Review and Examination of a Pamphlet, Text (3 of 4)

Review and Examination of a Pamphlet · Text (3 of 4)

p. 717. Albeit (whatever might be ſaid of theſe Sentences) we were content they ſhould be taken-off in ſuch a way as might not bind upon them the acknowledgement of the two late Aſſemblies, or of the lawfulneſs and juſtice of theſe Cenſures: Yet that doth not pleaſe them, ſeing the Cenſures are not to be declared void and null; Which (as themſelves interpret the meaning, pag. 81, and 82.) importeth that they ſhould be declared not only unjuſt Sentences upon the matter, but no real Sentences, as proceeding from thoſe who had no Authority. And if this be an equal mean of Union, without impoſing upon our judgments to condemn that Authority, let indifferent men judge.

8. Albeit it was offered to them, as to the Acts concerning the Publick Reſolutions, that they ſhall be rendered of none effect as to Cenſure, and that they ſhall never be alleaged againſt them, as the definitive judgment of this Kirk to any effect: And albeit it was offered as to the conſtitution of the two late Aſſemblies, That (though we, for a ſalvo of our judgement aſſerted, that no unwarrantable prelimitations were put upon the election of Commiſſioners to theſe p. 72Aſſemblies) no unwarrantable prelimitations ſhould be put upon future Elections, but that theſe matters ſhould be carried-on as in former Aſſemblies proceeding our differences: Yet this doth not ſatisfie them, pag 82, 83, 84, 85. They count it inſufficient that there be a ceſſation from executing Acts relating to Cenſure till they be made void and null by the next General Aſſembly. Anſw. And yet we know no Judicatories (far leſs privat Miniſters) who have power to repeal their Acts but themſelves. They count it a mock-remedy that the Queſtion concerning the Publick Reſolutions be remitted to the Determination of a Generall Aſſembly. Anſw. And yet they are the only competent Judges in that matter. But they alleage it is a mock-remedy, becauſe by the Acts they are ſecluded from being members. Anſw. And yet it is expreſly provided in the Overtures for Union at our Conference, That none of the particulars of our late differences ſhall be alleaged, on either part, againſt the ſitting of perſons as Commiſſioners in enſuing General Aſſemblies. They alleage further, that it is a mock-remedy, becauſe we will be the plurality in an Aſſembly. Anſw. And we deſire a remedy for this, unleſs they will have us renounce our judgment, or caſt the conſtitution of the Church as corrupt, and gather a new one out of the rubbiſh; And yet it is offered and aſſured in the Conference, that upon an Union, we ſhall in our judicial actings abſtract from theſe by-gone differences. They think it ſtrange we ſhould judge it a quitting of our judgement to condeſcend that the Publick Reſolutions ſhould not be looked-on as the publick definitive judgment of this Kirk: And that ſeing we agree to repeal Acts concerning Cenſures, without quitting our own judgment, we may as well repeal theſe Acts that declare theſe Reſolutions to be the definitive judgment of the Kirk, without altering our judgment concerning the things themſelves. Anſw. But as we know no ſuch Acts declaratory, that the Reſolutions are the definitive judgment of this Kirk, ſave only the Act of Aſſemblie approving them as ſound and orthodox▪ So there is no ſuch need of piercing judgments to take up a difference betwixt what we concede, and what we cannot yeeld: For, an ordinary capacity will diſcern that particular Concluſions concerning Cenſures may well be repealed, and declared of none effect as to execution, without encroaching upon mens judgments concerning the lawfulneſſe thereof, or of the Authority eſtabliſhing p. 73the ſame: And yet a dogmatick Concluſion determined in an Aſſembly, cannot be declared not to be the definitive judgement of a Church in her repreſentative Judicatory, unleſſe men will either lie againſt their knowledge, and ſay it was not determined there, or againſt their light, and ſay it was not a lawfull Authority or Repreſentative that did determine it. There is but too much Sophiſtry in aſſerting we may take off the Synodicall eye, without quitting or altering our judgements concerning the things themſelves: For who Queſtions but men may be of ſuch an opinion, had the matter never been determined, or ſhould the contrary be determined? but they know this was never urged as the reaſon or our refuſall of that deſire, but only that we could not condemn the Authority that determined in theſe matters. And however they are pleaſed to twit us again with our holding theſe things to be extrinſecall to our Doctrine, &c. Yet we hope, were they of never ſo ſmall moment, they will not have us lie or condemn our own judgements in them. And as to their apprehenſions concerning our deſigns, (which we know not why they repeat ſo often) As we do not readily expect that this or any Reformed Church will be put to the reſolution of any ſuch caſe: So we nothing doubt, that where-ever there is occaſion, their judgement will be condemned by all but themſelves, and we are ſure themſelves will not allow of it in all caſes.

9. They make a great noiſe of the inſufficiency of our Overtures concerning purging, pag. 86, 87, 88. (though we have better cauſe to complain that this being no cauſe of the Rent, ſhould therefore not keep up the quarrell) Aſſerting, 1. That for all our good words, yet we have purged few theſe ſeven years bygone. Anſw. But, (not to inſiſt on what is ſaid before, how few of their own judgement they have either cenſured, or ſo much as put to a triall, notwithſtanding clamours and flagrant ſcandals upon diverſe of them, and how much their diviſion and irregularities obſtruct that work in our hands) we thought the Queſtion had been, not how few, or how many we had removed, but how diligent or negligent we had been? ſince we muſt not put out men whether we find cauſe or not. We ſay it as before the Lord, that (for any thing we know) if there hath been any exceſſe in this matter, it hath rather been in laying aſide men upon ſmall cauſes, than in ſparing Delinquents. 2. They aſſert, that in one Synod more have been brought-in who were formerly p. 78cenſured, than have been put out by us all, beſide theſe who (having been formerly twice depoſed) are connived at to Preach and Adminiſter the Ordinances. Anſw. It ſeems they have been unwilling their Pamphlet ſhould want bulk, and therefore when they have told us this already (where we have conſidered it) they muſt now tell us it over again; yea, we look for it the third time in a new dreſſe, where we ſhall take a new look of it. In the mean time, if theſe proceedings of that one Synod (which is the ſum of all they can ſay, though they will not be ſo ingenuous, but leave the matter ſo, as if poſſibly the like were done in every Synod) have been according to Order, and they are ready to give an account to their Judge competent; what further can be ſaid of them, but that they have done what was the conſtant practice of this Chutch ſince the late Reformation? And as to theſe they ſay are connived at, we hope it cannot be charged on us as guilt, that depoſed men having the countenance of the Civil power, do intrude upon Congregations, againſt our heart. 3. They aſſert we are become ſo backward and ſlow in this buſineſſe, that in the Proceſſes of ſome, we exerciſe our wits to raiſe notionall debates to hinder their purging out. Anſ. As to this charge, we are content to take their own courſe of committing the matter to God, who knoweth who they are that are faulty in this matter of employing their wits for ſuch ends, and who do bend their wits to caſt iniquity upon ſome men, while they are no leſſe induſtrious to obſtruct the triall of others. As we dare ſay, that we are not conſcious to our ſelves of any ſuch ſiniſtrous courſes taken by us, to obſtruct the triall of perſons brought upon the Stage; So we can truly affirm, and they cannot deny it, that they have very much exerciſed their wits in ſuch notionall debates, when ſome of their judgement were brought to triall. We are content our whole procedour, in theſe particulars they reflect upon, were laid open to the world, that they might ſee what our carriage was in admitting of Witneſſes, and judging of their depoſitions. And we dare yet again confidently aſſert, that it is a malicious calumnie, that any of theſe are kept in againſt whom any groſſe ſcandals (under which they ſay ſome lye) are proven, or that we have neglected to try ſcandals under which they lye, were it even to continue them under Proceſſe for ſeverall years, and to examine ſo many ſcores of Witneſſes. And for the iſſue of any Proceſſes p. 75we know of, in ſuſpending of ſome, and removing of others from their preſent ſtation, we know nothing done, but what theſe of their judgment joyning with us did approve of.

10. Whereas, (from the experience we had of their endleſs contentions in taking waves to proſecute ſome Miniſters, which when the caſe came to befall ſome of their judgment, they ſaid it was out of the way of judiciall Proceſſes) it was offered that they ſhould agree upon the ſtricteſt rules of purging could be deſired in juſtice, provided they be binding to all, and to which all will ſubmit; This they reject, pag. 88, 89, 90. 1. Becauſe we do not adhere to, nor practiſe rules already agreed upon; and (ſay they) why then ſhould new rules be agreed upon? This (which is as eaſily denied as aſſerted) they offer to make-out; partly in that Synodical Viſitations formerly agreed upon, are now out of uſe, ſave in very few Synods; partly, that now we diſſent from the Kirk-judicatories their trying of Miniſters by way of Inquiſition, and without a Libell, yea, and an Accuſer too; and partly, that many of us do now ſo extenuate the faults of drunkenneſs, ſwearing, &c. as not to cenſure men for them with Suſpenſion and Depoſition, as formerly, unleſs the habits, or many continued reiterated Acts of theſe things can be proven. Anſw. All theſe quarrellings might eaſily be ended by reviving and renewing whatſoever of theſe hath been formerly agreed on; and put it to trial if either Judicatories, or many of our judgment, (whatever be the thoughts of ſome particular perſon, which yet they have not made-out) will not be content to engage to obſerve them on the tearms offered. For preſent, we anſwer, (1.) That Viſitations have been kept, not only by Preſbyteries, as is the uſuall practice, but by ſome of our Synods, they deny not; and we are ready to renew and continue them, as either matters come to Synods by Reference or Appeals, or Presbyteries are found negligent, which yet muſt not be holden as proven, becauſe theſe Witneſſes ſay ſo. (2.) Albeit we think it a very hard caſe, for Miniſters or others, to have Libels and Informations given in againſt them under-boord, poſſibly by them who ſit as their Judges, and that any ſhould give-in a Libell openly againſt them, and yet incur no Cenſure if he ſuccumb in his Probation; or that any, and particularly a Miniſter, ſhould be ſuddenly put upon the Stage as a Delinquent, where there is no probability of making-out any thing, p. 76and he is ſure to be a loſer thereby: Yet they know, that the way of triall (which they are pleaſed to call Inquiſition) practiſed in this Church, is ſtill in force and practice, and that Presbyteries (beſide their private trials one of another, before the meeting of the Synod, twice every year) do uſually once a year viſit Congregations, where the Elderſhip are put in mind of their Oath to declare if they know any thing againſt their Miniſter; and the Congregation are likewiſe called to for the ſame effect, where, if any thing be informed, it is put to triall and probation: And in caſe there be any fama clamoſa of a ſcandall, extraordinary Viſitations are kept by Presbyteries or Synods, and enquiry made into that matter. And what other Inquiſition they would have, we know not, except it be the Spaniſh Inquiſition, or ſuper inquirendis. (3.) As to the matter of drunkenneſſe and ſwearing, and what elſe they are pleaſed to comprehend under that, &c. we truſt never to be left to our ſelves to approve or connive at ſuch ills, eſpecially in Miniſters. We hope through the mercy of God, we have a witneſſe in heaven of our deteſtation of, and ſincerity of zeal againſt ſuch abominations. And we wiſh the Lord may lay it indeed to the Conſcience, but not to the charge of theſe Witneſſes, that they ſuggeſt ſuch foul aſperſions to defame us. Nor ſhall we dip into an enquiry what hath been the pract…ce of this Church, in cenſuring theſe faults in all the kinds and degrees thereof, and conſidered in all their circumſtances, which will not be found, we are ſure, to amount to what they ſay: nor yet ſhall we need to debate upon the particular opinions of any, concerning the Cenſure of one raſh oath, (or rather a minced oath, as it is commonly termed, which is the thing they make ſo much noiſe of) or ſome degree of exceſſe in a man, not known to be given to ſuch evils, and that Admonition is a Church-cenſure to be ſiſted at in ſome faults and in ſome caſes: Only for the Judicatories part, we can inſtruct where ſome of theſe faults have been cenſured, by us, with Suſpenſion, where there were not many continued reiterated Acts proven. 2. They except againſt this Overture, upon this account, that theſe rules muſt be applied by us who are the plurality, from whom they expect no purging. To this we have already ſpoken, as alſo to that of our being the plurality: Only this puts us in mind, that a new Queſtion is often hinted to us, whether the Church of Scotland be furniſhed with p. 77Judicatories worthy to be entruſted with the managing of Chriſts affairs? Wherein we wiſh they would give … ſome more convincing light that we may all quit it, and put them in who are the honeſt men, if we take their own teſtimony.

11. They profeſſe they cannot accord to theſe Overtures, becauſe it is not provided that the plurality ſhall be laid aſide in Congregations, in the matter of calling of Miniſters, pag. 90. Which is in effect to lay by the body of the People as incapable of Church-priviledges (when yet they are admitted to Church-ordinances) and put them in the hands of ſome few: And is not this a fine way to draw in to Congregations of an Independent Conſtitution? Though we know Independents themſelves will not deny the liberty of giving a Call to them who are their Church-members, and partake of the Ordinances with them: For our part, we offered, and do offer to obſerve the Acts of this Church in that matter, and particularly, the Act of the Aſſembly, 1649. and are content to have a ſpeciall reſpect to the moſt Judicious and Godly in that matter, though not to prejudge others of their priviledge.

12. They make it another obſtruction to Union, that there is no remedy provided for putting out of thoſe Miniſters, Expectants and School-maſters, who, being depoſed, have intruded themſelves, or are reponed again ſince our Differences, pag. 90, 91. Anſw. And yet, were all they ſay of them true (which hath been ſpoken to before) they are not ſo many, as to cauſe men keep up a Rent becauſe of them: And withall, it was offered in the Conference for Union, that ſince a Generall Aſſembly did not meet, an account ſhould be given of theſe matters by thoſe who had acted therein, to Correſpondents of neighbouring Synods or Presbyteries reſpectivè: who, if they find any thing done amiſs by theſe Synods and Presbyteries, they ſhall labour with them to rectifie the ſame. As alſo that we ſhall do our endeavours that Intruders be cenſured and removed.

13. They complain alſo, that nothing is offered about the way of calling a General Aſſembly, the electing of Commiſſioners thereto, and handling of matters therein, pag. 91. Anſw. And are not here Prelimitations enow ſought to be upon a future General Aſſembly? ſeing they are not content that we promiſed to follow the ordinary Rules in theſe matters, obſerved before our Differences, and are content p. 78it be ſo called by a meeting of Correſpondents, as may not involve them in the approbation of the two laſt Aſſemblies. The truth is, theſe things do juſtly ſtumble us, that they have raiſed ſuch a confuſion about alleaged Prelimitations in the election of Members of the two late Aſſemblies (which in effect were not) and yet will not hear of another Aſſembly (if God grant the opportunity) without both Prelimitations and Preingagements, as to the way of Elections and handling of matters in it.

14. They are pleaſed to alleage further, (pag. 91.) That it is an impediment to Union, that no mutual evidence and aſſurance is given in matters concerning our Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government, and the enemies of Truth and Godlineſſe, and the work of Reformation, for adhering to theſe Articles of our Covenants, our Engagement, and Acts of uncontroverted Aſſemblies relating thereunto, in the literall and genuine ſenſe and meaning thereof, as they deſired in the Conference. Anſw. But if by what they foiſt-in here (beſide what was propounded in that Conference, as they ſet it down, pag. 40.) they mean we ſhould engage to condemn the Publick Reſolutions, as Contrary to our Covenants, Engagements, or Acts of Aſſemblies, we think they will not ſoon obtain that. But as to the matter of our adherence to the Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government of this Kirk, to which we are tied by Covenants and Engagements, and was the thing required in the Conference; Such ſatisfaction hath been offered therein, in the Conference, according to their explication of their own deſire, as we wonder with what confidence they call it (as they do, pag. 40.) a ſhy anſwer; Or, how they can expect that the world, who knoweth them and us, will believe that they are the men adhering to theſe things and the principles of this Kirk concerning them, while we are giving cauſe of jealouſie that we do not, or will not ſtand firm.

15. They would make the world believe we impoſe upon their judgments in the matter of their Proteſtations, pag. 91, 92, 93. When yet we neither bid them renounce them, nor acknowledge the lawfulneſs of the Aſſemblies againſt which they were. Only we deſired they ſhould not in any Judicatory of this Kirk make uſe thereof to call in queſtion and annul the Conſtitution and Authority of theſe Aſſemblies. Withall declaring, that this did not import their paſſing from them as ſtanding Teſtimonies of their judgment, nor p. 79hinder them to make uſe thereof as a legal defence, if the Conſtitution and Acts of theſe Aſſemblies were urged againſt them: Yea, nor to make uſe of them in ſo far as they related to the Publick Reſolutions, if they think fit to offer their Reaſons againſt them in an Aſſembly, though we judge they would ſuccumb in that cauſe. Is not this far from impoſing on their judgments in this matter? To make this Aſſertion out (beſide their conſtant clamour againſt Subordination, which is to be conſidered in due time) they offer, 1. That this were a paſſing from theſe Proteſtations as a remedy againſt the corrupt conſtitution of theſe two Aſſemblies. Anſw And do they not by our conceſſion ſtand as a teſtimony of their judgment againſt them? And what other remedy would they have, unleſs to draw us to condemn theſe Aſſemblies? 2. That it ſhould make way for the future Conſtitution and Authority of theſe two Aſſemblies. Anſ. If they mean the Conſtitution of future Aſſemblies as theſe were, to this (whatever our own judgments be) there is a ſufficient remedy provided in our Offers concerning the future Conſtitution of Aſſemblies above mentioned: If they mean the future approbation of the Conſtitution and Authority of theſe Aſſemblies in a ſubſequent Aſſembly, It is alſo provided that they are free to make uſe of their Proteſtations as a legal defence, if any ſuch thing be urged againſt them. 3. That it is unequall to ſubmit theſe things to a Generall Aſſembly where we will be the plurality, and are many wayes engaged for the Reſolutions which are contrary to the Covenant, and Acts and Declarations of uncontroverted Aſſemblies? Anſw. That theſe Reſolutions are contrary to the Covenant, &c. is oftener ſaid than proven; and though they ſay it hath been already declared, yet we have not ſeen it proven, nor (we believe) any body elſe. But this is plain language, that they will refer nothing to a Church-judicatory, either where we are the plurality, or are engaged for the Reſolutions, and is not this an impoſing on our judgments ere there be an Union? And is it not fine language for a party, becauſe their Mother-church is not of their judgment, in what ſhe believeth and is able to prove to be an errour, therefore they will ſubmit nothing to her Determination? When Prelats excepted this againſt the General Aſſembly, 1638. they had their Anſwer, and we believe they would not bear this of us, were they the plurality; Nor did it relliſh from the Remonſtrants at the Synod of Dort. Nay, p. 80upon this account, it is impoſſible for any Church ever to compoſe a difference, unleſs they will cede to every party that pleaſeth to contradict them. And yet we muſt adde, that all this is an unjuſt clamour, as to the matter of Union, ſeing (as hath been often told) all rational ſatisfaction and ſecurity is offered that they ſhall not be troubled with thoſe bygone Queſtions.

16. They ſhut-up their thoughts in theſe things, with a ſad reflection, pag. 93, 94. That it ſmelleth rankly of a carnall politick ſpirit, to half and divide the things of God for making peace among men; though we do not come up to our own profeſſions in that matter, of offering equal conditions. Anſw. This we do very eaſily underſtand, by what they give out of our condeſcenſions among their followers, That we are men who do not adhere to theſe things out of conſcience, otherwiſe we would not concede ſo much. We leave ſo rigid a frame of ſpirit before Him who knoweth what we are put to ſuffer, in deſiring to heal the breaches of a ſinking Church. And as none but men of Donatus's temper will judge it an halfing of the things of God, to lay aſide debates concerning things removed out of our way, and to forbear the execution of ſome Acts of Diſcipline, if thereby we may bind-up the breaches of a bleeding Church: So, this giveth us a compendious account of all this debate about Union, viz. That they will neither halve nor abate an ace of theſe things they hold, for peaces ſake. And indeed upon a ſerious review of all their Overtures, however to allure us to quit the way of adminiſtring the affairs of Chriſt by His own Courts, they will allow us an equal number in their extrajudicial Committees, whereas now we are granted to be the plurality, and however they have of late not acted in the capacity of a Commiſſion, 1650. upon the reaſons formerly mentioned; though we have no aſſurance how ſoon they may uſurp it again, if they find it may ſerve their turn: Yet it will be found, they never recede a jot, not only from their judgments, but even from any of their actings in reference to the Reſolutions and their Proteſtations. And ſo we leave the caſe of this poor Church in His hands, who knoweth how to prove a Phyſician to her.

Having now gone through theſe toilſome paſſages, which cannot but be unpleaſant to judicious Readers, as it hath been indeed to us, to dwell ſo much on ſtories and bitter reflections. We proceed, p. 81in the laſt place, to take a view of their judgement in a very materiall Queſtion, concerning Subordination to Judicatories, and Submiſſion to the Sentences thereof; wherewith, from the very title to the cloſe, they ſtuffe this Pamphlet, and do more largely inſiſt on it, both in their vindicating themſelves from the charge of their ſmall reſpect to the Government, pag. 40, to 61. and do diſpute it as a reaſon why they will not accept the Overtures of Union, ſeing Subordination is required in them, pag. 94. to the end. In this debate they do not only argue againſt the thing it ſelf, but do expreſs their prejudices againſt us, becauſe of our urging Subordination in the Conference for Union with them. They tell us, pag. 10. that there could not have been a more unhappy aſſertion concerning the Government of the Kirk fallen upon and publiſhed in theſe times, and that both in order to the peace we pretended (as they are pleaſed in their charity to ſpeak of us) and becauſe of the bad uſe prelaticall men and Independents may make of it. And, pag. 41. They put us in mind of what return they gave to that Overture in the Conference, viz. that they conceived it inexpedient to ſtart and debate ſuch Queſtions at that time, &c. But as we concur with them in aſſerting the inexpediency (to ſay no more) of bringing that into debate, which formerly had been held as a foundation in the Government of this Church; And we ſhall (God willing) conſider in its own place, whether their be any (far leſſe a ſuperlative) unhappineſſe in our aſſertion upon this Queſtion: So our propounding of that matter of Subordination to them (not as a ball of contention, but) as an overture and mean of ſolid Union, was moſt rational and ſeaſonable. For, ſeveral of their judgment having, by their irregular practices, counteractings, and not ſubmitting to the Sentences of their reſpective Judicatories, overturned that baſis of Government, and opened a door to licentiouſneſſe and diſorder, We rationally conceived, that no agreement in other matters of our differences could make a ſolid and laſting Union, ſo long as that back-door were left open to them, at which they might run-out again at their pleaſure, and until both we and they (as was offered in the Conference) ſhould give aſſurance in that matter. And now others may find, as well as we, that their new doctrine here publiſhed, doth more than vindicate us in this particular, and pleadeth for the neceſſity of our propounding that Overture to them. We have often read the Writings p. 82of Presbyterians, pleading for Subordination and Submiſſion of Congregations and their Elderſhips to ſuperior Judicatories, againſt the Independents; But this is the firſt, (except what hath dropt from Mr. Rutherfurds pen in his late Preface) and we hope ſhall be the laſt, that is found to be written by profeſſed Presbyterians, plead…ng againſt Subordination to Judicatories of Chriſts own Inſtitution, in any Church where this Government is ſet up. We do not read of any (Remonſtrants at Dort or others) who have ever refuſed or declined it in the Reformed Churches abroad, but their name is unſavoury; nor know we of any, ſave one, ſince the Prelats t…me in this Church, who ever eſſayed it, till our late Differences, wherein ſome of our Brethren have brought it in faſhion, and now have publiſhed their doctrine of it to the world in print. Had this principle been but ſtarted ſome years before, when ſeverall Miniſters were depoſed for ſimple ſilence in the matter of the Engagement, and for other the like cauſes, what would theſe Diſputers have judged of it? Certainly they would have been with the firſt to excommunicate ſuch ſtubborn children; And yet theſe men might as ſoon have ſaid the Sentences were then unjuſt, as they take upon them to ſay it now. This is the true riſe of all this diſpute, that theſe men being but too apprehenſive of an imagined hazard, if they ſhould ſubmit, have but little conſidered the evils of Non-ſubmiſſion, That their refuſing to do it, reproacheth our Church in the view of all her adverſaries, and their doctrine about it, opens the door to a few Hereticks to continue themſelves in a capacity to infect a whole Church, let the Judicatories do what they will, if ſo be theſe Hereticks count their Sentences to be unjuſt. Beza (Epiſt. 1.) taketh notice of it as a ſpecial proof of Gods kindneſs to the Church of France and Geneva, that no oppoſition of Adverſaries had ſhaken looſe their Church-diſcipline, no not in times of confuſion and war. But, were he now alive, and among us, he would find that looſe times had miniſtred opportunity, even to pretended friends, to make great breaches in that hedge; which, being once broken-down, doth expoſe all the precious Intereſts of Chriſt to manifeſt hazard, as there, and frequently elſewhere he inculc…ts. Were King James now alive, and found this principle and practice in faſhion, he would ſoon revoke his former teſtimony, That Presbyterial Government was the moſt invincible Bulwark againſt errour, for now a breach is made in this Bulwark. p. 83Our firſt Reformers, who, in the Second Book of Diſcipline, ch. 7. pag. 81. do reckon Schiſm and Rebellion againſt the Kirk among theſe evils which do deſerve Depoſition (which alſo is the judgment of the Churches of the Low-countries, Harm. Synod. Belg. Sive Canones Regim. Eccleſ. &c. per S. R. Cap. 14. Art. 14. and of all Reformed Churches we know) might now wonder, were they alive, to find Rebellion againſt the Churches Sentences owned by theſe men who pretend to adhere ſo cloſely to their principles. Worthy Mr. Henderſon of precious memory, might likewiſe revoke his Teſtimony given to the Government of the Church of Scotland upon this very account of Subordination, in that Treatiſe printed Anno 1641. Of the Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, pag. 60. 61. Yea, this principle and practice is inconſiſtent with any Government Civil or Eccleſiaſtical under Heaven. For the very light of nature holdeth forth the inconſiſtencie of Government with the want of Subjection: For where Subjection is not, there muſt either be Anarchy and Confuſion, and every man become his own ſupream Judge, or elſe the Non-ſubmitters muſt turn-out their Governours to ſet up themſelves: And ſo, by parity of reaſon, where inferiour Judicatories are not in ſubjection to the ſuperiour.

But before we enter upon their diſpute in this matter, we will firſt premit ſome generall Conſiderations of the buſineſſe, which may ſomewhat prepare our way to a more particular handling of the Queſtion; And,

I. It is to be conſidered, that the Overture given in by us to them in our Conference [viz. That all the Members of this Kirk, Miniſters and People ſhall ſubmit themſelves to their Presbyteries and Synods reſpective: And if any be grieved with the Determination of a Presbyterie, they may appeal to the Synods: And if any be grieved with the Determination of a Synod, they may appeal to a General Aſſembly: But that in the mean time, the Sentences of Preſbyteries and Synods are to be acquieſced unto, untill the Determination of the reſpective ſuperiour 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 p. 84as 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 Ʋnity of the Church, and refuſing to ſubmit to that which the Colloque hath determined, ſhall be ſuspen…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 p. 85of 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 p. 86they 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 Nonſubmiſſion 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 to lawfull and juſt Sentences, which is to be underſtood as a Preſuppoſitum, or Praecognitum, of all thoſe who require obedience to Laws, though it be not expreſſed. So pag. 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60. We are not yet entred upon the debate with them, but ſhall refer it till afterward: nor ſhall we inſiſt to ſhew that, as to the practice of this Kirk, themſelves know that many did think their Sentences unjuſt (elſe they would not ſo oft tell us that ſome of them have not yet confeſſed all the particulars in their Sentence) who yet ſubmitted to loſe their Miniſtery, rather than to diſturb the quiet of a well Reformed Church, and open a door to all confuſion. We might alſo tell them, that whatever we may ſuppoſe of the injuſtice of a Sentence in the following debate, yet we are confident, they will never be able to make-out the injuſtice of any Sentence hitherto pronounced, p. 87as a juſt cauſe for them to ſtart this debate, unleſſe themſelves be both Judge and Party. But to leave this to its own place, let us ſee the judgment of this Church, even of Submiſſion to ſome unjuſt Sentences. God did indeed ſo ſingularly bleſſe this Church formerly, with unity and mutuall Submiſſion, that it is a wonder there was ever occaſion to ſpeak any thing diſtinctly to this eaſe: Yet providence would have one inſtance of it for clearing the mind of this Church concerning ſuch after-debates as theſe. And that was the caſe of Mr. James Moriſon and the Presbytery of Kirkwall, which was determined in the Aſſembly, 1646. This caſe theſe Witneſſes do very boldly read without Book, as to what is in Queſtion, pag. 53, 54. which we ſhall help from the very Act of the Aſſembly. The caſe was this, Mr. James Moriſon (as they truly report that part) being Suſpended by his Presbytery, did appeal to the Generall Aſſembly, and go on in his Miniſteriall function: for which the Presbyterie did depoſe him, yet he adhering to his appeal, went on and preached. The matter coming before the Aſſembly, they find that the Presbytery of Kirkwall hath not upon ſufficient grounds ſuſpended the ſaid Mr. James Moriſon: And yet that the ſaid Mr. James was contumacious, in that he did not give obedience to the Presbytery, in forbearing to preach during the time of his Suſpenſion, or untill the matter ſhould be tried by the Aſſembly to whom he had appealed; As alſo in preaching after his Depoſition: Therefore for the preſent (referring the further triall of all particulars concerning his Suſpenſion and Depoſition, with the finall deciſion thereof, to a Commiſſion; ſeing themſelves had not received ſufficient Information, ſo as to give full and finall determination therein) the Aſſembly thinks the Preſbyterie deſerves rebuke for the ſaid ſuſpenſion, and deſires Mr. Walter Stuart (their Commiſſioner at the Aſſembly) to give notice to them hereof: and ſiclike, that the ſaid Mr. James deſerveth a very ſharp rebuke for his contempt and diſobedience aforeſaid: and that the Moderator accordingly reprehend him ſharply in face of the Aſſembly, and ordains him to humble himſelfe to his Presbytery, and acknowledge humbly before them his offence aforeſaid, and his ſorrow for the ſame. And in the mean time (till the Commiſſion abovementioned try and give a finall deciſion in the matter) repon…s the ſaid Mr. James againſt the Sentences both of Suſpenſion and Depoſition, p. 88and to the full exerciſe and benefit of his Miniſtery, ſicklike as if they had never been pronounced. And ordains the ſaid Presbytery ſo ſoon as the ſaid Mr. James ſhall in all humility acknowledge his fault, to accept of him as a Miniſter and Brother of their number, and to poſſeſſe him again in the exerciſe of his Miniſtery. This account expreſſed in the very formall words of the Act, as it ſheweth how bold theſe men are, before they want an anſwer, to ſay any thing: ſo it holdeth out ſeverall true principles of this Church point-blank oppoſite to the Dictates in this Pamphlet. 1. A Sentence is not only judged by the Party, but found by the Aſſembly to be unjuſt, as wanting ſufficient grounds, and for the inflicting whereof, the Presbytery deſerve rebuke, and are rebuked accordingly, and the Aſſembly takes it off; And yet the party ſo cenſured is declared contumacious, for Non-ſubmiſſion, thereunto, but counter-acting, and that he deſerveth a very ſharp rebuke for his contempt and diſobedience, and is accordingly reprehended ſharply in face of the Aſſembly, and is ordained to humble himſelf before his Presbyterie and acknowledge that offence and his ſorrow for the ſame, before they accept of him, or repoſſeſſe him in the exerciſe of his Miniſtery. 2. In their judgement, an appeal, (though it keep a door open for the judiciall hearing of a cauſe again; yet) doth not warrant an Appellant not to ſubmit to the Sentence of a Judicatory, but to go on enjoying his former priviledges taken from him by that Sentence: for he is declared contumacious, &c. as aforeſaid, for not giving obedience to the Sentence, in forbearing to Preach, untill the matter ſhould be tried by the Aſſembly, unto whom he had appealed, And upon the ſame account, for preaching after his Depoſition. 3. We find the Preſbytery judged to deſerve rebuke for the Sentence of Suſpenſion; but not at all charged for Depoſing him for his Non-ſubmiſſion to the Sentence of Suſpenſion: Which in a judiciall Sentence cognoſcing upon their whole proceedings, importeth an approbation thereof, as juſt, though it was needleſſe formally to ratifie it: ſeing both Sentences were preſently to be taken off, the Suſpenſion, becauſe pronounced not upon ſufficient grounds, and the Depoſition, upon his humbling himſelf to the Aſſemblies rebuke, and his readineſſe to humble himſelf to his Presbytery for his contumacie, which was the ground of the Sentence. Theſe and the like principles, as p. 89they evidence this Church to have been far from allowing Judicatories to do things, pro arbitrio & imperio, (as this Pamphlet often aſperſeth this opinion) ſo alſo to have been as far from allowing men, becauſe they ſuffered ſomewhat unjuſtly, to overturn the very foundations of Order and Government.

III. Whereas theſe principles of this Church, are branded by theſe Witneſſes, as giving great advantage to Prelats and Independents, and favouring of Popery and Tyranny: they do bewray what their reſpect to their Mother is, in borrowing the dirt out of her adverſaries hands, to throw it upon her themſelves. To this purpoſe they tell us, (with reflection tart enough.) pag. 10. That this aſſertion will more than probably make men of a Prelaticall ſpirit take hold of it, and preſſe it on, to re-introduce their way, and that Independents will make uſe of it to render Presbyteriall Government hatefull. And as to the imputation of Popiſh-tyrany, their very Title importeth, that they hold ſuch a Presbyterie to be a Papacy. And, pag. 45. they inſinuate that this Doctrine might juſtifie Mr. Sterry's raving compariſons betwixt the Northern Preſbyterie and Roman Papacy. Yea, pag. 47. when this Subordination is urged as a mean to continue unity and order in the Kirk, without which it cannot be long kept; They tell us, that this is the very argument and language of the Advocats of the Sea of Rome, and the thing that ſet up the Man of Sin to ſit in the Temple of God, as God, &c. So, pag. 112. arg. 14. They call it a Tenet purely Popiſh and Antichriſtian, and cite a ſentence of Duvallius concerning the duty of an Excommunicate man, albeit innocent, to abſtain from holy things. And, pag. 111. arg. 13. They urge the Canon of Prelates ordaining Non-ſubmitters to the Sentences of Suſpenſion or Depoſition, to be Excommunicate. And generally throughout this Pamphlet, they traduce it as an abſolute, arbitrary, unlimitted Submiſſion that is required, and a tyrannicall Impoſition. Of all which it concerns them to ſee how they (if they be kindly children) will clear the Doctrine of their Mother-church above expreſſed. But to give a more particular anſwer (ſo far as is neceſſary at this time) to theſe things. 1. It is indeed too true, and ſadly felt, that the ſchiſmaticall and turbulent carriage of ſuch as the Authors of this Pamphlet hath given but too great advantage to all the enemies of truth, and of Presbyteriall Government in particular; p. 90while Popiſh Seminarie Prieſts take advantage to perſwade people to the obedience of Rome, ſince we cannot agree among our ſelves; while prelates and their faction have occaſion to boaſt, that ſhortly after they were outed, we run all into confuſion; and while Independents ſee no ſuch beauty, unity, and order, in a National Church, as was given out to be under Presbyteriall Government; and while they hear them traduce one of the beſt Reformed Churches, as corrupt both in the generality of her Church-members and Miniſters. But that this aſſertion can be a ſtumbling to any, is to us incredible. For, (2.) If we look upon all Governments, Civil or Eceleſiaſticall, under heaven, albeit there be different judgements concerning the ſubject of the Authority (as in a State, whether the Government ſhould be Democraticall, and the Auhority in the body of the People, or Ariſtrocraticall, in the Nobles, and better part, or Monarchicall in one perſon, or mixed and made up of two or all of theſe. So in a Church, whether the Authority ſhould be in a Congregation, or Congregationall Elderſhip, in Presbyteries and Synods, in Biſhops, or Popes of Rome?) Yet all agree that Subordination and Submiſſion is due to the Authority, in their perſons whom they hold ought to be inveſted with it. And particularly, as for Independents, we aſſert with Mr. Rutherfurd (Peac. Plea, pag. 246.) that we require no other ſubjection than they do; For they make ten to be ſubject to five hundreth in an Independent Congregation. In ſo much that either theſe ten muſt ſubmit to the determinations of the reſt (let them judge them never ſo ſinfull) if they cannot perſwade the reſt to be of their mind, or elſe they muſt reſolve to be caſt out by Excommunication, or to go out and renounce communion with that Society, and make up a Church of their own; But abiding in that Society, the Submiſſion is unavoidable. So Mr. George Gilleſpie in the Aſſert. of the Govern. of the Church of Scotland, part. 2. chap. 4. pag. 152, 153. in anſwer to that Objection [That it is contrary to Chriſtian liberty, and the uſe of the private judgement of diſcretion, to inflict Cenſures upon any who profeſſe that, after examination of the decrees, they cannot be perſwaded of the lawfulneſſe of the ſame] among other things, ſaith, This Objection doth militat no leſs againſt Eccleſiaſticall Cenſures in a particular Congregation, than in a National Synod, And they who do at all approve of Church Cenſures to be inflicted p. 91upon the contemptuous and obſtinate, ſhall put in our mouthes an Anſwer to Objections of this kind. Yea, our Writers againſt the Independents, and particularly the Aſſembly of Divines in their Anſwer to the Reaſons of the Diſſenting Brethren, pag. 253, 254, 255. follow the charge ſo home, that the charge of Tyranny, or Injurious Independency, laid by Independents at the door of National Aſſemblies, where there is not the remedy of a General Council, is moſt juſtly retorted upon themſelves, who take upon them to inflict the higheſt Cenſure of Excommunication, without any remedy under Heaven to any grieved perſon, it not being reverſible by any on Earth but by themſelves. Whereas in this Government, after a grieved perſon hath followed-up his Appeal even to a National Aſſembly, there is yet a further poſſible help by a well conſtituted Occumencal Aſſembly, if it may be had. By all all which it appears, that Independents need not take advantage of this Aſſertion, though we and they differ about the Subject inveſted with the Authority. The words ſubjoyned by theſe Reverend Divines, pag. 255. are worthy to be marked to our purpoſe: But (ſay they) If a perſon conceiving himſelf to be injured in a National Aſſembly, cannot obtain redreſs either from another ſucceeding National Aſſembly, or from a ſuperiour Aſſembly, he muſt commit his cauſe to God, (as having indeed exonered his own Conſcience, and purſued a remedy in the uſe of all lawfull means) And ſo muſt he that may conceive himſelf wronged by Claſſical or Provincial Aſſemblies, if he cannot have the opportunity of appealing further: in like manner, as he that thinketh himſelf civilly injured by the Parliament or Supream Power in a State, and hath no other way to obtain redreſs. As theſe are expreſſions beſeeming the piety, wiſdom and moderation of men of God, lovers of true Order and Government in Chriſts Houſe: So they clearly homologate the opinion of the worthy Presbyterians in England before them, and the judgement of this Church, expreſſed in the former Articles; and do fully evince, that in their judgment, a party, though conceiving himſelf injured, (and poſſibly, really injured, as is ſuppoſed in his liberty of appealing, as was cleared before) ought yet to ſubmit to the Sentence, not only till his Appeal be diſcuſſed, but after alſo, if his Appeal be decided againſt him, even as privat men do ſubmit to injuries from the Supream Power in a State. To which p. 92purpoſe alſo we have the teſtimony of Mr. Henderſon in his Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, pag. 34, 35. where (agreeable to the Doctrine of ancient Presbyterians) he aſſerteth it lawfull for a perſon wronged by an inferiour Aſſembly, to ſeek relief of the greater, providing it be done in an humble and peaceable way. So alſo Beza, Epiſt. 68. One may appeal, if he do it without tumult and publick ſcandal. 3. As to the imputation of Popery and Prelacy caſt upon us in this, They are not ignorant that many before them have charged this on Presbyterial Government, and have been as often anſwered: Had they conſulted with what our Divines ſay in this matter, and among the reſt, with Mr. Rutherfurd, in the place before cited, (Peac. Plea, pag. 246.) concerning the many differences betwixt our, and the Popiſh and Prelatical Synods; they might have forborn all this obloquy. In the mean time, they know we not only differ from them concerning the ſubject inveſted with Eccleſiaſticall Authority, but in many other weighty circumſtances as to the manner of Adminiſtration, to be cleared hereafter: Though yet all Governments do agree in ſome common principles and rules, among which this Submiſſion for which we plead, is one. This will evidently appear (to go no further) if we will but compare that Act of the Aſſembly, 1648. above repeated, with this very Canon of the Prelats, which they bring in to prove our Opinion Prelatical, pag. 111. for, the Aſſembly judgeth the common principle of Submiſſion, to be a ſound Maxime of Government in a true Church, (though they condemned the power of Prelats, and their ſentencing men for not corrupting of Worſhip and Government) and therefore do expreſſe the ſubſtance of that Canon in their Act, as fit to be obſerved in Presbyterial Government. Yea, and without mentioning that they muſt be lawfull Sentences (whereof theſe Witneſſes make ſo much noiſe that it is to be underſtood) which yet is expreſſed in that Canon. And as to that of Duvalius, which we believe is a Maxime of their Canon-law, (as the Schoolmen do generally diſpute that Head of Excommunication and other Cenſures out of the Canon-law) Albeit we leave his conſequences to himſelf, hoping to make ſome other thing appear out of our opinion; and albeit we diſclaim his Pope and Church too, (whether alleaged to act as Chriſts Inſtrument, or not) as no Church-ruler, or Judicatory inveſted with power from p. 93Chriſt, and conſequently not to be ſubmitted unto: Yet we know ſome of theſe Witneſſes are not ſo ignorant as to reject all their Maxims of Government, being exerciſed by a true and orthodox Church. Otherwiſe, they may as well reject the Baptiſm of Infants, all Depoſition of Miniſters, Excommunication of Members, and innumerable other things, as matters purely Popiſh and Antichriſtian, becauſe (forſooth) they are obſerved in the Romiſh Church. We know that methods obſerved in Appeals, Proceſſes, and the like Eccleſiaſticall Procedures in Aſſemblies, are not rejected as tenets purely Popiſh, becauſe recorded in their Canon-law, and practiſed in their Courts; they being in themſelves agreeable to ſound reaſon and the light of nature: As this Maxim alſo is, of Submiſſion even to ſome unjuſt Sentence, when it is pronounced in a rightly conſtituted Church, ſound and orthodox in Doctrine, Worſhip and Government, and only miſtaking in this or the like particular caſe, in applying Rules to perſons and caſes. And albeit Proteſtant Divines do diſpute againſt that particular Hypotheſis, that the Pope's Sentence is to be obeyed, becauſe the Pope hath (in their judgement, and that according to truth) no power, and would have them caſt out of all Church-ſociety, and ſubmitting thereunto, becauſe they forſake him and his errours and idolatries: Yet they never diſpute that Queſtion in Theſi, that in a true Reformed Church, as is above deſcribed, Submiſſion is not due.

Having premitted theſe Conſiderations, and being to fall about a more particular diſcuſſion of the Queſtion; We cannot but in the entry complain, That upon the Overture propounded in the Conference about this matter, they have not only all along given this ſenſe of the Controverſie, that it is an arbitrary, abſolute, and an unlimited Submiſſion to the will and luſts of men, which we crave; and do aver, pag. 41. that in the Conference, we did, upon the matter, require an abſolute and unlimited Submiſſion: But in their very diſpute they give ſo lax a ſtate of the Queſtion, and do ſo ramble through all the places of Invention to heap-up Arguments againſt our Aſſertion (which yet may be reduced to a very few) as might make the world believe we were not a Reformed Church, but a crew of Papiſts and Arians, opening the door to all abominations by our opinion, and to the overturning of all Chriſts precious Intereſts. Whereas any unbyaſſed perſon might perceive, and themſelves knew p. 94by the Conference, and from theſe very Anſwers given to their Queries, upon which they build their Aſſertion, pag. 41. that our deſire of Submiſſion was relative to the preſent ſtate of this Church, as it is now▪ through mercy, ſetled in the matter of Doctrine, Worſhip and Government, and that ſuch a Submiſſion only was deſired, as had been eſtabliſhed, and conſtantly in practice in this Church, till our late Differences; And was required of them (and mutually offered by us) together with an agreement in all matters of difference which might poſſibly miniſter occaſion of jealouſie and diffidence: Yea, the Declaration it ſelf which here they take to task, ſpeaketh of no other Submiſſion than that to which they and we were ſolemnly engaged at our Admiſſion to the Miniſtery, pag. 5. and ſo could not be fairly declined by them: and again, pag. 8, 9. there is a Submiſſion required only according to the lawfull known principles wherein we have walked formerly; and pag. 10. the Submiſſion conſtantly obſerved in practice, until the times of our late differences. This their way as it hath been very unhandſom and not fair, ſo it neceſſitateth us to take a new method in clearing this Controverſie, and not to follow them in their diſcourſes and arguments (which almoſt at every ſtep would put us to a repetition of the ſtate of the Queſtion) but to ſum-up the ſtate of the Controverſie, with the difficulties therein, in ſome Articles, where we ſhall, as it may come in, meet with any thing that hath ſinnews in their diſcourſe and reaſonings, which hath not been ſpoken to in the foregoing Conſiderations, and tither diſcover the impertinency therof, as to our caſe, or the invalidity thereof to impugn our Aſſertion. And,

I. As to the fountain and ri…e of this Submiſſion; We do not derive it from, nor do we urge it as a due to any Church-officer or Judicatory, upon the account of their infallibility, and that we muſt receive their Concluſions, as Articles of Faith, or binding the Conſcience, eo ipſo, becauſe dictated by them. This, being well conſidered, putteth a vaſt difference betwixt us and the Popiſh principles and way wherewith they ſo often brand us, and may tell them they might well have ſpared their pains in many of theſe things premitted to their Arguments, pag. 95, 96, 97. Seing we acknowledge all men to be fallible and liars, to have no priviledge or authority to do wrong, and that their Sentences are regulae regulatae, and do not oblige the conſcience, ſave in ſo far as they are conform to the p. 95Word. And upon the ſame account, we do heartily ſubſcribe alſo, to what they cite out of the Jus Divinum, written by the Miniſters of London, and Mr. Gillespies Aſſertion, pag. 116, 117, 118. and out of the CXI▪ Propoſitions, pag. 56, 57. Though yet we muſt tell them that theſe paſſages relate only to the matter of active obedience, as is clear from the very words of Mr. Gilleſpie in his Aſſertion, citing the 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, p. 96pag. 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 p. 97that 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, p. 98though 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 p. 99Churches 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 p. 100and 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 Presbyteries and Synods, where we are the pluralitie, and many of us not ſo fit as we ought to be: So, pag. 39, 90, 93. and frequently in this Pamphlet; yea, it is clear all along, that they lay a great part of the ſtreſſe of their Non-ſubmiſſion upon our corruption, as may appear from the places even now p. 101cited; and elſe where they aſſert, that Submiſſion cannot be yeelded, eſpecially there being, to their ſenſe and apprehenſion, ſo much corruption in the plurality of Presbyteries and Synods, pag. 42. And they (at leaſt) inſinuate, that we are not Judicatories modelled according to the pattern ſhewed in the mount, pag. 47. And, pag. 116. they expreſly aſſert the Church of Scotland not to be ſound in the pluralitie of her Judicatories, as not improving the Ordinances of God, but abuſing them to carry on a courſe of defection and perſecution. So that to us it is a great queſtion, Whether (notwithſtanding all their other arguments againſt Submiſſion) the great ſtreſſe lieth not rather here, that we are corrupt Courts? For, as we had occaſion formerly to remark their own aſſertion concerning their Overture for extrajudiciall Committees, pag. 32, 33. viz. that if the Church were ſound and peaceable, there were no need of any ſuch Overture, and they would be in that caſe, as far from preſſing it as any; which is in effect (as is clear from the whole tenor of the Pamphlet) that were they the plurality, and had matters in their guiding (as it is uſuall with them ſtill to propoſe ſuch diſtempers in Church and State, and ſuch cauſes of Gods wrath againſt them, as only their being ſet at the helm can remedy) they would admit no ſuch extra-judiciall courſes: So we take hold here of their aſſertion, pag. 115, 116. That if the caſe were only of particular perſons, and 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 their other limitations, here ſet down, we ſhall take them in afterward: But to the matter now in hand, if we underſtand (as we muſt do, if they be ingenuous, and not ſcorning the world, in their aſſertions) the caſe here, of this matter of Submiſſion, which they denied to yeeld in the Conference, and now do ſo hotly diſpute againſt, and their not much contending about it, to import their ceding and yeelding; then their conceſſion muſt amount to this, That were the Judicatories not corrupt, but employing their power to edification in the current of their actings, then they would ſubmit to their Sentences concerning themſelves, however they might erre in them. And have they not then taken a very ſtrange courſe, to diſpute a Queſtion ſo hotly, when all their Arguments may be anſwered by this, make them the plurality, who will imploy their power to edification p. 102in the current of their actings, as others do not, and then they wil not debate much about Submiſsion, even to unjuſt Sentences, in things concerning particular perſons. And ſo they might have ſpared their pains in all theſe Arguments, and betaken themſelves to that where the ſtreſſe of the controverſie lieth, to prove that we are corrupt Judicatories, which alone can have weight to prove their concluſion, by this their conceſsion. And ſo much the rather do we urge this, when we remember, that at our Conference with them, one of them, after much debate, being put to it to declare whether if they had the Judicatories conſtituted to their mind (or, as they were pleaſed to phraſe it, as before our Differences) they would require ſuch a Submiſſion as we preſſed; His anſwer was, It is another caſe now, in ſtatu Eccleſiae perturbato & corrupto.

However, here is a new Controverſie ſtarted in the by, concerning the corruption of the Judicatories of this Church, though not as to the nature & kind of them, yet as to the members conſtituent: wherein we have been all along telling them that they are better at aſſertions than probations. And though we have, as occaſion offered, wiped off this imputation in the preceeding diſcourſe, and will ſpeak more to it, as it relates to this Queſtion, upon the third Article following; And we might here alſo inſiſt to tell them how the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines did relliſh this exception, of the corruption of the greater part of the Clergy, from the Independents; Namely, as proving Parliaments to be corrupt, as well as Synods, (ſeing the greater part of theſe who chooſe them may be ſuppoſed to be the worſe, as well as the greater part of Miniſters) and ſo ſtriking at the root of all Government, yea, and not only blaſting (ſo much as they can) the authority and power of Synods, but the office and work of the Miniſtery. Anſwers to the Reaſons of the Diſſenting Brethren, p. 291, 292, 293. Edit. Edinb. 1648. Yet, for preſent, we only offer theſe things to their conſideration, 1. As to what they cite, p. 52. from the Aſſembly, 1647. their Exhortation to England, concerning the not entruſting of men with the Government, who are not purged from their old profaneneſs, or from the prelaticall principles and practices; They know it is directed by the Aſſembly to the Church of England, a Church not conſtituted in point of Government, and where many did avow and adhere to their old principles and practices. And ſo is not p. 103to be made uſe of againſt this Church already ſetled in that matter, and where never Miniſter, not under Proceſs or Cenſure, was declared uncapable of being a member of a Church-judicatory, nor are any allowed to be in the Miniſtery, who can be found guilty of any prophaneneſſe, or who hath not both in profeſſion and practice renounced Prelacie and their wayes. In which caſe, that very Exhortation, a few lines thereafter, alloweth the right hand of fellowſhip to be given men. 2. However, they may condeſcend that they would ſubmit to a Presbyterie ſo and ſo conſtituted, poſſibly in Ʋtopia; yet, by this their tenet, they have defamed their Mother-church and the Judicatories thereof, and ſo do abundantly ſerve the intereſt of all Sectaries in their oppoſition thereunto, and to all the Reformed Churches through her ſides. 3. If they lay the ſtreſſe of our unſoundneſſe mainly (as they do, pag. 116.) upon the Publick Reſolutions, they muſt take more pains (as hath been ſaid) to ſatisfie the world of the ſin of theſe, before they can draw ſuch conſequences from them, and perſwade the world that they are not erroneous and turbulent in their oppoſition thereunto. 4. We deſire they may make it out, that Members, Officers and Judicatories in a conſtituted Church, though they be corrupt, ought not to enjoy all their priviledges, till they be formally caſt-out from them, or, at leaſt, proceſſed for their corruptneſſe: Since very Independents do allow this in their Churches; and conſequently, the Judicatories and Officers of the Church of Scotland, ought to enjoy the priviledges due to Chriſts Courts and Servants, ſo long as they 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 p. 104we 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 p. 105aſſerting 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.