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

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

p. 1053. This then being the true ſtate of the Queſtion, may we not again reſume their aſſertion, pag. 115▪ 116. and take them at their word? That if the caſe were only of particular perſons, in things of more private intereſt and perſonall concernment, and of Judicatories imploying their power to edification in the current of their actings, they would not much contend about it. As to the firſt, p. 106this caſe concerneth only particular perſons, and that only in ſuch private and perſonall concernments as fall within the compaſſe of Church-diſcipline, while the work of God ſtandeth intire in the Church; and this hazard may be of very few, yea, through grace, of none at all who may ſuffer injury, and for them in particular, ſufficient remedies were offered in the Conference for their ſecurity. And as to the ſecond, however they are pleaſed to play upon Submiſſion upon the account of ſoundneſſe, pag. 114, 115. yet we aſſert, that as to our principles, we are ſound in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government; As to our qualifications, we approve not of, nor do we tolerate any manifeſted and proven iniquity in any of our Members; and as to the current of our actings, we forbear to cenſure none who can be found guilty, nor to try any of whom there is any ſuſpicion or preſumption. And we are ſo far from any cruſhing and bearing down of Piety, that no man is obnoxious in the Church of Scotland to any hazard, either for profeſſion or practice of Godlineſſe, but it is a part of our conſtant triall to find out mockers of Piety. Men may follow all the duties of holineſſe and righteouſneſſe, and the duties of edification, according to the Word of God and the eſtabliſhed Conſtitutions of this Church, not only without hazard from, but under the protection and favourable aſpect of Church-judicatories. And all the while this Kirk hath declared her diſſatisfaction with our Brethren, who (either being Godly, or under the pretence of it) have brought in ſuch confuſions and diſorders, they cannot give one inſtance to infringe the truth of this our Declaration. Now matters being thus, we think their own aſſertion may bind them to Submiſſion in theſe matters, where the greateſt hazard is of mens perſonall ſuffering only, without any prejudice to the intereſts of Chriſt.

4. But whether they adhere to their own aſſertion or not, yet this Submiſſion ſo qualified as to the matter wherein it is required, is to us beyond all controverſie, that it is due in ſuch a Church, and to ſuch Judicatories: And Submiſſion to Sentences in theſe matters, whether juſt, or ſuppoſed unjuſt by the parties ſuffering, taking it generally (for we ſhall ſpeak more diſtinctly afterward to what they inſiſt ſo much upon, concerning unjuſt Sentences) may be proven by all the Arguments whereby Divines do prove Subordination. Chriſts own Rule, Matth. 18, 17. doth to us demonſtratively conclude it, p. 107where the laſt Church-remedy in the matter of offences, is, Tell the Church. There is an expreſſe Precept for it, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves. And that Order eſtabliſhed, 1 Cor. 14.29, 32. that the Prophets ſhould judge of one another, and the ſpirit of the Prophets be ſubject to the Prophets, doth hold out this Submiſſion moſt clearly, as may further appear from the reaſon ſubjoyned, verſ. 33. that God is not the author of confuſion, (which cannot be avoided if we follow the Doctrine of theſe Witneſſes in this matter) but of peace. And accordingly it is urged by the Synod of Delph againſt the Remonſtrants, Act. Synod. Dordr. pag. 87. The very light of nature (from which the Miniſters of London in their Jus Divinum, and Mr. Gilleſpie in his Aſſertion, do argue in this caſe) doth ſtrongly evince, that in no Society in the world it will be allowed, that particular perſons and Societies ſhould not ſubmit but counteract to the whole; and that Government cannot ſtand where there is not a Submiſſion, at leaſt paſſive if not active, and that it is a ruled caſe, that rather one than unity ſhould ſuffer; Let it be but applied to civil Societies and Authority, and the caſe will ſoon ſpeak for it ſelf. The pattern of the Jewiſh Church, (from which they likewiſe argue in this caſe) doth alſo evince it. For, no doubt, as (they are pleaſed often to tell us, particularly, Arg. 1. p. 89.) their Judges and Prieſts were bound to judge according to the Law, and yet it is not to be ſuppoſed, that if parties judged their Sentence unjuſt, they might not ſubmit but contra-act. Suppoſe the Prieſt had pronounced a man leprous, (as was his office to determine in theſe caſes) and yet the man judged the Prieſt had erred in his determination (as it was poſſible in theſe caſes wherein he conſulted not with Ʋrim and Thummim, he might) but could not get the Prieſt perſwaded it was ſo; Is it probable he would either ſtay, or get leave to ſtay within the Camp, for all that? Yea, this aſſertion is of ſo univerſall verity, that the very ends of Government (for preſerving unity, and being an hedge about Doctrine and Worſhip in a Church) are overturned thereby. For once caſt looſe this Submiſſion in a ſound and well conſtituted Church, and then how ſhall Government reach its end? or, cui bono ſhall Judicatories meet to Sentence any? ſeing they will get no Submiſſion, but as the parties pleaſe to think they are right: yea, not only parties cenſured, but even ſuch of the Judges as vote againſt p. 108the Sentence, are free to ſleight and contra-act. By this priciple alſo, we muſt either eſtabliſh a Toleration, or elſe keep up Judicatories to claſh perpetually with parties, either before or after the Sentence. It were far more prudentiall to declare Judicatories only conſultative meetings, (as indeed they are by this opinion. For what they attribute unto them, (pag. 46.) of binding us by vertue of their Authority, is not denied to Synods by very Independents. Cotton's Keyes, pag. 25. And yet Mr. Edwards telleth us, in the place before cited, that indeed they are to them but as Arbitratours for hearing and counſell, the parties being ſtill their own Judges, as it is here alſo) than under the notion of juridicall Authoritie, to overturn all order and peace, by the claſhings of them and the parties conveened before them. For (as Mr. Rutherfurd aſſerteth in his late Piece againſt Hooker, pag. 465.) every appeal, whatever unjuſt prejudice be in it, muſt not ſtop the actings of Chriſts viſible Kingdom and called Paſtors. Now, if perſons cenſured, be not allowed to ſubmit, but to contra-act, when they judge the Sentence wrong, and yet cannot convince their Judges that it is ſo, what muſt Judicatories do? They look upon themſelves as intruſted with the Government of Chriſts Houſe, and do judge the contra-actors to ſin dangerouſly, and muſt they ſtand ſtill and look on, while their party, pretending a call from God, goeth on in his contempt? were they only conſultative meetings, they had delivered their ſouls by giving their advice, without raiſing any further ſtir; but now they cannot be anſwerable to their truſt, to let men go on and ſin. And on the other hand, the party cannot obey men rather than God, (as theſe Witneſſes argue) and ſo they muſt claſh till they ruine all. Further, By denying of this Submiſſion, things muſt either come to this iſſue, That in caſe a man cannot get his will in Church-judicatories, he muſt turn Eraſtian and bring the matter to the civil Magiſtrate (as Poppius Boorſma did in Frizland, with deſerved bad ſucceſſe) or when he thinks his Judge wrong, he muſt endeavour to put him out of the Chair, and ſet himſelf there to guide better, and when he is ſet, another muſt ſerve him in the like kind, and ſo in infinitum, Judicatories ſhall be pulled down, ſet up, and tumbled down again: Or he muſt reſolve to be his own Judge and ruled by none, though all the Judicatories of a National Church determine againſt him: And the Judicatories muſt either p. 109take off his Cenſures, though in their conſciences inflicted upon juſt cauſes and truly proven, or let him, and as many as pleaſe to follow him, go on to counteract their Sentences, till they be left Beacons on an hill, and none to ſubmit to their Authority. Whereby alſo it may ſoon come to paſs, that ſome few Hereticks may continue themſelves in a miniſterial capacity, to propagate their errours, in deſpight of all that the Judicatories can do; And a Church be expoſed to all the confuſions which our Writers charge upon the Independent Government.

Theſe few Conſiderations may ſuffice to clear how neceſſary it is, that Subordination and Submiſſion be obſerved, eſpecially in an orthodox and well conſtituted Church, and how the contrary practice will bring confuſion upon all Societies, Civil and Eccleſiaſticall, on earth.

5. But to conſider what they offer againſt this diſtinction and ſtate of the Queſtion, as to the matter of Submiſſion: And, 1. we find them arguing, Arg. 5. pag. 103, 104, 105. That if Submiſſion be due in matters of Diſcipline and Government, then alſo in matters of Doctrine and Worſhip, unleſs God hath either put a greater reſpect on the firſt, than thoſe laſt, or hath given greater latitude in the one than the other. Anſw. To ſay nothing here of the Submiſſion due in matters of Doctrine and Worſhip, as not lying in our way, (as was ſaid before) ſeing paſſive obedience, which is the matter in debate betwixt us, is relative only to the Criticall power of Judicatories; We can ſoon give them another ground of difference in theſe, than what they are pleaſed to find out for us, viz. That however God hath not put a greater reſpect on Diſcipline than on Doctrine and Worſhip, nor hath allowed men to take a greater latitude in the one than the other, (though yet in many things of Diſcipline and Government, God hath left us to be directed by the light of nature and rules of prudence, common in like caſes in all Courts, as He hath not done in Doctrine and Worſhip; and conſequently, the multitude of Counſellors, in a Judicatorie, are more to be reſpected than one who is loadened with a prejudice of paſſion and intereſt in his own particular) Yet to ſubmit in the matter of Diſcipline, where the hazard is only perſonall and of a mans ſuffering, is not tanti to diſturb a well ſetled National Church, where Doctrine and Worſhip are in their integrity: whereas the caſe is of p. 110greater moment when a National Church, in her Judicatories, introduceth falſe Doctrine, and corrupt Worſhip, to be impoſed upon a Church. 2. They argue, Arg. 6. pag. 105. 106. That Submiſſion to the Critick power or exerciſe of Diſcipline, will infer Submiſſion in matters of Doctrine, for which they inſtance the ratification of, and Cenſures ordained to be inflicted upon the matter of the Publick Reſolutions, and the matter of Athanaſius, of which before. Anſw. We ſee no cogency in this Argument, that becauſe a Church may cenſure Hereticks, who ſubmit not to their Dogmatick determinations, (which none of us ever doubted of) therefore our Queſtion with them is not about matters of Diſcipline only, when we are ſetled in all other points, and do profeſſe our adherence thereunto. But as to the matter of the Reſolutions. 1. As we wonder with what face they can conclude all theſe men, taken in, to be ſons of Belial, if it were for no more but upon the account of their own profeſſed reſpects to many of them: (To ſay nothing of the good parts, yea, and real piety of (at leaſt) ſome of them, who failed in an hour of trial) So they muſt firſt prove theſe Reſolutions to be an errour, before they can make the Sentences concerning them unjuſt. This we are forced to tell them often, becauſe they have the good manners ſo oft to ſay much, and prove nothing at all. 2. This Queſtion being extrinſick to our Doctrine, Worſhip and Government, (as hath been ſaid) men may well be enjoyned ſilence in it, without entrinching upon the matter of Doctrine, or mens opinions: we are ſure it is maintained by the Learned, that men having declared their judgements concerning ſome truths of an inferiour nature, they may be ſilent for peaces ſake. And ſo contending Divines have been enjoyned ſilence by Church-Judicatories. And if any would but have a touch of the neceſſity and equity of theſe proceedings of the Judicatories, againſt the oppoſers of theſe Reſolutions, let them but take a view of theſe mens wayes; and let theſe Witneſſes but re-act a few of their former pranks. Let them but oppoſe any of theſe publick Reſolutions, of conjunction of Forces with either Malignants or very Papiſts, that may be in practice in theſe Nations: Let them refuſe to act, or enjoy their publick Offices, under an Authority owning and putting in practice theſe Reſolutions; let them not only write and preach againſt them, as a defection and ſin againſt God, but let them proteſt p. 111againſt Judicatories, as not lawfull, who owne them; Let them draw a faction and keep up a Rent, till they be repented of, or at leaſt made void, and aſſurance given againſt them for the future: Let them (we ſay) but ſhew forth a little of this their wonted ſpirit, and we hope others will ſee what they are, as well as this Church and Nation hath felt it. And if they be true to their principles, they muſt do ſo ſtill, in all times and caſes, in theſe confederate Nations; Otherwiſe men will have juſt cauſe to ſuſpect them of little conſcience in the things they have done. But, (3.) This inſtance hath nothing to do with our Queſtion; for, in our Overtures, wherein Subordination was required, it was alſo offered, that all debates and cenſurableneſs about theſe matters ſhould be laid aſide and made void. And ſo, had they accepted the Union, that would have had nothing to do with the Subordination required for the future.

IV. As to the perſons of whom Submiſſion is required; Two things come to be conſidered, which may further clear the Queſtion.

1. That Submiſſion is required of ordinary Officers and Church-members only: So that their Arguments from the practice of the Apoſtles and Prophets, pag. 47. and Arg. 2. pag. 100, 101. might well have been ſpared. For, (to omit what further may be ſaid afterward to the inſtance of the Apoſtles) their Calling being neither of man, as to the Office it ſelf, nor by man, as to their call to it, but being immediatly called by Chriſt Himſelf, without the interveening Miniſterial Power of Church-judicatories: We aſſert they were not ſubject to any Church-judicatory on earth, as to their continuance or non-continuance in the exerciſe of their Miniſtery. But ordinary Miniſters as they have their Call mediatly by the Church, without whoſe authoritative Miſſion no inward Call can warrant them to thruſt-out themſelves; So, in their continuance in that Office, which they have from the Church. they are ſubject to the Church. And if they will aſſert a warrant for their continuance in the Miniſtery, whether the Church will or not: Tub preachers may as well improve it to thruſt themſelves in over the Churches belly. And here we may take notice of what is ſaid by the Authors of that Treatiſe, publiſhed by Mr. Rathband, formerly mentioned, who, ſpeaking of their yeelding to Suſpenſions and Deprivations, by Biſhops and their Courts, pag. 41. they tell us, that it lieth in them to depoſe, who may p. 112ordain, and they may ſhut that may open; and afterward, and pag. 42. They anſwer that very Objection from the Anſwer of the Apoſtles, Act. 4.19, 20. urged by the Browniſts againſt their Submiſſion, by ſhewing the differences betwixt the Apoſtles caſe and theirs, 1. That they who inhibited the Apoſtles, were known and profeſſed enemies of the Gospel. 2. The Apoſtles were charged not to teach in the Name of Chriſt, nor to publiſh any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel, which (ſay they) was more hard than their caſe under Biſhops, who, though they cannot endure the truth concerning Government and Reformation of the Church, yet are content the Goſpel ſhould be preached, and preach it themſelves. They adde, 3. The Apoſtles received not their Calling and Authority from men, nor by the hands of men, but immediatly from God Himſelf, and therefore al…o might not be reſtrained or depoſed by men, whereas we, though we exerciſe a function, whereof God is the Author, yet we are called and ordained by the miniſtery of men, and may therefore by men be alſo depoſed and reſtrained from the exerciſe of our Miniſtery. Where, as their firſt and ſecond difference ſpeak clearly to the ſecond and third branches of our Queſtion: So this laſt doth fully ſpeak our mind in this. As to what they (and Mr. Rutherfurd before them, in his Preface to his Survey) ſay of privat perſons being Excommunicated, their Non-ſubmiſſion to abſtain from publick Ordinances; As Excommunication is rarely pronounced in this Church, except in the caſe of obſtinacie, and therefore may eaſily be prevented: So we cannot underſtand how they can avoid Non-ſubmiſſion, unleſs either they will forcibly obtrude themſelves on Ordinances till they be thruſt-out, and ſo muſt come to Non-ſubmiſſion at laſt; Or, unleſſe they get Miniſters who will admit of them, and ſo refuſe to ſubmit to the Judicatories, which will at laſt fall in with the former caſe. Though we, in the mean time, would have ſuch a perſon ſeriouſly to conſider, whether his edification by theſe particular Ordinances, from which he is debarred by the Sentence (means ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation not being taken from him, and the want of the reſt being but his affliction, not his ſin, take the matter in his own ſenſe) ought to be laid in the ballance with the breach made on Order in a Church conſtitute and ſetled as is ſaid, with the contempt and ſcandall put upon the Judicatories, who yet ſtand inveſted with power to rule in Chriſts Houſe; yea, p. 113and with the ſtumbling of the whole Congregation upon whom he obtrudeth himſelf, who (perhaps) judge his Sentence to be as juſt, as he counteth it unjuſt.

2. As to the Submiſſion of inferiour Judicatories to ſuperiour, concerning which they argue, Arg. 7. pag. 107. And again, Arg. 15. pag. 113, 114. We grant indeed that the power of the ſuperiour Judicatory is cumulative, and not privative to the inferiour Judicatories, yet it muſt be underſtood in a right ſenſe: for, 1. It is granted on all hands betwixt us, that, by the Conſtitutions of this Kirk, every Church-judicatory may not meddle with all things, but with things that are of particular concernment within their bounds, leaving things of more generall concernment to the Church, to ſuperiour Courts: yea, within their own bounds, Congregationall Elderſhips do not meddle with the matter of Adultery, Excommunication, and Ordination of Miniſters, but theſe things come before the Presbyterie. 2. Albeit inferiour Judicatories have intrinſick power given them by Chriſt, and may exerciſe it independently where providence affordeth them no ſuperiour Judicatorie; yet in a Nationall Church, it is the will of Chriſt, they exerciſe that intrinſicall power with a Subordination to the ſuperiour Courts, ſo that (ſo long as they hold the Subordination, and do not renounce the Judicatories as Hereticall and corrupt) they may indeed do all they have right to do, yet ſo as they muſt be accountable to others in the caſe of Appeals, or mal-adminiſtration, who may lay as great claim to that promiſe, Matth. 18. as they can. And if the ſuperiour Judicatories judge their proceedings to have been wrong, in the caſe now before us, it is no more lawfull for them, than for private perſons, to make a Rupture by Non-ſubmiſſion, or not ſuffering and being paſſive; which will prove a remedy worſe than the diſeaſe. Nor doth this Subordination prove that theſe inferiour Judicatories muſt be fenced in name of the ſuperiour; Seing they know, that even inferiour Civil Courts are not fenced in the name of a Parliament, to whom they are ſubordinate. And if this hold not, it ſhall be to no purpoſe for ſuperiour Judicatories to meet, unleſſe either to approve all that is done, or elſe it pleaſe inferiour Judicatories to be convinced by them. And indeed, now it is no ſtrange thing to ſee one privat Presbyterie not only reverſe and declare null the Concluſions of a General Aſſembly, but judicially declare the Aſſembly p. 114it ſelf null: far contrary to the Book of Diſcipline, where it is expreſly provided, that Elderſhips, or Presbyteries, muſt alter no Rules made by Generall or Provinciall Aſſemblies, Book 2. chap. 7. pag. 81. and no leſſe contrary to the opinion of Beza, Epiſt. 44. pag. 244. who judgeth it iniquiſſimum & intolerabile, &c. moſt injuſt and intolerable, that things concluded in a Generall Synod ſhould be reſcinded by the Authority of one Conſiſtorie, unleſſe the party paſſe from his right, or things be agreed among parties, without any detriment to Eccleſiaſticall Diſcipline.

V. As to the nature of this Submiſſion, or manner of performance thereof, two things are worthy our conſideration, for further clearing the truth in this particular.

1. That in pleading for Submiſſion in matters of Sentences, as is above qualified, we do not urge that men in conſcience ſhould approve of all and every of theſe Sentences as juſt, (however we do not therefore grant they are unjuſt, as we ſhall after hear) But only that (what ever their judgement be) they ſubmit and ſuffer, or be paſſive (having done duty and exonered themſelves) without counteracting. And that becauſe, 1. However they count them unjuſt, yet they (looking through the proſpect of paſſion and intereſt) may be deceived. The Judge thinks them juſt, and it may be many others, yea, all except the parties concerned. 2. However it be, yet it is better one or a few perſons ſuffer ſomewhat, than that a Schiſm be made in an Orthodox and well ſettled Church.

This being the true ſtate of the Queſtion, and indeed a ſafe remedy appointed by God, that when men in a Church cannot in Conſcience obey a command, then they may with a good Conſcience ſubmit and ſuffer: (for, the Lord's commanding us to ſubmit, and our engaging thereunto, doth import there may be caſes wherein we cannot give active obedience) It is a miſerable miſtake all along in the moſt part of this debate, that Obedience is confounded with Submiſſion and Suffering. That becauſe a Church ought not in duty to domineer over the Flock, pag. 52. therefore none of the Flock may lawfully ſuffer an injury, (or ſuppoſed ſo) rather than do a greater injury, by renting the Flock. That becauſe Prelats taught falſly, that the Sentence of Superiours is a warrant ſufficient to mens Conſciences to give active obedience to their conſtitutions, and that the Law muſt be the rule of mens Conſciences, and did bind p. 115men to give obedience to their ceremonies upon pain of deprivation, (as they tell us, Arg. 13. pag. 110, 111.) Therefore there can be no ground for a Conſcience to ſuffer when they cannot obey: That becauſe it muſt be a praecognitum in every law to be actively obeyed, that it be juſt, therefore men are never called of God to ſuffer, even unjuſtly: Becauſe it is aſſerted, that Conſcience is not left unbound, by retaining the freedom of our judgements concerning the things which yet we act and do, Arg. 3. pag. 102. therefore the conſcience, doth not retain its juſt freedom concerning an unjuſt Sentence, becauſe a man ſuffers under it: As if our ſuffering under any thing did import an approbation thereof in our Conſciences: Becauſe men may not tyrannize over Conſciences, pag. 48. Therfore Conſciences cannot bear witneſſe lawfully againſt what they count evil, even by ſuffering: And becauſe Proteſtant Divines do ſay, that the judgement of diſcretion maketh a man judge of his own actions, and what he ſhould do, pag. 97. Therefore it warranteth him alſo to ſuffer nothing, but rather to confound and overturn a Church ere he do ſo. Theſe and many the like flowers of diſcourſe and fallacious argumentations are ſcattered through this Pamphlet, which the judicious Reader will find to be clear non-ſequitur's and very far from the ſcope of the Scriptures and ſenſe of the Writers which they cite here and there, which we need not hunt after, ſeing de ſimilibus idem eſt judicium.

2. That we urge no ſuch Submiſſion to Sentences of inferiour Courts, As ſecludeth either Diſſents, for mens own exoneration and keeping pure in what they think wrong, (which we conceive is the Scripture-duty in ſuch caſes, 1 Tim. 5.22.) or Appeals from one Judicatory to another, till they come to the higheſt can be had. Which ſpeaketh much to the juſtice of the Government, that a man is not preſently concluded irrecoverably under a Sentence by every inferiour Court, as it is in the Independent Government, but hath a door left open to get his cauſe heard again, till he come either to a Nationall Aſſembly with it, or (if that cannot be had) to a Synod. Yea, though one General Aſſembly do not ſatisfie his deſire, he may make his addreſſe by ſupplication to another after that; So that a man hath fair room to follow forth variety of lawfull means, and to have his cauſe heard before variety of Judicatories, for righting any thing that is ſuppoſed to be amiſſe. Who, if they do right him, it p. 116is well, if not, he hath done his duty, and may ſit down in peace, as having neglected no lawfull means of defence, and conſequently may commit his cauſe to God, as we heard before from the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines.

As to the matter of Submiſſion till the Appeal be diſcuſſed, whatever the practice of ſome of them be, in counter-acting upon their Appeal, before it be heard before the Judge competent: yea, and upon their Appeal to a Generall Aſſembly, (whereof we have wanted poſſeſſion theſe years bygone, and know not when it may be had) they take liberty, in the meantime, to do what they will with the Sentences of Presbyteries and Synods: Yet we finde them ſhy (to uſe their own language) to owne any ſuch thing in this Pamphlet; But they lay the ſtreſſe of their Non-ſubmiſſion upon their ſuccumbing before the Judge to whom they have appealed, pag. 48, 49. So alſo, pag. 99. they ſay nothing to Submiſſion till a mans Appeal be diſcuſſed. But to us it is clear, that as Submisſion is due to the Sentence till the Appeal be diſcuſſed, by the Acts of this Kirk, and judgment of Divines writing on this ſubject, as we heard before; And as it were to no purpoſe to appeal, if men did not ſubmit but went on, ſeing they have no benefit to recover by their Appeal if they ſubmit not, eſpecially if they will not ſubmit to the ſuperiour either; Yea, and it will be moſt abſurd to ſay they will not ſubmit in ſome caſes, when the Judicatory, who may right them, is to conveen within a week, or very ſhort time, and yet they will not have patience even for ſo long: So Submiſſion, till the Appeal be diſcuſſed, will ſtrongly conclude Submiſſion after that alſo. And we think it muſt be a ſtrange thing, if a Miniſter, having offered to maintain his Miniſtery before all the Judicatories of a Nationall Church, and all of them reject it, yet he will obtrude it upon them, nill they will they, and will make ſchiſms and factions never ſo many, ere he be not a Miniſter. We may ſay it, though we account our Miniſtery (through grace) dearer than our life; yet ſo long as there were ſervice to do to Chriſt in any part of the Chriſtian world, we would be loath to uſe a Reformed Church ſo; yea, the loſſe of our life would not be ſo bitter to us, as to be acceſſory to the confuſions attending ſuch a practice.

VI. As to the nature of the Sentences, to which Submiſſion is required, and the juſtice or iniquity ſuppoſed to be in them, we do heartily agree with them, that all Sentences pronounced by Judicatories p. 117ought to be juſt Sentences: yet we offer theſe Conſiderations, which may further clear this debate.

1. Whereas it is taken for granted, all along, that the Sentence, to which Submiſſion is required, is an unjuſt Sentence: Yet (notwithſtanding what hath been, or may be ſuppoſed) this is ſufficient to anſwer all their Arguments, that they but beg the Queſtion in them: For it is not granted them that the Sentences are unjuſt. And (though we diſpute the matter further with them, yet) this is indeed the true ſtate of the Controverſie betwixt us; Not, whether unjuſt Sentences, that are ſo indeed, ought to be ſubmitted unto; But, whether parties are free not to ſubmit to Sentences, though never ſo juſt, if they count them unjuſt? Or, whether in caſe of a difference in judgement betwixt the Judge and Party, concerning the nature of a Sentence pronounced, and neither of them being able to convince the other; The judgement of the Judge ought to carry it, as to the Parties paſſive obedience, and Submiſſion thereunto? Ex. gr. When a Judicatory judgeth a Miniſter inſufficient for the work, and he thinks himſelf able enough; Whether he be bound to ſubmit to them, and forbear Preaching, or not? If we ſpeak of the caſe betwixt them and us, we never urged any Sentences that were unjuſt to be ſubmitted to by them (though for peace we have offered to wave that debate) nor do the Judicatories purpoſe, in the power of the Lords grace, to pronounce any unjuſt Sentence, but that they will judge according to known rules. Yea, let this matter come in Queſtion betwixt Judicatories and Parties, and it will be laid to the charge of Parties, that they ſubmit not to juſt Sentences. It is true, they call them unjuſt, but, to whom, are they ſo? The Judge pronouncing a Sentence counts it juſt, it may be ſo do all others, but the Party: He will not ſubmit to his Judges Verdict, Can he then find any Arbitrators to whom he is rather bound to ſubmit, than to his Judge; Or, muſt all return to his own private judgement of diſcretion, not only as to what he will approve or do, but what he will ſuffer? And yet was it ever almoſt found but that Parties Sentenced were grieved and diſſatisfied therewith; And might not theſe Hereticks who were Cenſured, Act. 15. have urged the ſame plea? And did not the Arminians at Dort, and do not Hereticks at all occaſions, condemn the Sentences of their Judges, and yet their Judges did not yeeld the Queſtion to them? If a p. 118compariſon be inſtituted betwixt the Judges and the Party; The Judges may ſafely alleage, that it is not ſo probable they are in an errour as the Party, as being a multitude of Counſellours, wherein is ſafety: as being leſſe blinded with paſſion and perſonal concernments in the cauſe, than the Party is, and having a more expreſſe promiſe (though they pretend not to infallibility) for direction and aſſiſtance in judgement, Matth. 18.19, 20. Thus Beza, (Epiſt. 59.) pleading the Cauſe of Chriſts Courts againſt ſome diſturber, willeth him to conſider, that though they conſiſt not of ſinleſſe men, yet it is probable that many ſhould be wiſer than one. If we ſpeak to their procedure, they are ready to offer all rationall ſatisfaction: Theſe Witneſſes ſay, that it is a Praecognitum in all Sentences to be pronounced by Judges, and obeyed by Parties, that they be juſt Sentences, pag. 52, 53. That Miniſters ought to be ſubject only to lawfull admonitions, That Suſpenſion and Depoſition ſhould be for lawfull cauſes, pag. 51. That Intrants are engaged to ſubmit themſelves to Admonitions and Cenſures, only when they ſlide and offend, pag. 60. And the Judges ſay their Sentence is juſt, for lawfull cauſes, and upon real ſliding, though they cannot perſwade the party that it is ſo. If they alleage that even in the matter of Tranſportations, the Judicatories are bound to give reaſons for the expediency of the ſame, much more ſhould they deal meekly in Sentences, pag. 51, 52. The Judge declineth not ſo to do, they are ready to give ſolid reaſons for their deed, though they cannot perſwade the party to ſee them; Yea, they are ready to hear what the party can offer againſt the Sentence, though they cannot convince him that his reaſons have no force. They will grant him that his private judgment of diſcretion maketh him a judge of his own actions (though yet but a ſubordinate judge) as to what he ſhould do, pag. 97. but cannot allow it ſhould hinder and bind them up from cenſuring what is wrong, or warrant him not to ſubmit in the point of ſuffering. When we enquire what remedy is there to avoid a Schiſm, and preſerve Unity and Order, if they ſubmit not: They tell us, pag. 49. If the Sentence be unjuſt, it ought to be recognized and repealed: If it be juſt, and of an inferiour nature, (that is, a leſſer degree of Cenſure) if the perſons will not ſubmit, they are, after due procedure, to be caſt out as thoſe that will not hear the Church, &c. And what is this but the very conſtant practice p. 119of the Judicatories, though parties will not ſee that they judge juſtly? And what ſhall the Judge do, if after the Sentence of Excommunication is pronounced, the party ſtill refuſe to ſubmit? They offer us no remedy, in that caſe, for preſerving of Order and avoiding of Schiſm. So that, in a word, the caſe cometh to this, Not if they ought to ſubmit to an unjuſt Sentence, But, whether, let all the Judicatories, even from an Elderſhip to an Oecumenick Council, proceed never ſo juſtly and conſcientiouſly, yet the party cenſured is ſtill ſupream judge on earth of all their proceedings, and his own actings and behaviour in reference to whatſoever of their Sentences; So that till he be convinced, he muſt ſuffer nothing, but counteract at his pleaſure? And if this be a ſound principle, all ſober Chriſtians will judge. And when they cry-out ſo much, that we do not purge; we deſire to know how by this principle we can purge any at all; Or, if others be not free to make uſe of it as well as they? We ſhall ſhut-up this part of the diſcourſe with ſome account of the judgement of others in this very matter, The Commiſſioners of the General Aſſembly of the Church of Scotland, then at London (Sir Archibald Johnſton of Wariſton, and Mr. Rutherfurd being of that number) in their Reformation of Church-government in Scotland cleared from ſome miſtakes and prejudices, pag. 17. do aſſert, that, To limit the cenſure of Excommunication (the like may be ſaid of Suſpenſion and Depoſition of Miniſters, and other Cenſures) in matter of opinion, to the common and uncontroverted principles; and in the matter of manners, to the common and univerſall practices of Chriſtianity; and in both, to the parties KNOWN LIGHT, is the dangerous doctrine of the Arminians and Socinians, &c. To this we adde a further Conſideration of that Objection mentioned before: [How Judicatories can, without wronging Chriſtian Liberty, inflict Cenſures, or put men to ſuffer, who profeſſe, that, after examination of the Decrees or Conſtitutions, they cannot be perſwaded of the lawfulneſſe of the ſame?] To this (beſide what is before marked) further anſwer is given by Mr. Gillespie (in his Aſſertion, part. 2. chap. 4. pag. 152, 153.) 1. That our Divines by theſe Tenets (of Chriſtian liberty and the allowance of a privat judgement of diſcretion) do not mean to open a door to diſobedience and contempt of the Ordinances of a Synod: but only to oppugn the Popiſh errour concerning the binding power of Eccleſiastical p. 120Laws by the ſole will and naked authority of the Law-maker, and that Chriſtian People ought not to ſeek any further reaſon or motive of obedience: And we are ſo far from this, that we not only offer reaſons of Laws to be actively obeyed (of which he here ſpeaketh) but even of Sentences to be ſubmitted unto, though the contemners and diſobeyers will not ſee them. 2. A Synod must ever put a difference betwixt thoſe, who out of a real ſcruple of conſcience, in a modeſt and peaceable way, refuſe obedience, (underſtand active obedience, to which he is ſpeaking) to their Ordinances, ſtill uſing the means of their better information: and thoſe who contemptuouſly or factiouſly diſobey the ſame, labouring with all their might to ſtrengthen themſelves in their errour, and to perſwade others to be of their mind. How applicable this diſtinction is to the carriage of theſe Witneſſes, in the matters of our late differences, we leave even to themſelves to judge. The ſame Mr. Gilleſpie, in his Miſcellanie Queſtions, chap. 16. pag. 207. ſaith, It is no tyranny over mens conſciences, to puniſh a great and ſcandalous ſin (ſuch as the refuſing and oppoſing of the Covenant, or a dividing from it) although the Offender in his conſcience believe it to be no ſin, Yea, peradventure believe it to be a duty. Otherwiſe it had been tyranny over the conſcience to puniſh thoſe who killed the Apoſtles, becauſe they thought they were doing God good ſervice, Joh. 16.2.

2. But ſeing all men, and even Church-judicatories, are fallible, let it be ſuppoſed, that a Sentence is unjuſt, (and be it ſtill remembred, that it is but ſuppoſed, and not yeelded. For, as it can hardly be imagined that a Judge will pronounce a Sentence which he accounteth unjuſt, So we deſire that our ſuppoſing the injuſtice of their Sentence, be underſtood without any prejudice to Judicatories right, in maintaining the juſtice of their own Sentences) And let the Queſtion be of a Church ſo conſtituted, and ſound and orthodox, as is before expreſſed, and of Sentences, ſuch as we have qualified for the matter of them; And we do hold that they ought to be ſubmitted unto, and ſuffered under, without counteracting: and that the former conſiderations, preſſing Submiſſion in generall, do take place, even in this caſe. This we might eaſily confirm from the generall practice of the Godly in all ages, and particularly of the Non-conformiſts, who, as they put a vaſt difference between ſubjection p. 121and obedience, ſo in their practice, they did chearfully ſuffer under unjuſt Sentences, and did vindicate the aſperſions caſt upon their non-obedience, by their readineſſe to ſubmit and ſuffer. Who ſo will be pleaſed to peruſe Parker on the Croſſe, Chap. 4. Sect. 12, 14, 15. will find they were ſo far from owning Non-ſubmiſſion to theſe unjuſt Sentences of Biſhops for their non-conformity, that they did owne Submiſſion, and vindicate their practice in ſubmitting, from the aſperſions caſt upon them for it, and did encourage themſelves and the Church, by believing that the loſſe of their Miniſtry ſhould be the Lords gain and the Churches. It is the poſitive judgement of Beza (as we heard before from his Epiſt. 12.) that godly men in England ſhould not continue to preach, againſt the Queen and Biſhops will; where he addeth, that having in theſe caſes, atteſted their own innocencie, and eſſayed all remedies in the fear of the Lord, they ſhould yeeld to manifeſt violence. The Provinciall Aſſembly of South-holland, met at Delph, go a further length againſt the Remonſtrants, Act. Synod. Dordr. pag. 86, 87. where, having ſpoken ſeverall things in anſwer to the Arminians argument againſt a Synod and their Submiſſion thereunto, becauſe the Members thereof are all fallible men; and having aſſerted, that there is ground of confidence, that Chriſt, according to His promiſe, will be preſent and direct a lawfull Synod, gathered together in His fear, to judge in matters according to the Word of God, that nothing ſhall be decreed therein to the prejudice of His Truth and Kingdom: They expreſly adde, Sed fac aliquid ejuſmodi decretum iri, &c. But let it be ſuppoſed, that ſome ſuch thing be decreed, yet truth will not therefore ſtill be kept at under, but will in due time break forth again. But, in the mean time, order, quietneſſe and peace ought to be kept in the Church of Chriſt. For God is not the God of confuſion or diſorder, but of peace; and therefore will have all things to be done in His Church, orderly, peaceably and quietly. Now there can be no order nor peace in the Church of God, if every man be permitted to teach what he will, and be not obliged to give an account of his Doctrine, nor ſubmit himſelf to the judgement of any Synod, according to the precept of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 14.29.32. Another inſtance in ſtead of many, is the judgement and practice of theſe Authors of the Treatiſe formerly mentioned againſt the Browniſts, ſuffering for the cauſe of p. 122Non-conformity. They being challenged by the Browniſts for going to the Biſhops Courts, for ſtanding and falling at their commandment, or yeelding to their ſuſpenſions and deprivations; After they have given their reaſons for their going to theſe Courts, and reverencing and yeelding to their Cenſures according to the Law of the Land, wh…ch did eſtabliſh conformity: They adde, (pag. 41.) If it be ſaid, That the Church is not to be obeyed when it ſu…pendeth and depriveth us for ſuch cauſes as we in our conſciences know to be inſufficient: We anſwer, That it lieth in them to Depoſe, that may Ordain; and they may ſhut that may open. And that as he may with a good conſcience execute a Miniſtery by the Ordinance and calling of the Church, who is privy to himſelfe of ſome u…fitneſſe, (if the Church will preſſe him to it) ſo may he, who is privy to himſelfe of no fault that deſerveth Deprivation, ceaſe from the execution of his Miniſtery, when he is preſſed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltleſſe perſon put out of his charge by the Churches Authority, may yet continue in it; What proceedings can there be againſt guilty perſons, who in their own conceit are alwayes guiltleſſe, or will at leaſt pretend to be ſo; Seing they alſo will be ready alwayes to object againſt the Churches judgement, that they are called of God, and may not therefore give over the execution of their Miniſtery at the will of man. By which it evidently appeareth, that the judgement and practice of theſe ancient Worthies and ſuffering Presbyterians hath been point-blank oppoſit to the Doctrine of theſe new Teachers and modellers of Government, and that the ſtrength of the Arguments in this Pamphlet were not unknown to them when they thus determined and practiſed, as may appear from the very laſt words above cited, and from what we have elſwhere cited of their Anſwer to the Objection taken from Act. 4.19, 20.

But that we may make this truth appear more diſtinctly, we premit theſe generall conſiderations. 1. That the wiſe Lord hath been pleaſed to intruſt the Government of His Houſe into the hands of fallible men, who not only may, but ſometime actually do erre. 2. That no judge either Civil or Eccleſiaſticall, hath any Commiſſion or Authority from God, to ſin, or enact an unjuſt Sentence. And that this is not to be reſtricted to Church-judicatories only, cannot be doubted by any Chriſtian who holdeth the Magiſtrats Authority and Commiſſion to be from God, who doth not authorize p. 123any to ſin. For, as power is given to the Church, to edification, and not to deſtruction; So Magiſtrates ought not to be a terrour to good works, but to the evil, Rom. 13.3. 3. That every particular wrong act or acts do not diveſt a Judge of his Authority (though it be granted he hath no Commiſſion or Authority to do theſe acts, as they aſſert, p. 96. praecog. 5.) but he remaineth the Judge and lawfull Authority of the Church or Nation, as is clear in right reaſon, and by Scripture Rules. For if it be aſſerted, that an unjuſt Sentence, one or moe, do make void the Authority of the Judge, this will overthrow all Government, Eccleſiaſticall, Civill, or Oeconomicall. Mr. Gee in his Treatiſe of the Civil Magiſtrate, pag. 36, 37. urgeth, that indeed lawfull powers are bound to uſe it lawfully, but yet aſſerteth it as yeelded by all, that this is not ſimply neceſſary to the being of a lawfull power; but a power that is unlawfull only as to exerciſe, may be for its habit, and being, included in the Text, (Rom. 13.) and its irregular actings only diſcarded from it. 4. That by the Word of God, Submiſſion or paſſive obedience is required and commended in ſome caſes, and that of a different nature from the ſuffering of guilty perſons, Matth. 5.10, 11. 1 Pet. 4.15, 16. And that in ſome caſes, the People of God are called to ſuffer without reſiſting, as hath been the frequent practice of Saints, and aſſerted by all Orthodox Divines, writing upon Subjection as contradiſtinct to Obedience. 5. That as Schiſm is an evil diſapproven, and never warranted of God; So a man may be guilty of Schiſm, who not only maketh a Rent and cauſeth diſorder upon a cauſe deſtitute of truth, but alſo upon a cauſe not weighty and relevant, though true in it ſelf. This is ſo obvious to all who are anything acquainted with the Scriptures, and with the Writings of the Ancients, or latter Divines upon the nature and evil of Schiſm, that it is needleſſe to inſiſt on the probation of it. Whoſo pleaſeth to peruſe Mr. Baxter in his Explication of the Agreement of the Ministers of Worceſter-ſhire, pag. 119. will finde much to this purpoſe in few words. And, among others, theſe paſſages, If the Scripture were conſcionably obſerved, men would take Church-diviſion for a greater ſin than Adultery or Theft. Mutinies and Diviſions do more infallibly deſtroy an Armie than almoſt any other fault or weakneſſe: And therefore all Generals puniſh Mutineers with death, as well as flat Traitors. And a little after, Commonly p. 124they that divide for the bringing in of any inferiour truth or practice, do but deſtroy that truth and piety that was there before.

We might upon theſe grounds multiply Arguments, as they have taken pleaſure, it ſeemeth, that way, to make a ſhew of many, which may be reduced to very few; But we ſhall content our ſelves with theſe. 1. If there be a Submiſſion and paſſive Obedience due by Chriſtians in any caſe to the Sentence of a Judicatory, and commended of God, as hath been preſuppoſed, and cannot without contradicting the principles of Chriſtianity be denyed; Then certainly it muſt be due to unjuſt Sentences. For unto juſt Sentences, requiring a duty under pain of Cenſure, active obedience and not paſſive is due by the Word of God. And as for Sentences inflicting Cenſures, it is true, Submiſſion to ſuch juſt Sentences is due by the Word of God, but that is not the paſſive obedience required, and ſo much commended in Saints, in the Word, but only that ſuffering which is contra-diſtinct to ſuffering as evil doers, or for juſt cauſes, as is clear from 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20. and 4.14, 15, 16, 19. So that unleſſe they will baniſh a command to ſuffer according to the will of God, or cleanly ſuffering with a good conſcience, out of the Bible, they cannot avoid this. 2. As it is granted, that Authoritie and Submiſſion are correlative, pag. 45. And that in juſt Sentences, beſide the obligation of the matter, there is a formal obligation by its coming from ſuch an Authority, pag. 46. So in an unjuſt Sentence, albeit Judges have no authority nor warrant from God to do that act, and it is null before Him; nor doth it oblige the conſcience by vertue of the matter of it: Yet ſo long as they continue the ſtanding Authority of a Church, ſomewhat is due to them relative to that Authority, and that is Submiſſion. If they could make them ſimpliciter no Judges, becauſe they erre in a particular fact, they would ſay ſomewhat: but ſeing they are ſtill lawfull Judges, even when they pronounce that Sentence, though they fail in it▪ It muſt be held as of general verity, that while perſons continue inveſted with lawfull Authority, Obedience, or (if obedience cannot with a good conſcience be given) Submiſſion is due to their actings by privat perſons: For, if Submiſſion and paſſive obedience, or cleanly ſuffering, be due in any caſe, and that not to juſt but to unjuſt Sentences, and if the Submiſſion be due not by vertue of any warrant given by God to pronounce that Sentence, (for there is none) Then certainly there is a Submiſſion p. 125due to the ſtanding Authority of a Judge or Court, as they continue ſtill Gods Ordinance, though they erre in that particular. This conſequence is not only owned and urged by Mr. Durham on the Revelation, pag. 100. That ſubmitting unto Church-power is a neceſſary and concerning duty, and that without this Submiſſion, there could be no Government nor exerciſe of Power. But their own very conceſſion (formerly mentioned) pag. 45, 46. doth put it beyond all controverſie. For, if Authority and Submiſſion be correlative, and the one cannot ſubſiſt without the other, more than one relative can actually ſubſiſt without its correlative; Then we hope it is no ſlander to ſay, that Submiſſion is eſſential to Presbyterial Government, ſeing Logicians have taught us, and they grant it, that take away a relative, and the correlative ceaſeth to be. And therefore alſo either muſt the Authority of Judicatories, when they pronounce ſome unjuſt Sentence, be totally annulled, or Submiſſion muſt be payed as due to that Authority, as hath been ſaid. This may (3.) be further confirmed à pari: Magiſtrates are bounded by the Word of God, that they may not, by their Commiſſion, judge unjuſtly, nor pronounce an unjuſt Sentence, more than Church-judicatories: And yet albeit Magiſtrates do decree an unrighteous Sentence, they may not be reſiſted, but muſt be ſubmitted unto by privat perſons, unleſſe they would reſiſt the Ordinance of God, though coming ſhort of the Rule in that particular act. Now, if this be granted to the ſtanding Authority of Magiſtrates, erring in a particular fact (and granted it muſt be, unleſſe men will blow the Trumpet of Rebellion to every privat perſon, and condemn Saints in former ages, in their ſuffering under the unjuſt Sentences, even of wicked Magiſtrates) it cannot be denied either to the ſtanding Authority of Church-judicatories: Seing the caſe is alike as to the Authority of both to do evil, and Subjection is due only in the Lord to the one as to the other. And here we deſire the Reader to take notice of a paſſage of Mr. Burroughs, in his Lectures on Hoſea, chap. 1. ver. 10. pag. 111. cited by Mr. Gee, Treatiſe of the Magiſt. pag. 257, 258. where, having denied that Submiſſion, active or paſſive, is due to the Commands of men till it be brought to a Law, and they be a Power; He ſubjoyneth, When things are brought into a Law, (underſtand a lawfull Authority eſtabliſhed according to the Agreements and Covenants of the place where we live, as the following p. 126words are) and then ſuppoſe this Authority be abuſed, and there be an ill law made, then (I confeſſe) if the law be of force, we muſt either quit our ſelves of the Countrey, or elſe ſubmit or ſuffer. When then it cometh to be a power, to be a law, it is Authority though abuſed, and we muſt yeeld obedience to it, either actively or paſſively. If it be ſaid, that men ſubmit to the force, not to the Authority, of the civil Magiſtrate, in theſe caſes. Anſ. Not to inſiſt that they know the Church alſo uſeth all the force they have, and ſo the caſe is alike; It would be conſidered, That to ſubmit only to the force of a Magiſtrate pronouncing and executing an unjuſt Sentence, is only that Submiſſion out of prudence, and for preventing other diſturbances, which Mr. Burroughs (in the forecited place) granteth may be yeelded to unlawfull powers: But it is not that Submiſſion out of conſcience which he holds to be due to lawful Authority and their laws, even when Authority is abuſed in making them. For it is a Scripture Rule, that we are to be ſubject not only for wrath, but for conſcience ſake, Rom. 13.5. Which Mr. Gee (pag. 112.) expoundeth, a ſubjection of conſcience, as the principle of conſcience is contra-diſtinct from terrour and compulſory puniſhment. And it is known, ſufferers uſe not to wait for force to make them ſubmit, but do it in ſubmiſſion to Authority. Condemned perſons wait not till they be drawn to the place of execution, but go on their own feet, and baniſhed perſons will depart upon the charge of a Magiſtrate. Yea, where men unjuſtly Sentenced have been in a capacity to reſiſt force, (as Chriſtians were in the Armies of Pagan Emperours) yet they have ſubmitted to Authority and ſuffered. 4. That which taketh away all uſe of Appeals, inſtituted by Chriſt in the caſe of mal-adminiſtration, cannot be of God; for one Ordinance of God doth not make another of no effect. Now this Doctrine of Non-ſubmiſſion and counter-acting doth make void all uſe of Appeals; For (as hath been cleared before) the Appeal from an unjuſt Sentence, ſuppoſeth ſubmiſſion to it in the mean time: for, let it be holden, that ſuch a Sentence is null and not to be ſubmitted unto, and let a Church owne that principle, and there needeth no Appeal. 5. That alſo which involveth a man in the guilt of Schiſm, cannot be of God: But a man not ſubmitting to ſome unjuſt Sentence, is involved in the guilt of Schiſm, becauſe though he have right on his ſide, yet his perſonall ſuffering is not p. 127tanti, as to be laid in the ballance with the confuſion and open contempt of lawfull Authority, and other inconveniences attending upon his Non-ſubmiſſion. And albeit his Judge muſt anſwer to Chriſt for his unjuſt Sentence, yet he muſt anſwer for his Schiſm, if he ſuffer not patiently. 6. To this may be added, That it ſhould rub an imputation upon the wiſdom of God, who hath put this truſt in fallible mens hands, who may and do erre, if Submiſsion were not a ſafe medium to be acquieſced in, betwixt the rocks of ſinfull obedience, and ſchiſmaticall contra-acting in a Church, or rebellion in a State. For the governing of us not being entruſted to men who cannot erre, without this medium men can hardly walk under the diſpenſations of providence toward them, but either they muſt ſplit on one hand or other; Whereas now by yeelding ſuffering to be commanded of God, and a duty laid upon us in ſuch caſes, we wipe off all imputations caſt on Him, and may walk in peace of mind, though with ſome perſonall prejudice.

VII. As to the Arguments which they muſter up againſt this Submiſſion, if we hold them at their word, pag. 115, 116. that in ſome caſes they would not much contend about it, (of which we have alſo ſpoken before) we might leave it at their own door to anſwer them, and to clear how, in any caſe, they would not contend about what they plead ſo much againſt as ſinfull. For ſin, in any caſe, and in any matter, is ſinfull, and ſo not to be yeelded unto. And if they can bring ſufficient reaſons why, in the caſes they mention in the fore-cited paſſage, they may ſubmit to an unjuſt Sentence, They will ſave us a labour in vindicating our ſelves, and anſwering their Arguments, againſt the Submiſſion we plead for. But for further ſatisfaction, As we have already in this debate met with many of their reaſons and particular branches of them, and either anſwered them, or laid them aſide as impertinent to our Queſtion, which we ſhall not now repeat; So we do offer a brief return to what is (or ſeemeth to be) further materiall in their reaſonings, in theſe particulars.

1. Their ſcope in a great part of their diſcourſe and Arguments, is, to evince, That becauſe Judges have no Commiſſion or Authority from Chriſt to pronounce an unjuſt Sentence, Therefore they are not to be ſubmitted unto, unleſſe men will take their will and arbitriment for a law to their Conſciences. But this is a great fallacy p. 128and confounding of things that are very different; Namely, of the Rule whereby Judges ought to walk in their adminiſtrations, and the rule whereby the Lords people ought to walk under theſe diſpenſations of providence toward them, whereof humane Judges in their adminiſtrations, are the interveening Inſtruments. We yeeld, that Judicatories are limited by their Commiſſion, that they may do no unjuſt act; and if they do, they muſt anſwer to God for it: We yeeld alſo, that the rule of their Commiſſion, doth regulate alſo thoſe who are under them, as to their approving or giving active obedience to their injunctions. But when it comes to the matter of ſuffering, and being paſſive after we have exonered our ſelves, we do not look to their will as our rule or ground of our Submiſſion, but to a peculiar Command of God enjoyning Submiſſion in ſuch caſes, to prevent ſchiſm and confuſion. This may eaſily take off the moſt of their reaſonings. They urge Acts of Aſſemblies, pag. 51. that Miniſters ought to be cenſured for lawfull and juſt cauſes; and take much pains to prove that Judicatories are bound to judge according to the Word, Arg. 1. and elſewhere; And when they do otherwiſe, that they act that for which they have no Commiſſion nor power, pag. 96. All which we grant to be true of Eccleſiaſticall Judges, as it is alſo alike true of Civil Powers, that none of them have a power to judge unjuſtly, and that God who commands us to be ſubject unto them, commands them to judge juſtly: And therefore in the caſe of unrighteous judgement, we neither approve nor give active obedience: yea, we are free, for the liberation of our own ſouls, to contradict even an Oecumenick Council, Angels, Prophets, and Apoſtles, if they determine contrary to the Word of God, as they have it, Arg. 8. (yea, and to do more alſo, if they bring in another Doctrine of the Goſpel, to which the Scripture there cited ſpeaketh, Gal. 1.6, 7, 8.) And ſo ſhall deny them alſo any power over our Conſciences, nor ſhall we ſet them on Chriſts Throne (which they charge upon our opinion, Arg. 3.) as to the acknowledgement of their Sentences to be juſt, or any approbation, in our practice and active obedience, of what in our Conſciences we diſallow, (which is all can be inferred from the principles of Non-conformiſts, concerning the freedom of Conſcience, mentioned alſo, Arg. 3.) Yet it cannot from all theſe be inferred, that there is not a command of God oblieging us, in Conſcience, to ſuffer unjuſtly, p. 129rather than make a Schiſm, and pour contempt upon ſtanding lawfull Authority. Nor is it ſoundly argued, that becauſe they do not their duty in their ſtation (for which they muſt give an account to God) therefore we are not bound to ſuffer what we are called to, in our ſtations, Or, that ſuppoſe men ſhould play the Popes in pronouncing an unjuſt Sentence (ſuch as is above qualified) againſt a man, as they have it, Arg. 14. Therefore the ſufferer may lawfully ſin too. This opinion is ſo far from dethroning, that it doth exalt Chriſt, and doth deny to men what is not due to them, and yet giveth to Chriſt what is due to Him. Likewiſe, when they urge ſo much, Arg. 9, and 10. that it argueth the Scriptures of imperfection, giveth what is due to them to Judicatories, and muſt infer the infallibility of Judicatories, that they muſt not be contradicted, nor contra- acted, but their will muſt be a law, as they elſewhere tell us; There is all along a great miſtake in the caſe: For, not only is that of not contradicting put in without cauſe, ſeing men may contradict, as to the declaration of their judgement, when yet they ſubmit; But we never aſſerted a Judicatory might be contra-acted in no caſe (as we cleared before in laying aſide their eleventh Argument, and other reaſonings) we are only now debating about Submiſſion to Sentences qualified as is above expreſſed: And what ſubmiſſion we pay in theſe, we are ſo far from ſetting up mens infallibility, or from derogating from the Scriptures, as to their perfection, and ſole Authority over our Conſciences, that it is not out of conſcience of the juſtice of the Sentence, but in obedience to the ſole command of God, bidding us reſpect lawfull Authority and ſuffer in ſuch caſes, that we pay it. And it is upon the ſuppoſition of the Judges fallibility, yea, and their erring actually, that we preſſe this Submiſſion, as contra-diſtinct to active obedience. So alſo as to the Scriptures which they cite, Arg. 2. That we ſhould not be the ſervants of men, but ſtand faſt in our Chriſtian liberty, and obey God rather than men; They have borrowed theſe weapons from Independents, who (as Mr. Rutherfurd telleth us, Peac. Plea, pag. 193.) borrowed them from Anabaptiſts and Socinians, arguing againſt the places of Kings, Judges and Magiſtrates. But the argument is eaſily anſwered, that we obey God and not men, and are His ſervants and not theirs, in this Submiſſion; And that the people of God are free, as to the enſlaving of their Conſcience with the approbation, or their practice with doing p. 130of any thing that is unjuſt; yet they have not an immunity from ſtouping to ſuffer when God calls them to it. And let the caſe be but inſtanced in a Magiſtrates unjuſt Sentence againſt particular perſons, and it will ſay for it ſelf, whether their Chriſtian liberty will reach a Non-ſubmiſſion or not. Likewiſe, when they urge, Arg. 12. that unjuſt Sentences are null in themſelves, and therefore cannot bind to Submiſſion and ſubjection: We grant that in foro interno, it is a null Sentence, not oblieging the Conſcience to any approbation thereof; Yet in foro externo, it is ſo far valide, as a man cannot deny ſubmiſſion thereunto without ſinning againſt God, in contemning the ſtanding lawfull Authority of a Church, in making a Schiſm, and declining to ſuffer when God calleth him to it. And in this the very Independents agree, though they differ about the ſubject inveſted with the power of the keyes; for they tell us, in their Defence of the nine Poſitions, pag. 210. That a Miniſter derives all his authority from Chriſt, by the Church indeed, applying that Office to him, to which the authority is annexed by the inſtitution of Chriſt; Hence being the Miniſter of Chriſt to them, if they without Chriſt depoſe him, they hinder the exerciſe of his Office, but his right remaineth.

2. While they urge, that Miniſters are over us in the Lord, 1 Theſſ. 5.12. Arg. 1. And that we are to be ſubordinate to Church-power only in the Lord, pag. 95, 96. That is ſo far from warranting Non-ſubmiſſion, and contra-acting in the Queſtion betwixt us, that it doth ſtrongly aſſert it. For (to omit many other things which the Learned finde imported in this) to be ſubject in the Lord, as it imports, 1. An acknowledgment in our Conſciences of their lawfull Authority, And, 2. active obedience to what they command in the Lord: So, 3. in the caſe of an unjuſt Sentence, it requireth ſuch ſubmiſſion and paſsive obedience, as He hath enjoyned us in His Word in ſuch caſes; (which what it is, hath been ſpoken to before) and ſo it confirmeth our Aſſertion. That this is not a forced Interpretation, may appear, were it but from this one conſideration, That this qualification of Submisſion and Obedience in the Lord, is not required in reference to Chruch-judicatories only, but of children alſo in reference to their Parents, and conſequently of all inferiours paying ſubjection to their Superiours in their ſeveral ſtations, as is clear from Eph. 6.1. Col. 3.18. and elſewhere. p. 131Now, it is not to be ſuppoſed that the Apoſtle warranteth children, ſervants, or ſubjects to reſiſt and counteract all the unjuſt corrections and Sentences of their Maſters and Superiours, but that they ſhould ſubmit and ſuffer rather. For we find in Scripture, that it is the commendable duty of children to ſubmit to their parents, even when they chaſten them for their pleaſure only, Heb. 12.9, 10. As alſo of chriſtian ſervants to ſuffer unjuſtly under their bad Maſters, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20. and generally of all Chriſtians to ſuffer under their perſecuting Magiſtrats, 1 Pet. 3.14, 15, 16, 17. and, 4.12, 13, 14.15, 16. and frequently throughout the Scriptures. And this, together with what hath formerly been produced, may ſatisfie that part of Arg. 1. wherein they call for a precept or precedent in Scripture to clear this matter. For here we find there is Scripture-warrant for this Submiſſion, to which we may adde, That the practice of the ſuffering People of God in all generations, is a clearer Commentary to theſe Texts, than all the gloſſes (tending but to ſedition, ſchiſm and confuſion of human ſociety) they can faſten upon them.

3. While they urge, (Arg. 15. pag. 113, 114.) That this brings in a Tyranny in the Church, and by parity of reaſon condemneth defenſive Arms, which are judged lawfull againſt State-tyranny: We are ſo far from allowing Tyranny or Injuſtice in the leaſt, that we maintain, that all Judicatories are bound to judge righteous judgement at their peril. And if they proceed to ruine all Religion (as this Argument carrieth it with vehemency enough, to ſay no more) we have already cleared what the People of God may lawfully do in ſuch a caſe; yea, in unjuſt Sentences of leſſer moment, not only inferiour Judicatories, but even particular perſons in their ſtations, may do more than whisper once againſt them (as they are pleaſed to phraſe it) and yet ſubmit when they have done. But as to the Queſtion betwixt us and this Church, they will find their Argument from defenſive Arms to fail them. For (not to dip any further in that Queſtion) no learned man ever allowed even the body of a Nation, or their Repreſentatives in Parliament, to riſe againſt a Prince (far leſſe a party only, be they perſons, or ſome inferiour Judicatories, againſt the Supream Magiſtrate, or a National Church and her Repreſentatives, which is our caſe) upon the account only of the unjuſt ſufferings of particular perſons, while yet the affairs of Church and State were well ordered, That would ſoon make more p. 132unjuſt ſufferers than would be under lawfull Authority not reſiſted, poſſibly in many ages. And we believe it is without precept or precedent, that privat ſubjects or inferiour Courts, ſhould riſe in Arms againſt their Prince or Parliaments, only becauſe they inflict ſome unjuſt Sentences on themſelves or ſome privat ſubjects, while yet they adhere unto, and overturn none of the righteous things concluded in a Nation. And therefore this Church being through mercy ſetled in the matter of Doctrine, Worſhip and Government, they may ſpare this Argument, till they prove this Church to be overturning all or any of theſe.

4. That wherein they ſeem to place no ſmall confidence in this matter (as appeareth by their frequent repeating and expatiating thereupon) is, that reaſon of the Apoſtles for their Non-ſubmiſſion to the Council at Jeruſalem, Acts. 5.29. It is better to obey God than men, together with theſe Commands of God, enjoyning Miniſters to preach the Word, and Chriſtians to partake of the Sacrament, in remembrance of Chriſt, 2 Tim. 4.2. 1 Cor. 11.24. Theſe they propound, Arg. 2. p. 99. and the moſt of their reaſoning thereupon is again recapitulate in ſhort, Arg. 4. That theſe duties being commanded by God, they cannot omit them without ſin, upon that non-relevant reaſon, of the meer will of men, unjuſtly ſentencing them with Depoſition and Excommunication. This they urge further Arg. 2. pag. 100, 101. from the inſtances (not only of the Apoſtles, and Jeremiah, and Amos, to which we have ſpoken before, but) of Daniel, counteracting the Decree of Darius, Dan. 6. and of the mans confeſſing Chriſt, though caſt-out by the Jews for it, Joh. 9. But (to ſay nothing that this laſt inſtance will not prove that Non-ſubmiſſion to the Sentence of Excommunication, which they there ſpeak of, unleſſe they make it appear that the man did not only confeſſe Chriſt ſtill, but obtrude himſelf alſo upon the Jews in their Church-ſocietie) The Anſwer to this is eaſie, if we take notice of a twofold diſtinction, 1. We would diſtinguiſh humane prohibitions of duties commanded by God. For, ſome prohibitions are not only reſtraints put upon ſome perſons as to the exerciſe of theſe duties, upon the account of theſe perſons incapacity (real or ſuppoſed) to go about the ſame; But are in effect and chiefly a condemning of theſe duties in their very nature and kind, as not to be obſerved by any perſon whatſoever: and ſo do not touch upon the incapacity p. 133of the perſons who are prohibited, but upon the things themſelves, conſidered as ſuch moral performances, which are prohibited. Such a prohibition was that of Darius, which was a politicall Decree prohibiting the very duty of Prayer unto God, and that to all men univerſally, not to Daniel or ſome others only, upon any perſonal incapacity in them. So the Decree of the Jews was againſt the very duty of confeſſing Chriſt, and not a reſtraint upon ſome perſons only, that they ſhould not be the performers of that duty. And their Decree againſt the Apoſtles preaching, was a Law and dogmatick Determination againſt the whole Doctrine of the Goſpel and the publiſhing thereof to the world, and not a reſtraint put upon the Apoſtles only, while they allowed others to do it. For, it may appear from their own words, Act. 4.17. and 5.2. that their quarrel was not againſt the Apoſtles preaching, but againſt the Doctrine which they preached, in this Name. They offered not to ſilence them from publiſhing Doctrine ſimpliciter, but from publiſhing this Doctrine. Again, There are ſome prohibitions which are meer diſciplinary Sentences, reſtraining perſons from ſuch duties of an office, or the uſe of ſuch priviledges as they not only allow of in their nature and kind, but do allow others in the practice and enjoyment of them, and do only reſtrain others therefrom upon the account of their perſonal incapacity, real or ſuppoſed Ex. gr. when a Church-judicatory depoſeth a Miniſter from preaching of Chriſt, upon the account of inſufficiency or ſcandall, or debarreth a Member from participation of publick Ordinances; ſuppoſe they do erre in the particular, yet they are ſo far from condemning of theſe duties, of preaching of Chriſt and partaking of the Ordinances, that they provide another to preach in the room of him whom they have put out, and do ſee to the diſpenſing of the Ordinances daily, and to the inviting of the reſt of the Congregation to joyn in the participation thereof. That there is a vaſt difference betwixt theſe two ſorts of prohibitions, may appear further in this (beſide what is ſaid) that prohibitions of the firſt ſort, are ſimply and in their nature and kind unlawfull, nor can any ſuch Decree be lawfully made at any time: But diſciplinary Sentences are not unlawfull in their nature and kind, but may, in ſome caſes, lawfully be pronounced and executed, as is confeſſed by all. And as to the application of the diſtinction to the caſe in hand; We p. 134need not meddle with it in the matter of prayer and confeſſing Chriſt, ſeing (as we ſhall hear upon the ſecond diſtinction) theſe fall not within the compaſſe of Diſciplinary Sentences. But as to the matter of preaching and participation of publick Ordinances, which are the things in debate betwixt us, we may hence take a clear ſolution of the difficulty. For, let once a Church-judicatory grow ſo corrupt, as to condemn the duties of preaching Chriſt and participation of publick Ordinances, in their very nature and kind, and as to all ſorts of perſons univerſally: (which is the true caſe held out in their Inſtances; for even the falſe Prieſt at Bethel, and the Rulers at Jeruſalem did condemn the Doctrine preached by Amos and Jeremiah, and did not quarrell only their preaching of it while they did allow it in others) And in that caſe, we ſhould without ſcruple (as was ſaid before) conclude them no true Courts of Chriſt; and conſequently, not to be ſubmitted unto. Yea, in caſe ſuch decrees were publiſhed, we ſhould hold it a caſe of Confeſſion for Miniſters to preach, and people to frequent Ordinances, ſo long as they had liberty or opportunity. And ſo, though neither the Apoſtles nor Prophets had been extraordinarily called, nor cloathed with a Commiſſion unrepealable (as hath been ſaid) by any on earth, their warrant was ſufficiently clear in that caſe to hold up the oppreſſed truth of the Goſpel, againſt the ſworn enemies of Chriſt and the Goſpel, who would neither preach Chriſt nor ſuffer Him to be preached by any other; as we heard from theſe worthy Non-conformiſts, Authors of the Treatiſe againſt the Browniſts formerly mentioned. But on the other hand, When a Church doth owne all the Truths of the Goſpel, and all the Ordinances of Chriſt, and doth no ſooner put out one from preaching of Chriſt, but they provide another to make up that want, and do diſpenſe the Ordinances in purity to the people of God; In ſuch a caſe, (which, through mercy, is the caſe of this Church, as we have heard) Suppoſe they do erre in diſcharging one to Preach, and another to come to the Ordinances: It is not the will of God that perſons ſo ſuffering ſhould make a Schiſm by their Non-ſubmiſſion and counteracting, upon the account of their perſonall ſuffering, or prejudice, as the preceding Arguments do abundantly prove: But, having uſed all lawfull means of redreſſe, by Appeals to ſuperiour Judicatories, they ought to acquieſce, and ſubmit to the will of God calling them to p. 135ſuffer, rather than run upon the many inconveniences formerly mentioned. But to clear this further, (2.) We would diſtinguiſh duties commanded us by God, wherein we may be reſtrained by men. For, there are ſome morall duties incumbent to Chriſtians ſimply and abſolutely as they are Chriſtians, and which are ſimply in their own power, by themſelves and independently from others, and enjoyned them without any reſpect to their Subordination or relation to others in the Church; So that to their performance of them, they neither need a call impowering them thereunto, nor are dependent upon the concurrence of any others, in or to the ſame: Such as prayer to God, and confeſſing of Chriſt, which are of morall naturall right: And there are other duties of morall poſitive inſtitution, which are not in mens own power ſeverally and by themſelves, and independently from others in the Church, but ſome way in the power of others beſide themſelves; and are incumbent to men as they ſtand in relation or Subordination to others; And are either duties to be performed by men as they ſtand cloathed with an Office, received by the interveening Miniſtery of the Church; ſuch as the ordinary Miniſteriall preaching of the Word, and the adminiſtration of other publick Ordinances: Or priviledges which they do enjoy by the Miniſtery of others, who are to diſpenſe them unto them, or alſo by the joynt concurrence of others with them therein; Such as the participation of Sacraments, publick Aſſembly-praying and praiſing. The difference here is very conſiderable, Both as to the power of Diſciplinary Sentences, about them (for Sentences of Church-cenſures are not converſant about performance of duties of the firſt ſort, but only of the ſecond; nor can there ever in any caſe, a reſtraint be lawfully put upon men in the matter of praying and worſhipping God, or confeſſing of Chriſt, as there lawfully may be, in ſome caſes, in the ſecond ſort of duties) And, as to the matter of Submiſſion to Sentences reſtraining men from, and forbearing of the performance of them. For, the firſt ſort are ſo intirely in our own power, that we neither need a call from any, warranting us to go about them, nor the concurrent acting of any other for our enjoying the liberty thereof. And they are ſo abſolutely commanded, without reſpect to any dependence upon any other; and are ſo abſolutely neceſſary, neceſſitate medii, for a mans glorifying of God, and his p. 136own eternal ſalvation, That it muſt be a ſin not to obſerve them conſtantly, as affirmative precepts ought to be obſerved; yea, a double ſin not to adhere to them in a caſe of Confeſsion, as it is when theſe duties are prohibited by men. But as for the ſecond ſort of duties, Albeit (as hath been ſaid) there can be no ſubmitting to forbear them upon any decree of men prohibiting them in their very nature and kind; Yet, being duties that are not abſolutly neceſſary, neceſſitate medii, and being, as to the exerciſe thereof, not wholly in our own power, of and by our ſelves, but ſome way dependent upon others alſo, So that we cannot go about them, without a call and warrant from others, nor enjoy the exerciſe of them by our ſelves; Therefore in caſe the Church, who calleth and ordains a Miniſter, will not ſuffer him to preach, Or a Miniſter (who hath the truſt of diſpenſing Ordinances) will not diſpenſe the Sacrament to a member, the ſufferer breaks no command in ſuffering that injury, after he hath eſſayed all lawfull means of redreſſe. Seing his forbearance is not a voluntary and elective omiſſion of the duty he is reſtrained from, but a patient ſuffering of an injury, under a neceſsity whereof providence hath brought him, unleſſe he would commit a morall evil which he is oblieged not to do by naturall right, viz. make a Schiſm in a true Church, and bring contempt on lawfull Authority. It is his affliction, and not his ſin, nor is it the violation of any commandment, but only a ceſſation from a duty commanded, when he cannot do it without the violation of another command of more univerſall and neceſſary obligation. Neither is he by this ceſſation deprived of the exerciſe of any duty abſolutely neceſſary to the honouring of God, enjoying of fellowſhip with Chriſt, and ſaving his own ſoul. And if they deny theſe things, they muſt yeeld alſo, that in ſome caſes (beſide that of an erring Conſcience, which is yeelded by all) a man may be concluded under a neceſſity of ſinning on all hands; As that a Miniſter muſt either ſin by forbearing to preach, or ſin in making a Schiſm by continuing to preach, when he is depoſed by a lawfull Authority in a true Church, though erring in that particular. As ſuch a caſe and ſnare upon men is held by the Learned to be repugnant to the infinite Holineſſe and Wiſdom of God the Law-giver; So we find godly ſufferers before us, very far from judging their Submiſsion and ſuffering to be any violation of Gods command calling them p. 137to their work. Parker, on the Croſſe, Chap. 4. Sect. 14. cleareth that ſufferers in the cauſe of Non-conformity did not voluntarily, wilfully, or ſinfully give-over their Miniſtery, adding, It is not the leaving of the Miniſtery that is a ſin, but the cauſes why, the end wherefore, and the circumſtances wherein, that maketh the leaving of it ſinfull. To wit, (as he expreſſeth both before and after in that Section) when men leave it for their gain and eaſe, &c. as Prelats and their creatures did: and not when theſe ſufferers left it to keep a good conſcience, and by leaving thereof, did perform that duty of ſuffering, and left their Miniſtery to keep their flock, by their example, from the wolf, and from all liking of his fair ſhews, and not as the careleſs ſhepherd, who leaveth them to the claws of the wolf; Yea, theſe ſufferers did teach them by their example of ſuffering, when they were not ſuffered to do it by doctrine—but did willingly ſubmit to the providence of the Lord; who for the preſent called them from it. Much more to this purpoſe may be read in the Author at large, in the Section cited, as alſo Sect. 15. Whereas it is ſaid, that it is an omiſſion of a duty upon a non-relevant reaſon, of the meer will of men, which they ſo often repeat; and in the cloſe of Arg. 3. pag. 102, 103. tell us that theſe duties cannot ceaſe to be obliging to ſuch a perſon, hic & nunc, upon that reaſon, unleſſe we prefer the commandments of men to the Commandments of God, and ſay, It is better to obey men than God. Anſw. It is true that the unjuſt Sentence is the object of the mans ſuffering, and from it is the riſe of his forbearance; but the reaſon why he ſuffers and forbears, is moſt relevant, as being in obedience to the Command of God, requiring us to ſuffer in a matter which is our priviledge and comfort, rather than make a Schiſm. But this is their grand miſtake, that they look only to men as their party, and to the injuſtice of their procedure; But do not remember, that God by that diſpenſation of His providence, in ſuffering lawfull Authority to do them wrong, is calling them to ſuffer. And that when they ſubmit thereunto, it is not to men, but to God alſo, and to the Order eſtabliſhed by Him.

5. Whereas they make it a great exception in the matter of Submiſſion, that we are the plurality; and pag. 10. they alleage there muſt be no good intention, when the ſtronger party doth preſſe the Submiſſion of the weaker. Anſw. We do believe indeed, that p. 138this hath not the leaſt weight with them in this debate; for they have made it apparent throughout the Pamphlet, that were they the plurality, they would not admit of it as a relevant exception againſt them; nor do we believe was this ever an exception before in any true Church. But to the thing it ſelf; As by the Conference for Union, there was ſufficient proviſion offered for ſecuring them in matters of our bypaſt differences: So men of our judgment have yeelded the ſame Submiſſion we require, where they are the plurality. And when a Presbyterie, (wherein the plurality was of their judgment) did depoſe one of our judgment for not ſubmitting to their Sentence of Suſpenſion, the Synod did ratifie the Sentence of Depoſition, though the Synod, as they well know, were of a different judgment from them, and were not ſatisfied with their procedure in his Suſpenſion.

Having now brought this debate to a cloſe, (wherein, though we have not followed their method, yet we truſt we have not ſhifted or paſſed-by any thing of weight in all their arguings) And having alſo ſpoken our mind, ſo far as is neceſſary, to the whole Pamphlet, We ſhall only, for a cloſe of all, adde a word to the Reader, and eſpecially to thoſe Miniſters and Profeſſors who differ from us upon the matter of our late debates. And, 1. though we have been neceſſitated to ſpeak ſomewhat home to this Piece, and what is contained in it, in our own and the Churches defence; yet we intreat and obteſt it may not be underſtood as ſpoken to all that Party, but only to the guilty, and chiefly to the Authors of this Pamphlet, to whom this Church and all Reformed Presbyterian Churches do owe little thanks, for their contributing ſo much to the advancement of all Sectarian Deſigns, and their ſtrength…ning the hands of all licentious perſons, who live under their inſpection and juriſdiction. We have made conſcience to forbear railing, and have ſpoken many things (the Lord knoweth) in the grief of our heart of their way, which we wiſh had never been, or were buried in perpetuall ſilence. And if any thing of that kind be found which any will diſ-reliſh as, we deſire that charity which Scripture alloweth unto men under much oppreſſion, and do requeſt that our Reaſons may be weighed impartially; So we entreat that none will ſuſpect that theſe things do beget any heart-alienation in us from our Brethren, with whom our ſoul deſireth to be united in the Lord, and who (we truſt) will p. 139return theſe Agents little thanks for their ſervice. 2. Though the importunate clamours of theſe men have drawn us out (in our neceſſary defence as is ſaid before) upon the debate of the late Reſolutions, Acts of Judicatories, and Cenſures inflicted by them, which thoſe of our Judgment have ſo often offered to remove, for their part, out of the way, that they impede not an Union: Yet let none think that we have receded from theſe our Purpoſes and Overtures, whereby all theſe debates may be buried. We hold our ſelves bound to Declare, that in theſe things we are where we were, notwithſtanding theſe Conteſts; and do heartily requeſt our Brethren that there may be a condeſcendence on their part. And though we be reflected upon as carnall politick men in theſe our endeavours and offers; Yet we truſt it ſhall be no grief of heart to us one day to be found lovers of Truth and Peace, and ſuch as ſeek Peace and purſue it.

FINIS.