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
duty do not enjoyn a duty but a sin Obj. 2. If the Prelats their Curats be Ministers of the Gospel then they are to be heard ordinances should be received from them for the Ministerial power gives to the persons invested therewith not only a right to preach the word dispense ordinances maketh their acts valide but it bind them to the doing of these and all others to submit to them in the exercise of their power as is apparent in all relations the mutual duties that the persons under them owe to one another so that if Ministers be bound to preach the Gospel and dispense its ordinances the people must likewise be oblidged to hear and receive ordinances from them Ans Albeit we should yeeld the Prelats and Curats to be Ministers to the denying of which they have given and do give to many too much ground by their open avowed perjury enmity at and opposition to true godliness their renuncing of Jesus Christ for their immediat Supream head by subjecting themselves to another foraigne Supream in the Church and their wicked and flagitious lives yet the consequence will not hold for 1. The true state of the question is whether we should receive submit to them as the lawfully called appropriat Pastors of this Church which for the former and subsequent reasons we deny And we would gladly see how they will prove it for although intruders upon the Church be Ministers yet their intrusion puts a sufficient bar on peoples reception of and submission to them as we have made out both in thesi in hypothesi wherefore in so far as hearing receiving of ordinances from Prelatical Ministers in our case is an acknowledgment of this we refuse it 2 Peoples obligation to submâ—ssion to Ministers does not immediatly flow from the being of the Ministerial power and authority in those cloathed therewith there aâ—e besides this other things that must concur to the causing of this obligation which if they be wanting will make it void or at least suspend it as the rational evidence of its being in persons pretending to the Ministery the removal of just impediments the Churches call c. so that there are somethings either physical or moral that if they fall out will suspend this obligation in actu secundo while it remaines in actu primo as inability of body just suspension for a time fundamental heresies intrusion c. now many of these being existent on the part of the Prelats and their Curats in our present case we finde ourselves under no divine obligation to hear and receive ordinances from them We shall not here urge the judgment and practice of our worthy reformers anent the Romish Priests Jesuits and others in orders among them who sustained the validity of ordinances dispensed by such and yet held that they should not be heard nor ordinances received from them The instance of the pharisies and the scribes Matth. 23. will not be found to militat against this till it be made out that they were intruders which yet none hath done Arg. 8. It is of no little weight to us when added to the former that the generality of these violently thrust-in on congregations are either insufficient or scandalous creatures we confess fitted for carrying on of the Prelats designes against this Church and us by whom the poor people were and yet are in hazard throw Ignorance Piophannes Atheisme and a Spirit of delusion abounding in all corners of this Land who in stead of preventing and cureing of the same do rather further and advance these Church-destroying evils as we do not make personal scandal of it self a sufficient ground of withdrawing from ordinances dispensed by a Minister guilty thereof yet when these are found in the carriage of those whose entry is corrupt and such as cannot be justifyed we cannot but think ourselves under straiter tyes to be ware of and fly from such partly because of the little or no ground we have to expect any spiritual advantage from their administration of holy things and partly for the precepts we find in the word for avoiding and shuning of such Philip. 3. with many others Shall we give up ourselvs to the guidance and conduct of such in the wayes of life having nothing to engadge us thereto but the meer pleasure and will of men who we know are carrying on corrupt designes tending to the overthrow of Religion in its purity power What a folly and madness were this It is said that our charge in this is false and unjust But we appeal to the experience and observation of the generality of Professours in this Church good and bad who have been are witnesses to their deportments Arg. 9. Besides these there were several things in the stated case of the time and the circumstances of it that withheld and yet withhold us from subjecting to the prelates and their curates which we wish were laid to heart by all as they are concerned As 1. For making way to the introduction of prelacy the very foundations of civil government were shaken and unhinged by the disannullig and rescinding of such a series of Parliaments for many years in the most of which there were according to ancient customes and lawes all that amongst us is held and reputed essential to the Constitution of Parliaments By this deed not only the Constitution of former Parliaments are struck at but as is to be seen in the reasons given for it in the act rescissorie a preparative is made for the changing of the Government by any that in after ages have a minde for and power to effect it Although the Parliament of England at that time was as highly prelatical and as much made for the Kings designes as ours yet they forbore such a deed anent the long-lived-Long-lived-Parliament albeit they had the same reasons and grounds for it that we pretended 2 This change made in the Church was accompanied and yet is with such a speat of enimity at and opposition to true godlines in its necessare exercises that the persons that savoured any thing of Religion sobriety and conscience came under a cloud and were discountenanced even from the highest to the lowest as persons not fit to be intrusted in any place of office or power while these that were known to be of dissolute lives and given to all sorts of wickednes were muâ—h made of countenanced and intrusted as the only confidents of the time from whence it came to pass that wickedness and prophanity finding it self encouraged and reyns loosed to it abounded in all parts of the land to the grief of the truely godly and the great scandal of the Protestant reformed religion at home and abroad If it were not for too much prolixity this might be made to appear from a multitude of undenyable but lamentable instances which for brevities sake we forbear not loveing to stir in this filthy puddle 3 As to the Government of
but also to all that ever it was even in the times of popery which when considered in the constitution and priviledges it then had was an humane Office founded on the Supremacy of the Pope but now by this law on the Magistrat which sayes that although the persons be changed yet the Supremacy is the same 6. In the act anent the National Synod the nomination and election of persons by whoâ—n the government of the Church is to be exercised under the King is asserted to be the Kings by vertue of his royal prerogative and supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical so that the constitution of Church judicatories is made dependant upon him a thing never heard of nor practised in this or any other Church till of late 7. The right being and constitution of the National Synod of this Church is wholly dependant upon and derived from this law So as it is no Synod of this Church that is not gathered and constitute conforme to it although a Synod in this Church should have all that made Synods lawful and their acts obligatory in former times 8. The particular constitution of this National Synod as to its members which in this act are nominated and regulated thereby for all future times is determined for its ' times and places of meeting and put wholly in the Kings hand and asserted to be his right by vertue of his Supremacy over this Church It is no Synod that is not thus convocated 9. The maters to be handled debated and concluded in this Synod a thing alwayes judged intrinsick to the Church comes only from the King are to be proposed from him by the Arch-prelat of Saint Andrews and no other a fearful restraining of the divine liberty of the Ministers of the Gospel who may not speak of maters of doctrine manners although necessary for the times contrare to the freedome that is commanded them by their master anent these 10. The King 's or his Commissioners presence is made essential to the constitution and of binding force to this nationall Synod It is no Synod although constitute after the paterne of Church Synods in the primitive times if it want this 11. No mater debated and concluded by the Majority of this Synod is obligatory on this Church and its members if not approven and allowed by the King or his Commissioner This suspends the intrinsick obligation of Synods on the King so that no canon act or constitution do binde the members of the Church if he assent not As this secures the Couâ—t in their carnal liberties and sinful wayes so it shuts the door on all endeavours of reformation by the Church when Princes are vicious 12. In the act asserting the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastick the King his successors are enabled and impowered to medle with all maters and meetings Ecclesiastick which brings the doctrine and worship within his verge and subjects the same to him as much as the government 13. They are impowered to enact and emit constitutions acts and orders anent maters and meetings Ecclesiastick as they please and think fit and are not in the making of these astricted to any rule but their pleasure O HORRENDUM 14. All these acts and orders they may statute independant on the Church Parliament or any other by their sole authority never granted to any of his predecessours before 15. These acts and constitutions insert in the book of Councel and duely published are declared and made to be of full force and obligation to this Church and her members No need of Synodâ— here which by this are wholly subverted 16. All former lawes acts and clauses of them contrare to and inconsistent with this are made void cassed annulled which takes away the Protestant Religion thâ— Word of God as the rule the concurrence of the Church in the assistance of the constitutions Ecclesiastical that was provided and secured by former acts of Parliament a wide door for Popery 17. In the act against unlawful Ordinations as they call them the Ordination of persons to the Ministry by Ministers of Christ Jesus that have not conformed to Prelacy which was held unquestionable valid for its substance by all till this late gang of Prelats arose in which they are degenerat from their predecessours is by the sole authority of the Magistrat made void and all Ministerial acts and Church benefites depending thereon declared to be nul An act that unchristians and condemns all the reformed Churches making their Churches no Ministerial political Churches and all Ordinances dispensed in them nullities which their practice at this time in England does confirme while Romish Priests turning Protestants are without ordination made capable and advanced to Church places and preferments of which the Protestant Ministers of other Churches conforming to Prelacy are dented till they be reordained Other mediums contained in other acts of Parliaments for fixing of the preceeding conclusions we passe having hinted at some of them above judging these sufficient for the conviction of the uninteressed unprejudged who through the power of lust and earthly interest have not cast off the light of the word but keeps in subjection to it We shall in the last place answer some objections in which we have to do with two sortes of persons first the high flowne Erastians of our times who will admit of no government in the Church but that which is in and from the Magistrat whose designe as is evident from the act asserting the Kings Supremacy is to take all Government out of the Churches hands and to put it on the King his Councel to be only exercised by them which throw the dislike of Prelacy is not sufficiently lamented laid to heart nor resisted by many as its dangerous consequences to all the concerns of the Church do require Besides these there are who upon what principle is not yet known think that the Supremacy as it is now asserted by law is not formally Ecclesiastical but only objectively so which is strange some of the objections of the first sort we have met with as we went along the former heads we know of no other besides these of any considerable strength but one Obj. That the Magistrat being the keeper of both tables of the law of the table of Religion as well as of the table of Righteousness ought to have a care of Religion and hath power given him to exercise it about the same Anâ—wer This being the Achilles of the Erastians and semi Erastians of VIDELIUS in particular We shall returne these answers to it and shew it cannot bear their conclusion 1. Whatever power the Christian Magistrat can clame by this the heathenish Magistrat hath the same he is by his Magistratical office constitute in actu primo a Keeper of both tables as is evident from Rom. 13 1 2. If he do not exercise it it comes not from any defect of power in his office or the institution of it but from his blindness and unbeleef
and not to be the head of that Society to which any is such Now to the Minor that the Prelats and their Curats have their power from and in its exercise are subjected to a supream Architectonick power is beyond disput clear from the act of restitution formerly mentioned and other acts to be mentioned afterwards and will be so to any that consideratly peruse the same of which we are to speak at more large under the last head but for the time we propose these three from these acts for making out of this argument 1. They are expresly made to have a dependance upon and subordination to the King as supream to them in their Church judicatories and administrations 2 The government of the Church in its ordering and disposeing is annexed to the crowne as one royal prerogative thereof which not only suppons the government to be in him as the fountaine thereof but to be exercised with that dominion that is suteable to his regality 3 The giving of Church power to Church officers is supponed to be the effect and deed of his lawes and acts without which all power in the Church is declared to be null and void Objec Although the Kings Majesty be supream governour in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical yet he is not head to and of the Church Ans If he be supream governour in such causes and over such persons in Linea directa no question he is the head political to the Church for GOVERNOUR HEAD are equipollent terms whosoever is supream Governour to any society in this sense is a proper political head to it it is needless to quarrel about words if the thing be granted And that this subordination or supremacy is direct or in Linea directa is we judge clear from the fore mentioned acts seing they not only make the King the fountaine of Church power but moreover in the act anent the the National Synod he is made the All of the same and without him it is nothing The like of these the sun never shined on except these made by King Henry the 8. of England which being scrupuled at by all sorts of persons at home abroad they were in Queen Elizabeths time forced to alleviat the mater by removeing the title head and some mitigating explications allowed and ordered to be given to the subjects at the taking of the oath of supremacy but no such explications allowed here Arg. 3. If the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats thus thrust in upon them were constitut and setled in Christs way as Pastors and flocks in the just possession and actual use of all ordinances conforme to the rules of the word then it is no sinful separation for Churches in adhering to their Ministers not to receive nor submit to the Prelates and their Curats But so it is that the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats thus thrust in upon them were constitut and setled in Christs way as Pastors and flocks in the just possession and actual exercise of all ordinâ—â—ces conforme to the rules of the word Therefore it is â—â—â—o sinful separation on their part not to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats in hearing and receiving of ordinances from them We suppose the consequence of the major proposition is evident and will not readily be denyed by any and if it shall happen to be we prove it thus If there be divine obligations on Ministers and their Churches to the performance of the mutual duties of Pastors and flocks then it can be no sinful separation for Churches in adhering to their Ministers not to receive nor submit to the Prelats and their Curats But so it is that the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats were under divine obligations to the performance of the mutual duties of Pastors and flocks Therefore it is no sinful separation for Churches not to receive nor submit to the Prelats and their Curats The consequence of the major proposition leaneth upon these two and is infallibly made out by them first that thâ—â—e is a divine relation of Pastor and flock betwixt Ministers and the Churches over whom they are set and secondly that they are bound by divine commands to do the mutual duties of such contained and prescribed in the word of God none that acknowledge the Ministery to be an ordinance of divine instution and the Scriptures to be the rule of religion and righteousness will be able to refuse these We conceive none even of our Antagonists will deny the Minor if they do will it not follow that the Church of Scotland before and at the Prelats introduction was no Ministerial political Church which is false as we undertake to prove when ever our opposites give their reasons to the contrare But we know the greatest debate will be about the Minor proposition of the first argument to wit that Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the. Prelats and their Curates were setled in Christs 〈◊〉 as Pastors and flocks in the just possession actual exercise of all ordinances of divine appointment This for mater of fact is beyond all denial for the Churches of Christ in Scotland before and at the Prelates late entry among us in the Year 1662. were for the generality of the furnished with Pastors and in the possession of all ordinances The debate then will run upon the jus of that constitution that was existent and in being at the Prelats introduction against which there is nothing that can with any colour of reason be objected but one of these three Obj. 1. Prelacy was wanting in that constitution which it should have had Ans 1. To the validity of this objection it must first be made out that Prelacy as it is established by law and in use and exercise among us at this day is of divine right or an office institute in the word of God which is not yet done and for any thing we have yet seen never will Let our adversaries in this great debait consider the reasons and exceptions we have given in against iâ— and answer them yea we undertake to prove that it is not only without but against the word of God 2 We ask at the Patrons of Prelacy whether they judge it essential to the constitution of the Ministerial political Church If they judge it essential doth it not necessarily follow that all the Reformed Churches of France Holland c. are no ministerial Political Churches and that all ordinances dispensed in them are Nullities yea that the Churches of the vallyes of Piemont called the Albigenses which by all historians have their original deduced from the Apostles were not such seing 〈◊〉 the confession of all they never had Prelacy from their begining of Christianity to this day which is contrare to
is there not here a reciprocal subordination and superiority of persons with a coordination of powers as is hinted above We plead no more for the Ministers of the Gospel and the Government of the Church commited to them We grant a great difference in other respects betwixt the Magistrat and Ministers they act as meer servants without all dominion in them He with dominion and Magistratical authority over the persons of Ministers yet for all this the powers are coordinat and in their exercise not directly subject to one another 2. These powers their exercise and respective objects becoming reciprocally the object of one another as the Ministry and its objects being one part of the Magistrats power the Magistrat and the objects of his power being likewise a part of the object about which Ministers exercise their power under different formalities and specifications there arises or results not only a sweet harmony and a mutual subserviency to one another in advancing of their respective ends but likewise an indirect subordination to one another in the exercise of their powers without any dependance of these powers upon one another But this subordination is only of the persons and not of the powers which by being the mutual objects of one anothers powers does not subject the power and its exercise but only the persons for any thing or power becoming the object of another does not subordinat it to that power the Word Ordinances c. are not by being the object either of the Ministerial or the Magistratical power subordinated or subject thereto so that the Ministerial power its exercise and the maters about which it converses are not by being the object of the Magistrats power subordinated to it This breaks the force of our adversaries Argument which lyes mainly in this Obj. 6. It is only this sort of Supremacy and subordination that the act of restitution does mean Ans It is not so as is clear from the words and frame of the acts for it is the Church assemblies their proper maters their constitution the intrinsick obligation of their conclusions that are subordinated to the Magistrat so that all is nothing without him Obj. 7. All Divines even the Presbyterians and independents in the Church of England grant the Magistrat to be Supream in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical none of them scruple to take the oath of Supremacy as it is established by law in that Kingdom Ans All Divines do not grant this as is to be seen in the writings of many and for any thing we know it is not yeelded by the Presbyterian and Independants in the sense controverted among us neither can it seing it quyt overthrows all Church Government in its distinction from and independency on the civil Government of the Magistrat which is contrare to the known principles both of Presbyterians and Independants and if the Prelats themselves durst speak their minde conforme to their owne principles they would not in this differ from us as Thorndike more free and engenuous then the rest of his party does declame and cry out against the oath of Supremacy as the great crying sin of the Church of England but to an excesse would assert all and much more then we do in this mater were it not for fear of offending the Magistrat on whom now they wholly depend and whose Creaturs they only areâ— which hath in our times reconciled the Prelatical and Erastian principles at least in appearance that are most contrare to and distant from one another yea more then theirs and ours And although the Presbyterians and Independants in the Church of England do take the oath of Supremacy yet it is with such explications allowed assented to by the Magistrat that give it a sound sense which was stumbled and scrupled at both in Queen Elizabeth and King James times till its sense was explicat and allowed as is to be seen in the instructions given to justices of the peace by Queen Elizabeth for administrating the said oath Bishop Ushers explanation of it approven by King James In which sense it is understood taken to this day among them But to understand this mater aright and to avoid the labyrinth of generalities ambiguities with which some divines perplex intricat it it would be considered 1. That there is a two fold proper supremacy one civil and another Ecclesiastical about Church power meetings and maters 2 There are two Kinds of Causes of those they call Ecclesiastical some that are only extrinsically such but in their nature immediat ends and use civil that for their more remote ends and respects to things truely and properly sacred are called Ecclesiastical as lawes made for the Church her concerns outward liberty and peace external rewards and punishments c. Againe some causes Ecclesiastical are intrinsically and formally such as who shall preach the Gospel be invested with the Ministery or who shall be deposed from it who shall be rebuked admonished and excommunicated or received and admitted into the Church c. 3 The terme CAUSES is not here to be understood in a physical but moral and juridical sense that is for questions to be decided by those who are impowered either by God or men to this work 4 Causes or questions as they are the object of power its exercise are either proper and immediat or els improper and remote Hence we say 1. That the Magistrat is Supream Governour in all things or causes properly civil relating to causes and persons Ecclesiastical the judicial cognition and definitive judgment of these belong to him and not to the Church in this sense we admit the oath of Supremacy declared ourselves willing to take it which was refused us 2 That the Magistrat is not the supreme Governour in Causes and over persons formally Ecclesiastical This we assert belongs to Christ Jesus only and not to the Magistrat as hath been proven above This is the supremacy we deny to the Magistrat and for which we have declined to take the oath anent it that is now established law being perswaded for the reasons formerly given that this is the supremacy granted by law and understood in this oath But3 That causes and persons formally Ecclesiastical are not the proper and immediat object of the Magistrats power but only improper and remote and the reason is becaus in the execution of Christs law given to the Church the judicial cognition and definitive judgment about these belongs not to the Magistrat but to the Ministers of the word as for instance it is not the Magistrats part to cognosce and determine who is to be received into the Church and who not this is proper to the Ministers of the Gospel and so of other causes and questions of the like nature Obj. Then the Magistrat in protecting countenancing and furthering of the Churches acts and sentences by the sword must be a blinde executer of them Ans This must be said
the Godly of the Presbyterian perswasion were exceedingly more numerous then the other 2 The difference betwixt them is very small which may be incident to persones truly Godly and consistent with their grouth and exercise of godliness and if there were a healing condescending temper might be healed and removed their difference lying mainly in the authoritative subordination of Church judicatories â—â—d conâ—stitution of Churches as to the qualities and engadgments of their constituent members which when their one ness in all other things about government and their concessions to one another in the little they differ about is considered might be quickly accomodated and taken up But it is other wayes with prelacy in its constitution and exercise with us which in its effects attendants and the basis it is setled upon is found to be such a corruption in the government of the Church and inlett to others in Doctrine and Worship that it becomes truely hateful to all the Godly that give themselves up to the conduct and light of the Scripture and make them their rule in the exercises of religion and godliness far be it from us to think or say that there is none of the prelatical gang truely godly or pious We know there hath been and do beleeve there are some such among them but O how few and how much have these few been looked upon and persecuted by the rest with an evil or jealous eye so as they have been judged more ours then theirs we have not forgot the distinction that on this head was made in former times among the Bishops themselves and how they were distinguished into Puritan and Court Bishops Will not one of these two follow either that the generality of the Godly whom Christians walking according to the rule of the word must esteeme to be such are under a strong delusion in their opinions about and opposition to Prelacy Orâ—els which is most likely for the reason formerly given that Prelacy savours not of godliness but in its native tendency is an enemy to it which sayes it cannot be of God but for trial and correction 5. As the maine and chief qualification the prelats require in their intrants into the ministery and in the people they admit to ordinances is submission to and owning of theâ— conforme to the present law how insâ—fficient and scandalous soever they be which is overlooked and dispensed with in them so their bitter opposition to and uncessant persecution of pious able and faithful ministers that comply not with prelacy declares to all that it is not the good of the Church that consists in true knowledge and godlines they seek but the extending and establishing of their tyrranous dominion over all by ministers and professors submiting thereto without gainsaying of their impositions and commands How contrare in this is their way to the rules given in the word for calling ordaining of ministers 1 Tim. 3 1 2 c. Tit. 1 5 6 c. and the practise of the Apostle Paul Phil. 1 15. who rejoyced Vers 18. that Christ was preached altho out of envy and opposition to him Can that course be of God which must be supported by such wayes and means that crosse the directions and rules of the word anent Ministers and disappoints the ends of the Gospel and Ministery Beleeve this who will we cannot SECT II. What moved Ministers to submit to the act of Glasgow some remarks upon the acts against conventicles and such as refuse to depone against delinquents IT Hath been often Objected to us both by friends and enemies why did Ministers and Congregatitions obey so quickly that act of the Councel at Glasgow in leaving and deserting of one another seing by vertue of their divine mutual relation to one another as pastors and flocks they were bound to cleave together in performing and doing of all mutual duties which by divine precepts and engadgments they were bound to observe Ans As we will not altogether justify our cariage in that and several other particulars in our way thorow these sad times being willing to take with and humble our souls for all our imperfections and failings that shall be discovered to us by any so there were some things in the circumstanâ—â—at case that may plead for us and alleviat the offence taken at our too general practice in that matter As. 1. The suddenness of that act which allowed very little or no time for deliberation and coming to any solide resolution in a matter of such weight and un usuall practice anent which we had so few precedents in former times All know how puzling surprisals use to be and if there be not a present divine hand to guide and support under the power of temptation with which surprisals are ordinarly attended all are in hazard thorow the byasse of corruption to miscary and in their resolutions to turne to the wrong side Ministers and Professors are men of the same corruptions and passions with others and whatever obligations be on them for truth and righteousness and the leading of others in the same Yet throw darkâ—ness the influence of corrupt affections and tempâ—tations concurring therewith to which they are obnoxious as much if not more then others they are ready to slip in which for the gospels sake they should be pitied and prayed for 2. It had no little influence upon us in determining our resolution to this that our party in our nighbouring Churches in England and Ireland upon the emission of an act of Parliament disenabling all Ministers that did not conforme to Prelacy for the exercise of their Ministry had quit their charges and removed themselves to other parts not thinking it safe to themselves their people the interests of religion as it then stood to justle with Authority in continuing their Ministery with and among the people contrare to the new lawes made against them while we confidered this leading example with the reasons moveing them to it we thought our selves as much pressed therewith as they And no doubt if we had followed the contrare course our Loyalty had been sadly reproached and their practise made use of to aggravat our disloyal disposition with which we had been often branded although faisly to a great hight of contempt which had we grant too much weight with us 3. The maine designe we had under consideration at that time that did most exercise our thoughts and take them up was how we might be preserved from the grand corruption Prelacy that did then enter into the Church many questions in order to iâ— were debated among us for our mutual strengthening against the assaults of our common adversaries which we in rational fore sight did apprehend would come upon us never dreaming of this course that was followed with us which with one stroke cut the Gordian knots of many difficulties with which we had often grapled in our exercises and debars In this unexpected course of providence clearing our way under many