FOR clearing up the state of the Question and making way for the determination the­reof, it will be need­full in the first place to open up a little the terms in which it is conceived. The terms which here are to be explained, we summ them up in these three: First, Prelats and their Curats. Secondly, Hearing or submitting and receiving the ordinances of God from them. Thirdly, Lawfull or not. The I. Belongs to the Subject of the question in obliquo. The II. Is its subject in recto. The III. Is the attribut of the question in recto. To which is added in obliquo, the Lords People in Scotland which term needs no explication. As to the first, we are to inquire what is meant by Prelats.. Secondly what is meant by Curats. As for Prelats first if you beleeve the lyes, dissimulations and prevarications of Prelatists, it [Page 4] will be hard to know what they are: But the shifting and unconstancie of expression in this point, if we will in­quire what they are by divine right, they are just no­thing, no ground at all for them in the Word of God, under what shape soever they introduce themselves; or whatsoever mask they put on for that purpose: Yea, on the contrary, the Word of God doth clearly condemn them. If we inquire, what they are by Jurisdiction,: That is to be seen in the lawes and acts instituting & con­stituting them, we mean acts Civil or Parliamentary; for there is no Ecclesiastick act or canon for them: Yea and more, all our Church Judicatories are yet standing in force against them unrepealed by any Church power whatsoever; yea albeit there were such acts and canons for them, yet that were not enough to make their autho­rity lawful or valid, seeing Christ hes given no such power to the Church, as to make acts of that nature; so that they are not only a meer human creature but which is worse, a meer hvmane and political devyce deryving their whole power and being from the civil power and civil Magistrat, and pretending to make a new species or kynd of officers over the House of God. Thirdly, if we ask for them in their practise, that is not only heard of, but sadly felt and sadly seen. Fourthly, If we ask for them in their patrons and exemplaries, that is the English Prelates whose vile image they are, albeit some­time they intimat some thing to the contrary. In a word, whether we consider their titles and dignities and usur­ped power over the Church, manner of government and way of Church discipline, exercised as it is, both the one and the other (for kynd and quality) they are all one with the Prelats of the Romish Church, as is clearly de­monstrat by Didoclavius. Only with this exception, that the English and ours doe not expresly acknowledge the Pope; but puts the Supreme Magistrat in his place: And as in the Papacy some holds them to be of divine right; others, that all their power is from the Pope, so [Page 5] some of ours mutters for a divine right, others derive from the King: whence either they make him ane Ecclesiastick person as well as a Civil, or else denyes all government of the Church distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat, which clearly dethrones Christ, and gives him no visible King­dome or power or government in his Church: Now this manner of government and power (common to the Po­pish Prelats and ours) is first Lordly forbidden, 1. Pet. 5.3. Secondly, Worldly and political discharged, Math. 20.25, 16, 27. Thirdly, Antichristian and tyrannical over the souls of the Lords People; sett out by that Beast with the seven heads and ten horns, Revel. 13. For as the ten horned Beast holds forth the Pope and his Prelats as false Prophets, and the scarlet whore a vile adulterous Church, Revel. 17. so that first holds forth their Lord­ly, worldly politick, tyrannical, antichristian forme of government; all one with that of our Prelats incon­sistent with, contradictory unto and eversive of the go­vernment instituted by Christ in his Church; which as it is in its own nature spiritual, so (as it is exercised un­der Christ) it is only a ministerial power and declara­tory of his will.

We inquire next what is meant by Curats or Prelats Ministers. If you call them so. These Curats are of three sorts. The first are these who being admitted before the year 1649. have either by word or practise [or both] yeelded up into the Prelats hands that power which they had immediatly from Christ by the Presbyte­ry to govern in the house of God with others; or to send forth new labourers to Christs vineyard, as need re­quires; or to administrat the publick worship in ane im­mediat dependance on him: In a word they have taken the keyes of the House of God, and treacherously given them to the hands of the Antichristian Prelat; and hes quit with their charter from Christ and taken a new charter from the Prelats; all which is evident by their practical submission according to Law.

It is Objected here: That albeit thir Ministers hes gi­ven up their power of ordination or Jurisdiction into the Prelats hands, yet it will be hard to prove that they have given their power of preaching also: And there­fore notwithstanding of what they have done they ought to be heard. Answer: As Christ never appointed, so he does not allow Ministers in his Church having a power of preaching without a power of ordination or Jurisdi­ction; so that our submission unto such for hearing of them would be ane acknowledgment of ane officer in Christs house that is not of his own appointment An­swer II. this upgiving of theirs is a heinous sin, and a signal piece of treachery unto and revolt from their for­merly professed head and Master; for which they de­serve deposition from any office in Christs House, yea excommunication from the same; and therefore the Lords people ought to doe nothing that may seem to approve them in what they have done. Answer III. It seems to be granted here that we may not submit to their Jurisdiction, and yet th [...]y who hear submitts to it. An­swer IV. we cannot see but they have given up their po­wer of preaching into the Prelats hand, as well as their power of Jurisdiction and ordination. For first as they could not have exercised any power of ordination or Jurisdiction without his leave, so neither any power of preaching. II. as now they exercise Jurisdiction in their pretended Presbyteries and Sessions by his license and commission (in doing whereof they are his meer de­legats and substituts) so by that same license and com­mission they preach; also as he authoritatively com­mands and regulats them in the exercise of Iurisdiction, the like the does as to preaching, and all the other parts of publick worship; so that they must preach &c. what he pleases and how he pleases. III. as he may take the exercise of Iurisdiction wholly out of their hands (as he hes already done that of ordination) by substituting of­ficials &c. so (eodem Iure) he may inhibit them all to [Page 7] preach, and command them only to say service; so that indeed I see not where the difference lyes. If it be further said: they may thinke that their sitting does not differr from honest Ministers their sitting with and under the last Prelats. We answer first there is a hudge difference, as from other things, so from this, that these Ministers were not sett down by the Prelats, nor did ever sitt by a commission of delegation from them: But we remit the fuller clearing of this difference to the objectors who are called to have more serious thoughts about it then we are called to have. II. matters of duty or sin does not depend from our knowledge or ignorance, but from the Law of God: its a known rule, ignorantia vin­cibilis non excusat a culpa. Now the II. sorts of Curats are these who being admitted by the respective Presbyteries since the yeir 1649. have further taken collation from the Prelats; which collation, as it hes at least a virtuall re­ordination in the bosome of it (for the act of Parliament lookes upon them as no Ministers without this; and the narrative of the collation does bear that they have been tried and ordained, but does not say by the Presbytrie) so it beares also takeing of the oath of Canonicall obedi­ence to his Lo: whereby they become his sworn vassals and slaves; yea the very collation it selfe without the oath seems to be a right clear acknowledgement of the pretended power of Prelats, and no doubt is devysed for that purpose, to be a mean of their establishment; for by it the Prelat is put in the place of the Presbytery. It is implyed that now he hes the power of triall, and or­dination, consequently unto which only he conferrs the benefice; and this is the only thing which at first is cal­led for at the hands of these Ministers for the establishing of Prelats.

The III. Sort of Curats are these who (besides all thir things) hes received ordination from the Prelats since their entry, and hes thrust themselves upon the Lords people with out their call and consent: These [Page 8] then are the Curats and Prelats about whom the question is; concerning, whom we grant that there may be some futher subdivisions; for it is a greater fault to submitt cordially to the Prelats, or to be active in dryving on their designs, nor it is to submitt out of fear &c. II It is a greater fault to intrude upon the labours of faithful Ministers thrust out, nor it is to intrude upon a vacand congregration: These indeed are heinous aggravations.

But the question is about our submission, by hear­ing, &c unto these who have submitted unto these Pre­lats; which submission of theirs, and their deriving a power from them, is the fundamental guilt; the several wayes of which are exercised in the three members of the forgoing division.

The II. thing proposed to be explained is, concerning hearing of and submitting unto thir Prelats and thir Curats, and the takeing the ordinances off their hands, for unfolding of which, consider first that by the ordi­nances of God, are not only to be understood the Gos­pel ordinances of preaching, but also Sacraments, and all other parts of publick worship, manner of teaching, Government and Discipline; all which hes been in use among us these yeares bygone, which we are bound to maintaine by the Word of God and Solemne Cove­nants; all which, and as many moe, as they shall please to invent▪ our Prelats and Curats pretends a po­wer to administrat. II. as to what concerns hearing we would further consider first what it is weare called to hear; we suppose it is not ane acted Comedy, or a discourse of civil policie, trade or such like; neither a Philosophick lecture in a colledge, but it is somewhat for spiritual edification that we are speaking of; nay it is the publick ordinance of preaching instituted by Christ for the begetting of faith &c. in the hearts of the Lords people. II. consider whom we are to hear.

One authorised by Christ in his appointed way for car­rying his message to us; for upon the matter it may be the [Page 9] word of God, and yet not a message from him, not the Gospel ordinance of preaching, because not delivered by one who hes a valid commission. III. Consider how we are to hear, we are to hear the Gospell ordi­nance of preaching in the faith and expectation of the Lords blessing on his own ordinance, submitting our selves to Christ in the messenger and message; other wa­yes we take the Lords name in vain, seeing this at least is requisit to make that part of worship morally and spi­ritually good: This then is the hearing now in question. IIII. We distinguish between occasional hearing and fixed stated hearing: The question is not, if a man were at his worke where one of these were preaching, if he might stay still nothwithstanding, or hear a word in the by going, his occasion so requireing, or suppose their were no law for Prelats, or no great rumor that there were any of that gang in any Church with in the Land, if a man travelling throw the Countrey about his lawful affaires rested on the Lords day where such a one were without curious inquiry, and by ane inculpable igno­rance, he might hear such a one without sin. But that is not the question. It is concerning fixed and stated hearing to the makeing up of which these things doe concurr▪ first acts and lawes instituting and constituting such and such Church Officers. II- The actual fixing of them by vertue of these lawes and acts in such places. III. They being fixed, takeing upon them to admini­strat all the Ordinances. IV. lawes and acts appoint­ing every one respectively to submitt unto the sett Offi­cers so fixed, and to take the Ordinances off their hands V. Peoples practise in submitting to these acts and lawes, doing that really which is required (tho out­wardly only) and no more is required. Now this sort of hearing is a reall and formall submitting unto the per­sones heard, and ane interpretative (at least) takeing of the ordinance off their hands. Whether they have power or no. And he who submitts to them as to the [Page 10] preaching of the word, may submitt unto them in all other parts of worship or Ordinances, seing there is a like reason for all except there be a particular corruption in such a part of worship that may scarr them. From this it appeares, that it is more pertinent to ask, whe­ther it be lawfull to submitt to the Prelats and the Cu­rats, then to inquire, if it be lawfull to hear them. For first the term, hearing, being more strict extensive, relates only to ane Ordinance viz. to that of preaching. II, the term, submitt, being more intensive, does better ex­press the Nature of the hearing &c, about which the question is, it is not every sort of hearing that is here meant, but that hearing which is of the Gospel Ordi­nance of preaching, and that in a stated way, which hes submission involved in it, as is above declared.

Thirdly we would advert, that when the Law require­ing obedience and submission unto such and such Church Officers and attendance on them at such times, requires a verball express acknowledgement of them whether by word, promise or oath. Then if that be wanting, their submission unto, and acknowledgement of them might possibly be esteemed not to be so full, but when the Law requires only peoples practise, then peoples pra­ctical obedience is enough to evidence their submission unto these Officers, as also their acknowledgement of them, and approbation of their way for why the Law requires no more of the people in their station, for fix­ing of these creatures in their places: The question then is, whether it be lawfull or not to hear, or submitt to the Prelats and their Curats, as is above expressed.

But it is Obiected here, that besides these things above­mentioned to make up fixed stated hearing, it is further requisit, that the party who hears live within the Pa­rish, and that he hear not only now and then, but or­dinarily.

Answer first: It is granted then that the hearing one placed in a Parish by these who lives within the Parish, [Page 11] is fixed stated hearing, as consequently submission, as abovesaid, especially if their hearing be ordinary Ans: II. The question is not so much concerning fixed or stated hearing of them as Church Officers in the nationall Church of Scotland, and fixing them in and over that Church, and this is that which both the Law and pra­ctise aimes at primarily and directly, and at the other but indirectly and consequentially, for it is but a circum­stantiall bussiness to be a member in this or that congre­gation, though never so fixedly. Ans: III, seing all and every one of the Ministers of the Gospel stand in an actuall relation to the whole visible Church and every part therof, and have ane habituall power to exercise all the parts of their office in every part thereof, according as they have a particular call, and seeing our practicall consent to hear, or take any of the ordinances of their hands is a sufficient call, pro hac vice, of that which hic & nunc does actually constitut such a Minister our Minister; he actually and fixedly [pro hac vice] standing between God and us, and actually dispensing Gods Ordinance unto us, his people, although otherwise he were a Minister in America, it followeth I say, that it is all one, whether we looke on them as Ministers, or as our fixed Ministers seeing they cannot but be our fixed Ministers in that act, we mean de facto, non de jure. Ans: IV. We see no difference to be noticed of any worth betwixt hearing of them ordinarily, and hearing of them now and then, for it is the same thing. And certainly if it be lawful to hear them once, it is lawful to hear them ordinarily, and is as reall submission unto them, and obedience to the Law, tho it be not so full ex­tensive; we grant also it hes a more bent influence on their fixing; but majus & minus non mutant speciem.

Objection: If the party hearing shall before his hea­ring give a formall testimony against the Curats entry, his being Minister of that place, &c. that then his hea­ring [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12] cannot be accounted fixed stated hearing, in the sense aforesaid, much less submission unto him as such.

Answer: first That Testimony (if of any availl) must not onely be against his entry, or being Minister of that place, but also against his being esteemed a Minister of the Church of Scotland; seeing that is the thing that the Law aimes at primarily, as is said; and that is the thing also we are primarily sworn against in our solemn league and Covenant. II. this testimony (if any worth) must be as publick, open and frequent, as our practise in our hearing, &c. otherwise it cannot so much as remove scandall. III. the Curats laugh under thumb at this testimony (where it is admitted) and lookes on it only as a device of witt to shun suffering, and are glad that thereby they may get the people hanked in to submitt unto them, everlastingly, as they thinke, and never more, again of this clandestine testimony. IV. if hea­ring &c. be looked upon, esteemed and required as ane approbation of the call and office of Prelats and Cu­rats, and as a token of submission unto them; then it cannot serve the turn here; see Alting. probl. Pract 18. Likewise probl. 9. about being married with Popish Preists, Pag. 304. but this is just our case; the importance of the Lawes, and all other circumstances considered, as appeares from what hes been said concerning stated hea­ring, and will further appear in prosecution of argu­ment. VIII. albeit in our thoughts and expressions we may prescind, distinguish and divide between the duty of hearing &c. and the sinfullness of submitting unto, & approbation of the Curats and Prelats; yet our practise ownes no such precision▪ but does allwayes involve a relation and submission unto both; the meta­physicks in our heads does not influence our practice, neither can a testimony hinder or take off that submission and approbation which the practice off its own nature does involve. VI. if a testimony may take off the sin of submission unto and approbation of the Prelats and [Page 13] Curats in hearing &c. wherefore may not the like testi­mony take of the sin of idolatry in kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Elements of bread and wine; but this it cannot doe, because in that act we are in a stated posture of outward, worship, having the Ele­ments as the immediat object therof standing between God and us: for which see (amongst others) Mr Ruther­fords divine Right of Church Government Cap. 1. quest. 5. The like we say of the other; for in hearing &c. we are in ane outward stated way of worship & in that act we have the Prelat or his Curat standing between God & us, tho not to be worshipped, yet to be practically owned & submitted into, as unto the messenger of the Lord of hosts; which practicall owning and submitting unto, a testimony can [...]o more take off here, nor it can take off idolatry in the other case. From all this it does follow that hearing &c. of the Prelats and their Curats does necessarily involve submission unto them and approbation of them; notwithstanding of any testimony to the contrary; and that is all one to inquire concerning the lawfulness of hearing, &c. and of submission; neither can I see how a testimony of a privat nature can take of that which is the legall and publick intent of the action.

The III. thing to the explained is what is meant by Lawfull: where we would consider, that a thing may be lawfull by the Law of man, and yet not law­full by the Law of God; Because God is greater then man: therefore Christian People, when the commands of men comes out, would allwayes try, if these commands of men be conforme to the revealed will of God or not. The question is to be understood of the latter, not of the former. II [...] we may distinguish here between the reality of a thing and the lawfulness of a thing, or (which is all one) between its essence and is morall goodness; There may be Veritas Metaphy­sica where, there is not Bonitas moralis; a man in a fallen estate is a true man, though not morally good a [Page 14] border marriage is a true marriage for its substance, though not lawfully gone about, Factum valet quod fieri non debuit. Hence it followes, that although Prelats and Curats had the essentials of a Gospell ministry, yet it will not follow, that we may take the ordinances off their hands; for that may be sinfull and unlawfull.

Having explained the terms for clearing up of the state of the question, and being to speak only to these who are really troubled about the present case; before I come to the resolution of the question, I would pre­mise some things that I know they will grant. As first, That our Lord Jesus hes instituted and appointed all the standing officers of his House, for the feeding and ru­ling thereof, Secondly, that these of Christs appoint­ment are Ministers and Elders, who are to govern in a collegiat way, viz. by Presbyteries sessions, Synods & general Assemblies, with a direct immediat, subordi­nation to Christ alone. Thirdly, That the Prelat Bishop is none of Christs creatures, nor set in the Church by God, none of these gifts which Christ ascending on high gave to his Church, but a meer humane creature and political device. Fourthly, That the Civil Magistrat hes no headship over the House of God under Christ the mediatory way, that he is not at all ane officer in the Church the House of God. Fiftly, that there is a govern­ment spiritual, ecclesiastick visible over and in the visible Church in the hands of Church officers, acting under Christ their King, by them he exercises his visible me­diatory kingly power; which government is formally, and in its own nature, distinct from the government civil, and not at all subject to the Civil Magistrat. Sixtly, That the Civil Magistrat, nor yet the ruling Church hes no power from God to institut and appoint any Kynd of Church officers, or a new forme of Church government never appointed by Christ. Sevently, That the Civil Magistrat cannot justly deprive any Gospel Minister either of his office, or the exercise thereof (especially he having [Page 15] committed no crime) neither can loose the relation be­tween pastor and people. Eightly, That the obligation of the National Covenant yet lyes on, notwithstanding of any thing done to the contrary; yea that no person, nor persons whatsoever hes power to loose these obli­gations.

These things being premised, I resolve the question in the negative, thus; That for the Lords People in this Land to hear the Prelats and their Curats in the sense aforesaid, that is to say, to submit to them or the ordinances of God (pre­tended to be in their hands) from them is sinful and un­lawful. The reason inforceing this conclusion, and moving us to determin so, are these: First, That which cooperats to the overturning of ane ordinance of Christ is sinful and unlawful: But the hearing of the Prelats and their Curats, or submitting unto them, coo­perats to the overturning of ane ordinance of Christ: Therefore it is sinful and unlawful. The major is unde­niable; the minor I prove thus: The government of the Church by Pastors, Teachers and ruling Elders in a collegiat way by Presbyteries, &c. with ane immediat dependance upon Christ, is an ordinance of God. But the submitting to Prelats; &c. does clearly cooperat to the overturning of that yea to the thrusting it out of the Church: Therefore, &c. The major is presupposed; To the minor, it may be said; It is not we who thrusts out Christs government, it is the Parliament, Prelats, &c. Answ. The Parliment indeed thrusts it out as Lawmakers, other Magistrats yea & Souldiers as executors of the Law, the Prelats as intruders, & you as obedient Subjects and Church members in your place & callings, willingly wal­king after the commandement; & that is all you can doe, or is called for at your hands; so that your concurring ac­cording to your calling in submitting to the Prelats, &c. officers and ordinances, altogether inconsistent with Christs institution, is a clear cooperating by you to the overturning thereof. But, Secondly, ye will say we [Page 16] are forced to it. First, We doe it against our wills. Secondly, We mynd no such thing in what we doe. Answ, to the first, The will cannot be forced. Second­ly, Ye doe it out of free choyse, and so most willingly; Just as a merchant in a storme at sea casts out his goods to save his life, which deed of his is simply volunta­ry, he choises it as the best in his present strait. So yow, being put to it, either to joine in worship, or to suffer; make choyse of sin before suffering, which deed is so much the more sinful, in that the present strait is a providential call from God unto you for to give a testimony against the present course, which may be done by your refusing to joine and submit, and by your suffe­ring upon that account, when you dare not, nor have not access to give it another way: And it would be considered that the Lord of purpose sends afflictions and persecutions to try his people, whether or no they will adhere to every truth of his, and abstain from every false and corrupt course? And their very standing and abstaining may be a confessing of Christ before men; for they who avow his truth confesseth him, and the con­trare is a reall denying of him before men; and what they may expect that doe so, he tells us in his word. As to the II. we are not so much to looke to what we mynd or purpose, as to what necessarily and natively followes upon what we doe, for the doing of that which is right and acceptable to God, it is requisit, thou pur­pose and desire the thing thou art about; but to thy doing of evil, the deed without the purpose and desire is suf­ficient; Bonum ex integro, &c. and whatever thou pur­pose, yet the adverse party does really purpose the o­verturning and out turning of the Government and offi­cers of Christs institution; and if thou in thy place and calling concurr with them in the Mean, thou must be interpreted to purpose the End also; yea altho thou both wished and prayed that such a thing came never to pass; yet if thou do that which may further its bringing to [Page 17] pass, thou art guilty; much more if thou doe that which [...]s necessary to the bringing about thereof; and it is well [...]nowne that this course could not hold, if every one re­ [...]used to joyne; and thou can only doe for thy selfe. We have been the longer in the answers to these, be­ [...]ause they may be made with equal strength against se­ [...]erall of the following arguments, where also the same [...]nswers may suffice.

Argument: II. That which brings in ane officer in the [...]ouse of God, and a forme of Government which is not [...]f Christs institution, must be a sinfull practise: But [...]e hearing of, submitting unto, and joyning in wor­ [...]ip with and takeing the ordinances off the hands of the [...]relats and their Curats is such. Therefor it is a sinfull [...]ractise. The Maior and Minor are both clear from [...]ese grounds first because Christ hes instituted his own Government and all his own officers himselfe, and hes [...]ot left that to any man, neither will suffer men to doe [...] as they please, as is presupposed. II. It is presup­ [...]osed also that the Prelats are not of Christs institution. II. They require no more of thee, but that thou will [...]ke ordinances off their hands, and lookes upon it as a [...]ompleat submission unto them; neither can thou in [...]y place and calling doe any more (upon the matter) [...]or their setlement; yea perhaps they would be angry, [...] they knew that you thought they needed any more [...]om thee for their settlement to the full, except that: & [...]beit we grant, that countenanceing of them, & heartie [...]osing with them, & with their government, would be [...]seful to their settling, as to the bene esse of it; yet hear­ [...]ng &c. of them is sufficient to the esse of it; neither can [...]e chearfulness or heartiness of closing with them be enjoyned by Law, these being internal acts of the soul.

Object. But thou may say perhaps: Thy hearing of them preach cannot be interpreted a submission to [...]hem, when thou art constrained to it. Answ. First, however [...]hen thou takest Baptism off their hands to thy Chyld [Page 18] its a clear case. II. When thou heares them preach, thou either lookes upon the preaching as Gods ordinance of preaching, or not; and upon the speaker as a sent Minister standing between God & thee, to bring Gods mynd unto thee, or not: If the first its clear thou takes the Ordi­nance off his hand. If the second, Then thou mocks God, and so had better abstain; and however, thy practice is a real, though not a verbal submission.

Arg. 3. That which serves to establish a tyranny in the Church over the souls & consciences of the Lords People must be sinful & unlawful: But the hearing of, & submit­ting, unto the Prelats & their Curats is such. Therefore sinful & unlawful: The major none will deny. The minor D [...] prove thus: That which serves to establish Prelats, serves to establish a tyranny in the Church: But hearing &c. of them and their Curats serves to the establishing of them: Therefor thy hearing of them &c. serves to establish their tyranny. The minor of this is proven in the foregoing ar­gument. The major is clear: Because the Prelats are tyrans. Their tyranny appeares first in that they intrude them­selves upon the Church without any lawful power from Christ the Head thereof. II. The power they claime is not ministerial, which only is of Christs appointment; but a sort of absolute Lordly Dominion over both Mi­nisters and People, which Christ hes expresly forbidden in his Word. III. In spoiling the Lords People of their priviledge purchased by Christ to them; as for example; In obtruding upon them without Scripture, reason or their own consent, Ministers, Canons, Doctrines, modell of Worship and Ceremonies, as they please. IV. In makeing Ministers absolutely de­pend from them, not only as to their Ministrie, but also as to the exercise of all the parts of Worship, and so makeing the Servants of Christ their slaves. They must teach what the Prelats please, and that only; They must worship as they prescryve, they must exer­cise Discipline [if any at all] in ane absolute d [...]pendance on them, they must censure these faults [yea whether [Page 19] faults or no] and these only which he commands, and [...]at way only as he commands; for all which purpo­ [...]e requires ane oath of obedience from them unto [...]selfe, by vertue of which he is constituted Judge [...]wfulness and unlawfullness, expediencie and inexi­ [...]encie of all that he commands, & neither they, nor [...] people may ask a reason of his commands, or so much [...]erce a Judgment of privat discretion about what he [...]mands; he under the name of things lawful and ho­ [...] in that same Oath, brings in a number of things be­ [...]s the Word of God [& therfor contrare to it] inven­ [...]s of men without number, which he from his papal [...]ible Judgment & by his Autocratorick power imposes; [...] both Pastors & people must receive and drink down [...]e, Now all these forsaid things are clear marks of [...]ranny and tyrrants: It is considerable therfor that we [...]e out of Babylon, separated our selves from the [...]rch of Rome not only because of her errours in [...]ctrine, Idolatry and Superstition in Worship, but [...]use of her tyranny in Government, & thought it our [...]y so to doe, then surely it must be our sin to doe any [...]g that may tend directly or indirectly to the establish­ [...] of such a tyranny in the Church of God, & indeed the [...]laticall Government this day exercised in the Church Scotland, differs not a handbread from the government [...]ercised this day in the Church of Rome. If it would [...]e been our sin, to have stayed still under that tyranny, [...]tainly it must be our greater sin; when we escaped scot [...]ee, to return and sit down peaceably under it again.

Argument IV. That which upon the matter and in [...]ect, directly or indirectly does tend to make another [...]esides Christ, head of the Church, must be sinfull [...]d unlawfull. But hearing of the Prelats and Curats in [...]fect and upon the matter does so much Therfor it [...]ust be unlawfull. The Major will not be denyed by [...]y to whom I speak. The Minor is clear from this. [...]ecause the party to whom the [...] submitt and with whom [...]y their practise they coopera [...] [...] is holden forth before] [Page 20] does deryve their power from the King as supreme hea [...] & Governour in all causes ecclesiastick, for all the act establishing the Bishops and the government to be exercised by them, giving power unto them, and in joyning all to submitt to them, are founded on this narrative, so that submitting unto them in obedience to thes [...] acts is in so far as we are called to it, a most reall setting up another head of the Church beside Christ.

Arg. V. That which does concurr to the turning of th [...] Kingdome of Christ, which is not of this world, into kingdom which is of this world, must be sinful. But joyning with the Prelats and their Curats in maner forsaid i [...] such. Therfor unlawfull. The ma [...]or none will deny wh [...] denyes not Scripture, John 18:36. The minor appeare from these two grounds. First, That the Prelats way doe turn the spiritual Kingdom of Christ into a worldly politick Kingdom. II. That peoples submitting to them by hearing &c. is a partial concurring for carr [...]ing on o [...] that. The first I make plain by this parallel; first the head of Christs Church is a spirituall one [Christ himself] upon whom all the Members, Pastors and people have ane im­mediat dependance without the intervention of another: But the head immediat of the Prelatical Church is a Po­litical one, as is above declared viz: a worldly Gover­nour, a real pope, which is enough of it selfe to make the Church a papacie, a meer antichristian politicall King­dome, such as the papacy; for the thing that constituts the papal Church, and denominats one a member there of is the holding the popes supremacy, in all other things almost Papists disagree among themselves, but in this they all agree, and therefore called Papists. II. the Lawes of Christs Kingdome are spirituall, Gods own word; but the Lawes of the Prelaticall Church or King­dome are worldly, humane, and in nothing differing from state Lawes, yea the very same III. The Officers of Christs Kingdome under him are clothed only with ministeriall power, declarative of Christs mynd, but [Page 21] those who alone are invested with power in the Prelati­ [...] Church, have a power and Dominion Lordly, like [...] Princes and great ones amongst the Gentiles [...]b. 20.25. IV. The internall forme of Christs govern­ [...] is spirituall, working inwardly upon the conscience, the internall forme of the Prelats government is car­ [...] compulsive upon the outward man. We might further [...]nce in the end, rewards, punishments, all which are [...]uall in Christs Kingdome, but carnall and wordly in [...]relats Kingdome, which is clear from matter of fact [...]it pehaps they will deny it. However from this it is [...], that the Prelaticall way is the turning of the spiri­ [...] Kingdome of Christ into a carnall and worldly one. [...] that II. the hearing of the Curats in maner forsaid is [...] operating to the makeing that dreadfull change, as is [...]able: for what is their hearing but a practically ma­ [...]g themselves Subjects of this new Kingdome, going [...], as it were, of Christs Kingdome Spiritual, ima­ [...]d now to be demolished (which is blasphemy to [...]ke) and listing themselves under the Prelats collours, [...] what a dreadfull thing is that? Not only most sinful [...]selfe, as were easie to them; but also fearful in its [...]sequences; for God will never bless that which is [...]his own ordinance, either for the good of thy soul or [...] of thine. Any thing that could be excepted here is [...]ed away in Arg. 1. Only to this and all the forgoing [...]ments together with arguments 6. and 9. this gene­ [...] [...] answer is given: That which per se and by it selfe does [...]perat to the overturning an ordinance of Christ, esta­ [...]hing of prelacy & a tyranny in the Church &c. is sin­ [...] is granted: That which cooperats only per accidens, [...] accident, is denyed. But the hearing &c. does coo­ [...]at per se, to the fixing of prelacy, is denyed: That [...]oncurrs per accidens, it is granted; and therefore [...]t the conclusion followes upon any of these premisses [...] denyed: For repl [...] to this Consider first: that it is not [...] one, to be a partiall or cooperating cause, and to be [Page 22] ane accidentall cause, which is absurd, much less the [...] is every partial cause in eodem genere, in tha [...] same kynd, a [...] accidentall cause. II. a cause is either naturall or mora [...] a natural or physical cause is that which hath a na­turall or reall influence in producing of some effect: A morall or legall cause is that which hath a moral or lega [...] influence [the effect being often only a legal result] by vertue of which the effect is imputed to it; as one wh [...] counsels, perswades, does not hinder when they may [...] and ought, commands a thing or obeyes a command▪ when the thing commanded is only a legall result; an [...] this is the present case: for these who hear and ought to hinder the setleing of Prelatick Governmet and albe [...] they cannot hinder it positively, yet they may doe it negatively by refuseing to joyne in under the Prelats, an [...] albeit they doe not command these things, yet they giv [...] obedience in so far as is requyred; and if the effect b [...] imputed to the party commanding, wherefore must i [...] not also be imputed to the party obeying that command Is there any difference here. III. That which is a caus [...] per accidens in reference to a natural effect; may be a moral cause per se; as he who setts a house on fire, hes no na­tu [...]al influence on the burning of it, yet the effect is ju­stly imputed to him; the question here is not concer­neing a natural, but concerneing a moral result. IV [...] that hearing &c. be only ane accidental cause in fixing prelacy &c. the accidentality must either be ex parte causa or ex parte effectus, in the cause or in the effect, it is no [...] ex parte causae, this we thinke none will say; for they hear not, as they are John and James, or as Shoemakers or Tailors for example; But as they are Christians and Subjects: so Swarez disp. 17; Sect 2. Neither is there any accidentality here ex parte effectus; for that must ei­ther consist in the accidental connexion between the ef­fects Produced, as the finding of a treasure is acciden­tally knitt with the digging of the earth: or it must con­sist in the accidentall connexion of two or moe causes [Page 23] together, in order to the producing of such ane effect; [...]s for example, a man going by ane old ruinous house [...]r wall, that same very instant a stone falls doun and [...]ounds him; but none of these two can have place here, Not the first, for between these two effects, receiving of the message and submitting to the messenger [upon which establishing of prelacy and tyranny in the Church overturning of Christs spiritual government &c. kyndly followes] there is a connexion no wayes accidentall or fortuitous; but on the contrair first naturall, a rising from the relation between messenger and message, be­tween ordinances and dispenser; the receiving of the one of which must necessarily therefore be ane acknow­ledgement of, and submission unto the other; yea, as hes been said, we cannot hear him once, but pro haec vice de facto we constitut this man in the circumstantiat case our Minister; or interpretative doe so acknowledge him; neither can we hear him oftener, or ordinarily in one congegration, but our practise tends to fix this indivi­dual person in that congregation; which effect natively followes upon the practise, although there were a hunde­reth testimonies to the contrair, II. this connexion ri­ses from the publick intention of the Law and the out­ward maner how the case is stated between Magistrat and Subject, which speaks forth the takeing of ordinan­ces off the hands of such officers so qualified, invested with such offices and having their offices such a way; from which followes first a connexion morall between ordinances and such officers, even as such. II. that our practise of hearing &c. hes for the result of it, as much the receiving of such officers, even as such, as it hes the receiving of the ordinances themselves.

Object. It will be said possibly, that these conjoined effects of fixing Prelats &c. are not intended by these that heares &c. and therefore that they follow only acciden­tally on their practice. Answ. Their practise consider­ed in it selfe hes a naturall propenseness to produce these [Page 24] effects, as hes been showne; And therefore they follow per se upon their practise whether they intend such things or no. II. albeit their practise had no propenseness to the producing of such things, yet if they intend them, the effect will not be per accidens, as is clear in him who digs the earth, purposely to find a treasure; and that in hearing &c. there is intended the fixing of Prelacy &c. even by them who doe hear. We make out this first because there is a publick intention of establishing of it, with which they cooperat, which publick intention, their testimony of a privat nature cannot infringe, as hes been showen. II. granting that those who hea­res &c. intends no such thing with ane intentention for­mal or physical; yet there is ane intention here that we call morall, virtual and interpretative. For why when a moral agent does any thing that otherwise is a duty and with all sees or may see that some sinfull thing is conjoy­ned with it, that will necessarily follow upon his practise as the effect thereof, that then and in that caice he is to goe on, that effect is to be imputed to him, and he is to be interpreted to have intended it, although in his heart he hate it and wish the contrair; and this is a thing [we conceive] all sound Divines and Moralists agrees upon; but those who hear &c. are moral agents, and they cannot but see these things to follow upon their practise: therefore they morally purpose the bringing a­bout of them.

Object: If it be said further: that hearing is a duty and a mean of salvation, and therefore we must hear whatever follow. Answer: first: by this argument we might hear a Jesuite or Mass Preist, if they would but profess to preach sound doctrine. II. we may not doe evill that good may come of it, and that which other­wise were a duty leaves off to be a duty when clogged with sin; at least upon the matter. III. we are not to be too sollicitous about events concerning our being de­prived of means of salvation, but ought to committ [Page 25] these matters to God whose it is to provyd for these of his own house and family; and in the mean tyme ought to be diligent in those meanes and duties that we may lawfully perform and make use of; and ought to beware least un­der the notion of duty we sin against the Lord. Nei­ther II. is the connexion between the cooperating causes in order to the producing of these sinfull effects of fixing prelacy &c. meerly casual or accidental; for all coope­rating agents stand in a fixed relation to one another; they are all deliberat agents, and there is the connexion of a Law by which Gospel officers are thrust out, Anti­christian officers thrust in, the ordinances of Christ overturned, a tyranny established in the Church and unto which things people are commanded to submitt in their place and calling, and practically doe so; which things hes been already cleared.

Object If it be said here: That people in their hearing &c. does it not out of obedience to these Lawes, but in obedience to the Law of God, We Answ. first that the Law of God doth indeed injoyne hearing, but doth not injoyne sinfull hearing, and therefore not the hearing of Prelatists; therefore this hearing is not in obedience to the Law of God. II. the hearing &c. is formall obedience to these humane Lawes, because it is gone about in a way of stated obedience, unto which (in reference to humane Lawes) there is nothing required but the making of them, promulgating and publishing of them, and put­ting them in execution, together with peoples doing of the things commanded, upon the knowledge they have, or may have of them; and that although their will were nether influenced by the authority of the command, nor hit by the threatning expressed in the sanction of it; all which is clear enough in point of outward and sinfull obedience, albeit unto obedience inward and morally good more be requisit. We have insisted the longer in reply to this answer, partly because it strikes at so ma­ny arguments at once, and partly because of the weight laid on it, albeit not for any weight that is in it.

Argum. VI. The embraceing of a fundamental error in Religion though but in practise and interpretatively is sinful and unlawful: But the hearing of the Curats &c. is in practise, [in effect] and must be interpreted the embraceing of a fundamental error: And there for is un­lawful. The major is undenyable; Yea the main ground on which we separated from the Church of Rome was, errors fundamental, which they denyed, and we drew by consequents from their doctrine. The minor I prove: The saying, that Christs visible Church is not his spiritual and Mediatory Kingdome is a fundamental error, but the hearing of the curats &c,. [at least in practice] is the embraceing of this, and therefore a fundamental error. The major of this I prove: The saying that Christ is not a King is a fundamental error; But the saying that this visible Church is not his Mediatory Kingdome, is the saying, he is not a King [at least by consequence] for those who denyes overturns one part of his Kingly office, doe deny or overturn by consequence the whole of it, seeing there is a necessary connexion betwixt the parts thereof.) And therefore a fundamental error. The major of this is evident; for if Chri [...] be not a King [which is clear against Scripture, all Catechisms and orthodoxe Confessions] then he is not Mediator [for the parts of his Mediatory office are inseparable] if not Mediator, then not Christ, and so not the foundation of our faith. Con­trary to 1. Cor. 3. v. 11. The minor of this also is evident, because if Christ have not a Kingdome, he is not a King.

Object. Thou wilt perhaps say: The Church trium­phant is his Kingdome. Answ. We will not inquire here, 1. For how that Church above may he said to be a part of Christs Mediatory Kingdome: But is there not a Kingdome of grace as well as a Kingdome of glory. Which Kingdome of grace is most properly his Media­tory Kingdome. Object. But it will be said then, the in­visible Church, and not the visible, is Christs donative Mediatory Kingdome. Answ. I. I grant that the me­taphors in Scripture of body, branches, spouse are most [Page 27] fitly applicable to his invisible Church in reference unto Christ the Head, root and husband. II. That these who are, or are to be of the invisible Church, are the end, the finis cui, for which all the ordinances are appointed, and a governmeet sett up and keeped up. But III. I deny, that the invisible Church as such is formally a Kingdome for the members hereof have neither lawes, governours nor government, but as they are members of the visible Church, & that good which they get which makes them differ from others is the effect of the ordinances that they are under, as they are members of the visible Church; unto which I confess there is necessary, the cooperation of the Spirit of God makeing his ordinances effectuall. The minor of the forgoing Syllogisme viz that the hear­ing of the Curats &c. is practically the embraceing of this error is cleared from these grounds first the Prelats by their practise overturns the spiritual Kingdome of Christ, and turns it into a worldly politicall one; as is proven by the forgoing arguments. II. because the most of that way in opinion denyes Christ to have any visible Kingdome or Government distinct from that of the civil Magistrat. III. those who submitt unto the ordinances, pretended to be in Prelats and Curats hands, embraces this error, because they close in with that which is the effect therof; and is constituted by it. IV. we see in scripture, that although a man both in opinion and profession hold that there is a God, yet if his practise be opposit and tend to the overturning of that truth, by consequence, he is estee­med ane Atheist Psal. 14:1. Tit. 1:16. So that albeita man should hold in opinion, that Christ is a King, and that his visible Church is his Meditatory Kingdome, and also profess the same by words, yet if in practise [though out of fear] he shall cooperat with these who overturns this truth, the Lord will esteem him ane overturner of it, a Dethroner of Christ, and a drinker in of this funda­mental error, whatever himselfe or others thinke: Now wether or no folks practicall submitting to this preten­ded [Page 28] ecclesiastick Authority will not prove as much. Let any man judge.

It is excepted here first: That the Doctrine of Church Government was never repute by any Orthodox writer among fundamental truths, the simple ignorance where of without error or obstinacy doth condemn; yea, and that soundness of Church Government was never repute among the essentialls necessary for constituting a visible Church, except by Separatists and Brounists, and ther­for ye may guess what. For answer to this we advert first: That Divines are not yet well agreed upon these things that are fundamentall; and albeit these things (the sim­ple ignorance where of inferrs damnation) be indeed fun­damentall; yet there may be other things besides these which are fundamentall also. II. There are some things primarily and formally fundamentall, other things secun­darily and by necessar consequence only, likewise there are some errors primarily and formally overturning the foundation, others only by necessary consequence: We say the Popish religion is guilty of errors in fundamentalls, cheifly concerning the Preistly office of Christ; and yet in terms they hold the Preistly office of Christ, but with all maintaines such things as by necessary consequence overturns the same we advert. III. That Government of Christs Church includes many things: As first Christs lawes. II. His ordinances. III. His Officers. IV. The power committed to them, v. The measure of the power. VI. Thê maner and way how that power is to be put in exercise &c. In a word all the outward proper Gospel means of Justification and Sanctification, or the means of the application of the sacrifice of Christs death, of conversion, of edification, sanctification all which means Christ instituts and appoints by vertue of his Kingly mediatory power, and ordaines to be execut, admini­strat and made use of in his appointed way, which mea­nes alone he blesses for his peoples good, and with which alone (in ordinary) he concurrs by his spirit. All which [Page 29] Prelats dispose on at their pleasure, at least the power that they usurp is a power of disposing upon all these things, as they please: Upon the lawes, by changing and adding, makeing the law of God of none effect by their traditions; Upon the ordinances, by changing of them, and putting others in their place; Upon the Officers, by setting up new kynds of officers viz: themselves and others not of Christs institution and by exautorating and vassaling the officers of Christs own institution, and by depriveing them of the exercise of their power: Upon the power it selfe by changing the nature of it, usurping of it in a measure that Christ hes reserved to himselfe, and exercised in a way not appointed, but forbidden of him, Now taking the Government of the Church complexly thus, for the power it selfe, the severall parts, acts, measure and mannr thereof, together with its subject and object [which it effects and without which it cannot so much as be un­derstood it being a relative thing] and not for any share or part thereof; in a word, take it for all those things [purely Ecclesiastick we mean] that are to be ex­ercised in Christs Church, under and in a dependance upon him, as head and King thereof; the overturning thereof; will be found to be the overturning of fundamentals in Christianity, at least by consequence. For why. Those who overturns this Government, by consequence they dethrone Christ from being King of his visible Church and takes away his Kingly office yea in this, by consequence at least, they make the sacrifice of his death ineffectuall, for he hes a Kingly office for that purpose, that therby the sacrifie of his death may be made effectuall; for the overturning of this Government is the overturning of all the meanes appointed by his wisdome and authority for the makeing that sacrifice effectual, as hes been said: And that Pelats does de facto over [...]urn all these things, in some places is a known truth, and whatever is done among us as yet, it is the same power that is established here; peo­ples concurring therfor to the establishing of it [whether [Page 30] they head or owne these consequences or not] must be a sinfull thing, and that is all which we say, and we con­ceive no sound writer will be against this.

In reference to the II. part of this exception consider first that the thing wherby a Church visible is formally constitut (upon the part of the professors we mean) is the profession of substantiall fundamentall gospell truths, Hence it followes, that if either there be ane open deny­ing of such truths, or a profession of such errors, as by consequence overturns these fundamentall truths that then and in that case that Church leaves off formally to be a Church, even as to the essentials, especially if all the professores owne and avow all these consequences, otherwise not; which thing may hold good in the case of Church government, as above descrived. Consider II. that a Church may be very sound and full in their pro­fession of all Gospell truths, and yet may be hindered as to the practise of severall of them by some extrinsecal im­pediment, the want of which practise may be their griefe and burden, in which case, such a Church is not cor­rupt, either in essentialls or accidentalls, albeit violently mutilat ab extrinseco. III. It may be the error of Brounists & Separatists that takeing Church government only for some part thereof, they withall hold, that the wanting of that de facto did nullifie the Church, but we are far from say­ing that, and therfor are not so severly to be animadver­ted upon.

It is excepted II. That the cheife part of Christs media­tory Kingdome lyeth in governing the invisible Church by spirituall invisible influences, and that the holding of this is only a fundamentall truth and that therfor the deny­ing of externall Government and putting another in the place thereof is not practically a fundamentall error, neither is cooperating therwith ane imbraceing practi­cally a fundamentall error. Ans: I. Christ as King and head of his Church militant hes many things committed [Page 31] unto him. As first the appointing of Lawes, offices and Ordinances &c. for feeding and governing his Church, and the setting up a Government in it for that purpose, as is above described. II. The sending of his spirit for makeing these means effectuall. III. The ordering of all things in a common providence for the good of the elect: But if we will consider his Government as exer­cised under him, it does formally consist only in the first. For why. As to the III. Christ exercises his power me­diatory over things in a common providence, not by formal Lawes, officers &c. Neither as over persones, but by disposing of them as things. Neither as to the II. does the spirit worke ordinarily, but by the outward means makeing them effectual: Neither hes the invisible Church as such, and as contradistinct to the visible Church, either lawes officers, rewards or punishments; and con­sequently no Government. And as for these influences of the spirit, they are formally the effects of the Govern­ment visible and other ordinances as made effectuall by the operation of the holy spirit, or the effects of his ope­ration upon the hearts of the elect in concurrence with the ordinances. II. We say that a Government by invi­sible influences is either unheard of, or else very impro­per; for in that sense the stars and planets may be said to have a Governement in and over sublunarie bodies whom they indivisiblie influence, which although it goe near the Scripture phrase Job 38 Yet who will deny that phrase there to be improper. III. we fear that the holding of a Government by immediat influences shall goe nearer Enthusiasme, nor the taxed opinion goes near Brounisme, You see how warry practicall Divines are in conceding that which they call the immediat testimony of the spirit; in conceding whereof, they hold it rather to be ane act, and effect of pre­rogative and soveraignity nor of any regular Government. IV. As the outward Government of the visible Church is formally a Government which these invisible [Page 32] influences are not, so we canot see but the one is as fundamental as the other? for both are founded upon the covenant of redemption, by vertue whereof Christ the Mediator is impowered to send his Spirit, as well as to sett up a government in his house and appoint all the out­ward meanes of grace; albeit we confess his working with the Father as God by the Spirit does antecede the Covenant. From this it followes first that if there be a­ny thing fundamental in Christs Kingly Mediatory Go­vernment (which to deny seems hard) that then it does most formally consist in the outward Government of the visible Church. il. that the subverting of this externall Government and putting another in the place therof is pra­ctically a fundamental error. III, that the cooperating therto is practically the imbraceing of a fundamental er­ror. IV. that it is sin.

It is excepted III. that this Government suppones that if the Government of Christs House be subvert­ed, how pure so ever the ordinances and doctrine were, we could not communicat in such a Church without being involved in a fundamentall error.

Answ. this is false [with leave] for notwithstanding of any thing that is contained in this argument, we may freely hold that it is very lawful to communicat with a Church where there is no publick exercise of govern­ment. II. that even a Church which hes a Go­vernment imposed upon it, which according to princi­ples of the imposers is subversive of the Kingly power of Christ (which every corruption in Government is not) yet leaves not off for all that to be a Church, for some may reiect it altogether, others who submitts unto it may disowne the consequents of it which natively follow on it, either because they labour to put a better construction upon it nor it will bear; who notwithstanding sins in so far as they cooperat for the establishng of that: Now we may freely communicat with those of that Church, whe­ther publikly or privatly, in so far as our communicating [Page 33] is not a submission to that Government, or a practical [...]ncurrence to the establishing of it.

Arg. VII. Those who are most grossly, incorrigibly [...]d avowedly scandalous, it is not lawful to hear them [...] submitt unto them as unto Gospel Ministers: But the [...]relats and their Curats are such: Therefore it is not [...]wful to joyn with them. I prove the Major. If [...] be most sinful for a Presbytery to admitt persones so [...]andalous and obtrud them on people, then it must be [...]ful any way by word or practise to submitt unto them; [...]r in the circumstantiat case there is alike reason for [...]oth; but the former is true. For the latter, the mi­ [...]r is clear. For the Prelats and the Curats are guilty. [...]perjury in breach of Covenant, of defacing the Lords [...]orke and persecuting his people, casting out the spiri­ [...]al Government and officers of Christ, and bringing [...]hers of mens devysing into their place. In a word, of [...]lthe most scandalous crymes spoken to in the former [...]rguments, and all this in ane incorrigible and avowed [...]aner.

Against the probation of the Major it is excepted that Presbytry may sin in ordaining a person to the Ministry [...]hen it connot be a sin in people to hear that person [...]eing ordained; even as a minister may sin in admitting a [...]candalous person to the Communion, when yet it will [...]ot be sinful for a people to communicat with him; [...]nd thefore it is thought a wonder, it should be said, [...]hat there is alike reason for both. Ans: It is granted [...]hat a presbytry may sin in admitting a Minister and a [...]ongregation hear him in very many cases without sin; [...]t is likewise granted that a minister may sinfully admitt [...] person to communicat & yet others communicat with [...]im without sin. But notwithstanding the major of the argument will appear strong not only in it selfe. But also sufficiently confirmed, if we will but consider first that it is not every sort of scandals that we speak of here, but such as are most gross and hainous being direct brea­ches [Page 34] of the II. and III. commands, groffer then mur­ther and adultery which are but breaches of the VI. and VII.. II. thir scandals are both open notorious and avowed. III. thir scandals are made the qualifi­cations of the man in reference to his admission, in stead of these qualifications required in the word of God. IV. thir scandals are the conditions upon which people must accept of him and submitt unto him in ta­king the ordinances off his hands; for it is publickly declared that there is no other capable of ane office in the Church but those who are so indued. V. that hearing is not simply hearing, but such a hearing as involves submission to the scandalous man as to our Minister, as is already proven; and not only so, but its such a hear­ing as is equivalent to a call; seing of its own nature it tends to fix him and is a partial fixing of him in that place, or at least for makeing him our Minister pro hac vice; all which is clear: for as the Prelats allow not the Lords people the liberty of a call, so they know they would give none a call who have such qualifications; and they on the contrare being resolved to have them all so endued whom they send forth, they force the people by external means practically to accept of them; and they being forced does that which is equivalent to a call. All which being considered makes the Major sufficient­ly strong. As to what concerns its confirmation, We would further ask first whether or not the People hes a priviledge of calling a Minister, as well as a Presbytery hes a power of sending him forth and ordaining him?

II. whether or not a congregation in giving a call to a Minister so qualified with thir scandals did not as much sin as the Presbytery in ordaining him? III. whether or no a congregation for their honesty deprived of their priviledge of calling by a Presbytery (quod absit) ha­ving such a scandalous person thrust in upon them in the express termes abovementioned did not sin in sitting down under such a mans Ministry. And whether or [Page 35] not [...]hey would be involved in the same sin & guilt, seing [...]esbytery hes no Lordly Dominion over them, and [...]g they are to take nothing off their hands by way of [...]d obedience. And lastly we ask if there be any mat­ [...]f wonder in any of these things, surely we see none. [...] albeit neither the Major without all limitation will conclud, nor yet the parallel between pastor and [...]le hold, yet both beeing understood, as is above [...]est, they will prove sufficiently concludent. If it [...]d Then you separat from the ordinances for the sins [...]dlow worshipers, contrare to the doctrine of these of [...]own party. Its answered these of our party who [...]ate most Zealously and accurately against separation [...]n that account, yet grants that when the sins of pa­ [...] and people are such that we cannot frequent the or­ [...]nces unless we be interpreted to approve of their [...] that then and in that case it is sinful for us to joyn. [...] the sins of Prelats and their Carats are such; for [...] are involved in the very nature of the office, and [...]heir way of having it, so that we cannot submitt to one but ipso facto we approve the other: neither will [...]estatio contraria facto, solve the bussiness here, tho [...]e be access to make it.

[...]t is further instanced here: when people are deficient due exoneration of themselves, according to their [...]ion in bearing testimony against the sins of Pastor or [...]ple, that then indeed they may be interpreted ap­ [...]overs of them: But when they are not deficient in [...]at duty, then they cannot fall under any such inter­ [...]etation. This is further confirmed by the example [...] Ely his Sones, whose wickedness did not warrand [...]e Jewes their withdrawing from the ordinances in [...]at tyme. Answ. we distinguish here between sins that [...]e personal and sins the are involved in the office or in [...]e way of having the office: As for fins meerly perso­ [...]d whether in Minister or in people, we thinke a testi­ [...]ony against them may well suffice to exonerat our con­sciences, [Page 36] free us of partakeing of the guilt, and hind us from being justly reputed approvers of such practi [...] Howbeit I confess the clandestine testimony will sc [...] ­sely suffice; for according to Christs prescryved wa [...] privat meanes proving unsuccesful, we should at leng [...] bring the bussiness to the Judicatory, and leave it the [...] upon the consciences of the members; and if the J [...] dicatory be corrupt give a testimony against bo [...] But as to the sins that are involved in the office or in [...] way of coming to the office, as is above expressed, testimony whatsoever can free the people from being J [...] stly reputed approvers of these sins and sharers in the [...] if they shall take the ordinances off their hands by ve [...] tue of ane office so qualified and come by. As for th [...] of Elies sons, their sins were personal and not sins [...] their office (unless it were in the abuse of it, which is personal fault) for they neither had ane unlawful offic [...] nor yet their office by ane unlawful officer; so that th [...] peoples takeing ordinances off their hands did neithe [...] approve the one nor the other, And albeit the peopl [...] be not expressly warranted to forbear sacrificing because of their wickedness, yet it is likely they did it for it is said, men did abhore the offering of the Lot [...] because of their wickedness; and how they could abhorre the offering and offer at one and the same tyme we doe not well see, and if so, we doe not find then reproved for not offering.

Upon their grounds we build the Argument VIII [...] If people cannot hear, &c. the Prelats and their Curat without approving ipso f [...]cto of their gross scandalou [...] sins, their unlawful offices, and the sinful and unlawful way of having their offices, then their hearing mus [...] be sinful; But the former is true; Therefore the latter. The major is undeniable. The minor is also clea [...] from what hes been presently said; Yet for furthe [...] clearing of it Consider first, That the relation betwee [...] Pastor and People is far greater then that between peo­ple [Page 37] [...]ong themselves; for it is not only a superadded [...]on. but also a relation in the direct line; whereas [...]her is only in the collateral; we must looke upon [...]ister as standing between the Lord and us when [...]penses ordinances; but we are not to looke so up­ [...] [...]ople, when they pertake of ordinances and join in [...]ip with us. Consider II. That the thing that [...] them in that relation and formally (to speak so) [...]s them in between the Lord and us is nothing per­ [...], but meerly their office, all the concernments of [...], both as to the essentials and adherent proper ad­ [...]notour and known, and those whether corrup­ [...]r qualificing, we must eye, as it were, and [...] thorow towards God in takeing ordinances of [...]ands; which practise seems to carrie in the bo­ [...] of it ane approbation of all those things, seeing ordinances comes, as it were thorow the office so [...]ed. But then III. Seeing they either have ane un­ [...] office, as Prelats; or holds it of this unlawful of­ [...] and hes it from him in ane unlawful way; and their officers are thrust in, & intrude themselves [...]: and we are commanded to submit unto them [...]ke the ordinances off their hands, after that man­ [...]d under that notion, and as qualified with all the [...]ful qualifications above expressed: and seeing the which we formally obey (as hes been shewed; [...]rats to the fixing of them in their places, there­ [...] must involve a practical approbation of all those [...]. IV. Many Ministers admitted before the Year [...] choyses rather to suffer themselves to be thrust the exercise of their ministry nor that they should [...] a Synod with the Prelat, the reason whereof can [...] be this, because their sitting in Synod with them [...]d involve ane approbation of Prelacy, seeing there [...]hing but sitting required of them: therefor peoples [...]ng ordinances off the hands of the Prelats and their [...]ts must involve ane approbation of Prelacy and all [...]nful adjuncts of it.

Obje [...]. If it be said that the Synod is nothing bu [...] cypher Synod in which they sitt to take orders fi [...] them. Answ. That I grant: but yet according to y [...] grounds there is there ane ordinance of God as to essentials. Viz. In the Prelat a Presbyter with ane tended power of Jurisdiction, between which and PreIacy you may make a mental prescision, just as [...] tween that and the power of preaching you may [...] scind in hearing &c. but as your practise in sitting k [...] wes no such precision, but necessarily involves ane probation of the whole, so the peoples practise in h [...] ing knowes it as little, and so involves ane approba [...] of the whole; and as a testimony cannot solve the [...] siness in the matter of sitting, far less can it doe in matter of hearing, for why. Your fitting [as Pr [...] tists say] is not meerly to receive orders, but to jo [...] in acts of disciplin and government; whereas the po [...] which the Curats hes to dispense ordinances is sol [...] derived from the Prelat.

Argum. IX. The guilt of perjury is a dreadfull But the hearing of the Prelats and their Curats, as a said inferrs the guilt of perjury. And therefore dreadfull sin. The major needs no proofe. The [...] I prove thus; The doing of any thing that does re [...] concurr to the making of Prelacy take root in Church does inferr perjury. The major is clear from Solemn League and Covenant Article II. where swear to endeavour in our places and stations to exti [...] prelacy, therfor the doing of any thing to make it [...] root must be reall perjury. The like also may be [...] cluded from I. Article The major is made so clear gum. I. That there is no denying of it; for why. T [...] require no more of us in our places and callings for t [...] establishment but hearing &c. And it is further co [...] derable, that hitherto it hes been looked upon amo [...] us as a sufficient note of profession of such a faith such away, to frequent all the ordinances as called t [...] [Page 39] [...]o sometymes unwillingly, and is sufficient among all [...]ese who require not ane explicite Church Covenant [...]ith the independants, so that their is no shifting of it, [...]ea it seems very clear, that the meer frequenting of the ordinances pretended to be in their hands is like the lay­ [...]ng of dung to the root of a tree, and certainly without [...]his dung, they would never take root in this Church: And it would be further remembered, that according to article VI. albeit all should divide from us, yet we are never to suffer our selves to be divided from our duty directly or indirectly, by whatsoever terrour or perswa­sion, but should all the dayes of our life, zealously and constantly continue therein &c.

Argum. X. That which is contraire to a Solemn pro­mise made before God in the congregation of his people equivalent to ane oath. must be sinfull and unlawfull. But the submitting unto the Prelats and their Curats in maner forsaid is such. Therefore unlawful. The major none will deny, if upon the maner it be lawful, which is supponed. The minor is clear from the practise of our Church, where a minister is admitted, one of the Pa­rish in name of the rest stands forth in the midst, and there most solemnly promises submission to him in the Lord, adherence to him and all due incouragement, all the rest present and giving a tacite consent. Now the submitt­ing to a Curat, tho but in practise; when the other is thrust out for his faithfulness at least in the circumstan­tiat case, wherein the publik intent of hearing him &c. involves in it a new relation to the Curat, and so tends to the breaking of that relation to him who is truly their minister it must be quite contraire to that promise, espe­ally seing the promise stands binding so long as he lives, or is not loosed from that power that put him there, neither does it availl to say, he is now out, and yow can­not help it. why his out thrusting is neither your fault nor his, tho both your affliction, and violent out thrusting can nether loose the relation betwixt yow and him, nor absolve yow from your promise. It is con [...]essed that [Page 40] violent thrusting him out and driving him away, does interrupt the exercise of his ministry in that congrega­tion, and makes his not preaching to them and their not hearing of him inculpable for the tyme, as also does not hinder them to take any of the ordinances off the hand of another honest man, seing that practise is no way of the same importment with the other. It may possibly be granted also, that when the grounds of thrusting out is somewhat in the person and not in the cause, and when the congregation can have another honest man upon the same terms they had him, when the Judicatory either formally does loose him, or may be supponed interpre­tatively to doe it, that then the congreg [...]tion is free from their former ingadgement: But when the grounds of out thrusting are not so much somewhat the person, as somewhat in the common cause, and when the con­gregation can have none in his place, but ane opposit wolfe, and when it cannot be so much as rationally sup­poned the Ecclesiastick Judicatorie which put him in would have consented to his thrusting out, then certainly in this case the argument does strongly hold. This argu­ment I confess does not reach all congregations, yet will not want its oun weight with these whom it con­cerns. The former arguments prove it unlawfull to submitt to the Prelats and Curats, although they had essentials of a Gospel office in the Church. This fol­lowing argument makes against the very being of their office and so strikes at the root: But because possibly it will not relish even with some of these who are not pra­ctically, we shall therefore only prove it & press it as we can submitting it to the Judgment of the sober and Ju­dicious.

Argum. XI. These who want the very essence, being and reality of ane office appointed by Christ in his house, for the conversion, salvation and edification of his peo­ple, off their hands the people of the Lord are not to take the ordinances of Christ, neither are they to doe [Page 41] any thing that may be interpreted a submission unto them in the Lord, as unto the messengers of Christ, yea it is sinful and unlawful so to doe: But the Prelats and their Curats are such. Therfor the Lords people are not to take the ordinances off their hands, nor may doe any thing that may be interpreted a submission unto them &c. without a hainous sin. The major none will denay, but Socinians and others the groffest of hereticks and sectaries, and is clear from Rom. 10 15. How shall they preach except they be sent, that is im­possible (speaking de Jure) would the Apostle say, so likewise Matth. 28:19. John 20:21. So that we need not insist upon it, for those who have not Christs mis­sion or Commission, or have had it, hes it recalled, are not to be looked upon as officers in the house of Christ: Neither can there be ane exception here dra­wen from our practise in hearing probationers or expe­ctants, for they only exercise their gift in preaching, being licensed so to doe by the Presbyterie. The minor is that which will be stuck at by many, & yet we shall essay to make it out, and to begin with the Prelats, we say, they want the very essence of a gospell Church officer, authorised to teach, baptise &c for if they have it, they must either have it as Prelats, or as as they are Presbyters or ministers, not as Prelats, for the office of Prelat is not of Christs institution or permission, as was presup­posed, neither have they it as Presbyters: for if they have essentialls of this power as Presbyters, then they must either be virtually Presbyters, or formally so, but Presbyters virtually they are not, for ane antichristian office in the Church cannot virtually contain in it a Chri­stian Gospell office of Christs institution, Prelats and Presbyters are not subalternat (as Prelatists would have them) but meer opposits, like heat and cold; but cold is not virtually heat, neither is heat virtually cold­ness: Neither is a Prelat formally a Presbyter first be­cause correlatives with a mutuall respect to one another [Page 42] are not consistent in one and the same subject, being opposits, as is knowen, a man cannot be both a father and a son with a respect had to the selfe same person; but according to the Prelats principle, Prelats and Presbyters are correlatives; for a prelacy as such is to them a Lordship and Dominion over the office of a Presbyter, or a Presbyter as such; for Presbyters they say, are nothing but their servants and underlings, yea very substituts, which absurdity, their last & great Cham­pion Doctor Hamond is forced to run into, from whence it followes that a Prelat is not formally a Presbyter, no not so much as to the essentials of the office, seing he can­not be both superior and inferior to himselfe, a Lord to himselfe & a vassal to himselfe: This argument stands good in the principles of Prelats, and we thinke Pres­byterians. Should yeild them no more then their own principles will bear. II. Whe prove the minor thus: Those who are not to be looked upon as Christians or Brethren, but are to be looked upon as heathens and publicans, their Gospel call [hoc ipso] perishes, although they had it before; But the Prelats are not to be looked upon as Christians and Brethren, but are to be esteemed as publicans and heathens and therefor wants the essence of Gospell Church officers. The minor of this I prove first Because the Prelats are guiltie of horrid scandalous sins, as is clearly holden forth in the grounds of the forgoing arguments: and when they are told of these in privat by Christian peo­ple, they doe spurn at it and menaces, and least they should be delated to the Church, and the Church upon their obstinacy should proceed a formal casting of them out, they have overturned all the Church Judica­tories. Now whether he that simply refuses to hear the Church, or he who not only disdains to hear the Church, but violently overturns it, deserves not to be esteemed as a heathen and publican, let any man Judge. Moreover the most of our Prelats did either at their admission to the Ministry, or since solemnly before [Page 43] God declare their approbation not only of the doctrine and worship, but also of the maner and discipline and Government of this Church with all the acts and consti­tutions of the Judicatories thereof, together with their submission therto; in which it is determined that who­soever takes upon him the office of a Prelat deserves immediat excommunication; seing then they have ap­proven their own excommunication, should not we looke upon them as excommunicated; especially seing their scandals are most gross and most notorious, and seing (because of their usurping power) there is no formal access unto them. The minor we prove III. thus: Those who falls from that station and office which they had in the visible Church and Kingdome of Christ, and gets a station or office in the Kingdome of Satan or Antichrist, hes lost the very essentialls of a Gospel Church officer: But the Prelats are such, the rising is their falling out of the firmament of Christs vi­sible Kingdome, and now they are become at best, but Comets in Satans Kingdome of darkness, they are no longer stars in Christs right hand; Therefore they have not so much as the essence of a Gospel Church officer. The minor of this well appear if we consider first that the officers of the house of God of Christs institution are by him sett in the Church 1 Cor. 11:28. are starrs it Christs right hand Revel. 1. in which booke the Chri­stian Church is oftentymes compared to a world, in the firmament of which, for the inlightening and Govern­ment theirof Gospel officers are sett. Consider II. that Revel. 9:1. there is a star falls from heaven, that is, out of the visible Kingdome of Christ, it falls from hea­ven to earth, that is, from the station and office he bare in the visible Kingdome of Christ, unto a new office in Satans Antichristian Kingdome. For why? He gets the keye of the bottom-less pit [which is spoken in op­position to the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven given unto those whom God hes sett in his Church. Now let [Page 44] any man Judge if these keyes be consistent together, especially considering that when he getts this new keye, he falls, as is said; it is true indeed that by that falling star is principally meant the Pope, but others are to be understood also, as first Popish Prelats, for their office differs not in kynd from the Popes their professed head and Master. II. Our Prelats; for albeit they doe not avow him to be their head, and profess a distance from him in some points of doctrine, yet their office, Go­vernment and discipline is the same to ane hairs breadth with that of Popery; that same political worldly Go­vernment and Antichristian Kingdome, unto which they have changed the Spiritual Government of Christ, as was shewed before. Now from what hes been said, it will be easie to make it out that the Curats or Prelats Ministers wants the very essentials of a Minister of Christ, and so are upon no terms to be acknowledged as his Ministers, which is the II. part of the minor of the argument; for doing whereof we would sever these things which are necessary to the being of a Minister, from these which are necessary by divine precept or to the new being of it. Those which are necessarily by di­vinine precept, are the call of the people. holinss inward & outward & literature; which thing cannot be wanting horrid sin and extream hasard. As for the two, The Curats hes them not. As for the 3. We hear not that there is much of it amongst the greatest part of them, houever we could wish they had more of it and grace to use it also; These which are necessary to the very being of a Gospel ministry, without which it is a very nullity, are gifts and mission or ordination: As for gifts (of which few of the Curats are guilty in any tolerable measure) although a man cannot be a Minister with­out them, yet a man may have them and not be a Mi­nister. The only thing then to be insisted on is mission and ordination: Mission and ordination in the essence of it, abstracted from the Gospel rite of imposition of [Page 45] hands and other circumstances, is nothing else, but a ministerial authoritative declaration of such a person to be a Minister of Christ, he upon exact trial being found fitted and qualified and sent of Christ as far as is discer­nable by man. Now who hes this ministerial authori­tative power? Not the Lord Prelat, not only because he is a Lord, but also because he hes no Church power, as is above shewed. For why This power is a part of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, which are not given to the Prelat, he may, I confess, make open doores, and let them in upon the visible Church to exercise what gifts he hes, and does as he pleases, but it is by a pick lock by the keye of the bottom-less pit; and this opening of the door per fas & nephas can never give to any man the au­thority requisit to make him a Minister of Jesus Christ; so that the Curats ministry is a plain nullity, and con­sequently he is not to be acknowledged by the Lords People; This as it strikes most directly against those who hes their ordination from Prelats, so it hes its own weight also against others of them; especially if we add those things that are brought to prove the nullity of the power of the Prelat in whose hands they have resigned up their former power, and so hes fallen from their former stations. Against the probation of the first part of the minor of this Argument,

It is Exepted first: That the office of a Prelat, in so far as it is Ecclesiastick [for they have civil power con­ferred on them and honour] is looked upon by some as the power of a Presbyter extended in the exercise thereof; and so not differing in kynd from the office of a Presbyter; and if so, it were hard to say, that because Prelats usurp that extended power at their own hand with the allowance of the Magistrat, that therefore ipso facto they cease to be Presbyters. Answ. first: In the beginning of this discourse we held forth the office of a Prelat to be essentially distinct from that of a Presbyter, to the inbringing [Page 46] of which there is nothing here brought but a bare assertion, and scarsely that. II. This power of theirs hes much in it of subjective intention, as it hes of objective extension; for it ingrosses in it the power of many Presbyters. III. Extend a Ministers power never so far, and widen his parish never so much; yet this never gives him a power or Lordship over other Ministers (which a Prelat claimes by vertue of his power Ecclesiastick, and not by vertue of the annexed ba­ronnie or civil honour conferred on him by the Magi­strat) nor makes them vassals and slaves, or at least so many cyphers; much less gives it him a power to usurp that in Ecclesiasticks which Christ hes reserved to him­selfe, and hes committed to no Church officer what­soever, which that our Prelats does, neither will the Magistrats allowance help the bussiness here, so that this assertion is impertinent. III. it is easie for us to deceive our selves by imagining them to be some other thing then they are or will grant themselves to be; but that will never solve the bussiness, nor satisfie the con­science.

It is Excepted II: That granting the office of a Pre­lat were deficient in kynd from that of a Presbyter, and so not of Christs institution, for which cause it is said to be antichristian, yet the assuming thereof being a greater power then Christ hes allowed in his Church, cannot make their lawful power as a Presbyter cease, untill by the Church they be deposed from Presbyters, for their usurpation & assuming the other unlawful po­wer, so that at least whatever they doe which other Pres­byters by vertue of their office might doe stands valid being done. Answ. we say that this office of theirs is purely antichristian, of that same nature for kind and quality with that of the pope; whereby he is formally consti­tuted Antichrist; and if they nothwithstanding of this continue Presbyters, by that same Logick the pope continues a Presbyter yet, and so ane and the same man [Page 47] hes the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven hanging at the one side of his belt, and the keyes of the bottom-less pit at the other side, and that star which is falling Revel. 9: v. 1. Is not fully fallen as yet.

It is Exceptd III. That that opposition between Prelat and Presbyter. as between heat and cold, is not so apparent, the Prelats not being antichristian. in a proper sense; for Antichrist disclaimes them, and they him: It would rather appear that what opposition is between them, is the same that is between other or­dinances as instituted by Christ, and the inventions of men superadded therto, called also antichristian, be­cause beside Christs institution, or because of Antichrists invention; there is therfor no more reason that their assuming of that power, should make them cease to be Presbyters nor there is that the superadding of the sign of the cross, should make baptisme cease to be baptisme. Answ. Albeit the Prelats be not the great Antichrist, yet they are limbs of him; and albeit they disclaime him in word, yet their office and practise ownes him; and we fear their hearts too; the bairns fathers themselves: the opposition therefore seems to be that which we assert, because the one of these powers is inconsistent with the other, as hes been said and proven; which probation this probable assertion does not make invalid. Any further answer requisit here will be given in answering the main objection against this argument.

It is excepted IV. that their being grosly scandalous makes not their office to cause, nor doth anul their acts as Presbyters, as we may see in the examples of Hophni and Phinehas. Answ. it is not only the grossness of their scandals we speak of, but the nature of them also; they being in their own nature eversive of, and incom­patible with the Spiritual Kingdome of Christ, the like wherof cannot be said of those of Elies Sones; as is before holden forth.

Exception V. Prelats being first made Ministers. as is supponed, no act of their own with out the sentence of the Church interveening can exautorate them, unless it were such ane act as did unchristian them viz total A­postacie from Christian Religion, such as Prelacie is not; even as no act committed by a Church member can unchurch him without totall Apostacy, except we fall in with the Papists and Prelats, and maintaine ex­communication ipso facto, which is condemned by our Orthodox divines (for which we are bidden see Didocl. pag. 399.) and the reason seems to be, because as the admission, so the degradation of Ministers is ane autho­ritative act of a Judicatory. Ans. I. it is true indeed that in a constitut Church standing unbroken, asther can be no admission without a Judicial sentence, so there can be no degradation either; but then, as in some cases 'a man may be a minister without any such sen­tence [as sound divines hold] why may there not be a case also in which they may be exautorate without any such sentence: and whether or not this present case be such a case is humbly proposed to your Judgement.

Answ. II. In a Church standing and unbroken we hold against the Papists and Prelats that there can be no excommunication, ipso facto, or without a Judicial sentence; but whether or not that or the equivalent of it in a broken condition of the Church, particularly in the present circumstantiat case that is proposed to yowto Judge of, neither will this fall in with the opinion of Papist and Prelats; for they hold excommunication ipso facto, in several cases in a constitut and broken Church, as is to be seen in Didocl. in the forecited place. Answ. III. there is a great difference here between a Church mem­ber and a Church officer, betwixt one Church officer & moe, between Church officers who purposedly breakes the Judicatorie and others. Answ. IV. Those called Gen­tiles Revel. 11:2. were Christians before & professed Chri­stianity at the very tyme related to there; and so were not [Page 49] totall Apostats; but who I pray did excommunicat them, or by what sentence? And to say that they were Gentiles Jure, and Christians facto, will scarsely agree with the series of these Prophecies, or with what Pro­testant Divines writes concerning the mixture of the Romish Church.

Exception VI. Ob ect. Two officers opposit and in­consistent can not be in one and the same person, if so be both of them be all officers, and the one of them not a nullity inforo Dei, as the office of Prelat is, and there­fore a Presbyter his pretending to it, cannot enervate his office of Presbyter, which he hath Jure Divino nam non entis nulla sunt accidentia. Answ. The Prelats which were Presbyters before does not only pretend to the office of Prelacy, but also does actually and really usurp it, and exerce it. Secondly, Ane office may have all that is physical or metaphysical in ane office albeit it want that which is of divine institution, and all moral goodness, and so it may be ens and have it accidentia as it really hes it acts, albeit the validity of these acts be questioned.

Exception VII. Obect. It will follow from this Ar­gument, that no ordinance whether of Baptisme or or­dination could be conveyed to us by the Romish Church, contrare to our Protestant divines. Answ. There is no­thing here contrare to the Protestant doctrine; for Protestants hold, that before the beginning of the Refor­mation, those within the Romish Church were not all alike; many did not owne that Romish harlot; many who some way did owne her, did not owne her abomi­nationes; some who did owne some of them, we [...]e far from owning all the consequences which now are clea­red to follow upon them; and none, will deny but that the Church of Rome is another thing now, nor it was before Luther began the Reformation; the Lords People being now come out of her, and those within her now being made formally to owne her abomina­tions: [Page 50] but more of this anone, much more might be added hereanent the validity of the call of our first Re­formers, which we may not insist upon.

Object. Against the probation of the second part of the Minor, it is excepted: That although it may be gran­ted that ordination by the sole authority of a Prelat or­daining, cannot be lawful ordination; yet that which is by Prelat and Presbyters is lawful, at lest being done is a valid ordination, & such are the ordinations that are now. Ans. We deny that the ordination nou are by Presbyters with the Prelats first from matter of fact, because some­time the Prelat imposes hands himself alone. Second­ly, Because the office of these who at any time they ad­mit to impose hands with them is already proven null. Thirdly, Because imposition of hands [in which only they concur) is only ane adjunct of ordination, & belongs not to the essence of it. Fourthly because the Prelat claimes unto himselfe the whole power and authority of ordaining, as may be seen in the edicts, albeit there were no other to evidence it, and therefore those admit­ted by the Prelat to impose hands with him, are but so many cyphers, having no power eyther of trial, voicing or passing the sentence, wherein [being pronounced publickly] the commission doth consist.

Against the whole of XI. Argument it may be object­ed thus: That if the Prelats and Curats want the very essentials of a Gospel office in Church, then it will fol­low first that all their acts are invalid, and consequently to be done over again. II. This will unchurch this present Church. III. It will follow that not only the Churches in those nationes under the Prelats were no Churches, but also that the Church of Rome before our separation from it, was no Church; all which are ab­surd, and therefore the premisses from which they flow must needs be absurd also. Answ. First, That which is constitutive of the visible Church entitative, being the profession of Scripture truths, which also is the on­ly [Page 51] essential note thereof, the want of true Gospel Of­ficers (whom our present Church wants not, albeit the external liberty of the exercise of their gifts and offices be taken from them) or the intrusion of these who want the very essentials, can never destroy the present Church amongst us, so long as they hold to that profession. II. The Church of Rome before our separation from it had alwayes some in it, both Officers and People who never did receive the marks of the Beast, his name or the number of his name; the like we say of the Churches of these Lands in the tyme of the former Prelats, in which there were a number alwayes protesting against that antichristian Tyranny, who at length prevailed so far as to get it wholly cast off and solemnly ingadged a­gainst. III. The best way of shunning these absurdi­ties in so far as they follow, is not to acknowledge these pretended Church Officers, nor to take ordinances off their hands, it will not be necessary to reiterat any of their acts. But IV. For a full and more clear ans­wer to what is objected here consider first: That as it is difficult to find out wherein the essence of a morall entity or being doth consist; And the reason is, be­cause each of these are made up of several physical or natural things and actions coexistent together and in a relation to one another, the adding or detracting one of which may sometimes overturn the very essence of such a morall entity, and sometimes not; and of this sort are all these things here in question.

Consider II. That it will be all one here to inquire what is essential in these things, and to inquire what is valid in law, or in the outward court of the Church; for as in deeds of law, the adding or omitting of some things, will only make that a fault, but will not make the deed invalid, other things again, the adding or omit­ting of them will make the act or deed altogether inva­lid, even so will it be with the things here in question: For in the ministration of Baptisme for example, there [Page 52] may be some things the adding or wanting whereof will make the action sinful only; other things there may be that will make it not only sinful, but also altoge­ther invalid. Consider thirdly, That albeit all the acts and ordinances administrated by the Prelats and Curats are alike questionable here, as to their validi­tie; yet peoples mynds uses not to be so much perplex­ed about these acts which ought and may be reiterat­ed. We shall therefore only speak to these which may not be reiterated, & these are only ordination and Bap­tisme. But before we come to speak to the validity of for giving light unto them, we will speak a word con­cerning the reality of a Church entitive and Organical. Con­cerning which (supponing that the profession of gospel truths according as they are revealed in Scripture, is that which is formally constitutive of a visible Church entitive) Consider IV. That a visible Church entitive may be in a fourfold case and condition. First we may looke on it as professing and owning all gospell truths and no other, the whole Covenant of grace as holden forth in Scripture, and walking in practise and in some measure thereunto; and this is not only a true Church, but also a pure Church. II. We may looke on a Church as wholly apostatised, and fallen from the profession of these truths, even the most substantiall of them; which is the case not only of Churches that may turn heathen or Mahumetan, but also of the Church of the Jewes at this day; who, as they reject the whole new Testament, so albeit they profess the Doctrine of the old Testament, yet they hold it only according to the Letter therof; and not according to the mynd of the Spirit of God; and of this stamp we apprehend many in the popish Church this day will be found; and such a Church as this is, is neither a pure nor a true Church. III. We may consider a Church as holding all the most substantiall truths of Christianity, and preserving of them pure, but with all erring in some things less sub­stantial [Page 53] or more circumstantial, and such a Church as this is, though a true Church, yet is not a pure Church IV. we may consider a Church as holding all the truths of God revealed in Scripture, as to the Letter of them, and yet perverting all, or most, even to the substantials of them, and that by alterations, additi­ons, false glosses and the like; and of this stamp was the Church of Rome when we did separat from it, for albeit they kept some of the fundamentals pure, such as the Doctrine of the Trinity; yet the body of the Chri­stian Doctrine for the most part (and that even in fun­damentals, which comes nearest the heart of Christia­nity) what by Traditions, what by Papal Decrees, false Glosses, was altogether perverted, and that not only as it founds acts of faith, but also as it appointes and prescribes matters of Worship and government; a Church in such a case may further be considered, either absolutely in it selfe, or relatively in respect of God; and being taken absolutely, we may consider the body of the whole they profess and hold, either in bulk, for the Doctrines complex body of truth & errors imped to­gether, by which errors these truths are wholly sub­verted, and in that sense, such a Church as that, is not so much as a true Church; for the profession of that whole body of doctrines together cannot be formally constitutive of a true Church of Christ. Or, Second­ly, We may consider the body of these doctrines inade­quatly or partially as they include the truths contained in Scripture; and then if the whole complex body of these doctrines be not rigorously imposed, or if there be some who does owne only Scripture truths, or if they owne some of these errours, yet they are of the lesser; or if they be of the greater sort, yet they doe not either in opinion or practise owne any of these gross consequen­ces that necessarily follow upon them: Then and in that case it may be said, that there are some true members of the universal visible Church of Christ there, albeit the [Page 54] bulk and body of Professors cannot be truly called a Church of Christ. Next such a Church as this may be considered relatively, with a respect had to Christ the only King and Head of his Church; in which respect it may be considered, either as holding still the publick profession of that complex body of doctrines, or as al­ready begun to cast off errours in opinion and practise, and to hold only to the truths contained in the Word of God. Under the former consideration such a Church is not a Church of Christ formally or actually, whe­ther Jure or facto, no more nor ane adulterous Woman who hes run away from her Husband, and is now of long time living with another man with whom the lyes in adultery, is not her former Husbands Wife; which appeares not only from the forementioned ground, but also from several places of Scripture see. Hos. 2.2. But then albeit such a Church cannot be cal­led a Church of Christ formally or actually, yet it may be called his Church fundamentally, so long as the founda­tion of the relation between Christ and them is not alto­gether taken away, which is not taken away without utter apostacy on the Parts of total rejection on Gods part, which is like that of formal divorce between married persones; for albeit a wife ly in harlotry never so long, yet the foundation of the relation between her and her husband does alwayes stand, until such a tyme as a formal divorce be made between her and him; under the latter consideration, such a Church as this, upon the back of their renouncing of these false & here­tical doctrines, and their imbraceing of scripture truths purely, allanerly; both in opinion and practise with­out any further, it does presently become a true visible Church of Christ, actually and formally such. And this is the difference between the members of a Church so hugely degenerat, and those who are converted from Paganisme: Those who are converred from Pa­ganisme, are to be baptised; those who are reformed [Page 55] out of such a Church as this, are not to be baptised for altho their baptism before was no baptisme, wanted the very essentials and had no validity in it, as being a seal of that complex body of doctrines, spoken of be­fore; yet they renouncing the erroneous part, and ad­hering only to what is sound, it returns to be true bap­tisme, a valid deed, a seal of the Covenant of grace. From what hes been spoken concerning a Church enti­tive, it will be easie to pass a determination on what re­maines to be spoken to. And first then, as to what concerns a Church organical [by which we understand a ministerial teaching, ruling Church, consisting of Church officers, with a power to administrat all the or­dinances of God, we say first that ane organical Church, consisting of these officers whom Christ hes appointed entering upon their offices, teaching and ruling in the Church, after the maner that Christ hes prescribed in his word; are not only a true, but also a pure organi­cal visible Church of Christ. II. these Church officers who have degenerat in Jewish, heathen, mahumetan Preists or such like, they are in no sense to be esteemed a ministerial Church of Christ. III. these Church of­ficers who as to their power and office, way of having and exercise thereof are sound in the main, but yet hes some less substantial defects or excesses therein, these I say are a true ministerial, teaching and Governing Church of Christ, although not altogether pure. IV. these Church officers who have offices that are not of Christs institution, and usurps a power over the Church and ordinances, partly worldly and political, partly proper and peculiar to Christ himselfe, the only King and head of the Church; therefore; as inherent unto them purely Antichristian, such officers, I say, although there be something mixed in their offices and administra­tions which is of Divine institution, yet they are not, neither are they to be acknowledged the teaching & go­verning Church of Christ. For why? That which saltered [Page 56] and superadded of diabolical and humane inventions, is destructive of, and does clearly overturn all that which is of divine institution; hence it is; that so long as they adhere to all the complex parts of their preten­ded offices or power, and are adhered to in these, al­though but in practise, so long, we say, their offices and power is null, and consequently all their acts are invalid; yet notwithstanding their renowncing what is corrupt in their offices or power; or being renounced by these who have received ordinances off their hands, then & in that case, their acts may become valid; Bap­tisme, for example; so as not to be reiterated; and ordination, so as to be the ground of sentence of for­mal deposition. Now this is the very case of this prela­tical Church which is amongst us. For why: It hes such alte [...]ations and additions in it, which doth not on­ly smother any thing of Christs institution, pretended to be retained; but also does altogether corruptly over­turn and change the nature of it; as hes been hinted at in several places before, and were easy to shew at full length if the nature of the government were our task at present

From what hes been said here we deduce these conse­quences, as a distinct and direct answer to the severall parts of this Objection. Consequence first: The Church entitive in this Land consisting of the body of professing people is not unchurched by what is said in prosecution of the argument. For why? the question touches not them, only it touches the Church Organical, or the tea­ching and Governing Church. Conseq. II. a Church pro­fessing popery, and adhering in opinion and practise to the whole complex body of Doctrines professed by the Church of Rome is formally and actually no Church at all in no [...]hing to be communicated with, nor owned, except in order to the gaining of them from that way. Conseq. II. This same Chu [...]ch renuncing their errors in droctrines and practise, is furth with to be acknowledged [Page 57] and may be joyned with a true Church of Christ. Conseq IV. Romish Church officers adhering to all the complex parts of that hierarchical Government are no wayes to be esteemed a teaching or governing Church, and all acts proceeding from them as such, are to be est­eemed null and invalid. Conseq. V. The like is to be said of our Pretaticall Church officers of superior and inferior ranks, because their government differs nothing from that of the Romish Church, but in so far as hes been spoken to in the beginning of this dicourse. Conseq. VI. Church officers in a popish Church having been brought up in it, and having unwarrily ingadged to be office bearers therin, after that upon conviction they have renunced that hierarchical government▪ and all the anti­christianisme in it▪ and hes been instrumental in drawing off the Church from that way to imbrac [...] the truth, they may be esteemed Gospel Church officers of Christs insti­tution▪ and all the former acts may be esteemed valid, at least to those that goes along, with them in that re­nounciation. for why? that which was but fundamental before and nearest to a nullity becomes now actual and formal. Conseq. VII. The like may be said of these of the late Prelatick Churches of Scotland and England for the same reason, and much more of those w [...]o did still declare against Prelacy. Censeq. VIII. People ad [...]ering to a hierarchical Government, whether popish or meerly prelatical, and having had ordinances such as baptisme administred to them, these acts that were invalid b [...]fore, becomes valid then, whether these hierarchical officers renounce their former way or not: The reason is, be­cause as their owning of and adhering (at least in pra­ctise) to these things that made the power null and void did make the act invalid as to them; so their cordiall re­nouncing of these things, and your owning only a Gos­pel Church office may make the act valid as to them. Crnseq IX. The office bearers in a Church reformed in Gouernment and discipline, as well as in doctrine wor­ship, [Page 58] returning back to popery or prelacy; as their offices and acts are null and invalid, so long as they adhere to tha [...] way; so that albeit upon their renunceing again of that way (the people renuncing with them) their acts are to be esteemed valid, and their office also in so far as to be the object of a formal sentence of depo­sition, which would have been past before if a true go­verning Church had been standing) yet they are no more to be esteemed office bearers in the Church of Christ, because of their gross apostacy and backsliding, which is to be understood mainly of these who hes been directly or indirectly active and instrumentall in carrieing on that course of apostacie; whose guilt as it is hainous in it selfe, so it is hugely aggravated by these following rea­sones: first. Because the evil of prelacy is now fully known and discovered. II. The difference that is be­tween the spiritual Government of Christs house and the worldly politick and antichristian Government exercised by prelats, is fully stated. III. That same antichristian Government eversive of the visible Kingdome and spiri­tual Government of Christ is fully and plainly imbraced & avowed by prelatical men. And that IV. upon the back of solemn ingadgements by Oath and vow to the con­traire, taken on by the same men. So much briefly for ane answer to this objection. If there he any to whom this argument does not relish, let them pass it; if they please and looke only to the forgoing argument, which we ap­prehend does sufficiently evince the conclusion: Unto which we adde.

Argum. XII. That which cannot be gone about in faith, the doing of it must be sinful and unlawful; but the hear­ing of the Prelats and the Curats, cannot be gone about in faith; Therefore it is and must be sinful and unlawful. The Major is clear from Scripture. The Minor also from these two grounds first Because [as we apprehend] no man seriously considering the matter can be fully perswa­ded in his mynd of the lawfulness of the thing, and so at [Page 59] least, must goe about it doubtingly, which is a sin be­ [...]e God, even altho what he did were upon the matter [...]ful Rom. 14:5:23. much more then when the matter [...]dogged with so much grossness. II. we are to goe [...]out the use of the means of our salvation in the faith and [...]pectation of Gods special blessing to goe along with [...]own ordinances for the good of our souls; we are not [...]ly to be put to these duties from the word of precept, [...]t also the soul in going about them is to reason thus: [...]ese are the very ordinances of God, this man is ap­ [...]inted of God to carrie his mynd to me, and my desire [...] back again to God, the Lord hes made promises of [...]s presence and power in, and his blessing on his own [...]dinances, and in the faith of that I will goe about my [...]ty: But how or with what conscience can one reason [...]s in hearing the Prelats or their Curats; his worship [...]en must be mock worship, a very spiritless and souless [...]orship; and what may God be provocked to doe to such [...]orshipers?

Many moe arguments might here be induced for fur­ [...]er confirmation of this conclusion, not only from par­ [...]cular Scriptures, but also from the dreadful effects that [...]oseing, in with that way will have on the souls not on­ [...] of this generation; but more as to the following. [...]l. But we shall adde no more, they that are brought, [...]eing sufficient.

It only now remaines that we endeavour to take out of [...]e way these things that may be objected against our [...]onclusion, whether by Prelatists or others of whatsoever J dgment.

It wll be objected first: have ye not the doctrine pure, [...]nd the worship unaltered, and may ye not dispense then [...]ith something in Government. Answ. we must not dispense with any of the truths or ordinances of our Lord Christ, but must contend for all the points of faith once delivered to the Saints, we must keep these things in­ [...]olbled to the coming of Christ, we must stand fast to [Page 60] the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, yea though ane angel from heaven should teach the contrary II. Whatever Prelats and their brood thinke of Govern­ment; yet we thinke it the overturning therof. III, What assurance have we for the doctrine and worship. nothing but he said and she said, the passing words of false men; where is the Prelats Catechisme, confession of faith, or directory for worship to be found; and though they were to be found, yet what assurance could that yeild, seing they assume a power to shape and change invert and innovat as they please. IV. Is there not a standing law for the articles of Perth, conforme unto which is the present practise of many Prelatists. v. I grant they temporise now in many things, as to the out­ward way of worship, that they may the betrer hank and insnare the souls of the Lords people; but if there were a general submission we would see another face on affaires. Ay but say they, ye should not Judge of mens intentions, but should take their professions. Answ. first whose pro­fession should we take, that of false treacherous perjured men: II. are not the Lords people in all Christian Pru­dence to forsee hasards which concerns their immortal Souls, Act 20:29, Phil. 3:2. and wee beleeve, consi­dering how false some men are, that their actings are a truer Judge of their intentions, then their professions are. VI. The Question is not whether or no we may hear, &c, our own lawful Ministers if they had the liber­ty of preaching, and were denyed the liberty of disci­pline and Government. But the question is, whether or no we may hear, &c, them who hes thrust out the Government of Christs Institution, and introduced one of a diabolical Invention and who takes upon them to shape and change all the ordinances of God which we have proven already to be unlawful.

Object. II. Will ye not obey the King and the Lawes. Will ye not be loyal? This is only the argument of the [Page 61] ignorant countrey Curats, and informe it must turn thus: Whatever King and Parliament commands and enacts, [...]hat is forthwith to be obeyed; But King and Parlia­ [...]ent hes enacted obedience to Prelats and therefore they [...]re to be obeyed. The Minor cannot well be denyed. [...]s to tbe Major I say that truly I can be hardly perswaded [...]s yet to thinke that the Kings pleasure is prima Regula [...]idei & morum, the first rule of Faith and maners, no [...]ot so much as in ceremonials of Religion; for if so, [...]he schoolmen hes been very dull and short sighted these [...]any ages bygone, seing never any of them so much as [...]tarted upon that opinion. Neither can I see any ground [...]o assert that he is ane infallible interpreter of scripture, [...]nd ane unerring Judge of controversies Eccesiastick [...]tting in Cathedra Parliamentaria in the chair of State, al­beit I know the people claimes this. II. What if King and Parliament should command going to Mass the nixt [...]ear; the III. year the embraceing of Machumets Alco­ [...]an. Shall we furthwith yeild obedience. Ephraim for a tyme was oppressed and broken in Judgment, be­cause he willingly walked after the commandment. Hos. 5:11. III. Some are of the Judgment, that in some cases it is better to obey God nor man, and that [...]n some cases passive obedience or submission is all that [...]he Magistrat can well expect but this is a dangerous ar­gument, and therefore we will medle no further with it.

Obj. III. Separation from the Church is a pernicious and sinfull evil; But your practise in not hearing, &c is a separation from the Church. Therefore &c. Answ. first. To the major, every separtion is not unlawful, but sometimes a duty; witnes separation from the Church of Rome. II. Corruption in the essentials either in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, or Government, is thought a good ground of separation at least in so far III. Locall secession may happen where there is not separation from the Church. IV. separation from a particular cor­rupt [Page 62] Church is not a separation from Christs universal Church. V. There may be separarion from the cor­ruptions of a particular Church, and yet not a total sepa­ration from that same Church, VI. The Lords people may be beat from their duty; and driven into a wilder­ness condition by violent Antichristian Spirits; in which case they cannot be esteemed Separatists from the Church. The Major then being taken universally and without limi­tation is false; and being taken particularly, the argu­ment is not concludent, but consisting of pure particu­lars. As to the Minor first we ask who it is hes made the Separation? Not we, for we stand where we were, holding fast these truths that we are convinced of by the word of God, unto the maintainance of which we are sworn and obleidged by our solemn Covenants, under which the whole Nation stands yet fast bound; some of our selves, we confess, have turned Apostats, taken on them Antichristian Titles, broken our Church to pieces, thrust out our Ministers and depryved us of pure ordinan­ces, and what through fear and what through force, it hes carried a great party with them; But let any impar­tial person Judge, whether the Apostats should be ac­counted Schismaticks and Separatists, or we who resolves in the Lords strength never to step one step nearer Rome, but in so far as we have already attained, to walk by the same Rule, and never to doe any thing that may make us pertakers of their sins, and so Sharers of their Judg­ments, when the Lord comes to reckon. And though possibly we be the feuest number, yet let it be considered whether Elias and the 7000. in Israel who bowed not the knee unto Baal, or the body of the Land were to be ac­counted the Separatists. We deny then the Minor of the argument; and though it were that our abstinence did in­ferre separation, yet it will not be found, that our sepa­ration would be sinful; but rather a matter of duty; as will be clear by applying what is spoken; in limiting the Major to the Minor in the argument, and the compareing [Page 63] of both with the grounds of the argument inforcing the conclusion, But as that is obvious in it selfe, so we need not stay upon it; seing we are meerly passive, and not at all active in separation.

It will be instanced here: That although we be not active in separation, yet it is not enough; for we ought actually to joyn in the present publick worship; Because where there is a true Church, Christian people ought the joine with it: But here is a true Church; Therefore &c. The minor is proven, because in this prelatick Church, the true word of God is preached and professed, which is the essential note of a true Church. Answ. I. to the major; let it be granted, there is a true Church entitive here, yet we deny there is a true Church Organical; for the or­gans their of viz Prelats and their Curats are Anticristian, as hes been shewed; hence we may joine in privat fel­lowship with the Prelat, let it be true; we may joine in publick worship with their officers as such, by ta­keing ordinances off their hands, it is false. II. where is a true Church that is impure, christian people if they can get a purer Church they are to joyne in worship with that, and notwith the other: If they cannot get a pu­rer Church (I distinguish;) they ought to joyn; if they candoe it without sin, but if they connot doe it with­out sin, they must abstain. But that the Prelats and the Curats cannot be submitted unto, or joyned with, without sin, is proven by the whole arguments inforcing the conclusion; for that our standing aloofe is not for any thing in the people, but what is in the pretended officers. To the minor with its probation we say, that the pure word of God professed is indeed the essen­tial note of the Church visible entitive, professores if they hold any error, as for example, concerning the spirituall Government of Christ, in so far that Church is defective, if not null, if it be in fundamentals. II. But to make up the essential note of the Churh organical, there is required also the preaching of the word; prea­ching [Page 64] [I say] which is not only materially, but also formally essentially such, which cannot be but by pre­achers of Christs own sending; for every speaking of of the word of God is not the Gospel ordinance of preach­ing, neither is every one that speaks [...]t sent and authori­sed of Christ, see Rom. 10:14 15. But the Prelats Cu­rats and their preaching are not of the Gospel stamp, their Church therefore wants he essential note; there­fore the Lords people ought not to joine actively with them.

Object. IV. A wilful depriving our selves of the word of God must be a sinful thing; But our nor submitting to the Prelats and Curats is a wilful depriving our sel [...]es of the ordinances; Therefore a sinful thi [...]g. the minor is proven, because we must either take the ordinances off their hand, or have none at all. Answ. the major we grant. As for the minor, it is not only false, but a­lewd lie; for albeit we cannot submitt to the Prelats and their Curats without horrid sin; yet it is wee [...]l knowen, we would willingly submitt to the pure ordinances of Jesus Christ and wait on them for our souls good. As to the probation of the minor. that we cannot have the ordinances but by the Prelats and their Curats, we con­fess it is our sad affliction; but it is not our sin, let them count for it who is the cause of it, the judgement of God we leave them unto: In the mean tyme we desire to looke higher then the Prelats in this matter, resolving to bear the indignation of the Lord, because we have sinned against him, until he plead our cause &c. And we hope that our standing aloofe from them if We be di­ligent in privat duties, may be a readier mean of bringing about that, nor our sinful joyning with them can be.

Object V. That which tends to make the whole coun­trey Atheists by casting them loose must be very sinful; But your not submitting to the Prelars, &c. tends to­ward that; Therefore it must be very sinful. Answ. I. That which per se or of its own nature tends to the turn­ing [Page 65] of people atheists is sinful. I grant; that which tends only by accident that way, I deny. But that our not hearing, &c. Does of it selfe tend to make people atheists, I deny as false: by meer accident it may be true, and therefore that our abstaining is sin­ful it will not follow, the reason of this is, because my hearing would be (as is allready proven) sinful and therefore my abstaining from sin, and cleaving to my duty, cannot have any influence of its own nature [...]pon anothers committing of sin, I confess through [...]heir ignorance and corruption, it might prove [...] scandal, only taken, but it could never prove a [...]iven scandal. II. That which most immediatly and [...]f its own nature tends to the turning of people atheists [...] the depriving them of the pure ordinances of Jesus Christ, and clubing them unto a course of apostacy, as [...]or us, we must not sin in joyning with a course of apo­ [...]acie, though all the world should turn atheists, we must not doe evil that good may come of it (and truly we see not what good would come of it] we have not [...]o learned Christ. III. we know nothing that tends so much to the turning of people atheists, and to makeing [...]hem thinke, that all religion is but fancies, and a [...]eer stirrop for wealth and worldly greatness, as for [...]en to preach and press one thing one year, yea and [...]o swear to it, and press others to doe the same; and [...]e nixt year, over the belly of oaths and honesty, for [...]ase and worldly ends, violently to urge the plain con­ [...]are. IV. We appeal to the experiences of all con­ [...]cientious men, if ever atheism and ignorance of God [...]id more abound in any place of the world, then in the [...]laces where Prelatists bear sway; so that to joyne in a [...]ourse of submission unto them, were to joyne in the [...]stablishment of atheism on the earth. V. We hope [...]hat the very want of publick ordinances may contribute [...]ore to the keeping of these in a tender frame of spirit, [...]ho conscientously refuses to joine with the Prelatists, [Page 66] nor the hearing of the dead and irreligious Prelatists could doe, the countrey proverb hes something in it, better loose then in ane ill tethering

Object. But their grand Argument is from Matth. 23. which, as with a piece of greater ordinance, they thinke its ane easie bussiness to batter down all the bul­warks of their adverse party; it may be in forme thus: It was the duty of the People of the Jewes to hear Scri­bes and Pharisees, and to submit unto them. Then it is our duty to hear the Prelatists and submit unto them. But the first appears from Matth. 23; v. 1.2.3. Therefore, &c. The connexion of this hypothetick major, they will confirm thus; because it hath been greater sin (if a sin) to hear Scribes and Phari­sees, nor it is to hear Prelatists; because forsooth our Prelats and their Curats are not so bad as Scribes and Pharisees were; and it is not probable that Christ would command to hear Scribes and Pharisees, and not allow us to hear Prelats and Curats and submit unto them. This is their Argument in the best forme, and with the greatest strength that I can thinke it can have. Answ. We shall first discusse the antecedent of the major assumed in the minor proposition with the confirmation thereof. As to the minor, then first, We would con­sider what thir Scribes and Pharisees were. Second­ly, What is meant by Moses chair. Thirdly, What is imported in their sitting therein. Fourthly, What is meant by doing and observing what ever they bid them observe. As to the first of these, to begin with the Pharisees, they certainly were a sect, Act. 15: v 2. and 26: v. 5. much like one of these amongst the Papists, for example the Jesuites, (but what their tenets were is not my scope) and altho all the Pharisees were not of the tribe of Levi, yet many of them, especially those who were in publick office in the Church, were Priests and Levites, see John 1. v. 19. and 24. compared; yea, this was a prevailing sect, and had infected the most of [Page 67] these in publick office; hence we read of Priests, Le­vites, Rulers, Scribes and Pharisees, all of them Pharisees: See further, John 3: v 1. Act. 23: v 9. So that it will be all one to inquire here, what are Pharisees, with what are Scribes, as to any publick office; for they seem to coincide in the same persons. As for Scribes then, Hebr. Se-pher, that is, a Scribe, booke man, enarrator or explainer; it was a name of publick office, not of sect. In this place of publick office eccle­siastick, which Scribes were all of the tribe of Levi, Priests, Ezra 7: v. 5, 6. Nehem. 8.1, 2. and Levites, 1 Chron. 24.6. For the Levites were not only divi­ded in Singers porters, officers, &c. but also in Scribes 1 Chron. 24: v. 23. the ablest for teaching by reason of gifts and education being designed for that imploy­ment. The office of their Scribes was fi [...]st publick teaching, Ezra. 7: v. 10. Nehem. 8 Matth. 7: v. 29. and 13. v. 52. ane office competent in ordinary to the tribe of Levi as such, Deut. 33: v. 10. Secondly, They were members of, or Rulers in Ecclesiastick Judicatories, not only in the Synagogues or inferior Judicatories, but also in the Synedrim, or supream Ec­clesiastick Judicatorie, being assumed into that be­cause of their office or parts, Luke 22: v. 66. Act. 23: v. 9. Now thir Scribes and Pharisees being men in pu­blick office of Gods appointment, in this far we may grant the minor of the argument. Furthermore in Scripture (which is considerable) there are some called Lawyers Doctors of the Law, whose office it seems (as is current among wryters of Jewish antiquites) was not to teach publickly, or in the Synagogue but privatly in schooles, which Lawyers, albeit there were Scribes and Pharisees too, no doubt; for which see Matth. 22:34, 35. compared with Mark. 12.21. yet all Scribes and Pharisees were not Lawyers, for which see Luke 4:44, 45. but they were distinguished one from ano­ther by the distinction of the inclosed from the inclu­dent; [Page 68] which seems to be the only way of reconciling together of these three forceited texts: Besides its pro­bable, that some Pharisees who were not Scribes or Levites might have been Lawyers, as to that part of the Law called Judicial, and so in a capacity and fit­ness to be assumed into civil Judicatories; viz. into the civil Synedrim supream when it was standing, or if it was now standing, and not rather taken away by Herod; however propable it seems, that the Scribes and Pha­risees Spoken of here Matth. 23:2. were only these Scri­bes and Pharisees that were Lawyers; for what is spoken of Scribes & Pharisees here, vers 4. is appropriated to La­wyers in a contradistinction to the rest of the Scribes & Pharisees Luke 11:46. and if ye will diligently com­pare these two chapters, ye will find that what is char­ged promiscuously upon Scribes and Pharisees Matth. 23. not excluding but including Lawyers under them; the same things are all distributively ch [...]rged upon Pha­risees, Scribes and Lawyers Luke 11. and wes pro­nounced against every one of them distinctly for their own share of guilt. The II thing considerable is what is meant by Moses chaire? By chaire here is to be under­stood in a metonymy of speech, some publick office exercised in that chaire, what this puklick office was will appear after we have made a sea [...]ch into the the word Moses. The word Moses may either be taken properly or figuratively; figuratively we say by a me­tonymie of the instrumental cause for the effect; Mo­ses, for the Law delyvered by the Ministry of Moses, see Luke 16:29. the sense then will be, the office that thir Scribes and Pharisees brooked, wes ane office versant about Moses Law, partly viz in teaching the same, partly in sitting in Judicatories and giving out Canons, decrees and sentences of Judgment according to the same. But if any incline to take the word pro­perly, which seems as probable, then it will be neces­sar to inquire, what office Moses had, and in what of [Page 69] these he could be succeeded by thir Scribes and Phari­ [...]es. First then, Moses was a Lawgiver, but in this [...]e was not succeeded by Scribes and Pharisees; for no [...]rdinar officers had power to deliver a new Law, to [...]he Lords people, nor yet to adde any thing to that al­ [...]eady delivered; albeit thir Pharisees were sinfully med­ [...]eing with that II. Moses was King, in Jesurun, [...]ut in that he was not succeeded by thir Scribes, &c. Neither did they claim unto it. III. Moses was ane extraordinar Priest, as in consecrating Aaron and his Sons; but in this in ane ordinary way, Aaron and his Sons and posterity did succeed him, not the Scribes and Pharisees as such. IV. Moses was a Prophet, [...]ane expounder and applyer of his own Law, witnes his delyvery of the whole booke of Deuteronomy, and in this as in ane ordinary way he was succeeded by the whole tribe of Levi, so especially by Scribes who here were also Pharisees. V. Moses was a Judge in matters Ecclesiastick, in which he was succeeded by the syne­drim Ecclesiastick, and other inferiour Judicatories, of all which Scribes and Pharisees were members as hes been showne. VI Moses wes a Judge in matters civil, in which he was succeeded by the suprem Synedrim civill and others of inferror rank Into all which, no doubt, many of the sect of the Pharisees were assumed for that skill in the Judicial Law that they were pre­sumed to have. Thirdly by thir Scribes and Pharisees their sitting in this chaire of Moses is to be understood their actuall exerciseing of these offices which at present they did brooke. Where it is considerable, that the word rendered, [sitt] in the Original is not in the present, but in the by past indefinit tyme, and should be rendered, they have sitten, which phrase, as l con­ceive, hes three things in it. First thir Scribes of the sect of the Pharisees hes crept in piece and piece along while agoe into places of publick trust and imployment. II. They are now sitting and brooking their places with­out [Page 70] control, tho most unworthy. III. They are not to fitt long, Christ being within a few weeks by the Ministry of his Apostles to sett up the Gospel Church in the place of that corrupt one of theirs; unto which therefore, while a short time were over, he wold have no stirr made as to any change: As if Christ would say, they have sitten, doe sitt but shall not sitt long, being incorrigible, such as will not submitt to me and my Gospel, and with all the cursed sect of the Pharisees who for their corruptions in doctrine and practise are to be rooted up, and casten over the hedge, as plants not of my heavenly fathers planting. Matth. 15: v 13. IV. it is to be considered, that these words, whatsoever they bid yow doe, that observe and doe, are not to be understood in that universality, but are to be limited by Matth. 16, 6.12. For they were to tak no corrupt Doctrine off their hands, and their for seing the matter that people were bidden observe, must admitt a limita­tion, wherefore may not the maner of this observance admitt a limitation also. V. It is very observable that there is not a word in the text of hearing, but only that they were to observe and doe what they did dictate and command by vertue of their office, which dictats and decrees might be those of Lawyers, Scribes in their Schools, or as they were members of the several Judica­tories, to the knowledge of which people might come by reading or otherwise; albeit they did not actually hear them or submitt unto them, by countenancing of them; which certainly they might not doe, if their countenancing of them; wold have inferred ane approbation of their corruptions; and if this inter­pretation of this particle of the text hold, by vertue thereof we may deny the minor, and assert, that thir people were not oblidged to hear the Scribes and Phari­sees, especially seing the thing that Christ bids them observe and doe, might be such doctrines, dictats and decrees which did anteced Christs so full a discovery of [Page 71] their corruptions in this and the forgoing chapters: All which will yet be clearer, if we will take a short view of the sense of the place together in order to its scope (having always done it by parts) whieh may be holden furth thus: Christ having put out these Scri­bes and Pharisees in a publick disput and affronted them before the people, Chap. preceeding, and being about to discover very much of their corruption before the said people, and denounce many sad woes against them, and with all not having a mynd to alter any thing for that little time that was to interveen till after his ascension, neither having a mynd to reforme that fa­brick of the Jewish Church at all, but to lay down a ground for removing it out of the way, in planting of his Gospel Church, by the ministry of the Apostles, upon the back of his sending down the gifts of the Holy Ghost; & because for present thir Scribes and Pharisees, were in place and power, had the truths and ordinances of God among their hands, lest in this mean time people should have casten at the truths of God, and being ready to reject them because of the horrid corruptions of those through whose hands they came: Christ in the entry here guards them against that, injoining that notwitstanding of whatsoever, was to be discovered in these men, yet they would be careful to observe and doe whatsoever was truth and duty, even tho taught and commanded by them, and not to cast at it upon that account; altho he was far from bidding them doe any thing that might be interpreted a countenancing of them, or joining with them, or approving of their corruptions. whether in doctrine or practise. Heaving thus discussed the antecedent or minor of the argument; We come nixt unto the major the connexion where of we deny; As to the probation thereof we say first its false. Secondly, It is not full. As to the first, if ye will com­pare our Prelats and Prelatists with the Scribes and Pha­risees, either as to the way of comeing at their places▪ or as to their principles, practises, Doct [...]ines and the sad [Page 72] effects that followes upon these, and redounds to the Church of God, it will be found, that in all these, the the one is as bad as the other; all which might be fully holden forth, if we did not here intend brevity; so that our Prelats are no less bad, but rather more bad then the Scribes and Pharisees, it is true our Prelats and Pre­latists did never persecut Christ personally and crucifie him; but that would they have done if they had lived then & had the same temptations. And however doe they not persecut and crucifie him in his members. And what is the difference then? Its true likewise Christ did ne­ver say out of his own mouth in so many words and syl­labes, our Prelats and Prelatists have finned the sin a­gainst the Holy Ghost; yet I thinke if ever any since the daves of these Pharisees, were guilty of that sin (of which I doe not doubt) that some at lest of this present gang (all thing being considered) will be found to be the men: But I doe not stay on this. Secondly. This their confirmation of the major is not full; for there may be many other differences between one party and another, besides that of personal goodness and badness, whereupon Christian People may lawfully joyne with and submit unto the one, and not at all unto the other. We shall therefore here in the close hold forth some of these differences, by which the bottome will altogether be beaten out of this objection and the Prelatists fully frighted away from this their supposed impreg­nable strong hold. First, Then thir Scribes and Pha­risees, what ever corruptions were in their persones, doctrines and way, yet they had a lawful office, power and authority of Divine institution, which our Prelats have not; both which have been already holden forth and this is a very considerable difference; for as we may not in all cases submit unto those, who have the essen­tials of a lawful calling, viz. when the submitting unto them [...]ust needs be interpreted our approbation of th [...]ir corruptions, and a joyning with them in their evil way, [Page 73] and consequently sharers with them in their guilt; so we [...]ust never acknowledge them to be messengers of [...]hrist either by word or deed who have no lawful [...]ffice at all what I say of Prelats here, the like I say of [...]relats, Curats, according to Argument XI. Its true [...]deed the Curats pretend to ane office that is really of [...]hrists institution, on the contrare, the office that the [...]relats pretend unto, is not of Christs institution, yea [...]s expresly discharged in his word, and here is a great [...]dds, I confess. But the question remains yet, How came [...]hey by this office. Who made the office to their persones. Or how came they by that office again, if once they did [...]or fault it, certainly they could not take it to themsel­ [...]es Hebr. 5.4, 5. Neither could the Prelat that anti­christian officer make this application, as is proven [...]bove: Hence altho the office of the Ministry be a reall [...]awful Gospel office, yet a Curat is no more a Gospel Minister, whether as to circumstantials, nor a pursevant [...]s a real Pursevant who only pretends a commission [...]rom the Lord Lyon, but hes it not, tho in the mean [...]ime the offiee of pursevancy be a real lawful office. If the Scribes and Pharisees whatever corrupt courses they [...]ooke to win at these places they held, yet generally [...]hey were admitted and assumed to the places by those who had power so to doe; but our Prelats and their Cu­rats come into their places over the bellie, and without the consent, assumption or admission of any what soever that hes power, whether Pastors or People. III. The corruptions wherewithal the Scribes and Pharisees were infected, did creep insensibly bit and bit, and that in a longtract of tyme, without the discerning of beholders. But the corruptions of our Prelats and Prelatists, come in altogether, and to the discerning of every beholder, and must be swallowed doun in lump; so that they who submitts unto them, needs not say, that they were stollen off their feet before they ad­verted, as thir people of the Jewes might have said, in [Page 74] reference to the Scribes and Pharisees, insensibly in­fected with the leaven of false doctrine, Hypocrisy and other corrutions of these persons. IV. The corrup­tions of the Scribes and Pharisees when Christ pronoun­ced these words Matth. 23:2, 3. were not discovered; for altho Christ had made a right full discovery of them in his Sermon, yet that discovery was not made to all, but to a few and even those to whom the discovery wes made, very few understood Christs meaning; for its knowen, that even Christs disciples after his resurre­ction, were still doting after a worldly Political King­dome and Government of Christ, like that of Anti­christ now, and like that of our Prelats, their ignorance of which is ane evidence of their ignorance of other things which Christ taught. Neither was the doctrine which Christ taught in opposition to the corruptions of the Scribes and Pharisees at that tyme received, embra­ced and professed, at least by any considerable number, or in any publick maner or way: But the corruptions which are in our Prelats and Prelatists have been fully discovered to all, and to the conviction of all; so that even the Prelats themselves, nor none of their gang dare bring matters vnto a publick rational debate; and the contrary doctrine hes been received, imbraced and professed by all, as the truth of God, and that publick­ly by persones of all ranks, yea even by these who now hes apostatised; from whence it appeares, that albeit it had been lawful to have heard the Scribes and Phari­sees, yet it would not be lawful to doe the like in refe­rence to Prelatists. V. These words Matth. 23.2, 3. were pronounced in a declyning state of the Jewish Church, then matters were still waxing worse and worse, and defection growing to a full height, so that matters yet had never taken a turn; but the commands to submitt unto the Prelats and their Curats comes out of the back of a Reformation of the same corruptions and abuses. VI. The corruptions in the Scribes and [Page 75] Phatisees were never sworn but upon conviction of the sinfulness of them; but the corruptions of our Prelats and Prelatists have been sworn out of this Church and solemnly covenanted against, and upon clear convicti­ons of the sinfulness of them, and of their destructive­ness to all the interests of Christs Kingdome, and of the ruine they brought to the souls of his people, so that the oath of God is on us never to buckel with them. VII. The corruptions of the Scribes and Ph [...]risees were in a Church which Christ had not a mynd to re­forme [at leist as to corruptions only] but to desert ane make secession from and that within a few weeks, by setting up his own Gospel Church, and to leave these corrupt men altogether to the Judgment of God, which within fourty yeares wes cruelly execut upon them by the sword of Titus Vespasian. But the corruptions of our Prelats and Prelatists are in a Church which by Gods appointment is to continue in that same frame to the end of the world without alteration, either in sub­stantials or circumstantials, and which every one in their place and station is bound and oblidged to keep pure. VIII. The corruptions of the Scribes and Pha­risees were to be casten out, being now of a long tyme settled; but the corruptions of our Prelats and Prela­tists are to be received in: Now there is a great diffe­rence between these two, any man may perceive; for in casting corruptions out of a Church, there may be suspension for a little tyme upon providential conside­rations: Praecepta affirmativa, we say, obligant semper, sed non ad semper; and in the litle interim while a full discovery be made, things may stand in their former posture. But it is far otherwise as to the inbringing of corruptions, we must not give place here for a moment, the precepts dischargeing us in this case are negative; binding us not only semper, but also ad semper. IX. Supponing it was lawfull at that tyme to hear the Scribes and Pharisees [which I speak not to hear] yet if any [Page 76] did scruple to doe so, their hearing of them would not have been a supervenient scandal; for as matters stood then setled, no man could have stumbled at their so doing; but as matters stand now circumstantiat with us, tho it were otherwise lawful in some cases to hear thir Prelats and their Curats, yet it could not be done without greivous scandal, as who ever under­stands the nature of scandal and considers the for­going differences, will easily discern. Now from those differences it does clearly appear, that altho it had been lawful to hear Scribes and Pharisees, yet it will not follow that it is lawful for us in any case, to hear the Prelats and their Curats. or to submitt unto them, without horrid sin and scandal, and a pertakeing with them in their apostacy: yea granting [which we shall not deny] that every precept of our Lord Christ to his Church is binding to it, in all after generatians; yet a precept of this nature will not bind, but in the like cir­cumstantiat case Now what difference there is between the case of our Church and that of the Jewish Church, about the tyme of Christs suffering, hes been already showen. Neither shall I deny but that this precept might have had its own use, and have been obleidging, as to several things, when the Gospel Church began first to looke out of popery, and had not yet wrestled out of the harlots clawes, and pure Gospel ordinances not as yet sett up; but that case was not like our case, but most like that of Jewish Church. We have been longer in our inquiry in this question, then we intended when we began, having alwayes discovered greater abomi­nations the further we searched into it; just like those who rakes into a vile sink or pudle, albeit in the brim nothing but ordinary filth appeares, and afterwards a noysome stink arises, yet the snakes and toads are not discovered till they come at the bottome. We shall now then, having made this discovery, propone only this question for a conclusion of this discourse, that [Page 77] seing there is so much ill in this way, Wherefore is it that so many, of whom in charity better things might have been expected, joines with them in practicall comply­ance? The reasons whereof we apprehend to be these. First rooted atheisme, ignorance and regardlesness of God. II. Stupidity of conscience and untenderness of heart. III. Ignorance of the Gospel way appointed by Christ as King of his Church, for makeing the fruits of his Priestly office furthcoming for the good of souls, that is, by his oun officers and ordinances, according to his precise appointment IV. Loathsome indifferencie and lukewarmness in the matters of God. V. Real regard­lesness of their own souls. VI. Faithless and carnal fear of men more then of God. VII. Worldly mynd­edness, preferring the profites, pleasures and honoures of this world above all things; some for fear of losing these things, and some in hope of gaining them, swal­lowing greater bones then this. VIII. Giving way to the falsness and deceit of the heart in coyning distinctions and putting colou [...]s upon things which will not sustain before [...]od, neither satisfie ane awakened conscience. IX. a preposterous esteem of men in former ages tho in some things might have erred, in some things mista­ken by us (for circumstances varieing, the case varies) following them sicco pede, never inquireing further into tru [...]h, thinking it enough that they thought and practi­sed so. X The power where by ministers exercise their office not being much under debate these yeares by gone, and the derivation there of not being discernable and ob­vious to the understanding, as the gifts and personal qualifications, of Ministers are, some well meaning people look only at the gifts and personall qualificati­ons never so much as inquires into the power & autho­rity to exercise these gifts XI. Untenderness in the use of Gospel ordinances then we had them in purity, power & plenty; folks frequent-ing them with common hearts, acted only with custome and drawen with a sort of car­nal [Page 78] respect to things or persones, tho spiritual not seing spiritual comeliness in the ordinances of life, nor considering that they [we mean these of Christs appointment only] are the channels and conduits were through life giving and saving grace is conveyed unto souls, and that he hes trysted his special gracious pre­sence in them, not being acted by divine command nor yet praying unto, and leaning upon the Lord in frequen­ting them, for his promised blessing upon his own or­dinances, nor thirsting for Christ and his fulness exhi­bited in them in a word not endeavouring to worship and adore the Lord in spirit and in truth, with all the heart in every piece of his appointed worship. What wonder is it then that such folk prove untender now, yea and for their former abuse of mercies, be deserted and given up of God, to suffer themselves to be deluded, and made to esteem these things to be the ordinances of God, that are nothing but the empty shadowes of them, real husks without any more. It were useful therefore for folks to repent for bygone sins, to pray for Gods direction, to pry more narrowly into the evil of these things, to beware to party men in their sins in ane unlawful practise [although commanded] which hes such dreadful evils involved in it, and to remember the vowes and ingadgements that are upon them to the contrary; for if we turn back again after all these vowes, and with the dog lick up our vomite again, what will the end be? It had been better for them not to have knowen the way of righte­ousness, nor after they have knowen it, to depart from the holy commandement given unto them. 2 Pet. 2:21.