor ſcandalous, have learned them (we fear) to run too wilde in this particular, and even to weary of thoſe whom they account good men, upon an apprehenſion that comparatively they are not ſo good as others. Whereas diverſitie of gifts hath alwayes been in the Church, and men ought not therefore to be contemned becauſe they cannot equal others (though really it were ſo) ſince Chriſt appointed His weak Diſciples to be heard in the dayes of His own Miniſterie, and the Apoſtles did appoint ordinary Miniſters to be heard in their own dayes. And as to what they ſay of Malignants, we are often in this Piece cryed out upon as huggers of the Malignants, countenances of, and countenanced by them. And yet the world ſeeth that ſome of our Brethren are the great Courtiers with diverſe of them, even of theſe whoſe receiving by the publick Reſolutions is their great quarrell. For our part, as we have learned neither to love nor loath a cauſe becauſe of perſons owning or oppoſing of it, but as it ſhall be found to agree or diſagree with the Rule; So we bleſſe Him from whom we have received mercy not to countenance or approve of Malignancie, profanity or errour, though we hold our ſelves bound to become all things to all men that we any gain ſome, and not to give even the worſt juſt occaſion to reject or take a prejudice at our Miniſterie, if ſo be we may draw them to Chriſt, which is the great end of the Goſpel committed to our truſt. If men who have been, or yet are Malignants, do approve a truth or a good courſe, we cannot therefore reject it, but do rather ſee cauſe to bleſſe God, that any do owne the truth of God, and reſpect this poor Church, when they are ſo buſie to ruine it. We hope they will not judge the cauſe of Anabaptiſts, Quakers, Antiſcripturiſts, and the like Sectaries, a whit the better, that they can object that profane men do countenance their oppoſers, and the Truth's oppugned by them. And take the caſe as they ſtate it; let themſelves be as good and holy, and others as bad as they call them, and all that can be inferred from it, is, that they have ſo much the more cauſe to mourn that they ſhould let ſuch men outſtrip them in a good p. 42turn, and be founder in their principles and way than they are. We ſuppoſe it was no ſmall aggravation of Davids fault in numbering the People, that he was ſo violent in the matter, when even a bloudy Joab is oppoſit thereunto, and did not only witneſſe againſt it, but it is abominable unto him, 1 Chron. 21.3, 4, 6. We do alſo acknowledge, that Government and Diſcipline are appointed for the defence and comfort of godly men, following the way of holineſſe: But we do not think it is appointed for the defence and comfort even of godly men in every courſe they take in hand, ſave in ſo far as it is appointed as Gods own medicine to cure them when in a diſtemper, and His rod to reclaim them when they are wandering: And therefore when they are wrong, were it imployed againſt their evil courſes (though we know nothing done but the naked teſtimonies of Judicatories againſt them) they ought not to repine.

IV. As to their vindication of their endeavours to ſet up extra-judiciall Committees of equal numbers, for managing of the affairs of this Church; to which they ſpeak, pag. 31.—39. We cannot but obſerve a notable piece of nimbleneſſe in their managing of this defence: For they bring-in this challenge, mentioned in the Declaration, only as it is complained of, that the not granting of that Overture of extrajudiciall Committees of equal numbers of both judgements, to be choſen by the reſpective parties, was a cauſe of breaking-up the Conference for Union: without mentioning that other part of the complaint, that they endeavoured and with much eagerneſſe proſecuted that deſign (imploying all their credit with all ſort of perſons for that effect) to have the ſame impoſed upon us when they were at London. Only they huddle-up what is ſaid of that as a reſuming and proſecuting that ſame point: As if the Authors of the Declaration were complaining in both places of their breaking off the Conference only upon this matter. And ſo all-along, they hold us to the Article as propounded to us; Only they give an hint of an Overture, the ſame for ſubſtance as it was propounded to us, without ſpeaking to what an Overture it was, and when or how given-in. This is indeed an handſom (or rather unhandſom) conveyance or ſhifting of what they had no will to meet with: For, to ſay no more, any unbyaſſed perſon will ſee a vaſt difference betwixt a deſire to have an extraordinary Overture take place in a Church, by the common conſent of thoſe who are concerned; and p. 43ſome privat perſons endeavouring (and that after other deſignes, to the great prejudice, if not ruin of this Church, had miſcarried in their hand) to have ſuch things impoſed upon the Church by the Civil Power, when they had no Commiſſion from the Church for that effect, and knew it was deſſented from in a former Conference, by the Miniſters of the Church, upon whom they would have it impoſed. This is an uſurpation upon a Church and her Government, which we believe no ſound Presbyterian will juſtifie, nor any others who are not Eraſtians, as was judged by godly Presbyterians upon the place when theſe Propoſals were made, to whom the Churches of Chriſt owe thanks for their teſtimonie to the Truth againſt ſuch projects.

But to conſider what they ſay, (leaving that diſtinction betwixt the eſſentials and circumſtantials of Government. pag. 33, 34. to which we have ſpoken before) They confeſſe it is an Overture out of the common road of ordinary procedure, pag. 37. and therefore they are but in petitorio with it, and had need to make their arguments for perſwading us to run out of the way (which we believe to be of God) very pungent and preſſing, before we can yeeld to their deſire. We conceive their diſcourſe on this ſubject may be reduced to theſe heads.

Firſt, That the decaying and diſtempered eſtate of the Church calleth for and alloweth ſuch an Overture, otherwiſe they profeſſe they would be as far from preſſing it as any other, pag. 32, 33. Which is, upon the matter, (as we may hear more fully afterward) that were they once the plurality and in power, they would be loath to let it out of their hands, or let any ſuch Committee be ſet over them, or any party preſume to nominate an equall half of theſe Committees. This we do very eaſily believe; but now ſo long as they are out, and cannot be content of their lot and ſhare in Government, as their number in Judicatories alloweth, all muſt be corrupt. and all the Judicatories caſt looſe and trod upon, as unwilling and unable to do a good turn. But to the matter, As we know no other diſtemper nor unpeaceableneſs of this Church but what themſelves have made and continued, and therefore may cure it whenever they pleaſe to weary of theſe courſes; So, for the ſuppoſed corruption thereof, we have already conſidered how they have made it out. Only we bleſſe God, they will find no unſound Doctrine or Worſhip, nor ſcandals in converſation approven in this Church, nor yet p. 44that this Church is upon the declining hand ſince our differences, as to the planting of able and honeſt Miniſters: And we do again aſſert, That whatever corruption there be in Members of this Church, yet this remedie once admitted, of turning the Government out of the channel which we believe to be of God, would be far worſe than the diſeaſe, and a preparative of moſt dangerous conſequence, whenever any party ſhould be pleaſed to make uſe of the ſame. Yea, if upon the ſuppoſall of our corruption, they infer the neceſſity of extrajudicial Commitees, may not others gather much more from ſuch premiſes? Were it even a ſeperation from us, or a prelacy (as their Commitees are in effect) in ſome honeſt hands to controul us in our actings. They again inculcate, pag. 33. That General Aſſemblies conceived extraordinary viſitations needfull; when the Church was in a better condition than now, and when not a few in Preſbyteries and Synods did ſay it was a foundation for an imputation upon Synods and Presbyteries. Anſw. But (to repeat nothing of what hath been ſaid of the preſent caſe of this Church) any body with half an eye may ſee a difference betwixt a General Aſſembly the Supream Nationall Church-judicatory, their appointing their own Delegats, choſen without reſpect to factions, by plurality of Suffrages, for going about a work, and this extrajudicial Committee, choſen by parties to do the affairs of Presbyteries and Synods. Muſt it not be ſtrange arguing, That becauſe General Aſſemblies appointed Viſitations to try and cenſure, therefore they ſhould conclude guilt is found on the plurality of Miniſters; whereas themſelves have found it otherwiſe where they have power and made trial of men, and where they made as great a clamour of the corruption of men of our judgment, as now they raiſe of them in other places? And therefore alſo either muſt they, who are a dividing party, have matters tried in an extrajudiciall way without order, otherwiſe they will do what they can to overturn the Church. They retort, pag. 37, 38. That though they have not the ſame power the Generall Aſſembly had ſo to do, yet the Aſſemblies ground and reaſon moving them to appoint theſe Viſitations, doth yet remain, viz. that Presbyteries and Synods were not ſo healthy as to do theſe things of themſelves, which is much more true now when malignant men are got above hatches, and ſundry of them ſet to the helm. Anſw. But, 1. Is it not great preſumption to parallel Viſitations appointed p. 45by Aſſemblies, and choſen by themſelves according to Order, and theſe Committees choſen by parties? Did Synods chooſe ſuch Viſitations according to Order (as they do upon occaſion) within their own bounds, who would condemn it? but for parties to impoſe a Nomination on a Synod, is another matter. 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 p. 46for 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 p. 47which 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 them in ſaying that they are not to be ſubordinate, and that Synods cannot call them to an account, ſeing in the Overture, as propounded to us; the contrary is expreſly provided. Anſ. But p. 48hereby they give us occaſion to put them in mind that the ſame Overture concerning particular Viſitations, as it was propoſed elſewhere at London, hath no ſuch expreſſe proviſion: And if the pluralitie of them were of the ſame judgement with theſe Witneſſes concerning Subordination, it were a pretty complement given the Synods, to tell them that they are ſubordinat, and ſo countable to them, only ſo far as they give them no cauſe to think they give an unjuſt ſentence againſt them, according to their Doctrine in this Pamphlet. We think Synods will be tender to whom they give their power when Subordination is ſo deſcribed. But this may ſeem yet more ſtrange that becauſe of the corruption of Synods, therefore they cannot be truſted with the nomination of the perſons, nor with the doing of their own work but in this extrajudiciall way; and yet it muſt import no ſmall honeſty, that theſe Delegates will be ſubordinate and countable to them for their actings, as theſe Witneſſes would perſwade us: Would not this ſoon make all their labour vain, by the Synods (who are ſo corrupt, as they ſay) reverſing all they do? But, 6. When we alleage that the clauſe of not reverſing any thing done by theſe Committees without the previous advice and conſent of a generall Committee of Delegates, Doth bind up the Synods hands: They tell us that they may take an account of their proceedings, may admoniſh and rebuke them, yea, and take away their Commiſſion and Power in the caſe of mal-adminiſtration, and give it to others of their number nominated as aforeſaid. Anſw. But ſure this is a notable Subordination: The Synods may be angry if they pleaſe, and lay by theſe Delegats, but they have no power to reverſe their actings, nor rectifie their mal-adminiſtrations, till ſome others give them leave, and till they not only wait untill theſe generall Delegats be conveened from the ſeverall parts of the Land, and they have ſought their advice; but even till the Delegats conveened be pleaſed to give an advice to them, which it may be their party (being the equall half) will never ſuffer to be given; far leſſe may they reſume their power into their own hands, or be at their own liberty in chooſing fitter Committees than theſe wrangling equall numbers, but they muſt over again renounce their credit with their own conſent, and let others impoſe their new Delegats upon them. And yet we know not if their Overture will bear ſo much power to be left to Synods as this poor pittance will p. 49amount to, unleſſe theſe Witneſſes know more of the minde of the projecters of theſe things, than we could read in their Papers: And withall, if it come to a new nomination, their number in the moſt of Synods will hardly (if at all) admit thereof, unleſſe they will chooſe theſe ſame men over again who have already forefaulted their credit. 7. They tell us they can ſee no ſuch thing in their Overtures, as that the Synods ſhould ſet up a juriſdiction above themſelves, as is aſſerted in the Declaration; But only a power of advice upon the part of theſe Delegats, (they mean the generall Delegats) and a brotherly condeſcenſion in the Synods, &c. Anſw. But they take quid for quo, and do not tell the whole tale: For albeit this be ſlavery enough upon Synods, that they may not meddle with affairs entruſted to them by Chriſt, without the previous advice, yea, and conſent alſo of theſe generall Delegats to whom Chriſt hath not ſubordinat them, (and how far this falls ſhort of a materiall exerciſe of juriſdiction over them, and a negative voice, let any judge) Yet the Authors of the Declaration did alſo include here theſe Committees of Delegats in every Synod, who if they be not ſet over Synods with juriſdiction in the matter of purging and planting Miniſters and Elders, and compoſing preſent and future diviſions in Congregations and Presbyteries within the whole bounds of the Synod, we know not what they are: And if they have not a negative voice, being ſheltered under the wings of the general Committee, it is becauſe they have more. Sure we are, their half in theſe Committees have a negative voice in all theſe things. 8. They tell us a negative voice doth not infer a ſuperiour juriſdiction and power, but at moſt a coordinate power. Anſw. And neither doth the Declaration prove their ſuperiour juriſdiction, by their having a negative voice, but only aſſert that it was a juriſdiction over the Synods, and that with a negative voice. It is enough that a negative voice doth ſo far ſet them over the Synods, that they may neither act in theſe particulars, but by the particular Committees; nor cognoſce upon what theſe Committees do, but by the generall Committee, and this is more than is due to any party over a Church-judicatory: Yea, it is greater juriſdiction over Synods, than any Synod can exerciſe over a Presbyterie, by theſe Witneſſes way of urging the cumulative and not privative power of Synods; for thereby the inferiour Judicatories may act, and not be hindred by the p. 50ſuperiour; but here the Synod is ſo far at under, that it can neither act firſt, nor laſt, but by theſe. 9. They tell us that this negative voice extends not to all caſes, nor all the actings of Synods. Anſw. And when the one Committee takes from them, and Presbyteries alſo, the matter of purging and planting Miniſters and Elders, and of meddling in all preſent differences, and whatſoever they or any others ſhall be pleaſed to make a future difference; and the other takes from them liberty, till they pleaſe, to reverſe any thing they find done amiſſe; We will be oblieged to them to tell what they have left the Synod beſide, that is worth their pains and meeting, unleſſe it be to approve ſimply what theſe Delegats have done; or elſe (as the Witneſſes a little before gave them leave) be angry at them and ſhew their teeth, and poſſibly ſtoup down to accept of ſuch another nomination from parties (which they have found by experience to be ſo uſeleſſe a way) without any power to help oppreſſed men and Presbyteries and Congregations. But they aſſure us, that a Synod is free by the Overture to ratifie the proceedings of theſe Committees, not only without but againſt the advice and conſent of the Generall Delegats, if they pleaſe. Anſw. It ſeems they have not been afraid, but their equal number of Champions would be ſtiffe and clamorous enough (as none that knowes ſome of them will blame them of inſufficiencie in theſe particulars) as if not to draw ſome of the other ſide to yeeld to their determinations, yet to keep them from concluding any thing which they will fear to hazard upon the approbation of a corrupt Synod: But why ſhould they not alſo have power to reverſe any ill that is done, without needing to call for a meeting of Delegats from all the parts of the Country, and waiting their leaſure to adviſe and conſent, while in the mean time their Committees may put the matter paſt remedy one way or other: And how can a Synod out the ratification of their proceedings to the queſtion, If the not ratification of them be not the other member of the Queſtion? And if not ratification import a reverſing, do not the Synods make too bold with their Maſters and Tutors, to hazard that upon a Queſtion? Or, if it import not a reverſing, then we muſt learn this new principle of Government, that a Synod may not only refuſe to ratifie, but by a judiciall ſentence pronounce the non-ratification of the determination of a Committee ſubordinate and countable to them, and yet p. 51theſe determinations ſtand unreverſed. But they aſſure us further, that not only is the Synod free to ratifie, but they are not ſimply tied by the Overture to follow the advice of theſe Delegats, in caſe of their adviſing them to reverſe the deeds of theſe Committees. Anſw. But we are ſure they are ſo tied by the Overture, that ſuppoſe they themſelves judge the moſt part, yea, all of their Committees deeds to be not only ſimply worthy to be reverſed, but moſt horrid and blaſphemous; yet they may not without the conſent foreſaid, reverſe any of them. And if they will allow the corrupt Synods ſo much as a libertie not to hearken to their Tutors adviſing them to reverſe what they think amiſſe, why will they not alſo allow them as much on the other hand, as libertie to reverſe what themſelves think amiſſe, though their Counſellers differ from them in that alſo? The truth is, we hardly think that indeed they do allow them any ſuch liberty, and that there may be a ſafe gloſſe (were the matter once practicable) put upon the Synods not being ſimply tied by the Overture, which would teach them better manners, than to ſleight the advice of their betters. But we profeſſe we are weary and grieved to ſee men ſo ludere in re ſeria, and think to pleaſe judicious and conſcientious men with complements. 10. They tell us further that we wrong them in ſaying this Overture was propounded as a perpetuall ſtanding way, alwayes to be followed, to perpetuate difference and contentions. Anſw. And yet they have not anſwered the argument which was propounded in the Declaration for proof of this, viz. that yoking of parties of equal numbers together in debates (as muſt be in theſe Committees) will rather widen a breach than heal it, ſeing they will not probably cede to other: Sure we are, we may loſe hope of ſome of them, who in our Judicatories can by no reaſoning be drawn to quit the concluſion which they had (in all appearance) inſtilled into them before they came in. Withall, they had done well to anſwer another argument inſinuated for proving this, viz. that their power continuing till the preſent differences be healed, the compoſing whereof (with all future diviſions) is put in their hands, and not at all to be meddled with by the Judicatories; Are not all the Judicatories then at their mercy to continue them ſhort or long, yea, perpetually if they pleaſe? It is true, they make an alternative of another better way to be miniſtred in providence for ſettling peace, upon which their power p. 52is to expire. But the Judicatories are at a loſſe about that alſo, being ſure our Brethren or their Delegats have a negative voice whether that be a better way indeed or not. And we are ſo much the more afraid of this better way, ſince in caſe this preſent way ſhall not pleaſe them, they give us no hope of recurring to Chriſts own Inſtitutions, but they will have us look for ſome better way to be miniſtred in providence for ſetling peace; which for ought we know may be ten times worſe. This alſo being hinted in that ſhort Declaration, with other conſiderations againſt thoſe Propoſals, we leave to others to judge why they loſt it, with other two above repeated, in their ſo large Anſwer to a ſhort Paper, wherein but a few prejudices of many were-mentioned, as might be eaſily made-out by a large addition, were it needfull.

V. As to our challenging of the Order procured by ſome of them, putting the power of giving teſtimonie to Intrants (which is due to Presbyteries only) in the hands of ſome ſelect perſons of their own chooſing: They ſay (pag 61, 62.) 1. That they wonder this ſhould be mentioned, ſeing the Proteſting Party did not imbrace nor make uſe of that Order. Anſw. But if they did not imbrace nor make uſe of it, becauſe it was prejudicial to the right of Church-judicatories, then they confirm all that is ſaid of it, viz. That it was an endeavour of ſome of their party to enervate the power of Church-judicatories, though it pleaſed the Lord to break that ſnare; For their making uſe of it is not ſpoken to in the Declaration. Yet we muſt adde, that ſome will tell them, That even thoſe who pretended not to imbrace that Order, yet dealt with others, who were for it, to let them have the benefit of it in their particulars, which will hardly amount to a ſerious teſtimonie and oppoſition. 2. They ſay, that he who is blamed in this matter did but give his advice in that matter, being required, and when he ſaw the Order was not accepted, he laid it aſide and did not proſecute it any further. Anſw. But who authorized him, or others, (if any others of them did joyn with him in it) to give advice in matters concerning the whole Kirk, without the conſent of, or Commiſſion from the Kirk, which was the crime laid of old in the Prelats diſh, as a breach of theſe Caveats, whereby their power was at firſt reſtrained, after they had crept into this Church? What warrant had he to lay aſide the Presbyteries in that matter, as not worthy to be intruſted with teſtifying concerning p. 53thoſe whom they are authorized by Chriſt to try and ordain, and put it in the hand of a Juncto? Was it to teach thoſe in power to ſleight Church-judicatories? With what face can they aſſert, that he thought it fit, Certificates ſhould be granted by a ſelect number of both judgements, as if this had been a Committee of equal numbers, when the quite contrary is clear from that Order? For therein, Scotland being divided in five Circuits or Provinces, and no Intrant being to have maintenance without the Teſtimonie of four (at leaſt) of theſe perſons authorized for that effect in the reſpective Provinces: The matter is ſo conveyed, as in no one Circuit there are a competent number to give a Certificate named of our judgement, as there is of theirs in every one of them, and only here one and there another of ours added; and yet there are a ſufficient number of Independents named for one of theſe Provinces, which containeth ſo much bounds as made 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.

p. 54VI. 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 p. 55of 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 th…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 p. 56proſecute 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 the pronouncing them null, would not bring utter ruin to the Church and thoſe that plead for them; Nor do they ſee any inconſiſtencie betwixt that Commiſſions exerciſing their power, and the ſtanding of the Authority of theſe Aſſemblies. Anſw. We muſt tell them again, that had they taken-in all the Propoſals here, the Conſequence had not been ſo dark; And yet even that of their pronouncing the late Aſſemblies null, hath given a ſorer ſtroak to the Church than they will know well how to anſwer for, (as we have ſaid, and elſewhere cleared) and keepeth men who plead for theſe Aſſemblies under the imputation of a defection and tyrannical uſurpation of the power of a Gen. Aſſembly in this Church; And this they will have ſtill kept on foot, were it but in ſuch a matter as this, till they be at leiſure or have power to call them to an account for it. And though we make no queſtion but that Commiſſion, or any other Civil Court, might exerciſe their lawfull power, without any prejudice to the authority of theſe Aſſemblies, or from the ſtanding thereof: yet any who pleaſe may ſee that their deſire concerning the rule and way of that Commiſſions exerciſe of their power, doth conclude them controverted Aſſemblies. 4. In anſwer to that charge, that the deſign was to have the maintenance put in the hands of men to their mind, that ſo they might diſcourage all from the Miniſterie who are oppoſit to themſelves▪ They are pleaſed to recriminate upon the Acts of the late Aſſemblies; to which we have anſwered already, and may meet with it again hereafter: For they are afraid we forget it, and therefore we are ſo oft told of it, to make the volumn the bigger. In the mean time, we cannot but tell them, That had the Church made uſe of thoſe Acts, (as they did not) yet the compariſon is odious betwixt a Church taking courſe with thoſe who renounce her Authority, and are oppoſit to her juſt Determinations; and a parties endeavouring to cruſh their Mother-Church, and ſuch as adhere to Truth in her, that they may promote themſelves. They tell us again, that though they cannot ſay they are ſo ſelf-denied, as not to have wiſhed it ſo, (which we as eaſily believe, as we are ſure de jure they ought not p. 57to have wiſhed it ſo) yet they never expected nor propoſed that there might be ſuch a Commiſſion as might wholly conſiſt of men to their mind. Anſw. Neither did any charge that upon them: for, ſure the Maintenance might have been put into the hands of men to their mind, although that Commiſſion did not wholly conſiſt of ſuch. It might have ſufficed for ſecuring that, if they had kept but ſuch a proportion as men to their mind keep in that Order, of which we ſpake in the laſt Section. And though they put us off with this handſome ſhift, yet we are ſure they did not labour ſo hard in it to play an uncertain game to themſelves, by admitting an equality of parties, or any thing like it, in that Commiſſion. But they ſay further, that though the Commiſſion had conſiſted moſtly or wholly of ſuch, there would have been room and encouragement for men of our judgment both to continue and enter into the Miniſterie. Anſw. Why they mention our continuance in the Miniſterie here, (not to inſiſt how much it would encroach upon the juſt power of Congregations and Presbyteries, if our room to enter into the Miniſterie did depend upon ſuch a Commiſſion) we know not, unleſſe it be to put us in minde to tell them that there was a project alſo to meddle with the Maintenance of ſetled Miniſters, and to have the Stipends of all the Miniſters, admitted ſince the year, 1650. ſequeſtrate, till they ſhould come before ſuch a Commiſſion. And though we do think, than there were ſober-minded men of their judgment let alone by ſuch as theſe Witneſſes, and taught to meddle more with what concerned their eternal ſalvation, and not to imbark themſelves in controverſies of this kind, we needed not doubt of receiving all kindneſs from them; Yet ſo long as they make it their trade to ſtir-up all who will give them any credit, to traduce even the beſt of thoſe who are oppoſit to them, we will be ſparing of ſetting our ſeal to their aſſertion, unleſſe there be an ambiguity intended here in the matter of encouragement, which honeſt Miniſters will never want in the work of the Lord, even though Maintenance were withheld from them.

Having conſidered what they ſpeak to this head, of their own Vindication (except what they ſay here to the matter of Subordination, which we leave to come in with the reſt that followeth on that ſubject) we ſhall briefly conſider how they remove two other prejudices before they come to the Overtures of Union.

I. Whereas it was laid to their charge, that they began a needleſſe p. 58rent in the Church upon a queſtion ſo extrinſick to our Doctrine, Worſhip and Government, and that it is a toſſing of a debate now ſo far removed out of our way, meaning the debate about the Publick Reſolutions: To this they give ſeveral Anſwers, pag. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71. And firſt, They tell us we began the Rent, in that ſome of the Commiſſioners of the Generall Aſſembly, without giving timous warning to others, did in the year, 1651. ſuddenly take theſe Reſolutions, when the whole Church of Scotland was in poſſeſſion of, and by Covenants and Vows engaged to the Truths to which theſe Reſolutions are contrary and deſtructive. Anſw. As to the proceeding of the Commiſſioners in taking theſe Reſolutions, as they needed not go into corners with that Queſtion, (it being well known, that though all of their judgment had been preſent, they would not have made any conſiderable part of that Commiſſion, for ſtopping their procedure to any ſuch concluſion) ſo they are able to juſtifie that there was no ſurreptitious dealing in that matter; But that, before that Queſtion came to be debated, that party had deſerted their truſt in the Commiſſion, in that time of ſtrait, and would not come to it. But as to the matter it ſelf, though their having truth on their ſide would not juſtifie them from being the makers of the Rent, if it were not relevant, or tanti, as to bear all the ſad conſequents of a Schiſm: Yet, we are content the Rent be laid to their charge who ſhall be found in the error in this debate. And we muſt again tell them, that it is not fair dealing, to ſtuffe ſo many Pages on all occaſions with lowd outcries againſt theſe Reſolutions, without ſo much as one Argument to make good their Aſſertion, or any endeavour to anſwer what is written againſt them in this mater. Let them make it good that there is an errour in theſe Reſolutions, That they are condemned either in our Covenants, or in the ſolemn Engagement, (concerning which it hath already been told them, that that Paper was ſo contrived of purpoſe as it might not precondemn theſe Reſolutions, if ever it ſhould be needfull to take them) Or, that the Church of Scotland did ever ſince the Reformation from Popery, oppoſe theſe Reſolutions (as they tell us afterward in the ſecond branch of their Anſwer) or owne any Doctrine contrary to theſe Reſolutions, and did not rather practiſe them and print Declarations conform to them. And let them anſwer what is ſaid to all theſe particulars, in the printed Papers p. 59formerly mentioned, before they ſo magiſterially tread under-foot both the truth and us. 2. They tell us that it is not a queſtion ſo extrinſick as we would make it, but involves a portion of the precious Truths of God revealed in His Word, and is a truth holden forth by the Kirk of Scotland as containing what is neceſſary for preſerving the reſt of the Doctrine, Worſhip and Government from the pollutions which ill men uſe to bring in or give way unto, whereof they give an inſtance in the deſires of the Commiſſion of the Aſſembly 1648. concerning qualifications of Inſtruments in the unlawful Engagement; And they deſire us to remember, of what ſpirit that man would have been judged, who in the Aſſembly 1650. (it ſeems by what follows it ſhould be 1648.) would have pleaded this to be a queſtion much extrinſick to our Doctrine, Worſhip and Government. Anſw. Whatever was ſaid concerning the nature of that queſtion; Yet it was never our mind to aſſert, that there is not a matter of truth and errour in it, to be determined by the Word of God; nor yet will we deny, but (where the caſe is practicable in any Nation under heaven) their opinion in this matter is of ſoveraign bad conſequence to the State and Nation, as not only expoſing the Nation to unavoidable ruine, but even expoſing the Doctrine, Worſhip and Government to the mercy of Turks and Pagans, or Papiſts, if they pleaſe to invade it, rather than they will truſt fellow-ſubjects to defend themſelves and the common Intereſt of the Nation, and that becauſe they may bring in or give way to corruptions, as there they expreſſe it. Only we have ſtill judged, that when the Church of Scotland is no way concerned nor put to it to determine that Queſtion, who may be employed in State and Armies; And ſeing this queſtion is not determined nor debated in our Confeſſion of Faith, and we may very well Preach Chriſt and the Goſpel, and what concerns the practice of the people of God, without dipping upon that Queſtion, yea, and may obſerve the Directory for Worſhip, and keep up Presbyteriall Government without it; Therefore it hath been thought ſtrange, we might not lay ſuch a Queſtion aſide, and joyn our ſelves in the work of the Lord which is preſently put in our hand. But ſince thoſe Witneſſes will have it of ſuch importance ſtill, we do again put them in mind of their work, to make out their aſſertion in this controverſie. Mean time, leſt their ſtate of the Queſtion be as lax as that concerning p. 60Subordination is here, We muſt put them in mind of theſe few particulars, (1.) That they muſt ſtate the Queſtion more accurately, than to make it amount only to this (as they hold it out, pag. 67.) Whether we ſhould entruſt known wicked malignant men, enemies to Truth and Godlineſſe, with the Intereſts of the Lords Work and People? For we will eaſily reply, that this ſtate of the Queſtion would be found faulty in diverſe reſpects, as to that caſe. It will not be granted them, nay, their own Conſciences dare not aſſert, that all of theſe then in queſtion, were known wicked Malignant men, enemies to Truth and Godlineſſe, but rather that many of them were forward in the defence of the Truth and cauſe of God from the beginning, though they were led away in the matter of the Engagement. Neither will it be granted, that men Eccleſiaſtically purged from what acceſſion they had to evil courſes, muſt ſtill be accounted what they were before the profeſſion of their repentance, and while they were going on in their wicked courſes. And they muſt alſo remember, that the Queſtion will take-in more than the Intereſts of the Lords work and People, as they are pleaſed to take thoſe in a reſtricted ſenſe. For, the common intereſts and ſafety of the Nation, and of every particular perſon and family therein, are ſuppoſed to be concerned in the queſtion betwixt us, and conſequently will allow more to be engaged than in a quarrell purely religious. Yea, in ſuch a caſe of common hazard and combuſtion, they will hardly perſwade rationall Chriſtians, but that fowl water may very lawfully be made uſe of to quench fire. (2.) That they muſt bring better proofs than that of the Commiſſions deſire, 1648. to prove their aſſertion. For, there the Engagement was unlawfull, and the War was offenſive, and an Invaſion of another Nation; (to ſay nothing of the different condition and poſture of the Supream Magiſtrate in theſe two caſes) And if they will grant that the unlawfulneſs of that Engagement conſiſted only in the imploying of perſons wanting the qualifications in the Commiſſions deſire, and that it had been lawfull, if put in the hands of Confidents, they ſay ſomewhat: Otherwiſe, it will be found wilde reaſoning, that becauſe a Church being jealous of the States intentions in an offenſive War, otherwiſe unlawfull, deſired this, as one mean of removing their fears, that confident perſons might be intruſted with the management of the War; Therefore in a defenſive p. 61war, which none of the parties queſtioned to be lawfull, and wherein the whole Nation in generall, and every perſon in particular, are concerned as much as they are worth, no other perſons may be imployed. (3.) Whether they mean the year, 1648. or, 1650. we know not what ſtrange thing it would have been thought to maintain this Theſis; But we are ſure that the Commiſſion ſhortly after the Aſſembly, 1648. did, upon the debate, word the ſolemn Engagement ſo, as it might not precondemn that Theſis, as is ſaid before, and is elſewhere cleared; And the Commiſſion of the Aſſembly, 1650. did ſhortly after that Aſſembly take theſe Reſolutions, and that when it conſiſted generally of men who were moſt eminent friends to Reformation. 3. They retort this conſideration upon our ſelves, enquiring why we are ſo tenacious of the Determinations of our Aſſemblies about this Queſtion, which we judge ſo extrinſick, and will not, for the peace of the Church, take courſe that theſe Determinations be not looked on as the definitive judgement of this Kirk, or any of the Judicatories thereof, and why we make and keep up Acts againſt thoſe who ſubmit not to theſe Determinations? Why alſo we ſometime place the ſtanding or falling of this Church therein? Some of this ſtuffe is laid in our diſh again with vehemence enough, Pag. 85. But we anſw, If we look to what is paſt, and the Queſtion were put, Why the Aſſemblies did define and determine in theſe matters, and make theſe Acts? Our Reply would be, becauſe the things determined and defined are lawful and juſt, and they were required by the Civil Magiſtrate in a time of extream exigencie to give their judgement therein; And becauſe publick oppoſers of theſe Determinations, when practicable and neceſſary, are turbulent men and drawers on of the ruin of any Nation where they live. But if we turn to our preſent caſe, had the Queſtion been, Why do we not lay aſide theſe debats, and take away theſe Acts for peace? And why do we not forbear to impoſe theſe Determinations upon their conſciences, that they ſhould approve them as the definitive ſentence of this Kirk; yea, why do not we promiſe that they ſhould never be urged againſt them as the definitive ſentence of this Kirk? Our Anſwer is as eaſie, That all this is offered to them, in our Conference for Union, and rejected by them: But as to their Queſtion, we ſay, That therefore we do not take courſe that they be not looked on as the difinitive judgement of p. 62this Kirk, becauſe we are perſwaded in our conſciences they were lawfull Aſſemblies who did take cognition of theſe matters; And we know that de facto they did define and determine in them, and therefore we can not lie againſt our conſciences and knowledge to ſay the contrary; nor can we, being private men, annul theſe Determinations ſimply, which is only competent to another Generall Aſſembly, if they find juſt cauſe ſo to do. And if they can inſtruct, that ever private men did repeal the Acts of Civil or Eccleſiaſtick Judicatories (eſpecially which they held in their conſciences to be lawfull Judicatories) and declare them not to be the definitive judgement of theſe Judicatories (as it ſeemes they would have us believe, pag. 85. and is the thing they ſeek of us) Let them produce their evidences. But we believe they will ſuccumb in their probation, and that it will be found a practice intolerable either in a State or Church. And as to the weight they ſay we ſometime lay upon this matter; We do indeed judge that Queſtion about the Reſolutions very weighty, where a Nation is put to practiſe them. But they do here alter the Queſtion from what they are upon in this Section, and turn-in upon the Aſſemblies and their Determination therein. For we do not think (nor ever did we ſay) that the laying aſide the Debate concerning the Reſolutions, would be the falling of this Church: Only we aſſert, that their queſtioning the Authority of theſe Aſſemblies, upon the grounds produced, and our conſenting to them herein, were in effect to expoſe the Church to ruin, by granting a liberty to privat men to overturn National Church-judicatories at their pleaſure, and ſo to repeal their Determinations, as to declare they had no lawfull Authority therein; And yet this doth nothing contradict our Aſſertion, that the Queſtion about the Reſolutions is ſo extrinſick to our Doctrine, Worſhip and Government, as they need not hold up perpetuall debates about it, which is the Aſſertion they are now refuting. 4. They aſſert, that the ſubject matter of this Debate continueth, in reſpect of the ſin and guilt thereof, not taken with nor repented of, and in regard of the Synodicall approbation and tye, the Acts of Cenſure, publick Warnings, Declarations and Remonſtrances againſt the oppoſers thereof, the authoritative approbation thereof by Synods and Presbyteries, in regard of the execution of theſe Acts againſt ſome, the taking-in of malignant men to have Eccleſiaſtick priviledges and truſt, and to be Elders; and in regard of p. 63many ſad fruits and evidences of defection following thereupon, which they long ago repreſented to the ſeverall Synods. Anſw. We leave them in what they have given-in to Synods, to the Returns given them by the Synods, ſince they paſſe it here in a general, Only we ſay this, whatever were their faults in what they gave in to Synods themſelves; It had been more tolerable if they had ſiſted there, and had not caſt-off tenderneſſe and ſhame, in aſperſing the Judicatories and Servants of Chriſt in this Church, among ſtrangers, by their Papers ſpread at London, containing manifeſt untruths, as the particular Synods concerned are able to inſtruct. But for what they expreſſe here, as many of theſe particulars have been anſwered before when they laid theſe things to our charge; So for theſe which they refer to their conſiderations upon the Overtures of Union, pag. 71. We ſhall remit them thither alſo to ſee if they will be able to make out (as we are ſure they will not) that any of theſe things they complain of were to continue upon an Union (which is the caſe in hand) further than in ſo far as might reſerve the freedom of our own judgement concerning the matter of theſe Reſolutions, and the lawfulneſſe of theſe Aſſemblies; Or, if any thing was required of them which might either continue them under cenſures or cenſurableneſſe, or import their approbation of theſe things in their judgement. And as to the matter of Repentance, we truſt we have obtained mercy, not to decline the taking with, or repenting of real guilt, when it is made out unto us, though we dare not ſin againſt our ſouls to repent of our duty, and of owning the Truth of God, as we believe we do in this particular, whatever they ſay here to the contrary. We ſhall not inſiſt to regrate how little there is indeed of repentance for faults among us, nor ſhall we offer to do any thing like recrimination in ſo ſerious a buſineſſe; yet we muſt tell them, that as all of us have need of more repentance before the Lord, So though (we believe) it is their duty to repent their oppoſition to the Truth in this particular, and their violent proſecution thereof to the running-down of their Mother-Church, Yet we never did urge this as a thing without which an Union might not be: Yea, we think it ſtrange Divinity, that there can be no Peace or Union in a Church unleſſe every man will renounce and repent of every thing wherein he differs from another in judgment. We think God hath ſet other limits of mutuall forbearance for avoiding of a Schiſme.

p. 64II. Whereas it was alleaged, that their courſes did ſpeak them men affecting preheminence, and to ſet up a domination of their Party in the Church and over their Brethren: They begin with an acknowledgement of that bitter root of pride and ambition common to them with all men; but they deny that charge, though they grant they would wiſh all to be of that judgement in theſe points of difference, becauſe they judge it to be of the Lord: So, pag. 71, 72. Anſw. As we ſhall wiſh them (and our ſelves both) more ſenſe of that bitter root, and of the breaking out evidences thereof, according as their guilt is; and we are ſure ſome of them will not get many compurgators of that very crime: So we leave it to the judicious to conſider how they acquit themſelves of the charge in the matters in debate, in their unreaſonable demands of, and endeavoured impoſitions upon their Brethren, and in 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 p. 65the 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 p. 66purge 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; whereever 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 p. 67would 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 much deſire, that either we might imbrace it, or be inexcuſable before the world, if we rejected it, or urged any thing upon them which might entrench upon their conſciences, and widen the breach with God? The truth is, whatever charity we have of the Proteſting Brethren (of whom they ſpeak, pag. 118.) that many of them are grieved with theſe diviſions, and would be at an Union, were they let alone: Yet we have not the charity that theſe Witneſſes are any of that number, but the very fomenters of the flame.

2. Becauſe it is declared that we will not accord to their Propoſals of extrajudicial Committees (of which we have ſpoken before) nor recede from the eſtabliſhed Government, nor go out of the common road of the Judicatories (to the corruption whereof we have alſo ſpoken, and will ſpeak to Subordination thereunto afterward) Therfore they count Union very hopeleſſe, pag. 73, 74. Which is in effect, as their arguing afterward cleareth, to call it deſperate. So that it is now come to this, No Peace, not only except the Reſolutions and Aſſemblies be laid aſide, but except alſo the other Judicatories be laid aſide, and men be allowed to ſubmit to no more of their Sentences than they think juſt: A good and ſafe bargain for the Church of Scotland indeed! But we are yet reſolved not to quit the Judicatories God hath given us, ſpecially, ſince we have no hope of better to be raiſed out of the rubbiſh of theſe.

3. Becauſe the Declaration made mention only of theſe Overtures for Union which were moſt material, upon the according whereof, other things in the Conference might eaſily be ſetled; They are pleaſed to queſtion, pag. 74, 75, 76. whether we adhere yet to all the condeſcenſions and offers made by us in the Conference: And yet the very words of the Declaration, cited by themſelves, do expreſly ſay ſo much. But where men have no good liking of things, it is eaſie to fiſh faults at them.

4. Becauſe our judgment is aſſerted concerning the Acts of Aſſemblies relating to our preſent differences; Therefore they alleage we obſtruct Union, and (pag. 76, 77.) a great noiſe is made of our p. 68receding, upon politick grounds, from things wherein we pretend to conſcience, juſtice and neceſſity, only becauſe the times are changed: And withall they tell us over again the injuſtice of theſe Acts, about things we account ſo extrinſick, and which they account contrary to the Covenant. Anſw. And yet all this needed not as to the matter of Union; but that they would needs let a fling at us: for however we think them juſt, yet it was never required of them to think them juſt in order to an Union; yea, it was promiſed they ſhould never be troubled with them: But when they have ſpoken here with as much vehemency againſt them, if not more than we have done for them: We are both free, when all is done, to agree not to impoſe upon one anothers judgment about them, and to lay them aſide. We ſhall adde no more to what we have ſaid of the juſtice of theſe things about which the Acts are; for till they prove them to be open breaches of Covenant and Engagement, they remain to us Truths of God: Nor ſhall we make any further enquiry who they are that change with times, and do bring the Miniſtrie in contempt, for that is too well known, and is no pleaſing ſubject whoever have hand in it. But for the thing it ſelf, we ſee no ſuch change in our ſelves as they would give out. We judge the thing it ſelf contained in theſe Acts, being conſidered ſimply, to be juſt and true at all times; That perſons obſtructing the defence of their Country going to ruin, and overturning a ſupream Church-judicatory, do deſerve Cenſure; and that it is neceſſary it be inflicted when it may reach the end, to prevent, or render ineffectuall their oppoſitions: And yet not only prudentiall grounds, but even conſcience telleth us that it is neither expedient nor neceſſary to make ſuch Acts, where the matter about which men controvert is not practicable, nor to keep them in force, when by laying them aſide we may obtain the Union of a broken Church. In a word, we hold it no paradox in Divinity, that practical concluſions, relating to the publick State of a Nation, do alter much with times, altering the face of affairs; And that in ſome times, things may juſtly, and ought neceſſarily to be done, which at another time, conſcience teacheth men ought not to be done. And as for the future, we have offered ſufficiently to ſecure them (ſo far as we can) againſt the hazard of theſe Acts, and that upon the ſame grounds of conſcience, which teach us now to lay aſide Acts about a Queſtion that is extinct; though we cannot be p. 69ſurety that the Church in the like caſe of a forreign Invaſion, and being interrogate by the Civil Power, ſhal never determine concerning theſe Reſolutions as they have done, and concerning any, who ſhall make the like oppoſition they have done. Yea, we are perſwaded, would themſelves but eſſay their hand with their wonted principles and practices now, it would ſoon be ſeen how it would be relliſhed. We ſhall only adde further, that as to what they inſinuate of change of times, it would be more like kindly children for them to be the more peaceable and reſpective of their Mother, that they think the times allow them a liberty to do otherwiſe. It is no great magnanimity to take advantage of her low condition.

5. As to what is ſaid, by way of Anſwer to their outcries, [that though ſome very few Presbyteries have required of Intrants of whatſoever judgement, that they promiſe not to trouble the peace of the Church with theſe debates; Yet none of theſe Acts have been, de facto, a bar to hold out godly men lawfully and orderly called and tried: Though they be induſtrious to thruſt in men of their own judgement, and cruſh Godly and able men who do not agree with them:] They tell us, 1. Of much and many wrongs done by theſe Acts, pag. 78. Which we intreat they may verifie and inſtruct (as they ſay they can) before we can anſwer. For whereas they appeal to our knowledge, We do declare we know Elders of their judgement kept in, and brought-in in Judicatories where we are the plurality, though in ſome places they have caſt out of their Elderſhips all who differed from them in judgement, and have never ſince made another Election, though uſually before they did yearly change. We know alſo Expectants of their judgement, not only admitted among us to triall in order to a liberty to preach, but (being lawfully called and tried) admitted to the Miniſtry where we have power, We fear many young men who went to other Presbyteries to paſſe their trialls, went not upon the account of their judgement, but that they might ſhun the more accurat trials uſed in Univerſities and Presbyteries where more learned men are. 2. They are pleaſed indeed to jeſt, by ſaying that we love to jeſt in our ſpeaking of what ſome Presbyteries required of men of whatſoever judgement, enquiring if they laid bonds on men of their own judgement, that they ſhould not debate for the Proteſtation? and who gave them power to lay bonds on men of their own judgement, p. 70ſeing the Aſſemblies Act ſpeaks only of men of the other judgement? To which we ſhall only anſwer with ſilence, (ſeing the matter is plain enough to themſelves when they are pleaſed to come to it at laſt, and Presbyteries might do all that, had there been no Act of Aſſemblies in theſe matters) confeſſing that indeed this is no matter of ſport, and if we be very merry, we have not ſo much cauſe as ſome of our neighbours, if we reckon by outward advantages. 3. They break high upon us, That ſome Presbyteries ſhould impoſe ſilence upon men of their own judgement, and yet we give them ſo ill example in our Repreſentation and Declaration, pag. 79. And what doth all this amount to, but that we would be peaceable, but they would not let us, but either we muſt let them run all down, or ſay ſomewhat for our own defence? And yet the ſcope of all that is ſaid in theſe Papers, is, to draw them, and with them our ſelves, to lay by the debate. 4. As to what they deny of their activity for ſtrengthning their Party, and do inſinuate of a reflection upon the Expectants of our judgement; The particulars being ſo notoure through the Church, both what they have done, and what many of theſe Expectants of our judgement are, we ſhall reſt confident that ſuch aſſertions as theſe will gain them but little credit, where the truth of things is known.

6. They take it ill that any thing is ſaid in behalf of the Aſſemblies proceeding to cenſure any of their number (which yet they cannot condemn till they make good their charge againſt theſe Reſolutions and Aſſemblies) and that we ſhould lay any weight upon their Non-ſubmiſſion: Seing we are not to thank that they did not ſubmit; they having ſuffered ſo many things at our hands, and with our connivance: But it proceeded only from the conſcience of their own innocency, and the iniquity and nullity of theſe Sentences, pag. 80, 81. Anſw. But as we are ſure many others do not judge of theſe Sentences as they do, nor it may be will they ſo look upon them themſelves, when they are brought to think ſeriouſly of making an account for their carriage, both before and ſince theſe Cenſures: So it is true, notwithſtanding all they ſay, that they have not ſubmitted. And it is no great wonder if their not ſubmitting, and not hearkening to tearms of Peace, have bred themſelves and us both ſome trouble; or that many in the Land do look upon them as turbulent and implacable men: Yet all they can truly complain of, amounteth to no more p. 71but this, That a Synod did (not to refuſe to admit, but) take time to deliberate if they ſhould admit one of them for a Correſpondent, ſeing it would import their condemning of a Sentence inflicted by a lawfull Judicatory, though his ſpirit could neither ſubmit to ſuch delay, nor ſuffer him to go away without ſuch a carriage toward a Judicatory of Chriſt, as we believe himſelf may find cauſe to be aſhamed of; That Judicatories, of which ſome of them formerly were members, could not owne them as Miniſters, who had been depoſed by a lawfull General Aſſembly, but did intimate their Sentence, when they found they would not hearken to tearms of Union; And that ſome of their Congregations, who could not owne them for their Miniſters, when they could not be rid of them, did ſeek to themſelves a lawfull Paſtor to whom they might ſubmit. And for what hath been between ſome of their Congregations and them, we believe their purſuing of their people criminally (though they were aſſoiled in Law, and it was found they had purſued them unjuſtly) will ſpeak who expoſeth others to ſuffer moſt. However, all theſe inconveniences might eaſily be helped by an Union, if they had not the humour to force themſelves upon the conſciences of Miniſters and People, whether they will or not.