But this is not the worst for in this act not only preaâ—hing and expounding of scripture by Ministers of Christ Iesus although in a family beside their own is judged to make a conventicle and an unlawful meeting but prayer also a common duty of Christianity is declared to be of the fame force so that no nonconforming Minister or any other may pray together on any occasion or for any cause what so ever but they shall be reputed keepers of conventicles and hable to the penalties adjudged by this law to such Is prelacy come to this height of opposition to godliness that it cannot stand and be secured except the worship of God in Christian societies be laide aside and its exercise discouraged to which there needs no such incitments in these times the generality of professors being prone enough of themselvs to prove negligent and stack in this matter under the odious names of Conventicles and by such penalties against them Are we such odious abominable creatures that none must joyne in Christian communion with us in these means and duties of worship that are of common obligation on all Christians but it must be forborne and laid aside or if we once open a mouth to and for God in any society we shall bring ourselves and others under the hazard of so severe penalties which in the pursuance of this law have been inflicted on some to the astonishment of its hearers But moreover all such meetings beside the imputation of sedition and other â—orrid evils with which they are branded are represented as the seminaries of separation and rebellion a charge if true that maketh them meritoâ—us of far heavier punishments then some of these decreed against them but from whence can this come Not from the nature of these exercises confidered in themselves which are nothing but the performance of some necessary commanded duties of Religion which all know to be the greatest means to and cements of union and obedience in Church and State not from the mater that is preached and prayed our principles for worship doctrine government are known being extant in our publict confessions which are of a contrare tendency If any say we preach principles of separation and rebellion They who assert this are bound to make it out of which we have heard nothing as yet and should have been condescended on and given for the ground of this act and not the performance of these truly religious exercises done by persones authorized and enabled thereto by the commands of God We require of all engadged against us to do us that piece of common justice they owe to all men in the like case that they will instance in the doctrines we preach and in the mater we pray wherein our meetings are become the seminaries of separation and rebellion if they can when this is done we shall either give a satisfying answer to the charge or els succumb to this act It is like some place this charge in our disobedience to the law Then it comes from the law and the Law makers and not from these meetings and the persons that keep them for antecedent to this law they were not in themselves seminaries of separation and rebellion according to this objection and if this be the effect of the law it had been more safe to have forborne it Whose work should be rather to prevent and remove the seeds of rebellion then thus to sowe them But this law in its narrative suppons these meetings to be such antecedent to its enacting but gives no hint at any reason for this heavy charge Others again fix the truth of this charge on our meetings for our withdrawing of the people from the allowed publict worship and the persons authorized by law to dispense the same If the act had only circumstantiated and described such meetings as had this effect and not taken in all religious Christian fellowship in the duties of worship something might have been said for justifying of this act in a conformity to the principle of Church government now setled by law without a wound to true piety but to make all meetings of Christians wherein any part of worship is exercised without an expresse licence from the prelat seminaries of separation and rebellion is in effect to condemne Christ his Apostles Ministers and Christians who in opposition to Heathenisme Heresy Profainness and shisme have under severe laws made against them assembled and met together for communion in the worship of God whose assemblies have been accounted unlawful Conventicles and loaded with many of these evils that are now charged on ours Dar any professing himself a Christian say that the meetings of Christ his Apostles and Ministers in houses and feilds who had the occasion of the Synagogues the ordinare allowed places for meeting in worship were guilty of separation and rebellion although charged with these or did sow the seeds of these evils Although none will affirme this yet we undertake to make it out from the frame of this act as it now stands Oh that such a law should be found in the records of this Nation which will speak if ever we returne to ourselves to the shame and disgrace of these times But as to our separation from the authorized publict worship with which some with great confidence brand us we shall consider it afterwards and see whether they or we be the separatists We forbear to speak to the penalties statute in this act against the contraveeners of it which on many accounts might be made to appear to be far beyond the demerite of the crime and an imitation of the popish cruelty who punished the Professors of the truth with punishments equal to those inflicted for treason in which this act is not short that adjudge the keepers of field Conventicles to death and confiscation of goods In the next place it adds not alittle to our grief under our present sufferings that although there be penal lawes against Papists and other heterodox persons yet no notice is taken of them nor any execution of the law upon them yea in one act of Parl. Caroli 2. Session 2. Act. 7. they are exeemed from the guilt and severity decreed against us which seems strange to us when theirs and our principles even in matters of civil government are compared theirs in the confessions of all Protestants are found to be incompatible with and subversive of that obedience and allegeance that is due from subjects to magistrats supposed by them heretical which was the true cause of the severe laws made against them that for some time from the beginning of the reformation were put to some execution but as to any execution now slackened and and laid by as an almanack out of date Are their principles and designs changed or their number any fewer yea is it not encreased beyond what they have been since the reformation But poor we are laid open to the lash of the severe laws enacted against us
disobedience and the reason is becaus no power can justly crave obedience when it acts either beyond or against its true adequat formal object but of this above 3. When Magistrats commands are opposite to Gods which hath often fallen out obedience to God can be no disobedience to the Magistrat But in our case we undertake to prove that altho the thing commanded to wit appearance be within the compasse of the Magistrats power that it was contrare to mercy and justice yea and things commanded and allowed us of God which will exeem our non-appearance from disobedience consequently from contempt of Authority Knowing and being morally certaine that the unjust violence designed against us would have inevitably followed on our appearance we chused rather to forbear it and to use the flight Christ allowes to his servants and people in the like cases It is a Maxime in Morals or practical divinty accorded to by all Divines that of two penal evils when the election of them is in our arbitriment the lesser is to be preferred to the greater And to any that consider the case we then had before us it will be manifest that flight was much preferable to the severity we were to expect on appearance of which we were assured not only from the standing lawes of the Kingdome but likwise from the preceeding carriage of our Rulers who altho slow and negligent enough in the execution of the lawes against Papists Quakers and other heterodox opinious and wicked practises yet punctual and strick in puting the law to more then its full execution against us to which they have been and are instigated by our enemies the Prelats to such a hight of keenness that if the mater contamed in our summonds cannot be made to appear we are put to answer such interrogatories and required to give and subscribe such oaths engadgments and bonds to which they know we cannot without destroying of our principles yeeld for refuseing of which many of our party have been cast into prisons fined banished c. Thirdly It had no little influence on us in determining our non-appearance that the usual legal forme of procedour in judgment allowed to and used vvith others is not observed towards us from which we could not expect justice but all severity On our appearance we have no accuser often no lybel condescending on or containing our crimes with the circumstances no witnesses produced but an oath administred to the empannelled for expiscating of accusations against ourselves and others and that in crimes made by law capital and the oaths of these whom the law calls socij criminis sustained for valid probation wayes of procedour condemned by the law of God and nations except where the Papists cruelty takes place And if all these sail the subscribing of engagments and bonds is pâ—oposed required as is said above on the refusal of which a prison is the best we meet with Let any man of ordinare reason and justice judge whether appearance before Rulers who by following of such methods and wayes in judgment declare themselves resolved to have at the persons arraigned whether â—ure or not we say let any judge whether appearance before such when it is in their choise to appear or not be rational and safe except where the supposed guilty intends by their appearance to prevent greater severity Fourthly Among other things that came under consideration with us against this appearance was the oath de super inquirendis lately framed into a law and now pressed on us which for the reasons formerly given we dar not take for besids the severe punishments as imprisonment arbitrary fines exile to forraigne plantations c. we were to look for for refuseing of this oath if we take it we are contrare to all natural equity mercy and justice made the accusers of ourselves and others contrare to the provision made in the act establishing and imposeing of this oath which declares that the oath taken by any shall not militat in judgment against the takers of it to suâ—h such penalties therein specified and yet the mater of their lybel useth to be diawne from it and if they deny their deposition an oath is adduced for probation against them And it is not intelligible by us how such an oath can be sustained 〈◊〉 valide probation against others and not against the deponent seing a person 's own confession of his crimes is judged sufficient against him much more should this oath which necessarly suppons and infers confession even judicial But Fiftly In the next place the evil consequences that by our appearance we were certane would have redounded to many made us forbear it for if we had appeared we were sure perpetual imprisonment or exile from our native countrey had ensued thereon whereby we should have been put out of a capacity for labouring the preservation and advancement of the Gospel in this Church of which we are members and to which we as Ministers and Christians are so straitly tyed and bound the people should have been robbed of a faithfull Ministery anâ— he benefite of the word purely dispensed by them the rod of persecution now on the back of this Church should have been more sharpened against the remnant of our party the people exposed to more shakeing and winnowing temptations to the endangering of their stedfastnes our adversaries of all sortes more emboldened to vent spew out their venemous doctrines and to carry on their designed defection to a greater hight all which being more then probable yea to us morally certane we durst not do that which would have opened the door to all these evils These arguments do suppone and lean on the unjust oppression intended and prosecuted against us which is made out both as to mater designe in the precedent and subsequent discourse Sixtly It was never a piece of disloyalty and disobedience to Magistracy even for persons confessedly guilty to keep themselves from the stroke of the law to run away from it and to escape out of prisons if they could effect it and consequently not to enter into prisons when cited thereto must be as free of disloyalty especially when the cause for which any is in hazard thereof is righteousness as ours is at this day SECT IV. Our practice cleared from separation where it is also proved unlawful to submit to the Ministry of the Curats Exception 5. The ejected Ministers preaching dispensing of ordinances and peoples runing to and hearing of them in this manner and withdrawing from communion with the Church in the allowed publick ordinances is separation which is against the principles and practises of the Presbyterians in foregoing times Ans because this in acts of Parliament publict Sermons and in Pamphlets is with great confidence asserted we shall take it a little into consideration and see whether the Prelats and their Creatures or our Ministers and the people adhering to them be the separatists a sinful separation
we grant there is but who are the Causers of it and guilty thereof before God they or we let our following answers and reason determine to which that they may be more clearly apprehended we premise 1. That it is not every sort of separation that is sinful and evil some kinds of it are duty and commanded as our Protestant divines make good against the Papists as Joseph Hall 〈◊〉 all that writ on that subject for it is our part to separat from sin and Professors joyning together in it with which the worship of God comes too often to be vitiated and polluted for this we have many precepts and commands in the word Ephes 5 11. with other Scriptures 2 To make non-presence or absence from the meetings of Christians for worship and goverment sinful separation there must be first a stated habitual absence secondly Such reasons and grounds for it as will not justify it for if the absence be not ordinare it is not esteemed separation altho the reasons of it be not justifiable pro hic nunc and albeit the absence be ordinare and habitual yet if its causes whether moral or physical be right and warrantable it is not sinful separation for absence from the meetings of Christians in worship or government is either sinful or not according to the causes or reasons of it 3 The grounds that will justify and warrant a withdrawing in ordinare from such meetings must be 1. The want of a just authority or right in those that dispense the ordinances of worship and government The Pharisees question proposed to Christ Matth. 21 23. did suppone a commonly granted and received truth which Christ does not deny but tacitly yeelds that they who act publickly in the Church must have a just authority right so to do we ought to have some rational convincing evidence of this if it be wanting it will warrant this withdrawing much more if its want be positively clear 2. Corruptions in the worship of God so knit to them in their use that they cannot be used without the use of these corruptions will also allow a withdrawing from such roeetings as all in these grant 3. Sinfol â—â—â—cumstances as such places times causes persons c. That in their connexion with and respects to things that are truely sinful and evil becomes so prohic nunc as fasts thanksgivings c. when observed at such times and for such Causes as are evil 4. Unsound and heretical doctrine taught in ordinare in such meetings Matth. 24. We grant it is not every error and erronious doctrine that will justifie a peoples withdrawing from ordinances dispensed in the assemblies of the Church there being nothing besides that may justly cause it but only such as is truely heretical and subversive of the foundations of Religion Righteousness peace When poison is administred in stead of wholesome food a people are bound to see to their own safety that they be not destroyed by that which was intended for their health 5 There are some things in the stated case of some times and other circumstances that will give sufficient ground for this withdrawing that will not do it at other times as in the beginnings of defection under the contests betwixt the orthodox and unsound party usually some things fall in that will call for a secession from Church assemblies which have often fallen out in the Church and is evident from history particularly in the time of the Arminians predomining in the Church of Holland and many others that are to be seen in the records of the Church 4 Although in some cases a negative separation be lawful and right where a positive is not yet in some cases a positive separation is lawful and duty it is hard to determine of cases in this matter except where the ease hath been or els is existent there are two cases in which this is allowed intrusion and an universall infection of the worship and government of the Church with superstition idolatry and tyranny to the polluting of all its ordinances we hope there will be no controversy anent the second seing it is the doctrine and hath been the practice of the reformed Churches in their secession and departur from the Church of Rome on that very head who not only withdrew from the communion of that idolatrous Church but erected themselvs into distinct Churches with officers and ordinances conforme to the commands and institution of Christ and when the mater is seriously and impartially weighted there will be found as little ground of controversy about the first anent which we take these two to be evident truths 1. That Churches are not bound to subject to but to withdraw from these intruded upon them partly because the just rights of the Church are wronged and taken from her which all ought to maintaine and not to quite partly because she is enslaved thereby and subjected to the lusts tyranny of men and a preparative laid downe to othâ—rs for doing of the like in times coming 2. That this intrusion is either on Churches that have bin and are setled in Christs way with able and faithful Ministers or else on these that want are vacant for the time If it be on Churches that are under the setled inspection of faithful Ministers they are bound to adhere to these and not to give place to the intruders from whom to withdraw can be no sinful separation the intruders and these that fall off to them are the separatists if the Church or Churches be without faithful Ministers they also are obleidged to refuse the intruding Ministers and if this unjust and violent intrusion on them continue they are oblidged to provide themselves of Ministers that under their oversight they may have and enjoy the benefite of the Gospel and its ordinances to which by the commands of Christ and the necessity of the means of eternal life they are straitly bound for as unjust intrusion brings nothing with it to make a people yeeld to the intruders so it untys no obligation formerly on them for endeavouring of their setlment with a faithful Ministery If we thought these in thesi were questioned by any we could with great ease make them out to the conviction of all but taking them for granted we surcease any further probation Therefore5 We desire it may be also considered that there is a vast difference betwixt hearing of and submiting to Ministers in the exercise of their Ministery in the general and doing of these to such and such Ministers the question betwixt us and our adversaries is not whether we should hear and submit to Ministers in their Ministery for this we do not deny but whether we should hear and submit to these that were our Ministers set over us by the holy Ghost before this change in the Church or these sent from and thrust in upon us by the Magistrat and Prelates It is no little wrong done us by our enemies
who give it out to the world that we contemne a Ministery ordinances and are against hearing while our practice declares the contrare to all and for which we are dayly suffering We hold that as it is our duty to withdraw from and not to subject to the Prelaâ—â—â—s and their Creaturs so it is likwise our duty to cleave to our former Ministers in hearing of the Gospel and receiveing of ordinances from them as we can have access we have given reasons for the affirmative shall the Lord willing do the like for the negative 6 It would also be adverted that there is a great difference betwixt a Churches bringing in and carrying on of a defection willingly in a Church way and the Magistrats doing this of himself without the Church yea forcibly Ecclesia renitente ac reclamante although there should be no difference as to the mater yet there is much as to the maner and way to influence regular and diversifie ministers and Christians carriage under them all in the Church are to subject to the power proper and peculiar to her which they ought not to do to others usurping this power and taking it out of her hands 7 In this mater a difference or distinction is to be made betwixt the personal scandals and corruptions in ministers walk and administration of holy things and these that may be or are found in the way of their entry which may be such that although they do not invalidate their ministerie in their dispensing of the word and its ordinances to the rendering of these nullities yet may give sufficient ground to peoples withdrawing from and not subjecting to them as their lawful and sent pastours 8 There is a great difference betwixt a Church regularly constitute according to the Word of God in her ministerial political being enjoying the exercise of all ordinances in purity that comes afterwards while under that constitution to be intruded upon by the sole power of the Magistrat and persecuted in officers and members for adhereing to her constitution in opposition to the intruders and the corruptions brought in upon her by them against her consent and a Church declining from her former purity in doctrine worship and government abuseing her power to the bringing in and furthering of the said defection and universally concurred with and submited to in the same The first is our casâ— concerns the state of the question betwixt us and our opposites in the charge of separation thâ—y lay on us The question then betwixt us and our adversaries is not whether we may lawfully separat from publict ordinances for the corruptions and personal miscarriages of fellow-worshipers whether ministers or others as one in a little manuscript doeth maliciously or ignorantly state it we are still of the same minde with our worthy predecessours in their debats against the Brownists and Separatists as our practice this day doeth confirme in our assemblies and meetings for worship differing in nothing as to this from what it was before Neither is it whether it be simply or in it self sinful to hear receive ordinances from these who have entered by submitted to the prelates abstract from our present case for we grant the case may be in which it is lawful yea duty to hear and receive ordinances from such yea and hath been But the true state of the question is whether a Church or Churches constitute according to the rules of the word provided and settled with ministers regularly called and submited to should yeeld to the Magistrats and Prelates violently ejecting their ministers and thrusting in other ministers upon her not only without but against her consent in subjecting to such hearing and receiving of ordinances from them while the Magistrat does all this for furthering and perfecting a course of dâ—fection contrare to solemne Covenants and oaths by which they were oftener then once ejected and cast out of this Church To this we answer negatively that the Church should not subject to such in hearing and receiving of ordinances from them but ought to disowne and withdraw from these thus entered into the Church and complying with the introduced corruptions This conclusion we prove thus First They who have no just authority nor right to officiat fixedly in this Church as the proper pastores of it ought not to be received but withdrawne from But the Prelates and their adherents the Curates have no just authority nor right to officiat in this Church as her proper pastours Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawne from It is expected they will not deny the first proposition all the debate will be about the second which we make out thus They who have entered into and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her authority and consent have no just authority and right so to do but the Prelates and their Curats have entered into this Church and do officiat therein without her authority and consent therefore they have not just authority c. The first proposition is clear and we suppose will not be gainsaid by our Antagonists seing the power of mission of calling and sending of ordinare fixed pastours is only in the Church and not in any other as all Divines do assert The Second is evident from maters of fact for there was no Church judicatory called or convocated for bringing of the Prelats into this Church all was done immediatly by the King acts of Parliament without the Church she being by violence disenabled to meet in her officers for fear of opposition from them a practice wanting a precedent in this and for any thing we know in all other Churches Object 1. But our Prelats were consecrat by the Prelats of the Church of England Ans What signifies that to the Church of Scotland and their just right to officiat in her suppone the office of prelacie were right and institute Does any think the Church of England would acknowledge the authority of Prelats consecrat here and subject to the same if all were done not only without but against her consent we suppose not Either the Church of Scotland at that time had no power of mission or els she had if she had none wanting prelacy then our Ministers were no Ministers of Christ Jesus and all ordinances dispensed in her for many years were nullities which some of our adversaties we hope will not say if she had the power of mission how came she to be neglected and usurped upon by another Church to whom she was not subordinat Object 2. But Presbyters cannot consecrat Bishops they being an inferior order Ans if it could be shown from Scripture that Bishops are not only an Order and office different from Presbyters but that they have a different ordination to their office from that of Presbyters it would say much but nothing of this can be made to appear from the Word of God But. 2. We ask whether consecration be different from ordination If
the Church in particular the case was wholly altered from that of our worthie Predecessors in the former Prelats time foâ— as prelacy was then subtilly brought in upon them by degrees and not all at once so they continued in the possession of the Government of the Church that had been seâ—led by law and never legally or actually disinabled to meet and exercise the same in their fixed and ordinare judicatories but continuing as formerly in Presbyterated meetings had the Prelats thrust in upon them as is evident from history even of Spotiswood But in our case Prelacy is at the first raised by law to its greatest height Presbytery discharged cashiered and ejected out of this Church all lawes for it either in late or former times being disanuled and abrogated the meetings of Ministers in their fixed Presbyterial and Synodical assemblies inhibited under severe penalties by acts of Councel which became so universally obeyed that Presbytery had neither a legal nor actual being in the time that Prelacy was erected brought in upon this Church So that at its actual introduction we were conforme to Lawes required to come in submit to and concur with the government setled by them which was purely Prelatical and Erdstiuml an They that deny this must contradict the law and make the law makers liars if the laws and actings conforme thereto have any sense that may be rationallie deduced therefrom Hence what was required was directly contrare to our principles known judgment which to this day we never saw any convincing reasons to make us relinquish Here we cannot but complean of the palpable injustice done us by the Author of the seasonable case falsly so called who contrare to all evidence makes the case now and then alike But notorious lies and untruths must be made use of to fill up the roome of truth so shamefully deserted by that party 4 The government of the Church that then was was by law totally subverted and Prelacy brought in its place at and by the meer authority of the King the government thereof by a preceeding law or act being wholly put into his hands the authority of Parliament interposed afterwards for the establishing of prelacy being by this only corrobovative and precarious as if it were only of his frameing and making and had no higher derivation but that of humane authority which we look upon as an high derogation of the Regal and Supream authority of Christ Jesus the alone Head and King of his Church and a dreadfull presumption in changing the laws and ordinances enacted and instituted by Him in his house which all Christians especially Protestants esteem sacred and inviolable Can we according to the principles we have received and drunk in from the word of the liveing God allow of this forme of Government this way introduced into the Church Those that love ease and things of this world may think light of all but it is not so to us who are through grace resolved to owne no other Head of that body then Christ Jesus of whom we professe ourselves members The recent and fresh memory of the National and Solemne League and Covenants under the tye of which this Nation and Church came oftener then once all rankes and degrees of persons Noble and Ignoble from the Kings Majesty to the lowest Subject being solemnly engadged thereby against the evils and corruptions ejected by them The obligation of which had been enforced and legally secured by a continued series of lawes and practises for a long time that seemed to promise all imaginable securitie to the work of Reformation against the out most assaults of its adversaries nothing was left undone that could be attempted by rational men in this case While all these things were in being and recent in the memory of all at home and abroad at one dash in so little a time to raze to the foundations all the former superstructure and build up the contrare and that by persons who for their generality had been so active for and so deeply engadged in former proceedings is strange to think on especially considering the verbal securities and engagments made unto us immediatly before this change We say in this case to give the concurrence and complyance required in joyning with and receiving the Prelats and their Creatâ—rs is beyond all question an approving of all that was done contrare to our fixed judgments these obligations we with thâ—â—est of this Church came under Let any man of conscience put himself in our case suppone our judgment principles to be his owne and then 〈◊〉 him judge if he would not finde himself necessitated to carry in this matter as we have done Obj. Some assert that they never having taken on the personal obligation of the Covenants are not bound by them for which they offer irrefragable arguments but yet see it fit to hold them in Ans However there are two things we are sure of First All Ministers that entered into the Church in the time of Presbytery were taken engadged for the government of the Church that then was in opposition to Prelacy and in or near the time that Prelacy was a bringing in into this Church Ministers in many Presbyteries Synods declared their resolutions for adhereing to Presbytery that then was in being had been exercised in this Church for many years preceeding that time but it is like as their after carriage did make out that these are knots they can easily loose seing they are able to master overcome far greater Next That Church Goyenants in the maters of God which by vertue of divine commands institutions do antecedently bind do obleige all in the Church both in the time or afterwards and that with this adventitious and supervenient obligation of a Covenant beside the former He hath a stout conscience that will get this denyed it is so evidently manifest from Deut. 29 10. c. they must be arguments of iron steell that will break this Scripture in pieces These who assert the contrary shall do well to try their strength on what the answerer of Mr. Gilbert Burnets first dialogues hath on this Subject that have not yet received a reply But it seems it is a piece of new policy to make up the weakness of arguments with big swelling words We might here consider a little if our purposed brevity could permit it what one in a certaine manuscript hath undertaken to prove in several propositions but his mistaking of the question in the second propositâ—on makes us easy work it being a truth we do not deny and in which we close with our predecessours so that all his citations of ours are to no effect for we grant that the sin of fellow worshipers is no just ground for withdrawing from publict ordinances where there is no just exceptions beside will it from thence follow that we should submit to and hear the Curates in our present case we must havâ— other arguments
sake although differing from us in some other things 5 It is thought sufficient ground for this charge that some yea many of the persons that come to and haunt our meetings are found not to be conscientious and Christian in their walk but flagitious or in many of their practises scandalous We cannot think our adversaries are serious in this do beleeve as they speak seing 1 This does fall as heavy and will to onlookers reflect as much and more on the objectors themselves as on us whose meetings for worship are found to be the sinck of all debauched and profaine persons thorow the Land can they refuse this It is like the foresight of this forced them to say in their lybel of greivances against us that the abominations mentioned in one Article were commited at our meetings and not by persons present at them otherwise their assemblies for worship should have been as chargeabâ—â— therewith as ours but in this our Antagonists 〈◊〉 like to the persecutours of the Christians in the prâ—â—mitive times who charged them for having these 〈◊〉 the like abominations commited at their assemblies as is to be seen in Church Histories The Lord deliver us from and rebuke the lying Spirit that is entered into and possesseth many 2. But if the presence of wicked and scandalous persons at the assemblies of Christians for hearing of the word and performing of other acts of worship be sufficient ground for chargeing the wickednesse and impieties of such on them as the cause inductive to scandals will not the assemblies that Christ his Apostles Ministers and Christians keeped in all ages be as lyable to this charge as we who excluded none but admited all to the hearing of the word and some other acts of worship as is manifest from Scripture and History whatever our adversaries will say for clearing of Christ Iesus his Apostles c. will acquit us 3. Do not men know that in preaching of the Gospel to sinners we should designe and labour their conversion as much as the edification of the converted Is not the Gospel with which Ministers are intrusted the mean and power of God to the one as well as to the other And seing this is our designe as it hath been our practice so it is our resolution not to exclude any from our assemblies how wicked soever they have been or are Truth is to charge us and our meetings with the sinnes and scandals of those that frequent the same is to reproach the Gospel of Christ and to Father all the wickednesse of its hearers on it contrare to its grand designe which is to save sinners from sin and all the miseries that follow upon it SECT V. Some Reasons why the Indulgence was not accepted IN the next place we come to the head of the Indulgence the not allowing of which hath been represented as a full evidence of our pivish wilful and stiff disposition to unpeacableness and distoyalty but we hope when our carriage in this mater is seriously thought upon and the reasons that determined us to this refusal are weighted in the ballances of the sanctuarie this charge will be found light and we are confident that upon trial it will appear we are not against but with all expressions of thankfulnes shall be ready to intertaine and receive any libertie for the Gospel its true interest and our selves that is consistent with our known principles that the Magistrat shall be pleased to grant us We look upon it as an unjust state of the question in this mater which hath been offered by some whether the Magistrat jure may or have it within the compass of his Magistratical power to give liberty to Ministers and people for serving and worshiping of God in his Son Christ Iesus according to his word this we do not deny but chearfully grant that although the exercise of Church power that is properly such be independent on the Magistrat yet the peacable exercise of it is truely from him it belongs to him no doubt to encourage countenance and protect the Church against all enemies and to relieve her of oppression when under it to this he is impowered and oblidged both as a Magistrat and as a Christian Neither is it with us a question whether the Magistrat may command Ministers to the duties of then function nor whether he may exeem them from the hazard of suffering to which they are obnoxious by law for their non-conformity nor yet whether he may confine Ministers simply and abstractedly considered from our present case which is only proper to the Magistrat and not all to the Church All these and much more we yeeld to the Magistrat about persones and maters Ecclesiastical according to the Word But the true state of the question to us is whether the Magistrat Jure Magistratico may of himself and immediatly without the Church the previous election of the people assigne and send Ministers to particular Churches to take the fixed and pastoral over sight of them prescribe rules and directions to them for the exercise of their Ministery and confine them to the said congregations The question thus stated being complex and consisting of several branches conform to the acts of Councel anent the indulgence we must of necessity for giving a just accompt of the grounds of our dissatisfaction therewith speak to them severally in some assertions with the reasons subjoyned Assertion First The Magistrat by vertue of his Magistratical power cannot of himself and immediatly assigne or send Ministers to particular congregations to take the pastoral charge and oversight of them For 1. We finde not in all the Word of God any such power given to or exercised by the Magistrat in the Church none hath yet given any instances of this If there be let them be produced and we shall acquiesce All acknowledge the Church not to be founded on the law of nature but on positive institution and supernatural revelation and therfore not to be governed in wayes and methods of Mens invention but in these that are revealed by the Holy Scriptures without which there cannot be a Church so that she owning her being constitution and all to them there must be some evident proof produced from these before we can yeeld to any such power in the Magistrat how long shall we exspect this 2. Also we finde the Church in the possession and exercise of this power from the times of the Apostles to the breaking up of the reformation by Luther and others in Germany as is manifest from Scripture and History We grant there was for some time a considerable debate betwixt the Pope and the Emperour of Germany about the investiture of Bishops which gave the rise to other Princes claming of the same seasing upon it but what says this to the mission of Ministers application of their Ministery to particular congregations For as Prelacy was the invention of men and the cause of horrid contentions in Churches and States so
neither it nor the practices occasioned thereby can be any regulating precedent for us besides in all these contests about investiturs betwixt the Pope and Princes the mission of Ministers was never questioned but alwayes acknowledged as proper to the Church and not to the Magistrat which will be clear to any that will be at paines to read Church History 3. The sending of Ministers to particular congregations is an act of government purly and formally Ecclesiastical and not Civil and therefore incompetent to the Magistrat Let any consider it in its causes mater object and ends and they shall finde it so for the persons sent are Ministers the work they are sent on is to preach the Gospel and dispense its ordinances these they are sent to are the Churches of Christ the end for which they are sent to such is to gather in and perfect the body of Christ this is finis operis We know of nothing that can besaid against this But that it is not purely Ecclesiastick in the efficient cause Ans To this we reply First That all use in morals to sustaine the validity of the Arguments taken from the nature of the act to the undueness of it to such and such causes for it is by the respect of such acts in morals to their mater objects and ends that the bounds are determined and set to them in their efficient causes for instance if the mater object ends of an act be properly civil it is granted by all to be undue or incompetent to a Minister of the Gospel so of other acts in their moral specifical distinction by which in the law of God they are assigned made due to such and such efficients But Next Upon this reason it shall be as lawful for the Magistrat to ordaine and send persons without ordination to preach the Gospel which is every way absurd 4. The sending of Ministers to preach the Gospel and to oversee Churches is an act of the potestative mission one part of the keyes of the kingdom of God granted by Christ to his Church and never to the Magistrat from no part of the word can it be made appear that Christ hath given this power to the Magistrat we finde it given to the Ministers of the Gospel Matth. 16 19. with several other places of Scripture But as to the Magistrat there is altum silentium But that this sending of Ministers is an act of potestative mission we hope will not readily be denied of any do we ask whether Ministers go to such congregations on a special delegation from Christ more then to others If they do then it must flow from this power of mist on in the Church If they go not on this special delegation then they run unsent and are not the Pastours of these flocks more then of others and consequently they have no obligations upon them to feed these more then any other congregation which is absurd For beside the power of preaching and dispensing of ordinances there is alwayes a special delegation of the person to such and such a people by which he becometh the Ambassadour messenger of Christ Jesus whom they are bound to hear and submit to as such 5. This act of sending Ministers to congregations suppons several things that are beyond the line and cognition of the Magistrat as such as the trial of Ministers gifts the knowledge of the spiritual State of the congregation the sutablness or unsurablness of Ministers gifts to such and such a people ability to judge and cognosce in these as the mater and ends of this work require with many other things which not being granted to the Magistrat as such the work to which these are necessarily requisite cannot belong to him for every work to which God calls any hath its proper furniture of gifts and abilities without which none is to look upon themselves as called thereto 6. Some of the great Patrons and zealous Promoters of the Magistrats power in this and other things belonging to the Church yeeld that this power is in and returns to the Church when the Magistrat is either heathenish or heretical as Vedelius yea all are constrained to grant it How rational this is and how consistent with their arguments the force of which is thereby utterly broken let any judge we ask when this power is granted to be in the Church whether it comes from Christ Iesus or the Magistrat For a derive power it must be It cannot be from the Magistrat who does not willingly part with any of his power neither does religion robe the Magistrat of his power nor depose him from his regality and the prerogative thereof as Protestants maintaine against the Papists if it be derived and come from Christ as it does we desire to know what way it is conveyed to her in this case and not in the other when the Magistrat is Christian As we finde no difference of cases anent this mater given in the word so we finde the same institutions precepts and examples therein by which the Church is impowered and oblidged to exercise this government without the Magistrat to continue not only without any restrictions to times cases but without any repail We hear nothing from our adversaries to answer this but ineptia foolish rovings The truth is their Arguments conclude with as great force against all power of government in the Church under persecuting Magistrats as Christian for is there not in this case the erecting of an Empire in an Empire which our enemies accoundt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anddo not Ministers and Christians owe as much subjection to the Magistrat in the one case as in the other Assertion 2. That the right and power of Election and calling of Ministers to particular congregations is in the congregations themselves to whom they are sent by divine right and not in the Magistrat and therefore should not have been assumed by the Magistrat and taken thus from them That this power of election of Ministers is not in the Magistrat either by divine humane or Ecclesiastical laws needs not to be much insisted on seing Scripture and antiquity for a thousand years after Christ gives not the least ground for it We desire to know from our Antagonists Prelats and Erastians from whence came this power or who were the givers of it to the Magistrat When they have condescended on the orginal derivation of this power and made it out to be just then we shall consider it which by none of these parties hath been yet done except by Vedelius but on such grounds as give every particular member of the Church as good clame thereto as he as will be evident to any that considers his Arguments for Scripture and antiquity they have none The first part of the proposition is that which is most stuck at The peoples right and power of election which is denyed by our adversaries but we thus make it out as our Divines have done
he truly and visioly reigns over all in her so that obedience to this power is obedience to Christ as King of his Church and the contrâ—re is high rebellion against him Concl. 10. Although this power be only Ministerial and declarative of the will of Christ yet it is authoritative and binding on all the Church without exception of persons and that on a double account first on the account of divine commands enjoyning submission and obedience to its exercise in the persons of those invested therewith and also on the account of its respect to and derivation from Christ whose power and ordinance it is and whom in its exercise it doeth represent to all Concl. 11. This power is exercised either singly a part by every officer according to the nature measure of their power or in conjunction with one another conforme to the precepts of the word and practises of the Church in Scripture times Although every officer of the Church in their several orders have the whole power belonging intrinsice to it yet there are some acts thereof they cannot exerce but in a conjunction with others as ordaining of persons for the Ministry Trying and censuring of scandalous and heretical Professours or Ministers c. for which there must be fixed meetings of officers general and particular Concl. 12. The ordiner officers of the Church the extraordinarâ— being ceased are of three orders Teachers and Pastors Ruling elders and Deacons These we finde to be of divine institution and no others Many others have been brought into and obtruded on the Church but all of humane or rather of diabolical invention as alace their effects have sadly made out to the Church of God in former and present times In every one of these divine orders we finde no institute superiority in the same order of one above others as a Pastor of Pastors or an Elder of Elders and a Deacon of Deacons These who have assumed and exercised this superiority we cannot owne as the Officers of Christ nor subject to them as such till they prove their institution and mission from him which yet they have not done The outmost essey hath been for Prelacy or a Bishop who is pleaded to be a Pastour of Pastours having the oversight of them and their flocks but nothing attempted for making out the divine right of Primats Archbishops Archpresbyters Archdeacons c. This is that lowly and humble Government of the Church that Christ hath institute in his word and put in the hands of his Officers commanding them to exercise and dispense the same to all in his house under high paines of which in the second place we assert these two 1. That it is distinct and specifically different from the civil government of the Magistrat And2 That it is independant on it These two conclusions we now undertake to prove against the Erastians of our time who assert that when the Church comes to be embodyed with the Commonwealth her Government becomes one with the Government of the State and does not differ from it In opposition to these we affirme that when a Nation State or Kingdom turnes Christian in its Rulers and Subjects the Government of the Church remaines specifically different and distinct from the Government of that State or Kingdome as it was before its conversion to Christianity The reasons perswading us of this are 1. The Government of the Kingdome that is not of this world is distinct and different from the Government of the Kingdomes that are of this world But so it is that the Government of the Church is the Government of a Kingdome that is not of this world Therefore the Government of the Church is distinct and different from the Government of the civil Magistrat that is the Government of Kingdomes that are of this world This Argument leans on these three 1. That the Church is a Kingdome,2 That she hath a Government And3 That she is not of this world although in it All which are beyond disput clear from the Scriptures All that our adversaries say to this is that the visible Church of Christ is not properly but metaphorically called a Kingdome But how evident is the contrare for is not Christ Jesus the Churches visible Head and King Is she not ruled by his visible Lawes Ordinances and Officers that are properly and truely such and are not all these from above and not of this world Argum 2. That Government whose supream Head Lawes Ordinances and Officers are specifically different from the Head Lawes Ordinances and Officers of the civil Magistrat must be distinct from it But so it is that the head lawes ordinances and Officers of the Church are distinct from the lawes c. of the civil Magistrat Therefore c. The reason of the first proposition is clear for that which makes one Government differ from another is different heads lawes Ordinances Officers where these are either numerically or specifically different the Government is different accordingly it being comprehended in all these but that the supream head laws ordinances and Officeis of the Church are specifically different from these of the civil Government who will deny it that professes himself a Christian Obj. But all these come under the inspection of the Magistrat when he turns Christian Ans 1. Either these continue in the Church under the Magistrats Government what they were before or they do not if they do the Argument holds and proves the Government of the Church to be distinct from that of the Magistrats when Christian If they do not continue we ask from whence come this alteration and how will they prove it Nothing here from our adversaries but Altum silentium or nugae destitute of all reason But 2. The tearm INSPECTION or OVERSIGHT is am biguous if by it we mean the countenancing protecting and encouraging of this Government of the Church we yeeld â—t but what sayes that to the confounding of the Governments or making the Government of the Church the Magistrats if by inspection we understand the devolving of the Government of the Church on the Magistrat as the fountaine of it the ordering and disposing of its exercise the changing thereof at pleasure in whole or in part this we deny and long have we looked for proofe but have hitherto met with none Arg. 3. The Government of the Church formerly deliniated is incompâ—table with the civil Magistrats therefore it is distinct from his Government We hope none will refuse this consequence The antecedent is thus proven 1. The subordinat Government of the Church is purely Ministerial not dominative or imperial it is only declarative and not decisive not coactive and compulsive it is exercised in Christs Name and in his stead and is the representative of his special presence in his Church these are incompatible with the Government of the Magistrat whose power is Supream Magisterial and Imperial coactive and compulsive and exercised in his owne name c. 2. The
Church but as a Professor of Christianity which intitles others to this priviledge as much as him Therefore he cannot be the fountaine of Church power as such for whoever is the fountaine of power to any society is a member yea the noblest member of it Obj. But as a christian Magistrat he is a member of the Church Ans 1. What then will this prove him to be the fountaine of Church power so might Christian Husbands Parents c. argue as justly for this clame the truth is he being only a member of the Church as a Christian and not as a Magistrat Magistracy gives him no more priviledge then any other power civil or natural when the person tuines Christian for the benefite of membership goes on grounds and reasons common to all Christians and containes no speciality to one more then to another If any think Magistracy does they shall do well to prove it which none hath yet offered to do 2. If men understood well what it is to be a Christian a disciple and member of Christ's Church they would quickly see its inconsistency with the said profession does not persons turning Christians profese subjection to Christ his Lawes Ordinances and Servants which is repugnant to the fountaine of the Church power 2. He may not exercise Church power Therefore is not the fountaine of it all yeeld that these who are the fountaine of power to others may exercise it themselves it being in them and others acting as their delegates in its exercise that the Magistrat may not exercise Church power is clear for Church power being by positive institution from Christ they that exercise it must have a commission from him which none hath prodduced for the Magistrat Erastus asserteth it but without all proofe of which it is so destitute that the most of his followers have left him in this assertion Arg. 2. All Church power is lodged in and immediatly descended from Christ Jesus as the Supream Head and Ruler of the Church and Superiour to the Magistrat Therefore it is not subordinat to the Magistrat The reason of the consequence is clear for it is a repugnancy in a power to be immediatly subordinat to two Supream powers in one and the same respects especially where the one is superiour to the other The antecedent is manifest for Christ is only head of the Church all power in her is institute by him exerced in his name astricted to and regulated by his word and accomptable to him All notes of power immediatly descended from him Obj. But the Christian Magistrat as Christs substitute and vicegerent is under him the nearest and immediat fountaine of Church power for subordinata non pugnant Ans Long hath the Pope of Rome conrended for this and on grounds more plausible then these on which the Magistrat goes But Protestant Divines answer to the Papists on this head furnish us with irrefragable answers to the Magistrats clame which we desire our adversaries would consider answer at their own leasure we finde not the Magistrat inrolled among the officers of the Church far lesse substitute for Christs vicegerent if there be any Scripture for this bring it forth We know of none as yet alledged by our adversaries but what will plead as strongly for the heathenish Magistrat as for the Christian And if they do what traitours were the Apostles Ministers and Christians of the primitive times that did not acknowledge the heathenish Magistrates for their head in the Church but resisted and disobeyed their lawes and edicts against them for crying up of another Kâ—ng in the maters of their Christian Profession Arg. 3. All Church power was institute by Christ in an immediat subordination to himself without any acknowledgment of or dependance on the Magistrat Therefore it is not dependant upon nor subordinat to him The antecedent is clear from the History of the New Testament where we find that Christ moulded and constituted the Church by his Apostles and furnished her with a Government and officers to be exercised in his name and all this he did without consulring or advising with the Magistrat or suspending of her upon him the Magistrat all this time resisting letting himself for crushing of this Church Kingdome of Christ which he erected in the midst of their Kingdomes making use of their rage and violence to establish and propagat it for some Hundreds of years All this is so evident that our adversaries are not able to refuse it what is there then to hinder the consequence that we draw from this deed of Christ If our opposites in this mater could shew us that the Church had no government institute by Christ nor exercised any all the time that the Magistrat thus opposed himself to her or that Christ had declared his will that she should be subjected to the Magistrat in her Government when he should become Christian they would soon end this strife but nothing can we learne from them to this purpose Arg. 4. As this Government was institute by Christ and his Apostles so it was exerced in his name in the Church without dependance on the Magistrat till Constantine the great 's time and from thence downe ward till the Reformation of Religion brack up in Germanie till which time it was never questioned by any until Erastus the Physician arose who laboured not only to subject the Church to the Magistrat in all her concearnes as such but denied all Government to her by divine institution that is distinct from the Government of the Magistrat contrare to full and clear Scripture which he most insolently and wickedly endeavours to wrest pervert So then if the Government of the Church was in Scripture times and downwards till within these hundered years exercised without dependance on the Magistrat both heathenish and Christian then it must yet be independant on and not directly subordinat to him Here our Antagonists are put to strange shifts The first three hundred years they must grant and may we not take this for a yeelding of the cause Scripture and antiquity hath been held for a sufficient plea for maters of doctrine and practise debates in Polemical divinity hath run on these two heads and whoever made out their assertions from these have been esteemed to carry the cause all that our adversaries have to say to this are these two 1. That the Government exercised in the Church was not by divine institution and precepts but by confederation of Churches and officers To this we reply 1. If the Epistles to Timothy to the seven Churches in Asia Revel 2 and 3. Chapters with other places of Scripture used by our Divines in this mater prove not the contrary they have no sense We beg of our adversaries they will for saving us a labour answer Mr. Gillespies Arguments from Scripture in the second part of his Aarons Rod blossoming 2 Besids they are not able to make out what they assert to wit that the Church did
exercise her Government in these times by confederation and mutual consent and not by institution and command for as there is nothing in Scripture and pure antiquity for this So the Churches being gathered and constitute by the Apostles we presume they continued in the constitutions which the Apostles left according to the precepts and rules they gave them to which we find in the word and Church History their practice conforme When the persecutions of the Church ceased upon the Magistrats turning Christian we find her continuing in the exercise of the former Government but with the addition of some corruptions which grew to a sad hight afterwards throw the excessive munificence bounty of Constantine the great the first Christian Emperour and exercising the sameâ— as formerly as is clear from History that speaks of these times Here our adversaries speak of some instances of the power the Magistrat did exerce in the Church as convocating of Synods labouring in the peace of the Church lorely rent at sometimes through lad heresies and schisms And that saying of Constantines repeated by them ad nauseam vos estis Episcopi ad intra Ego ad extra But how is our Antagonists conclusion made out by all these will it follow that becaus the Magistrat did convocat Synods its Government is derived from subordinat to him No wayes for 1. Albeit the Magistrat have a power to convocat the officers of the Church anent maters relating to his owne conscience and duty whether about Church or State yet this is not privative of the Churches power to convocat her owne assemblies either for worship or government as we find she did in the primitive times not only without but against his consent yea when the Magistrat became Christian she retained and exercised this power in assembling into several Synods without the Magistrat It is true we do not read of general Synods assembled after this but by the Magistrat till the Pope of Rome claimed this power and usurped therein on the Church and Magistrat as he did in all other things but the vastness of the Empire and large extent of the Church which exceeded its bounds made this in point of prudence necessare for without the Magistrat it could not easily be done But 2. Convocating of others is not alwayes in its self and infallible signe of a superiour power and dominion over judicatories convocated as in limited Monarchies and not absolute where the Supream power is lodged in the King and States of the Kingdom although the King have the power of conveâ—ning the States yet they share wiâ—h him in the leg stative and executive power while in being therefore the illation is bad and not concludent 4 What imaginable advantage-can accrew to our adversaries assertion by that saying of Constantines formerly cited We grantâ— the Magistrat is the overseer of things without the Church but this will not prove that thâ— government of the Church is in and from his hands and subordinat to him they must first make it appear by good reason that ner Government is ad extra which they have not yet done nor never will for although it be visible in its institution and exercise yet it is as intrinsinck to and within her as her doctrine and worship which by this sence will be as much derived from and subjected to the Magistrat as her Government seing the one is as visible in its dispensation as the other Arg. 5. The Magistrat may not yea cannot jure impede and hinder the exercise of the Churches government therefore it is not derived from nor subjected to him the reason of this consequence is what ever power is derived from the Magistrat and subordinated directly to him he may suspend hinder its exercise yea he may totally remove and annihilat it this is yeelded by all and taken for a sure Maxime in Politicks but the Magistrat may not do this in the Government of the Church and that becaus it is of divine institution and the persons intrusted with and called to its â—xercise are under the obligations of divine precepts and commands for it which the Magistrat cannot hinder nor by any deed or command of his make void These that deny this divine institution of Church Government we refer to the forecited book where it is strongly pleaded made out from clear and express Scriptures in the New Testament Likwise as he cannot impede its exercise so he may not nullify its sentences by himself which he may do in the sentences passed by all powers derived from and subordinat to himself Arg. 6. The Christian Magistrat is by vertue of his Christian Profession bound to subject himself to the acts exercise of Church Government in the hand of Church Officers and is as much obleidged to yeeld thereto as any other Therefore Church power is not directly subordinat to him The antecedent is clear for all are commanded submission and obedience to Church Officers in the exercise of their power in watching overseeing and ruleing of the Church Heb. 13.7 17. to which exercise of their power we finde Magistrats in the word submitting as UZZIA who was by the priests confor me to the law separated and secluded from the holy things of God and communion with the Church in these yea it is given for the maine cause of all that heavy wrath and judgment that came on Zedekiah 2. Chron. 36.12 that he humbled not himself before Jeremiah the Prophet speaking the word of the Lord to him Obj. But this subjection in Magistrats to Church Officers is properly to Christ and not to them Ans we confess the subjection is primarily and cheifly to Christ Jesus whom such in the exercise of their Office doe represent yet the subjection is to them too whom all without exception of any in the Church are commanded to receive hear and obey so that in the dispensation of holy things they are superiour to all in the Church Magistrats and others as their constitut Rulers Overseers Governours and Watch men whom they ought to obey when acting in their Office agreable to the law of Christ which obedience is not CATACHRESTICAL or ABUSIVE as VIDELIUS speaks in the Magistrat but proper and really a debt they owe to the Ministers of the Gospel dispensing holy things as much as any other member of the Church their obligation to it being of the same kinde and nature with the obligation of others If any think other-wayes let them produce their reasons and Scriptures 2. If the fiery and zealous promotters of the Magistrats power in and over the Church of God did consider the true and real prejudice they do to Magistrats by exeeming them from that subjection that they with all others owe to Church Officers they would if there be any sense of Religion and its advantages remaining with men hold their hand and should have little thanks from Magistrats for their preposterous zeal who by their opinions in this mater do