〈◊〉 fulness of prelacy to the well but not to the being of the political Ministerial Church which they grant â—ay be such without it as most of the former opinion â—â—â—ld 3. Others that lean not to Scripture for the 〈◊〉 of prelacy in the Church found it upon Ecclesiaâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—stitutioâ—s canons customes which they take to be the Interpreters of Scripture in this debate as Dounhame and others with him that make most use of antiquity 4. Others more moderat pious and more learned then the rest do so clip its wings that they bring it to a meer constant presidency in the meetings of presbyters for government making it a pure non-entity as to what is established by law amongst us and for which they bring no Scripture of which judgment was that godly and learned Bishop Usher who for knowledge in all the controversies of the Church especially in Antiquity was Nemini secundus 5. Some others argue for it as a matâ—er of indifferency that may be received or rejected as Churches and states see it fits their interests asserting that all its authority and goodness depends upon and flowes from the power that brings it in thus Stillingfleet 6. Some of that party have fallen on a new method for justifying its divine right being straitened as it seems with our arguments and the weakness of their owne alleadging that Presbyters were not institute in Scripturâ—-times by the Apostles that all Ministers mentioned in the Scriptures were Bishops in the sense controverted as Doctor Hammond but his evidence from Scripture and antiquity is so dimme that for any thing we know he hath gained few or none to follow him in this 7 These of the court party place all its goodness in the authority lawes establishing it granting it signifies nothing antecedently to these 8. If we shall consider prelacy and view it in its several parts as it is by law constitute and setled amongst us and bring them to the test and rule of the word of God that we may give judgment of them according to it how liteâ—â— of prelacy will be found to be of divine right 〈…〉 the confession of our adversaries of all that have appeared on the feild for its defence there is none that ever pleaded scriptural institutions precepts and instances for the Lordly titles eminencies and wordly dignities of the Prelats that are now annexed to their office nor yet for their civil places and power in the State nor for their several orders and degrees as Primats Metropolitans Archbishops c Or for the like among their dependents in their numerous and various distinctions of degrees of superiorities and subordinations as Vicars Chancelors Deans Arch deacons Subdeans Deacons Parsons c. whoever hitatherto did put pen to paper and contended for the divine right of prelacy never opened a mouth to plead either Scripture or antiquity for thesâ— except Doctor Hammond who argues for Archbishops and what is prelacy in its constitution amongst us without them The only thing debated betwixt us and our Antagonists anent it is the superiority of one Pastor over other Pastors and their respective congregations to the probation of which from scripture and pure Antiquity there are two things that must of necessity be made out from these first the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and secondly Diocesan Churches made up of several â—esseâ— Churches and their respective Pastores and Officers in these does the essential difference lye in their owne confession betwixt Bishops Presbyters or ordinare Pastores none of which two hath been proven from scripture and antiquity And if that which differences prelats from other Pastores of the Church be â—or made to appear from scripture how will their office 〈◊〉 of divine right and how can it be expected from 〈◊〉 â—ho are under such strait divine engadgments against it that we should comply therewith and submit to the lawes injoining conformity thereto We complaine of the subdolous and uning enuous way of our opposites in this debate who always keep in generals and never condescend on the particular differences betwixt Prelates and Ordinate Pastores nor undertake to prove these and the truth is they cannot for they are forced to confesse that it is clear from antiquity that Presbyters have ordained sometimes in conjunction with Bishops and sometimes without them And for diocesan Churches with one fixed pastor over-feeing other Pastores and their flocks we cannot meet with the least probable evidence from scripture and pure antiquity we find no argument from our adversaries concluding this It is empty arguing to say there were Apostles there were Priests and Highpriests in the Old Testament there were seven Angels in the seven Churches of Asia therefore there must be Bishops now If they will from scripture make out the difference now assigned betwixt Prelats Presbveers in these instances of the Apostles Priests and Angels we shall yeeld the cause Let none therefore blame us in holding to this as a necessare consequence of our Antagonists succumbing in the probation of these things that a parity among the Ministers of the Gospel in point of power or office is of divine right for if in the institution of the Ministery there be alike power given to all called thereto there can be no superiority of one above another by divine right 9. It is a question much debated among the Popish school men and in which they are not agreed to this day whâ—â—ther their Prelacy be an order or office distinct from that of Presbyters or only a different degree of the same 〈◊〉 with Presbyters including no power formally distinct from theirs which last opinion asserts that all power acclaimed by the prelats is formally in Presbyters so that by office they are empowered to and may doe all that the prelats pretend to How hotly and stifly was this question tossed the Councel of Trent betwixt the Italian Gallican and Spanish divines which for this cause received no decision in this Councel but was left undetermined as before As is to be seen from the History of the said Councel 10. If any will consider our adversaries arguments for prelacy and compare them with the arguments of Papists especially Bellarmins for the Papacy they shall finde that they plead as strongly for the Pope or an Universal Bishop to the Catholick Church as for the Prelat or Bishop now controverted betwixt us as wil be made appear by a particular condescension if our intended brevity would suffer it We referre such as question this to the arguments of both and upon an impartial collation of the same we nothing doubt but it will be manifest Doth not the much courted and endeavoured reconciliation with Rome by the prelatical party in former and later times with their concessions to them for making way to this agreement speak this with full evidence As their denying the Pope to be the Antichrist their granting a primacy to him over the Catholick Church their purgeing
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 Romane Church of Idolatry and superstition their asserting the difference betwixt Papists and us in doctrine worship and government not to be fundamental nor on their part damnable c. All which discover to the world the native tendency of prelacy and what it will if 〈◊〉 â—â—nue ultimatly resolve into 11. Do not the opinions of prelatists their practises the ways taken for bringing in and establishing of Prelacy among us reflect upon and condemne all the reformed Churches and their divines except Scultetus who in their confessions treatises reformations conforme thereto disclame prelacy as no office of divine appointment As will be evident to any that peruse them We know there was a Pamphlet emitted in the beginning of prelacyes last introduction that undertakes to prove the contrare but it is so destitute of all evidence of truth that we wonder exceedingly at the impudence affrontedness of the author in alleadging of Calvine Beza Bucer c. for prelacy who in their practise and writings have argued and debated against it Did not this Author know that their writings are extant and others as much versed therein as himself But the unjust know no shame 12. As prelacy or prelatical government in its constitution and exercise is a compound of additions to the Word of God which for want of its authority we reject so presbytery or presbyterian government in the confession of our Opposites is in all its parts of divine institution or right which we offer to make out from scripture and the concessions of our Antagonists who first yeeld all our Church Officâ—rs except Ruling elders to be of divine appointment Doctor Hammond only excepted granting that presbyters or ordinare Pastores and Deacons to be institute by the Apostles and alwayes used in the Church to this day they likewise grant the power of ordination and jurisdiction in Presbyters till of laâ—â— As also the meetings of Pastores lesser and greater for government and discipline and all the particularities of power anent these asserted by and formerly exerâ—â—â—â—â— among us We think strange of Stillingfleet in denying of Presbytery to be of Divine institution who yeelds all we seek for if all the former be of Scriptural institution and practise must it not be of divine right even as to its forme We cannot for bear to declare our resentments to the world of the high indignities done to our Royal and great Master Christ Jesus and his blessed word the holy Scripture in that 1. The forme of the government of his house is asserted to be mutable at the pleasure of men and made capable of any forme they please to assigne to the same Was it ever heard in the world that the forme of any government was taken from the Officers thereof and not from the Supream head in whom the Legislative power is lodged All that ever treated of governments and spoke to their different forms did always found their forms on the head and not on the Officers of it Is not Christ Jesus the Supream and only Head of the Church by divine appointment Are not ordinare Pastores or Presbyters found institute in the word with all the parts of their power that we afterwards grant to them c Will it not then necessarily follow that the forme is of divine right both in the head and officers which is truely Monarchicall and not alterable at the will of any 2. For making way to this the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripturs as to matters of obedience and practice in the Church is denied and thereby the fundation of the Protestant Religion is shaken How inconsistent is this with their granting the perfection of the Scripturs in maters of faith For if all maters of obeâ—â—â—â—â—â— be first and primarily Maters of faith must 〈◊〉 they be perfect in these also How our Oppoâ—its will defend our arguments for the perfection of the Scripturs in matters of faith and manners against the Papists who in this speak more consequentially then the Prelatists and maintaine the former affertion is unintelligible to us For our arguments plead as much and as strongly for their perfection in the one as in the other But must it not be a desperat cause that needs such a prop to support it 13. In the last place We humbly offer the following particulars to be considered by all nothing doubting that when they are duely and seriously weighted it will soone appear that our exceptions against Prelacy are not light and groundless As 1. There is no good to the Church and immortal souls attainable by Prelacy that may not be win at without it It is a sure truth that every ordinance of Divine institution hath it's proper good to the Church in order to which as it's end it was appointed by Christ which is not easily reachable by other ordinances As will appear to any on a particular condescension for as there is nothing defective in divine institutions so there is nothing redundant and superfluous Now we desire to know what is that good to the Church and immortal souls that cannot be obtained without Prelacy let our Antagonists give instances If they think that ordination and jurisdiction is the good that the Church hath by prelacy we offer to prove from Scripture and antiquity as hath been done before us without a reply yea and granted by many of them that Presbyters have the power of ordination and jurisdiction and the truth is it was never questioned by any but yeelded by all till of late for we have not only instances in Scripture and antiquity for Presbyters exercising ordination and jurisdiction but the reason that all gave for it was that the ministery conferred by ordination consisting of the power of order and jurisdiction as it 's integral constituent parts persons ordained receive the power of both If this be a truth why may not the Church have these by Presbyters as much to her advantage and benefite as by Prelats But son e say there can be no unity or peace in the Church without Prelacy The contrare is evident from the Churches experience in former later times for as the Church was never more rent and filled with contentions and schisms then under by Prelates of which there are innumerable instances in history so there hath been much flourishing unity and peace under Presbyters in Churches that wanted Prelats as is to be seen in the present case of the reformed Churches and will be evident to any that is acquainted with and seen in the records of the Church what unity peace hath the Churches of Britan and Ireland beyond other reformed Churches Yea is there not more of these among them then is with us at this day But what sayes unity and peace in the Church if they have not truth and righteousness for their cement and foundation which are seldome the attendents of Prelacy But some place the good of Prelacy in the oversight and inspection it takes of Ministers
our Lawes we offer the following considerations to all which we hope will to the unbyassed not only alleviat but justify our non-appearance 1. Beside what the law of nature hath provided and teaches all men anent self preservation we suppose it will not be denyed but granted to us by all that if many of the precepts and examples we have in the word of God do allow flight to Ministers and Christians from the unjust violence and oppression of Rulers when it is within their power to decline it then our non-apperance before the Councel wil not necessarily inferre a contempt of their authority or any true disloyaltie and disobedience to them Otherwise Christ Jesus our blessed head his Apostles and others will be found as chargeable with this crime as we from which all Christians do free them While we think on these precepts and examples of Christ his Apostles and Christians who lived in Scripture times we cannot avoid these two conclusions which in despite of all contradiction do make out the former inference as 1. That passive obedience to the unrighteous decrees and punishments of Rulers is as undue as active obedience to their unjust commands injustice in sentences and punishments binds no more to submission to these then unrighteousnes in commands â—yes to obedience where the infliction of such punishments is evitable for Rulers are not enabled by their authority to injustice more in the one then they are in the other and consequently there can be no obligation on their subjects from their authoritie to give themselves up to their unjust punishments more then to yeeld obedience to their iniquous commands if it were not so Christ and his Apostles sinned in not giving this obedience which is most absurd Obj 1. But this is contrarie to the doctrine of many Protestants who teach that passive obedience is due and should be given where active obedience is not Ans 1. We know of no Protestants that teach so except those who were prosy lited into court parasites it was neither the doctrine nor practice of most Protestants as is clear from their writings and History 2 We desire to know of them that thinke otherwise what this allowed flight is If it be not a removing of ourselves when the circumstances of cases permit from the decrees and sentences of Rulers appointing us to unjust punishments which is nothing but a denying of passive obedience to such sentences Who can evite this Some there are who grant this in sentences that reach the life but not in sentences that only touch the body and estate as imprisonments fines exile c. But give not any just instances or sound reason for what they assert Concl. 2. Hence also we gather from the foresaid precepts and examples that non-submission to unjust sentences when within our power is not inconsistent with that respect esteem love honour and obedience which by vertue of Gods commands we are bound to give to Rulers and consequently is no contempt of their authority nor any true disloyalty els Christ in allowing himself and his Apostles in practising this flight had been contemners of authoritie and disloyal to it which all Christians assert to be false Hence it is evident and will be so to the unprejudged that if our Opposites fasten not this charge on the mater they will never be able to do it from our non-appearance simply and abstractedly considered Obj. 2. Our Rulers summonds being properly their commands to us for our appearance before them which is lawful and in its self just we were bound to have appeared both on the account of their authority and the thing commanded Ans This being the objection of greatest seeming strength and most used to our reproach we shall consider it a little and 1. Waveing the debate about the nature of summonds and leaving their native import use and consequences to Lawyers We assert that when the commands of Superiors altho lawful in their immediat object or matter are in their stated designe so connected with irreligion injustice oppression and unrighteousnes that they become the engines and means of oppression and violence or of any thing truely sinful in its self we say such commands participat of the nature of their ends and become unjust as for instance when Rulers in order to oppression and persecution command any subject to witness his knowledge of the Orthodox opinions and practises of such and such persons the subject in this case ought not to obey such commands which our of this case and the like that are abstract from such sinful ends he not only may but ought to obey or if a master or father should require his servant or son to bring to him such a woman to such a place they knowing it is for commiting of uncleannes with her they should not obey which when without respect to this wicked end they are bound to do If this were not a truth the officers and souldiers that apprehended Christ and Crucified him were innocent and blamlesse which all grant to be false for it was the injustice of the ends of their lawful Rulers commands in this thing that made their obedience to them undue and unjust so that they were truely culpable and guilty of Christs blood as well as their Rulers 2. Supposeing but not granting the summones to be good just in themselves yet it is a Maxime agreed to by all Divines that where two things morally good doe tâ—yst in Christians practice the one of one or two degrees of goodnes the other of three or foure that the last should be chosen and preferred to the first but so it fell out to be in our case To our thoughts on this matter it was beyond question that our non-appearance at these times to which we were cited was a greater good supponing the other to be good which we do not yeeld both to the Magistrat our selves and others then our appearance could have been for thâ—reby the Magistrat was withheld from unjust oppression he should have been guilty of the Gospel preserved with the people in its purity much suffering to others prevented c. while we had no good to expect from our appearance but a meer act of obedience 3. That non-obedience in some cases and things to the commands of Rulers is no true disobedience as 1. In things without the Magistrats line and reach altho the things commanded be just and good in themselves suppone the Magistrat should command a person unordained to preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments c. this being beyond the Magistrats line it were no disobedience in any subject not to obey such commands 2. In things contraire to mercy and justice that one Subject oweth to another if the Magistrat command either the not doing of these or the doing of the contrare not obeying here is no disobedience The truth is if the mater commanded be not just and antecedent to the Magistrats commands not necessare not obeying is no
it be one with the same why may not Presbyters consecrat and if they may ordaine as we undertake to make out from Scripture and Antiquitie what necessitie was there for going to England for it seing it might have been done by the Presbyters of this Church If consecration differ from ordination sure it is a humane custome and invention for which we have nothing in the Scriptures and pure Antiquity that only speaks of ordination the only way in which all Pastors entered into the pastoral office 3. The truth is as a Church Ministerial and politick constitute according to the Word of God with all officers of divine appointment hath the full power of the keys of the kingdome of God so there is no sort of officer necessare by divine institution to her edification but she is enabled to furnish her self with such without a necessitie of seeking to other Churches for them and if it be so the Presbyters of this Chruch being her representatives their consent should have been had Although we had no just exception against the office of the Prolates as it is constitute and declared by law as we have but their violent intrusion in this Church it puts a sufficient bar on our subjection to them so that we may not yea cannot owne them as the lawful pastors of this Church Obj. 3. The Magistrat consented to and procured their consecration Ans If any will make it appear that the Magistrat is the Church as Erastus does insolently assert without all probation yea a member of it as such or hath the power of mission we shall yeeld the cause and quietly submit but when we search into the Scripture we find the Magistrat as a Professor of Christianity a member of the Church without all Church power â—et be to be the fountaine of it and subjected as such to the care and oversight of Church Officers in the exercise of their ministerial authority and power We grant it is his part to put the Ministers of the Church when negligent in furnishing of her with officers to their duty anent it but not to thrust in officers upon her of himself without her consent Obj. 4. But the Curats have entered by the Church Ans 1. This we deny the contrare is clear from constant practice for the Curats come in upon congregations only by the Bishop and Patron who are not the Church nor have any power from her for what they do in this all their right and power is founded upon and derived from the supremacy and acts of Parliament and not from the Church in which the Bishop acts as the Kings delegat and substitute only impowered thereto by his law so that the Curats having and deriving all their power from the Prelates cannot have the same from the Church none gives what he hath not But. 2. The prelates not being the lawful governing Church any that enter congregations by them cannot be said to enter by the Church no more then if a Minister should enter into a congregation of this Church by a Minister or Ministers of the Church of France or Holland without the Ministers of this Church can be said to enter by the Church here for the Ministers of other Churches are not the governing Church of this Church The antecedent is to us clear for as the Prelates have entered without the Church so the lawful Ministerial ruling Church although scattered and persecuted is yet existent and in being who by the unjust and violent intrusion of others have not lost their right of ruleing this Church but in point of right and obligation do continue to be her lawful pastours for violence persecution and intrusion do not dissolve the relation betwixt the Church and her Pastours either general or particular there being nothing in our case that can justly do it other wayes it should be in the power of the Magistrat to undo and destroy the political Ministerial Church both formally and effectively which is abâ—ord We ask at any who think persecution and intrusion do in our case annul the pastoral relation betwixt Ministers and Churches whether the Magistrats violent ejecting of Ministers and puting of Mahumâ—tan or Popish Priests in their roomes will discharge Ministers and Congregations of their obligations to one another if they think not then how can these untye their obligations in our case We ask a reason If they judge persecution and intrusion by the Magistrat in â—his case to have this effect then it will inevitably follow that the Magistrat can destroy divine commands flowing there from contrare to the practice of divine relations obligations to the obedience of the Church in the primitive times who notwithstanding of the Magistrats Edicts threatnings much actual violence performed the mutual duties of pastours and flocks Arg. 2. All power of the Prelates and their creaturs in the Church is by law fountained in and derived from the Magistrat and in its exercise subordinated to him as is evident from the act of restitution Parl. Carol. 2. 1. Ses 2. Act. 1. which derivation and subordination they owne and homologat by their compliance with what the law does require in order to it therefore such we cannot we may noâ— owne receive and subject to as our ministers under seing they acknowledge subject themselves in their ministery to another head then Christ Jesus which by law is set in and over this Church That the force of this Argument may be more perspicuous and clear we shall put it into forme thus Those that receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the ministers of Christ in his Church But the Prelats and their Curats do receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus therefore they ought not to be received and subjected to as the ministers of Christ in his Church We suppose the first proposition will not be denyed all the debate will be in the Second Which we prove thus These officers in the Church professing themselves such that derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church beside Christ doe derive their power from and are subornat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus But so it is that the Prelates and their creaturs do derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church beside Christ therefore the Prelates and their Curates do derive their power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ The major proposition is evident for whoever hath a supream Architectonick power in and over the Church must be an head to the same and the fountaine of all Church power it is a repugnancy to be supream have an Architectonick power
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
of the times in which they live as for instance when heresies are abounding and Professors taken with the infection of that leaven he may put them on the preaching of doctrines not apposite to the present case and discharge them from medling with doctrines contrare to the present errours as our Magistrats have done anent some doctrines in these times he may likewise forbid them preaching against or censuring of these sinnes that are reigning in the place and time in obeying of which Ministers shall cross the commands of Christ to them in his word and bring themselves under the guilt of the blood of soules If Churches and Ministers be not in the commands precepts and institutions of God exeemed from the power and impositions of men what a sad case will they be in 4. The Church had and exercised this power from Scripture times in all ages till within these hundereth years We grant the Magistrat exercised a power about or anent the Church but never came this length when they did reforme gave any redress of corruptions creept into the administrations of holy things they did it by the Church whom in her officers they did convocat and require to consider the mater and to make constitutions about it but never essayed to do it immediatly and by themselves as Church Histories make evident beyond all contradiction 5. It is the natural right of all moral power to order and dispose its owne exercise in and about the Maters that are proper to it as might be made to appear by instances of these of the Parental Marital Powers c and the reason is partly because the objects and other circumstances are so many and various that it is not possible to prescribe rules comprehensive of all particular emergents relating to their excercise but must be lest to the prudence of those invested with them to do therein as they see fit and expedient in the cases that are before them and partly such are fitest as having more knowledge and experience about such things that belongs to their power then any others We see this yeelded to others and why then not to Ministers who may in rational judgment be presumed to have more solide knowledge and experience in and about the maters of God as any 6. All divines except those called Erastian who are but of a late edition in the Church yea the Prelatical ones doe grant a diatactik power to the Ministery of the Gospel about the worship and government of the Church and the exercise of their Ministry relating thereto and till ERASTUS the phistrian arose it was beyond controversie among all Church writers whether Historical or Polemick even those who contended for the Magistrats power against the usurpations of the Popes as is to be seen in their Tractats from which we might adduce citations not a few but fearing they wold prove too tedions if insetted here We forbeare Assertion 4. Albeit we grant the power of confinement be proper to the Magistrat and not at all to the Church for to him only is the sword gâ—â—ven to be used against evil doers yet in the complex case which we had before us we durst not approve of the indâ—lgence with such a clause seing we had not as may be clear to any from what is said above any other thing in this mater to ingadge us to an acceptance thereof For the act of indulgence confines the Ministers of the whole party if it had been but some few that this confinment reach'd we would not have said much to it although the sentence had been unjust But while we considered the present universal necessity of the Church and the obligations on us to use our Ministery for answering the same we could not with quietness to our consciences justifie nor allow of it as a favour with such a restraint on our Ministry If the confinment had only touched our persons and personal concerns we had with all patience and submission yeelded thereto but a restraint being put on the exercise of our Ministery in this necessitous condition of the Church when Papists Quakers and other subverters of truth and godliness do multiply and abound without all crub we could not close with this indulgence which by vertue of the confinment puts us out of capacitie for affording that relief to the Church and immortal souls which our office binds us to 2. As there are many duties and parts of our Ministerial function which we cannot performe and exercise but in a conjunction with others so this indulgence cuts off from all accesse to the same and leaves us in much worse case then we were in before Have we not the Gospel of Christ to maintaine against its present adversaries Are we not bound to propagat the same in the present and succeeding ages Do not scandals of all forts abound to the overthrow of truth and piety and does not the care and burdine of seeing to and providing against the evil that in these times threaten the ruine of the Church lye upon us in our ministerial capacity And we cannot singly and apart doe what is necessare in this case but in a conjunction with one another no doubt our subjecting to this confinment would render us accessory to and bring us under the guilt of all these evil and their consequences to this and the following generations Posterity no question should have all cause to curse and charge their blood upon us which is trembling to think upon 3. If we may guesse at and be ascertained of the ends and designes of mens actions by the native effects and consequences of them it is to us apparent and beyond denyal that the project and intention of this contrivance was quietly to ruine and bury our cause seing by this confinment and other things in this indulgence all endeavours towards the succession of a faithful ministery are cut off and we brought unto an immediat dependance on the Magistrat in the maters of God and hindered to propagat the truth in opposition to its adversaries in other parts of the land being thus shut up into a litle corner of the same cast by two's three's and fours into congregations where for the most part there is little or no use for us If the Apostles and other Ministers of Christ in Scripture times had been thus dealt with and in policy confined as we are do any think they would have submitted to and obeyed such a confinment which would have frustrated the ends of their office and work and made them guilty of disobedience to their Master from whom they received commands inconsistent with such a sentence And shall we subject and be consentient to a deed that in the designe and effects thereof will infallibly destroy the cause which by all sorts of obligations we are engadged to maintaine and advance to the utmost of our power God forbid We are not ignorant that the confinment with a permission to preach and exercise other parts
of our ministry in the places to which we were to be confined was a piece of policy invented to cover the too visible encroachment on Church power in the first act of Indulgence which was known afterwards to stumble many that the mater might be more smoothed and goe the better down while the designe was the same which was as is said to bring our ministry in subjection to the Magistrat in the maters of God and without noise to obstruct the spreading of the Gospel and to ruine our cause for attaining of which we have not yet seen a more succesful like piece of policy then this of the indulgence Resolveing as bath been said to unfold our hearts and to keep nothing up anent what is truly greivous to and buâ—dens our consciences in the commands and impositions of these times we shall adde other reasons to these which with the former are the grounds of our dissatisfaction with and non-approbation of this indulgence as 1. In the Narrative of the 2. act of indulgence it is declared that this pretended favour is provided for a remedy against the evil of Conventicles by which we understand the assemblies of the Lords people for hearing of the word and partaking of other ordinances from faithful Ministers of the Gospel which the execution of laws made against the same hath not suppressed As this narrative speaks to all the designe of the indulgence so it shews what we are to expect as its consequence if approven by us to which we dar have no accession directly nor indirectly for by our allowance and submission we shall not only prove active in hindering the propagation of the word for the future but also shall consequentially condâ—mne the former practice of the Lords servants and people in preaching and hearing of the word that hath been blessed and made not a little succesful to the advantage of the truth and the benefite of many souls 2. Many by this indulgence were assigned and sent to other congregations then these they had formerly served their Master in before this revolution in the Church As we judge the former relations to particular flocks over which the Holy Ghost and not the State had made them overseers to be yet in force and not dissolved by all the violence used against us so we think our approbation of this indulgence would not only justify the unjust usurpation and violence in casting them out but likwise would have made void the former and yet standing relation to these respective congregations in which we darre have no hand but in the way Christ hath appointed and was formerly used in this Church seing it will no question both strengthen the Magistrat in his unjust encroachments on the Government of the Church and be a practical acknowledgement of him in all he hath done in this mater 3. By one clause in the 2. act of indulgence appeals are allowed and authorized from the indulged to the Prelats Courts which does subject and directly subordinat them to these in the exercise of government and discipline which is known to be contrare to our Covenanted and well grounded principles The truth is we look on this with other particulars in that indulgence as a device framed of purpose for gaining all these ends and intents upon us which by violence hath been formerly designed against us for establishing of Prelacy and Erastianisme 4. As some of the Rules are impracticable so others of them do not a little reflect upon the practises of Christ and his Apostles recorded by the Evangelists who preached in houses and fields If we understand our Christian profession aright we must take ourselves bound by many commands and precepts in the word of God to imitat Christ and his Apostles in their performances of the duties of Religion and righteousness which are of purpose related in the Scripturs for this effect Do we not find from these sacred records Christ and his Apostles preaching in houses and fields as occasions offered never declining to teach and instruct the people in these as the present exigence required although they had the opportunity of and accesse to the Synagogues which is denyed us as to the places allowed for publict worship Do not these practices of Christ and his Apostles say that as preaching in houses and fields is in it self noâ— sinne but lawful except we resolve to make Christ â— transgressour so in the like cases and under the like câ—lls we are bound to do in this as Christ did before us who can get this shuned Amongst the many designes aimed at in this indulgence and in part obtained by it we know the deviding and breaking of our party was a principal one which at first actuated and set on foot this device amongst us but we hope without the fruit our adversaries exspected to have reaped thereby to the advantage of their cause for whatever difference there hath been or yet is amongst us in our practice in relation to the indulgence we are all agreed in the preceeding exceptions against it and if there had been accesse for representing the same to our Rulers our unanimity and concord in these had been more discovered and made known to the world then it is There is no charge with us of our known and professed judgment about the Government of the Church in its true distinction from and independence on the Magistrat as is afterward expressed What ever was our perswasion in this represented to the world in our publick confess on of faith we yet throw the grace of God resolve to cleave to having never seen or heard of any thing in all the times that have gone over our heads to cause us alter our apprehensions of this mater in the least Some who take hold of all occasions to reproach us are pleased to represent some their acceptance of this indulgence as contradictory to and inconsistant with our former professed principles anent Church Government yet any that considers what was shortly hinted at to the Councel at the receiving of this indulgence and what was more largely declared by them to the congregations at their first entry will be sufficiently convinced of our constant adherence to our former principles which by this acceptance is not at all changed It is expected from the lovers of our righteous cause that nothing shall be done by them to ward the furtherance of the evil intents of this indulgence but rather an endeavour to counteract and ineffectuat them that our opposites may have no benefite therefrom to the prejudice of the interests of Christ for which we contend SECT VI. The nature of Church Government as distinct from and independent upon Magistracy explained HAving proceeded thus far and dispatched the first three things we proposed to speak to in the beginning we shall now enter on the last the Supremacy Ecclesiastical that is now by law annexed to the crown established in his majesties person and successours and sensed by law and practice Let