A REVIEW AND EXAMINATION Of a PAMPHLET lately published, Bearing the Title of PROTESTERS NO SUBVERTERS, AND PRESBYTERY no PAPACY, etc.  
By some lovers of the Interests of CHRIST in the Church of SCOTLAND.  
EDINBURGH, Printed Anno Dom. 1659.   

A REVIEW and Examination of a Pamphlet lately published, Bearing the Title of Protesters no Subverters, and Presbytery no Papacy, etc.  
THough it be a sad affliction to the spirits of men, who love and thirst after Peace, to be kept in a continual fire of Contention; yet we do not think it strange that desires and endeavours to quench that flame, which hath been so long burning in this Church, meet with no better entertainment from these Witnesses to the way of the Protestation, Authors of this Pamphlet: Who, being (as we have just cause to believe) some of the prime contrivers and promoters of these evils regretted and complained of, they do well not to trouble the rest (many of whom we believe, would not have joined in this Answer) to give any expression of their sense of the Overtures of Union made to them, nor put them to spend their spirits and time that way: But (this being their own more kindly element) they will be at the pains to put this Piece in their hands, printed in such a volumn as it may be a Vade me●um wherever they go: That so honest-minded Ministers and People (who, we persuade ourselves, are weary of debates, and might be drawn to an Union, were it not for such who for their own ends keep up the Rent) may, in so far as they can prevail, not only be induced never to think of Peace more upon the terms offered, as they express their design in the close of their Postscript; but may be affrighted (as they are pleased to speak of us, pag. 15.) from their Mother-Church and Brethren as Monsters, as a company of Arians dealing with an Athanasius, and as Tyrants, Popes, and Prelates, whom our fathers opposed; and may drink-in these corrupt principles of Church government here propined: whereby every man is taught to do what is right in his own eyes; to call any thing of Church-government which crosseth his humour, but alterable and humane; and when he pleaseth to think his Judge doth him wrong, if he cannot thrust him out and set himself in his seat, then to sleight and contemn him; yea, and to make every ordinary Minister an Apostle, who had not their call by men, and so were not subject to them in that matter.  
As the sight of this Pamphlet hath quickened our desire, yet more and more to mourn over the sad and deplorable case of this poor Church (so long afflicted with these distempers and confusions, without hope of healing, and so grievously reproached and exposed as a laughingstock to her enemies, and a grief to her friends) and to spread it before the Lord who knoweth her affliction and reproach: So we desire these men may seriously lay to heart the account they have to make for their continuing thus to disquiet and toss the Church and People of God in this Land, and to ponder how truly the Spirit of God hath given warning that divisions will breed errors, whereof they give sad proof in this Piece, as to the point of Government. And whereas they design themselves Witnesses to the way of the Protestation; we wish them to consider, that as to bear witness to an untruth or wrong cause is an horrid sin; so, however they arrogate that stile of Witnesses, yet their consciences can tell them, they give their testimony without any great hazard, having verified that they are rather seeking their own things, than the things of Jesus Christ. However, let them for us brook their title of Witnesses, and let the Reader add such epithets thereunto as he thinketh they deserve.  
If we should draw out a Reply proportionable to their practice, who have published so many sheets in answer to little more than one sheet, it might certainly be said, we had very little to do beside; Sure we are it should be very little to edification. And though we might have satisfied ourselves with some Animadversions only upon their new principles, leaving other matters, which either are spoken to already in print, or are matters of fact, which (however they busk them) are seen in their own colours by them who know us both, and impartially observe us: Yet considering their great trade hath been to make more use of stories and reproaches than arguments, and that those may be more taking with the simple and unadvised than stronger reasons; and withal that we are bound to say somewhat in defence of the Overtures of Union, which they endeavour to render so odious: Therefore we shall, with all the brevity we can, take a view of this whole Pamphlet: hoping that in matters of fact, which cannot be got proven to the world in print, our assertion deserveth no less credit in name of this poor Church, than theirs, whose interest it is to defame her, lest otherwise they incur the title of Schismatics and Disturbers: We being always ready to make-out before the Judge competent, the truth of our assertions. Yet it is not to be expected that we should dwell on every thing they start here, nor jangle on every thing in the by: but only that we take notice of what is most material. And therefore in the very entry, we shall leave sober men to their own thoughts of the insolent and vain Title of that Pamphlet, so injuriously reflecting upon this Church and the Government established therein. Nor shall we descant much upon the designation of the Resolutioners, and Resolution-party, which they are pleased to confer upon us; yea, and upon this Nationall Church in the generality of her Judicatories:  (to omit the injustice of branding us with the name of a Party) if they will add the Epithet of Public (which they deny us not either) to our Resolutions, they will sound better in any indifferent ear, than any private designs of men, destructive to the public, and tending to advance their own particular interest; And we could easily repay them with designations as true, and more unsavoury to them, were it our work to be so employed. And though they are pleased to call these Resolutions, Rotten Resolutions, pag. 85. Yet we doubt not but they will be fragrant in the Churches of Christ, as a Truth of God, when they shall be dead and rotten, and their opposition thereunto unsavoury. We shall as little trouble ourselves with what is said of the Representation, seeing we believe themselves do judge it is more easily traduced than solidly answered; And as to what they are pleased to speak of our Reverend Brother whom they call our Agent, pag. 15, 16. As that Representation containeth nothing unworthy to be owned by him, or whereof he needeth or will be ashamed; So, the innocency of his agency to prevent the evils they were endeavouring to bring upon this Church, and his carriage and integrity in managing that Trust, are so well known at home and abroad, that we believe he needs not write Apologeticks against the slanders of their tongue or pen, which they have either in this Piece, or upon other occasions, most unjustly cast upon him. They are pleased to let out reflections tart enough upon persons, both dead and alive; to which we shall only say, That such reasonings of theirs are not dainties to us, to refute men's Arguments and overcome them in their cause by branding their persons; and that as we think the graves of the dead, who are gone out of the world without public scandal, aught to be inviolable; So if those who are alive be not studying so much the more to approve themselves to God, sure they make a bad use of that scourge of their tongue, wherewith they have been so much and so often smitten these divers years bygone. And whereas they are afraid we should forget we have some among us who were Prelatical, and therefore do so often tell us of it: and do tell us also, (which indeed we never knew before, and having searched this testimony they would have us credit, we find it an untruth, disowned by him upon whom they father it) That some of us of late did profess our respect to the congregational way, and our dislike of the subordination of Kirk-Judicatories, pag. 10. We wish them to consider that this reflection, of being Prelatical (as they term it) doth not reach some of us only, but others of the worthies of Christ elsewhere, who did not at first see the evil of that way. And as we desire they may not forget, that the most part of those who were honoured by Christ to be most eminently opposite to that course, yet alive (as it hath pleased the Lord in great and remarkable mercy to preserve them in His Church to this day) some two or three, at most, only excepted, are also opposite to the way of these Witnesses: So also that they do not charge that too hardly upon any of us, which they know may be retorted upon some of themselves. And we are confident, that who so know their way, and their confidents and bosom friends, of whom chief they have been making use in promoting their cause, will easily discern who run nearest to Independency. Papists were wont to be thought no fit men to defend the Protestant Religion; and it may be thought they are none of the fixedest Presbyterians, whose (not only persons, but) projects in reference to that Government are owned as their own cause, by men whose principles are known (even the Witnesses themselves being judges) to be opposite to that Government, and that even when real Presbyterians, unconcerned in us or our differences (save in so far as they are friends to Truth, and to us for the Truth's sake) do disown, yea, and act against their way.  
But passing these, and many the like passages, We shall take notice of their Book as it is an Answer to the Declaration, wherein three things will be worthy our pains to inquire after. 1. How they have acquit themselves in Answer to that Charge of their small respect to the established Church-government, and their encroachments thereupon? 2. What entertainment they give to the Overtures of Union? 3. What their Doctrine concerning Subordination is? which they do twice speak to, But we shall speak to all in one place.  
Before we can enter particularly on these, Two Exceptions against the Title and whole tenor of the Declaration must first be removed out of the way:  
First, Their sense of the whole scope and tenor of the Declaration, is, That however we pretend to Union and Peace in it, yet for the matter of it, it looketh like no such thing, but is an heap of bitter invectives and reproaches, and that (like rude painting) without the words in the Frontispiece it would never have been owned for any such thing. This charge they setoff, both with Scripture and a poetic vein, pag. 4, 5. And again, pag. 74. they quarrel our raking into the bowels of bygone actings, while we make an offer of peace, etc.  
This challenge, we take it, doth relate to the Narrative of the Declaration, premitted to the Offers of an Union, wherein some account is given of their former irregular actings and projects. And we shall not insist to regrate how much the Scriptures are wrested or misapplyed throughout this Piece, and how unsuitable, in our judgement, it is to let lose a poetic humour upon so sad a subject, which calleth for our mourning rather than our mirth; as they have of late begun the taking up of that way in their Pasquil's put in people's hands. But as to the matter itself, had we to do only with these Witnesses, we could easily answer them, That whatever others unconcerned might judge of the suitableness or unsuitableness of that Narrative, in reference to the scope and purpose of the Declaration; yet, if that Narrative be true (of which we shall hear afterward what they say) and if they be the persons chief guilty of carrying-on these courses, it were more fitting they were laying them to heart, and testifying their abhorrence thereof, by joining with their Brethren, than thus to carp and quarrel when their faults are laid open before them in love. And to speak it seriously, though we are content to bury all those, provided they would hearken to an Union in the Lord: yet we are confident the Lord is ill pleased with their way therein, and requireth they should repent and mourn more for the wounds they have given their Mother, than their practice hitherto declareth them to have done. But to express ourselves further, for the satisfaction of all; we do ingenuously profess, that, so far as we know the mind of those who emitted that Declaration, their scope in that Narrative was no other than what is expressed in the close thereof▪ pag. 8. Namely, that it flowed not from any design either to defame or irritate, or to charge these destructive courses upon all of them: But they conceived (and we do still conceive) that Narrative was necessary in that way of application to them; Not only to vindicate themselves before the world and all good men, that they contended not about trifles in their opposition to these encroachments; nor yet only to prove their love to peace, in that they would follow, and were willing to agree with those who had so far injured the Church and them: But that even in order to Union, they held it their duty to inform those with whom they were dealing, what the tendency of their courses was, (which possibly many who went on in the simplicity of their hearts, and joined with them in some things, could not discern; never suspecting that their Leaders would so far wrong the Government they pretended so much to maintain: and the prime Actors, being carried-on in the heat of their passion and contradiction, were not in a frame seriously to consider of the matter) that so they might choose rather to close with us, than to continue in that posture, which could not but inevitably draw them to many the like courses, still the longer the worse. And however the matter of Union succeeded, (wherein their acquaintance with the humours of such as these Witnesses made their fears far exceed their hopes, which the event since hath sadly confirmed) yet they thought it necessary to have this on record as their Testimony in behalf of the Church of Scotland, against these usurpations and encroachments, and an exoneration of their consciences in discharging their duty to their Brethren, if so be they will still run-on in courses which draw-on so sad consequences, rather than join in the work of the Lord. As these things may sufficiently vindicate the Authors of the Declaration in this particular; so we do not think this needed have hindered peace, had these Witnesses been very earnest for it. For though it was then complained how they had defamed their Mother-Church and Brethren, and now we are sure they own us nothing of this coin in this Pamphlet; yet we sincerely profess we are so far from being irritated, (however grieved) that for our part, we thirst the more for an Union in the Lord, as perceiving there will be no end of fruitless jangling, while we continue at this work; and are content that, upon an Union, there be the fairest way can be devised for burying all these things in oblivion.  
Secondly, They have another quarrel at the Title of the Declaration: for, whereas it is called A Declaration of the Brethren who are for the established Government and Judicatories of this Kirk, they challenge this upon a twofold account.  
1. That the Authors thereof should claim to such a title, even in reference to those of their own judgement, it being but the deed of a Juncto acting in an extrajudicial capacity, and not proceeding from any Church-authority; That many of our Brethren were not privy to it, nor are satisfied with it, and that it hath not been owned (as they were made to expect) by Church-judicatories, nor tendered to the Protesters by them; But that Synods being put to it by them, did refuse to declare themselves whether they would own it or not, till the other Brethren should first declare themselves satisfied therewith. This is their language, pag. 7, 8. But afterward finding it was owned by Judicatories, they add a Postscript, pag. 119, 120. wherein they quarrel, partly, the wronging of the liberty of Presbyteries and Synods, that such a Paper should first be published by private persons, and then endeavours used to engage the Judicatories in the approbation thereof: and partly, the different ways of Presbyteries in order to that Paper; some not having as yet owned or tendered it, some approving but a part of it, others all of it; some taking Instruments in the hands of civil Notaries of their tendering thereof to their Protesting Brethren; and some, upon the Protesters refusing to condemn the practices and proposals mentioned in that Declaration, as contrary and destructive to the Government, having declared them to be such as descent from the Government itself.  
To all this we give this return▪ 1. We need not trouble the world, far less do we own these Witnesses (in the posture they now are) an account how or by whom that Declaration was contrived. As they pretend themselves not altogether strangers to the mind of their Brethren in these matters, pag. 4. So the publishers of that Declaration can give a good account of the sense of their Brethren throughout the Land, which gave a rise to that business: yea, themselves might have spared this challenge, had they remembered the Conference for Union, Anno 1655. As we suppose they did not think they were treating with a Juncto then, to make peace with them only, but did expect an Union in all the Judicatories of this Church, had they agreed▪ and yet themselves did treat but in an extrajudicial capacity, and those with whom they treated were but some very few in comparison of those who are opposite to them, and acted also in an extrajudicial capacity, though they knew the mind of their Brethren through the Country: So they may remember that the Declaration containeth little or nothing, for matter and substance, but what was treated on there. Their Proposals for extrajudicial Committees were rejected there, though indeed they had not then gone the length to seek to have them imposed on this Church. They will not complain that the Overtures for Union, mentioned in the Declaration, were not heard of there; since they tell us afterward that more was then offered, pag. 75. And for their irregular actings, they were not omitted in the Remedies for bygones, and Cautions for preventing the like in time to come. And as to the slanders they cast upon this Church, and the matter of the Order concerning Intrants to the Ministry, we hope they do not believe it is a Juncto only, that are dissatisfied therewith. From all which it doth appear, that what was spoken-to in that Declaration had been looked on formerly by themselves, as the judgement of those who were opposite to them, and yet they must inquire whose it is, and who do own it. 2. As to the after-approbation of the Declaration by the Judicatories, we shall not insist to tell them, how ill it relisheth to hear them condemn the publishing of extrajudicial Papers, or want of regard to the liberty of Judicatories, whose practice it hath been those years bygone to trample on Judicatories, and to obtrude their extrajudicial Papers upon them. We do only remark, that they are very industrious to find quarrels; for, in the beginning of the Pamphlet, they leave it as an imputation, that that Paper was not owned by Church-judicatories, and when they find it otherwise, they start a new quarrel. But to the thing itself, As upon the one hand, it hath been the constant practice to deal in these matters of Union i● an extrajudicial way; and so the publishing of that Declaration in that same way cannot be quarrelled: So, if Judicatories have voluntarily (without the encroaching of any upon their liberty to engage them) judged it necessary to approve it for the matter, that so it might be more effectual for promoving an Union, we see not what wrong is done to Judicatories thereby; Nor do we see any contradiction betwixt these two, that materially it was their judgement before, (though it had not been the ordinary way to publish matters of that kind first by the Judicatories, seeing we wanted a General Assembly, and no other Judicatory could declare for all the Church) and that since they have formally owned it to prevent all cavillations against it, such as now those Witnesses urge to render it uneffectuall, as being but a private Paper. 3. It being now (as we are informed) generally owned by the Judicatories, and that before we had any knowledge of this their Answer's coming to the Press, (say what they will to the contrary) it is not very much to edification that we should search throughout the Country for an Answer to what they allege of some Synods entertaining their motions concerning the Declaration, or of matters of fact about the way of owning it, especially when their general discourse leaves us to our conjectures, what Judicatories in particular they would reflect upon. This we will confidently maintain, That some Presbyteries not owning of the Declaration judicially as yet, is no argument that they will not own it, or (suppose they do not own it judicially, nor tender it to their Brethren, who are more peaceable than elsewhere, and free from any accession to these disorders complained of) that they do not approve of it; That though other Presbyteries did only own the Overtures of Union at first, (waving the Narrative) if so be they might bring up their Dissenting Brethren to accept thereof, yet this may well prove their peaceable temper, but not their disallowing of the Narrative, as their after approbation thereof hath made manifest; And that what ever they say of the dissatisfaction of some of our judgement with it, or some parts of it, (which though it be not proven, yet we willingly grant it can never be expected that any should own all the particular expressions in a concluded Paper which they cannot alter, nor is it necessary they should do so) yet there are none of our Brethren but they own the matter, and do concur in condemning their Declinatours, irregular practices, proposals, and what else is condemned therein, and in approving the Overtures of Union. Nor do we see any cause why they should quarrel, that Brethren appointed to tender the Declaration to such of them as do not meet in Presbytery with their Brethren, should return an authentic testimony of their diligence to them who sent them; seeing that is not unusual in divers cases without any imputation upon men. And for what they say, some declared of their dissent from the Government; though we can speak nothing as to the truth of the thing, nor do we know from what particular Presbyteries to seek information; and we know some Presbyteries challenged by them upon this account, have vindicated themselves that they never meant to charge upon them, that intentionally they did descent from it; yet they will not soon satisfy and silence all who have that opinion, that their principles and actings tend that way.  
2. Another quarrel they have against the Title, is, that hereby the Authors of the Declaration do exclude them as not being for the Government: for, so they complain of the Title and other passages in the Declaration, pag, 11, 12. To which this answer in the general may suffice, That it is a truth, we are for the settled Government and Judicatories of this Church; it is also true, they have dissented from us in the matter of that Government, not only in quarrelling and endeavouring to overturn the constitution of two successive supreme Judicatories of this Church; but (as we will hear more fully afterward) in projecting and endeavouring to lay aside the ordinary way of exercising that Government, by the Judicatories instituted by Christ, and yet continued with us, and to act in a new and extrajudicial way. And therefore, though we will not judge of their intentions, and the Authors of the Declaration never minded that designation, as exclusive of them: yet, we fear not to assert, that these actings and proposals of theirs, are (upon the matter, and as to the nature and tendency of the work, which is all they can fasten upon the passages of the Declaration cited by them) contrary and destructive to the Government, and consequently had need to be the better looked to by them, who would clear themselves of any such imputation.  
This (in the particular prosecution of it) leadeth us to the first head propounded; And seeing they spend much of this Pamphlet in vindicating themselves in this particular, we will therefore examine how they acquit themselves, leaving their defence about the matter of Subordination till the close of all, as was said before.  
In the general, they clear themselves of this charge, partly, by a solemn profession, that their fear of our ruining the Government, and other Ordinances of God, and the work of Reformation, and their desire to edify His Body, made them differ from us, and act these things which we call irregular, disorderly, and destructive: Partly, by appealing to their actings, in professing, preaching, printing for this Government and no other, in owning themselves as members, obeying just Sentences, etc. and partly by solemn taking God to record in this matter. So pag, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. To this general we answer, 1. Whatever they retain of respect to that Government, yet this Piece will abundantly clear that they will never own it in any hands but their own; They will not submit to Judicatories, nor allow of a General Assembly, so long as the plurality is opposite to them, as we will after hear▪ And as their actings are not only really destructive to the Government as it is now established and exercised in this Church, (which way of expressing our grievance we know not why they carp at, pag. 18. seeing their acknowledging themselves members of Presbyteries and Synods, etc. pag. 13. seemeth to us to import an approbation of the exercise thereof in our Judicatories, as an Ordinance of Christ) but inconsistent with the exercise of Presbyterial Government in any reformed Church, no less than in this: So we fear that those tentations they allege to have been cast in their way, pag. 16. (though we deny that ever any just provocation hath been given) have prevailed more to hid the tendendencie of their way from some of them than they are ware, being but too well known to be impatient of any contradiction. 2. As to what they allege of their fears of us; This is not the proper place to discuss the other particulars concerning our ruining the Ordinances of God and work of Reformation. And whatever they allege of this, Yet no desire of theirs to edify the body of Christ, nor any wrong supposed to be done by us, can warrant them to do a real wrong to the Government, and so sin against God, who needs not their sinful courses either to promove any of His holy ends, or to prevent hurt from the sin of others. But as to the matter of the Government (which is the question in hand) and their fears of us; As we are confident they will get no Compurgators in this cause among unbiased men, friends to this Government: So, we hope impartial observers will here take notice of their spirit and way (whereby they may know them the better in other things) who dare assert to the world, That they overturn Judicatories, act in matters ecclesiastical contrary to the established order, and out of the roadway, as themselves afterward confess; do drive designs to have the exercise of the Government turned out of the right channel, in the most material things entrusted to the Judicatories by Christ, and do make and keep up a rent in this Church: And all this they do (if we believe them) lest we should ruin the Government, who in all things observe the order constantly practised in this Church since the late Reformation. Men would rather say, that these actings speak that they will really ruin it upon a fear that we may ruin it (take the matter in their own sense) but in effect they do so, when we are endeavouring to maintain it. 3. As to their solemn taking God to record in this matter, we shall not meddle with it, nor with their sincerity in it, as not belonging to our cognition; nor are we bound to take never so solemn professions for current payment (which will amount to no more than this, that they seriously believe their way is not contrary to that Government which they believe to be of God) so long as we find men's actings, whereby we may judge of their respect or disrespect to the Government so far as is incumbent to us, whatever their own inward real thoughts be. And here we must tell them, that all they allege (of their professing, preaching and printing for it, of meeting in Presbyteries and Synods, as members, and of the obedience they profess to yield) will never speak out their respect to it, while they have not spared to break the Judicatories of the Church, in a time of so many errors, and when her unity was so necessary, and so have exposed her as a prey; and while they have not only publicly traduced this Church in her Members and Judicatories, to the saddening of friends, and triumphing of enemies; but they themselves will do nothing, nor suffer any thing, but what they are pleased to account right and just, let the Judicatories conclude never so often, and have never so much to say for the justice of their proceed. These are practices which we know not if their coming to the Judicatories, and observing what they like of their proceed, will set off as consistent with respect to the Government.  
But these Witnesses proceed more particularly to vindicate themselves, by answering to these things which are laid to their charge as evidences of their wronging the Government. These they profess (pag. 66.) to have insisted on, for clearing of themselves and taking away of that rock of offence upon which we have stumbled. And we do hearty wish they were able to do it convincingly; for, it would be most refreshful to all of us to find all the Members of this Church friends indeed (and not in name only) to the Government of the Church. But we are sorry to find, that in stead of rooting out old jealousies, they have started new principles which do confirm them, and beget more fears.  
And here, in the entry of this debate, we do once for all entreat the judicious Reader to consider how these men, who pretend so fair to adhere to Order and Government, and to walk after the pattern of our pious progenitors, do in effect but trace the steps of the Remonstrants or Arminians in the Low-Countries, For who so will be pleased to peruse the Acts of the Synod of Dort, with the Preface thereunto prefixed, (Edit. in folio) will find that (not only in their Protestations, the tenor and reasons whereof do homologate that Protestation of the Arminians against the Synod of Dort; but) in the most of their projects and practices here defended, they have so exactly paralleled them, as if they had set them before them as their copy. Their tumultuous and disorderly way of planting Congregations (of which we will hear more afterward) was the very practice of these Remonstrants, who made it a great part of their work to obtrude upon vacant Churches, Ministers addicted to their opinion, excluding (wherever they could) all others, though never so well qualified, and orderly called and desired by the Churches, In which they did not only misregard the inclinations of the people (who by that means were put to hard shifts) and despise the judgement of Classes and Synods, but made use of force and power, Praefat. pag. 20, 21. ad annum 1611. Neither wanted they a pretence for these and the like irregularities, contrary to the established Order, taken from the distempered state of the Church; whereof it was then told them, themselves had been indeed the cause, and their pretending thereof was in effect a gloriation that they had so far disordered all matters, that they could not be remedied, Act. Synod. pag. 87, 88 This is also pretended here, pag. 32, 33. and doth deserve the same answer. That Order procured by some of our Brethren (to which somewhat is here also spoken) wanted not its own pattern among the Remonstrants, who (that they might increase their own party, and seclude others from the Ministry) procured that the election of Ministers should be (not according to the Order established in that Church before, but) by four of the Magistrates (who, for the most part, then in Holland were addicted to them) and other four to be deputed by the Presbytery, Praefat. pag. 26. ad annum 1614 As they with us have made themselves a distinct body, and keep their own meetings under the name of the Godly Party; So also did the Remonstrants set up their meeting apart from the rest of their Brethren, for carrying-on their own ends, Praef. pag. 15. As these Remonstrants by bitter invectives in Pulpits and infamous Libels in writ and print, did revile the Protestant Doctrine and Teachers, to render them odious, and draw people into their faction, Praef. pag. 14, 20, 21. and frequently: So, this Church hath met with the same measure from such as these Witnesses, as is notour to the world, and abundantly clear from this very Pamphlet. We have here a great debate for Committees of equal numbers of both judgements, to be chosen by the respective parties: And in this also the Remonstrants have led the way to them, who being but a few number in that Church, to make themselves strong and equal with the Orthodox, did urge it as the first of those conditions, upon the granting whereof they would join in a Synod, that the Synod should consist of Commissioners of equal numbers of both parties, each to be chosen by their own party, Act. Synod. pag. 65, 66. As now it is urged that men ought not to submit to Sentences of lawful Judicatories which they count unlawful, and accordingly men who are censured do still continue in the exercise of their Ministry, pretending that the Sentences are unjust: So also the Remonstrants maintained they could not submit to any Sentence, save in so far as they were convinced in consceince of the equity and justice thereof; and when they were censured, they did counteract and go on in the exercise of their Ministry. Act. Synod. pag. 66. and Praef. pag. 20. And when it was laid to their charge, that by Non-submission they did violate their engagement at their entry to the Ministry, they used the same shifts (for most part) which are now cast in our teeth, Act. Synod. pag. 87, etc. These and many the like passages recorded in that Preface, and rejected and refuted in the Synod, may show that it is not without cause we are suspicious of their ways, whom we find to walk in these paths, which had well nigh ruined that Church. And who so desireth further satisfaction in this matter, we entreat that (beside the Preface) they will ponder the Remonstrants Conditiones habendae Synodi, with the Answer of the Synod of Delft thereunto, and the judgement of the foreign Divines upon their Declinatour, especially of those of Geneva; All which are recorded in the Acts of that Synod. But we come to the particulars.  
I. They vindicate their Protestations against the two last Assemblies, as not being destructive to the Government, because they profess the contrary in these very Protestations; and these Protestations were only made against undue qualifications of, and prelimitations made by, persons assuming the exercise of Government, which the duty they own to the Government and preservation thereof, constrained them to testify against, after the example of our fathers of old. And they think it strange that the Authors of the Declaration should wrap up the authority of those two Assemblies, and of that part of the ministerial Church which is of their judgement, in the very being of the Government, as if the Government could not be owned nor subsist, the authority of these meetings being denied, and the corruptions of men discovered and acknowledged. So pag. 17, 18.  
Answ. This would have been judged strange doctrine in the General Assembly, 1638. where it is put in the Sentences of several of the Prelates, that declining and protesting against the Assembly is censurable with summar Excommunication; and yet these Prelates did pretend reasons of their deed no less valid (themselves being Judges) than they think their own to be in their judgement. Yea, we are not forgetful how it was asserted also before our differences, by a leading man of that party, acquainted with the Acts of this Church, That protesting against an Act of a General Assembly, or of Delegates having their power, did deserve the same censure. But as to these their Protestations, seeing they do here not only endeavour to vindicate themselves, as doing no wrong to the Government thereby, but all along lay the corrupt constitution of these Assemblies as a crime, to our charge, and do pretend it as a warrant for their irregular actings, and a great obstruction to unity: (as may be seen throughout the Pamphlet) We must once for all put them in mind, that this matter hath been spoken to already, the nullity of their proceeding in these Protestations discovered, their exceptions against these Assemblies (again repeated in this Pamphlet) answered, and the practice of our forefathers cleared and vindicated, partly in the Observations upon our differences, and partly, in the late Representation, which are unanswered to this day. And therefore it doth concern them to satisfy  men with more solid arguments than naked assertions, especially in a matter of such importance, against which so much hath been argued, and upon which they lay so much weight, and which, if it prove to be wrong, they must undoubtedly conclude themselves among the most turbulent men that have lived in a true reformed Church. In the mean time, till they bethink themselves of this, we must tell them, 1. Their fair Professions in their Protestations will not blind the eyes of discerning men, to make them believe that they did not wrong the Government thereby, but had a care of the preservation thereof. Experience teacheth, that worst of courses do usually lay claim to fairest of pretences, and that Innovators do ordinarily intent the quite contrary to what they pretend; though we shall be far from judging so of many who followed that course in the simplicity of their heart. 2. As to their quarrelling, that we wrap the Authority of these Meetings and the plurality of other Judicatories (which is the ministerial Church of our judgement, as themselves confess all-along) in the very being of the Government: Though we confess Presbyterial Government is an Ordinance of Christ, and might be owned and subsist, albeit there were not a Church in Scotland; Yet we are sure, it is not men's respect to the abstract notion of Church-government, or to the exercise thereof in Utopia, that will prove them friends to it, while in the mean time they oppose it as it is exercised in the Reformed Churches. And therefore, as we are far from judging the discovering of men's corruptions to be destructive to the Government, (provided the matter be orderly pursued, and judicially made out, not alleged only) So we do constantly maintain, that their rejecting of the Judicatories of this Church, as not worthy of their trust, upon the account of the corruption of the plurality thereof, doth in effect overturn the Government in this Church, and striketh against it in all Reformed Churches also, there being (through the mercy of God) generally as fit Officers among us as else where. And, as to their Protestations, we fear not to assert, that thereby they have given the saddest blow to the Government of this Church, of any it hath met with since the Prelates were removed: For hereby they have opened a door to all confusion; And as they have stricken at the being of two Assemblies▪ So their Reasons (if of any weight) will conclude as strongly against others before these: and their example may teach others (as well as themselves) to decline all Church-judicatories so often as they please. 3. We wonder how they can allege prelimitations of these Assemblies as a proof of their nullity, (suppose the charge were true, as it hath elsewhere been proven to be a calumny) when yet they will admit of no Assembly as lawful, without prelimitations enough, yea, where we are the plurality, as they express themselves, pag. 91, 93. and elsewhere. This is indeed to give out with one measure, and take-in with another.  
II. As to the charge of their planting Congregations in a disorderly way, and counteracting to the determination of Judicatories, in that matter, They do upon the matter confess the thing (and indeed the world knoweth they have acted in a tumultuous and disorderly way, which themselves acknowledge to be a fault great enough. pag. 19) only they strive to mollify it divers ways.  
First, by giving an account of the causes moving them so to do, which are at length deduced, pag. 19, 20, 21, 22. Namely, That by the Public Resolutions, and the Constitution and Acts of the late Assemblies, malignant men have got up their head in Congregations and Presbyteries, to bring-in others like themselves, and holdout able and godly men. All which they think might persuade them to a preterition of some things otherwise fit to be observed in the course of formality and order.  
Answ. 1. This is indeed a very notable testimony they give their Mother-church in the day of her reproach from adversaries, that (except where they are pleased to give charity, and that is where themselves bear sway) we have no Church, either Judicatories or Congregations, wherein order is to be observed, but an heap of rubbish, wherein there may be good stones, but no structure: so that they must take odd ways of neglecting both Presbyteries and Congregations in planting of Churches. Impartial observers will discern what good service this is to the opposites of our Church and Government, and what a dash is hereby given to all the Reformed Churches, among which this was accounted none of the worst. 2. As to what they say of the constitution of the Assembly at St. Andrews and Dundee, That business (as is said) hath been already cleared in the Observations and Representation, and that these who differed in judgement about the Public Resolutions, were neither cited to the Assembly (as here they allege) but such only as persisted to preach against these Resolutions after conference, were referred to it, as was the custom in like cases. Nor were they excluded from being elected, seeing some of them were chosen by Presbyteries where the plurality did differ in judgement from them, and they did both sit and act in the Assembly, till they were pleased to decline it and go away. 3. Whereas they lay the weight of this charge of the corruption of the Church upon the Public Resolutions, and long ago in their Nullity, they profess that their Protestation, and other the like actings, do stand or fall upon the justice or iniquity of these Resolutions; and all-along in this Piece, it is their great argument, both to justify their actings, and their not accepting the Overtures of Union. We cannot but again put them in mind, that naked assertions in this particular will not satisfy judicious men, seeing if they cannot by Scripture and sound Reason condemn these Resolutions, they will not only be found in an error, but to have rend a true Church in the prosecution and maintenance thereof: And, we believe,  men will judge it very unreasonable, that they should take liberty thus to start new Quarrels and Debates, as they do in this Pamphlet, till first they make it appear they have Truth on their side in these Debates upon which they first began the Rent. They know that both in the Observations, and more fully in the Representation, this Question hath been debated with them. And they would do well to satisfy the world with an Answer to these, before they draw such conclusions, as that a Church must be thus overturned, because these Resolutions are owned by it. We are content that that Question (Whether in the case of an Invasion, all the Subjects of a Nation may lawfully be employed by the Magistrate, for the defence of the Public, and their own private interests and concernments?) be taken into consideration by all Reformed Churches, and are confident that they will abominate our brethren's principles; who not only do resolve the Question negatively, but have bred so much confusion, because the Church did own the affirmative as orthodox, though with much tenderness and many cautions, and that after that the Nation had been already weakened, not only by former strokes, but by the divisive courses of those, some of whom are not yet wearied of that trade. What can be concluded from this opinion of our Brethren, but a condemnation of all the Protestants in Europe? who (not only in the case of invasion, but otherwise) do not scruple to join in the Armies of their supreme Magistrates and Confederates, even though they be Papists. But we shall not insist to repeat what hath been spoken more largely on this subject: Only, till they make good their assertion in this, the most of their other assertions and practices, mentioned in this Pamphlet, will want a bottom to rest upon, and can be looked upon no otherwise than as the furious actings of men, ruining a Church because she will not err with them. 4. What they speak of the Mock-repentance of those men who were admitted by the Public Resolutions, may easily be answered, if we consider, (1.) That seeing by unanimous consent, Anno 1648. the body of the People who had concurred in the matter of the Engagement, were ecclesiasticè purged of that scandal, at a solemn Humiliation, a very few only were left to be the subject matter of that debate. (2.) If these men who were not taken-in with the first, might have been employed for the defence of the Nation without the profession of their repentance; yea, suppose they had been of another Religion (as we believe is made out in the Representation) Then certainly the Question about their Repentance is extrinsic to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Public Resolutions, though de facto it be an untruth, that these Resolutions were approved before it was determined that such as were to be admitted, and had not yet given evidence of their repentance should be required to do it. (3.) When these men were enjoined by acts of Assembly before our differences to repent of their former courses, under the hazard of Excommunication; why is it accounted a crime for them to obey, or for the Judicatories to receive them? (4.) When the far greatest part of them were admitted to repentance, long before these Resolutions came to be debated, yea, before the Assembly, 1650. why is the odium thereof cast upon the Resolutions, or upon the Commissioners of the Assembly, 1650, who did assert them, and the Assembly, 1651. who did approve and ratify the Judgement of the Commission? (5.) When some of the chief of those who were admitted to give evidence of their repentance, about the time of the debate of the Resolutions, were examined, tried and admitted by men of their own party and judgement, why do they lay it at our door as a mock-repentance? (6.) When the Rule concerning their admission to repentance was found, why is the misapplication thereof (if any there was) charged upon the makers of the Rule, or the approvers of the Resolutions? and why is the wickedness of some few desperate persons (which is all we believe they can instruct, if any thing at all) laid to the charge of all who gave evidences of repentance for these courses, as proving them all to have mocked God, and that Church-order must be violate, rather than they have any hand in the election of a Minister? 5. As for what they say of the Acts of these Assemblies, debarring men of their judgement from the Ministry, and from being members of Presbyteries and Synods; If those Resolutions be found just and orthodox, and those Assemblies to have been lawfully constituted, (as we are confident to make-out both) they can have no just reason to carp at these Acts concerning those, who (not content to be dissatisfied, or to have sufficiently exo●ered themselves in that matter) do still continue to oppugn the same in public preaching. Yet we add further, that here was no tentation to break order, seeing, so far as we know, none of these Acts have been put in execution, and we are sure they have acted irregularly in planting of Churches, where ex certa scientia we know that, out of love to peace, men of their judgement are admitted Elders both in Presbyteries and Synods, and where no Intrants to the Ministry are put to give obedience to any of these Acts. 6. Whereas they assert that, by reason of these Resolutions and Acts, malignant men have got up the head in Presbyteries and Congregations, to keep out godly men from the Ministry, and to bring-in others like themselves, who make sad the hearts of the godly, etc. (1.) If they mean by malignant men in Presbyteries, those who do own the Public Resolutions, and the late Assemblies, and consequently are opposite to them upon that account, and because they will not hearken to any terms of Peace, unless they get all their will in these particulars: We confess they will find us all not ashamed to own that course, which yet we will not grant to be malignant, but are ready to abide the trial, whether the characters of Malignants, held forth by this Church, be more applicable unto them than to us in these things, and in their and our late actings. But for any men who own malignant courses in our Judicatories, or are opposite to the work of Reformation, in Doctrine, Worship, or Government, or to true Holiness, we confess we know them not; (except what such as these Witnesses may be guilty of) And if such a charge be made-out against any, we are confident the Judicatories will satisfy the world, that they are not such a corrupt crew as they are said to be in this Pamphlet. (2) As for their power in Congregations, though we may be bold to challenge them upon the truth of the assertion, that these men bear any such sway in Congregations, at least in any considerable number of them: Yet, (supposing it were so) we desire they may condescend, if in any Congregation, any of these men have endeavoured to bring-in a Minister, who is not orthodox in his judgement, of competent abilities for the work of the Lord, and of a blameless and godly conversation. Though possibly they, and others than they, be not desirous to have a Protester, (at least some of that stamp) if it were but upon the very account of what is owned in this Piece, that being once in, he would play Pope among them, and not submit to his competent Judges, save in so far as he pleased to reckon their proceed just, and so they should have a poor life with him. However, this also is but a pretext only as to their violation of order; seeing (though there were nothing to say against the thing itself) they have acted irregularly where there was no such shadow of a pretence, but have violently born down the members of a Congregation, the plurality (if not all) of whom have been strait from the beginning of the late Reformation. With all, we never dreamed (till Mr. Rutherfurd started it in his Preface to his late Survey, wherein we are sorry to find so much drop from his Pen to the prejudice of his Mother-Church, and (as we conceive) to the disadvantage of the cause he maintaineth in his Book) That we and they had differed about the admission of those persons to Church-communion upon their giving signs of repentance: But they still yielding that we might take them in to Church-fellowship and communion, did deny the consequence, that therefore they might be admitted to Camp-fellowship; (how rationally they did so, let  men judge) Now, if these men be ecclesiasticè purged from their scandals, and admitted to communicate in Ordinances; common sense will dictate, that they cannot be denied the privilege of Church-members, in making choice of those who are to dispense these Ordinances unto them. We find indeed that the Assembly, 1649. appointing these who had been upon the Engagement to be received to give evidences of their Repentance, did ordain also that some ranks of these should not be admitted to be Elders in Judicatories, but according to an Act of the Assembly, 1647. But these Witnesses do so speak in generals, that we know not whether those persons they talk of, be such as ought to be secluded by that Act, or whether they quarrel their actings as members of the Congregation only, or as Elders also. And we do the rather question this, because we find they do not stick to passe-by the plurality of Elderships where no such exception can be taken. Beside, that Act, 1647. (to which the other relateth) doth debar them from Ecclesiastical charge, only till the report of the evidence of their Repentance be made to the Synod and General Assembly, and their consent obtained to their bearing charge, which we suppose was done in the General Assembly, 1651. where the Resolutions and admitting of these persons were, after grave examination, approven. And further, It is in that Act provided, that if any be already received into the Eldership of a particular Congregation, yet he shall (not be extruded, but) not admitted to be a member of Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly, without the approbation and consent aforesaid, which doth not seclude him from having hand in the election of a Minister in that particular Eldership. We grant also that the Assembly, 1649. in the Directory for election of Ministers, do appoint that where the Congregation is disaffected and malignant, the Presbytery provide them with a Minister. But that cannot be extended to any persons, who, being Ecclesiasticè purged from their former miscarriages, do not of new involve themselves in any the like course. And however, it is the Presbytery, and not Brethren of other Presbyteries, acting in an irregular way, who are entrusted in this matter. But the truth is, the scope and way of these Witnesses, and such as homologate their principles, is, under this and the like pretexts, to lay aside Presbytery, Eldership, Congregation and all, if they be not of their mind, and upon the desire of never so few of their party, to obtrude a Minister upon the whole Congregation, that ●o they may increase their faction. (3.) As for the character they give of Ministers admitted by us, whileas they cry-up those whom they admit irregularly, we repel it as a foul calumny, and do again repeat what hath formerly been asserted to the world, That we have admitted as many able and qualified men since our differences, as hath been done in any so much time since our late Reformation. And though we are really unwilling to rake into that which calleth us all to mourn; Yet our duty to defend Christ's Order in His own House, necessitateth us to say, That if these Witnesses will remember what mark God hath put upon their irregular actings in the person of one, who (as we remember) was the first in this Kirk obtruded by them in a violent and disorderly way, on a Congregation, upon the account of piety, we think it may warn them to be sober in these assertions. For our part, we trust we have obtained mercy to love piety, and have much longed to see more fruits of it among those who make so much noise, among which we esteem this a special fruit, if men were more sober and orderly in their walk, and more sparing in talking of their piety, and crying-up of themselves. And thus, we have done with this first part of their Apology, wherein we have insisted the longer now, that we may save ourselves much labour when we shall so often meet with these things again in this Pamphlet.  
Secondly, But lest it might be objected, that no such faults of the Judicatories and Congregations did warrant them to sin and break Order: They mollify their practice further, pag. 22. by telling us that what they do is a sinless preterition of some things, otherwise fit to be observed in the course of formality and order; and that as they do nothing sinful and evil of itself, so they do nothing from contempt or disrespect to the least point of order, and have kept within the bounds warranted and allowed unto them of God. This general seemeth to us very strange Divinity, that the intruding of a Minister against the consent of the plurality of the Eldership and Congregation, to whom belongeth the giving of the Call, and without the concurrence or consent of the Presbytery, to which that Congregation is subordinate, to his Ordination, is but a sinless preterition of a formality, and no transgression of the bounds warranted of God. And we cannot but look upon them as scorning us, when they say they break Order, but not out of contempt or disrespect to it. But afterward, pag. 34. we find them endeavouring to clear this matter further, where, in stead of saying any thing to the interest of the Congregation wronged by them, they take it for granted that the man is lawfully called by the Congregation whom the Presbytery conspireth to keep-out; Which indeed is unhandsomely to beg a great part of the Question, beside the unjust aspersion cast upon the Presbytery. And as to the wrong done to the Presbytery by others meddling to ordain a Minister within their bounds, they are pleased to rectify our judgements and conceptions, by telling us (in application of their distinction betwixt the essentials and circumstantials of Presbyterial Government, premitted, pag. 33.) that in the matter of Ordination, this is of scriptural divine institution, that a Minister be ordained by a plurality of Presbyters, but that he be ordained by such a number, officiating in such a bounds, the Scripture hath not determined: Whence they infer, that in case a Presbytery conspire to holdout one who is lawfully called, and rightly qualified, it is no breach upon the being and essentials of the Government, if he receive his Ordination and Admission from a neighbouring Presbytery, especially when the conspiracy is general, and no remedy can be had by a superior judicatory.  
Answ. Not to insist upon the falsehood of this Assertion, That there is a conspiracy in any Presbytery, far less a general conspiracy to hold out a godly man, lawfully called and rightly qualified, because he is not of our judgement (though it were no declining from truth in him to be so) We must say it, that whatever may be said in defence of Ordination by Presbyters only, in a Church not constituted; Yet it is new and strange Divinity to set up and maintain that practice in a Church constituted and settled in her Judicatories, and particularly in this Church, where the like assertion or practice was never heard of before since the Reformation of Religion, and that notwithstanding all the tyrannical conspiracies of the Prelates to hold out godly men from the Ministry: But it would have been judged (as indeed it is) an utter subverting of Church-government as it hath been exercised (not only now, but) ever since we had Judicatories, that a Presbytery, or Ministers of divers Presbyteries (which indeed is the case, though in effect a Presbytery are but so many Presbyters to all those who are not under their jurisdiction, or whose scandals fall not to be cognosced by them, as to any Ecclesiastical power they can exercise over them) should intrude themselves within the bounds of another Presbytery, and there do the work of that Presbytery in a Congregation subordinate to them, without, yea, against their consent: And that the supposed faults of Presbyteries should be redressed by others who have no jurisdiction over them, and not by their respective superior Judicatories only. We find the Scripture giveth the power of Ordination to the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. which is more than the plurality of Presbyters only. And Mr. George Gillespie in his Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, part. 2. chap. 3. pag. 132. doth reject Sutlivius his gloss upon the word, who by the Presbytery understandeth only the Ministers of the Word, Non juris vinculo, sed utcunque collectos, i. e. gathered and convened together, not by virtue of any legal bond or association, but, as it may be, occasionally and accidentally for such a business: Which is as like the way of our Brethren in this particular as one thing can be like another. To this may be added, that the second Book of Discipline (to which they profess to adhere, pag. 13.) doth restrict the exercise of the power of Presbyteries (then called particular Elderships) to the bounds committed to their charge, or where they govern: This, or the equivalent restriction, is four times repeated, chap. 7. pag. 80, 81. and thrice in that Act of Parliament, establishing Presbyterial Government, prefixed to the Books of Discipline, pag. 20. As for their distinction betwixt what is of scriptural institution, and what not; or, (as they have it, pag. 33.) of positive humane institution, to be regulated by that great end of Edification, and altered accordingly: Mr. Gillespie in the foresaid Treatise, part. 2. chap. 6 pag. 160, 161, 162, 163. hath abundantly cleared, that the determination of the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, are left to be particularly determined by the Church, conform to the light of nature and general rules of God's Word, and that these particular kinds of Assemblies, appointed by the Church according to the light and rules foresaid, do fall within the compass of these things which are Divino-Ecclesiastica, mixed, though not mere divine Ordinances: Which also concludeth strongly for the bounding of these Assemblies to be of the same nature. For, the Word of God having appointed so many Pastors and Elders as can with conveniency ordinarily meet together, out of the Congregations in a convenient circuit, to make up a common Presbytery, which hath power and authority to govern these Congregations, as is held out in the said Treatise, part. 2. chap. 3. pag. 146, 147. And the Church having now determined (according to these common rules) these several meetings to be common Presbyteries in their respective bounds; If we hold these meetings, so bounded to be only of positive humane institution, we desire to know wherein Presbyterial Government is an Ordinance of Christ, more than is in any reformed Church, where there are a plurality of Presbyters, but no Judicatories erected? It is true, the circuit of their jurisdiction hath been fixed by the Judicatories with an eye to that great end of Edification, viz. by having respect to the conveniency of their meeting for doing their work to edification, and accordingly, Assemblies have found it for edification to erect new Presbyteries for the better accommodation of Ministers and People; all which being done according to the light of nature and general rules of the Word, they become, so constituted, divine Ordinances. But that they are so alterable in subserviency to edification (in these Witnesses sense and the way defended by them) as that when persons under the jurisdiction of a Presbytery do judge that they act not to edification, they may turn their back upon them and all other established Judicatories, and betake themselves to any plurality of Presbyters, who will act these things which they judge to be to edification: And that other Ministers, who have no power over that Presbytery, may come in upon their work and act authoritatively in, and over the Congregations committed to their charge; We believe it will be judged a paradox by all those who understand any thing of Church-government. And it needs not be thought strange that those Brethren do refuse submission to their own respective Judicatories, so long as they maintain that they may usurp upon the power committed to others when they please. This assertion of the divine authority of Presbyteries, as they are bounded according to the light of nature and general rules of the Word, may be further confirmed from the testimony of the Author of the Course of Conformity, who, pag. 129. maketh use of the same notion of mixed Ordinances, and doth so prosecute the same, pag. 135, 136, 137, etc. as doth demonstratively conclude that no Gospel-Ordinance, administrated by this or that man, in this or that place, no Prayer consisting of such and such petitions only and not others, no Sacrament administered in these individual elements, and many the like particulars, are divine Ordinances, unless we allow these to be divine Ordinances, which are determined in the general by the Word, and in their particular circumstances (not needful, nor possible or convenient to be determined in the Word) by the light of nature and general rules of the Word. We may also appeal to the judgement of the Reverend Assembly of Divines, in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, Edit. Edinb. 1648. pag. 231. Where, though they profess not to plead an express institution, that such Synods must be necessarily thus and thus bounded, etc. (as neither Independents nor they can plead for the number and bounds of particular Congregations) yet they do affirm, that Synods, thus bounded, are agreeable to, and warranted by the Word of God. And again, pag. 237 they make the same parallel betwixt the bounding of Synods and Congregations, as being to be regulated by the general rules of the Word, and particular circumstances of times, places and persons. But leaving these to be further pondered by them who shall read these Treatises themselves, We desire further, that all discerning Readers will take notice of these few (of many) absurdities which will be found to follow upon this principle, as it is asserted and put in practice by them. 1. Whereas it hath been the work of all friends to Presbyterial Government, to prove that it bringeth not Congregations under any foreign jurisdiction (as Prelates subjected all to themselves and their Cathedral Churches) seeing all the Congregations within the bounds of a Presbytery are ruled in common by their own Pastors and Elders assembled together; This doth indeed bring-in a foreign jurisdiction both upon Presbyteries and People, when a company of Presbyters (who are neither Synod nor General Assembly set over them by Christ, nay, nor any Ecclesiastical Court at all) shall take upon them to judge of the Call given by a People, of the qualifications of him who is to be their Minister, and of the Presbyteries carriage and judging in that matter, and so shall proceed to the ordination of the Minister. 2. By what divine warrant a plurality of Presbyters may act authoritatively in things belonging to a neighbouring Presbytery, they may by the same warrant act in Presbyteries never so remote, at least within the National Church; And by what warrant they may judge of the Call and Qualifications of a man for the Ministry, and accordingly ordain him Minister of a Congregation within the bounds of another Presbytery, if they judge the Presbytery conspireth to hold him out, by the same warrant they may also depose a Minister, or Ministers, in Presbyteries, if they judge their respective Presbyteries conspire to hold them in: (for, we believe the power of Ministers in both these, is of a like extent) and so a few Presbyters may plant all the vacant Congregations, and depose never so many Ministers throughout a National Church in despite of all the standing Judicatories, who are hereby made but so many cyphers to signify nothing; Yea, by this principle, may not some number of Presbyters, perhaps erroneous and heretical, plant all the Congregations in a Nationall Church, upon the Call of some few of their own mind; and yet violate nothing that is divine in Presbyterial Government? 3. By this principle no man is bound to look upon a Presbytery ruling the Congregations in such a circuit, as a divine scriptural Ordinance, more than any company of Presbyters met together;  all wherein the one differeth from the other is but of humane institution, as they say. 4. No person within the bounds of a Presbytery shall be bound to own their own Presbytery, as an Ordinance of God, to which they ought to submit and give an account of their actions: But they may as well betake themselves to any other Presbyters nearer or further off; and if they satisfy them, they may reckon they have done enough for obeying any divine Ordinance in this matter. 5. May not people also within a Congregation, upon the same account, refuse submission to their own Minister, and betake themselves to any other? And may not Ministers intrude upon the Congregations of their Brethren without the transgression of any Ordinance of God,  the bounding of Congregations is of human institution, as well as that of Presbyteries, as the Assembly of Divines do urge against Independents, in the passages before cited, and of which we may read a witty discourse of Mr. Samuel Hieron in the Pulpits patronage, by Thomas Ball, part. 3. ch. 4. arg. 9 where he compareth such Overturners of these settled bounds, to a fellow who told him he cut timber out of other men's hedges, because God never made hedges. These and many the like considerations do make it evident, that these Witnesses in stead of wiping off, have added new jealousies of their way; and that while they make it their work to advance their party, they little consider into what inconveniences they thrust themselves, nor what a door of confusion they open to all Innovators.  
Thirdly, They labour to clear themselves in this matter by recrimination; telling us (pag. 22.23.) That we have intruded men upon their settled Ministers; have divided and separated from the body of Presbyteries, being but a small part thereof; have counteracted and caused people counteract Determinations of Presbyteries and Synods; That Synods have taken things out of the hands of Presbyteries, where there was neither reference nor appeal, nor maladministration; have refused to acknowledge Ministers for members, though duly called, tried and ordained; and that some Synods have taken upon them the power of a General Assembly.  
Answ. Were all these true charges and unquestionable faults, yet we know they have better skill than to think they can justify their fault by our committing of another. But in so far as we can understand these general challenges (and we wish they had made them out more distinctly) we doubt not sufficiently to clear ourselves, not only as to the matter, but to the observation of Order in them. And, 1. If after a Minister is orderly called, and upon his trials before the Presbytery in order to his admission, some of them in the mean time in a few day's huddle up the trials of another, who is desired by some of their party in the Congregation, and do thrust him in over the belly of People, Presbytery, and the person who is already called; We trust none will count it a crime, that the Presbytery proceed in their orderly way to set over the People the man whom they have called, and to whom they do still adhere. Or, suppose they in their precipitant way, (as they use not in these cases to observe the prescribed Order) do take the start of Presbytery and People, and thrust-in a man; we do not believe that any will condemn the Presbytery, if they harken unto a People, and set a Minister over them according to the appointed Order, seeing they cannot in conscience submit to such an Intruder, and are rather willing to maintain another (if the legal maintenance be otherways disposed of) than be brought into such bondage: To do otherways were not only to approve of their usurpations, but to wrong the liberty of the People, and subject them to an intolerable slavery; though otherwise we have forborn to meddle with such as they have thrust-in, where the People do not make a grievance of it. 2. It hath been often denied that the guilt of separation and dividing of Presbyteries lieth at the door of those who adhere to the Judicatories of the Church, and would they submit the matter to the trial of any competent Judge, it would appear to be so. But they have now taken-up a way of being both Judge and Party in their own cause, and so are sure not to lose. And were it for edification to search the Country for stories of fact, and trouble the world in print with them, it were an easy thing to make the injustice of this charge appear. This we assert, that all they can say in this matter in places which we know, is, That because the Brethren of a Presbytery would not own, nor sit with such as were deposed by the General Assembly (who, with possibly one or two of their adherents, would presbyterially condemn all the proceed of the Assemblies) but did meet together apart to do the work of the Lord incumbent to them, therefore they must be accounted dividers from their Presbytery. And in another Presbytery, which in time of the troubles had not met for a year, some Protesters (at the instigation of some of their Leaders) having called the Brethren together occasionally, without convening Moderator and Clerk, did approve of the Protestation against the Assembly at St. Andrews and Dundee, which when some Brethren, who met with them, perceived, they deserted that meeting, and did acquaint the Moderator therewith, who (as it was proper to him) appointed time and place for the meeting of all the Presbytery: But these Protesters, who had formerly met, would never meet with them any more, but keeped their own adjournments and meetings to this day, notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Synod to unite them. All which being duly considered, will leave the division at their door, seeing they would not conveen at the Call of the Moderator, whose office it was to call them together, after so long an intermission, at least it ought to have been first desired of him. Nor did the Presbytery conveen, secluding them, but they were called with the rest, and when they refused to come, were earnestly followed by their Brethren; and it was a long time after, before the Synod (having much and often dealt with them to unite) did proceed to declare these to be the Presbytery they would own, who should meet together at a time and place fixed by them. Which they could not forbear to do any longer, unless they would leave all the affairs within these bounds in a confusion. 3. For our causing people counteract the Determinations of their own Synods, it is a thing we profess ignorance of, and do take it for a calumny unless they make it out. But that People or Ministers have been warranted to counteract the Determinations of Presbyteries, when their superior Judicatories have condemned these their Determinations, and reponed the parties injured to their right, we hope is agreeable to the Rules of Government; and what else they can mean by that general challenge, we confess we cannot divine. 4. That Synods have found mal-administrations in Presbyteries, and so have taken matters out of their hands (according to the Order) when yet these Presbyteries did not find any maladministration in their own actings, we believe is true enough; But we hope this will be found no crime, unless we make Presbyteries their own Judges, to determine when they are right and when wrong, and disallow that Synods take any thing from them, either upon appeal or maladministration, except they will first be pleased to be convinced they have been in the wrong. 5. That Synods (though they have forborn to quarrel men's exercise of their Ministry in Congregations where they have been disorderly planted, when the Congregation maketh no opposition to them, as it falleth out in some few places; Yet) will not own these as members of their Synods who are thus admitted, either by Ministers without the bounds of the Presbytery, or by Ministers within the bounds, who make themselves a Presbytery, and will neither unite with their Brethren, nor be subordinate to the Synod, is, we hope, the most sober and fair testimony can be given against their encroachments and usurpation, and will be condemned by none but those who would have us (as they elsewhere phrase it) stoop like Asses, and bear all their irregularities, and approve all they do. 6. That a Synod, yea, and Presbyteries of their judgement, take upon them the power of a General Assembly, is but too notour, in their judicial condemning the authority and constitution of General Assemblies: But wherein this crime of Synods taking that power on them can be charged upon us, we know not, unless it be on this account, That now when General Assemblies do not meet yearly as they were wont to do, Synods do take-off the Censures of some Ministers, according to the Order observed by General Assemblies themselves when they did open the mouths of any. And this we believe will not be condemned, but any  person will judge it unreasonable, that men being in a capacity to be employed in the work of the Lord, should be keeped back because a General Assembly (who used to reserve such cases to themselves) cannot meet to give them liberty. We believe that in the want of General Assemblies (as in Holland) they will not judge that Synods may not do more in things within their own bounds, than if they had them yearly. And (to use their own argument here) we think they should not quarrel this, who not only wait neither for Presbyteries nor Synods, but do themselves take-off their own Censures inflicted by General Assemblies; but their extrajudicial meetings do transact and conclude things of most important and general concernment to the Church.  
III. To the complaint of their slandering of us, they make a large return, pag. 24— 31. And,  
First, They begin with recrimination, making mention of a Latin Piece lately published, which they father on a dead man, reflecting also on our Preach and Prayers, and other Pamphlets, as they call them. Ans. To add nothing to what is formerly said of their inhumanity toward the dead, we shall only embrace their own Overture, and shall be obliged to any of them who shall be at the pains to turn that Piece in English, and let it plead for itself. And for our Preach and Prayers, though we love not to justify ourselves, or cry-up our abilities and abundance of matter for that work; for, who is sufficient for these things? Yet we make conscience to speak nothing in public but Truths of God, and such things as are suitable to the present condition of our hearers; and who so reproacheth us in these things, we must leave it at our Master's feet in whose Name we speak. However, we have learned not to credit all the news they give us of the acceptance of our Ministry, either with these of our or their own judgement, being, we hope, approven not only to God, but even in the consciences of our hearers. And we may also say, there was never more forbearance given, in a constituted Church, to irregularities in preaching, than hath been given to theirs, though they be so unparallelled; and all out of love to peace. Whatever we say or write against their cause and actings therein, yet we use not to slander their persons in things extrinsic to the cause as they do to us; nor did we publish any thing of that kind, till they by printing and writing had defamed us at home and abroad, which necessitated us to say something for ourselves and the Cause of God in our hands.  
Secondly, They justify these their actings by showing that they were necessarily drawn thereunto in their own defence, wishing us to have patience, if these be slanders, till God clear our innocence and discover their malice and treachery: But if there be truth in them, they may lawfully plead with their Mother for good ends. Answ. 1. Though we indeed confess it our duty to walk submissively before God, under most unjust aspersions; yet we believe that doth not hinder us to vindicate our own integrity, and the integrity of a National Church, far less doth it warrant them who put us to this exercise thus to insult over us with such Ironic counsels, as they account them; we forbear to declare whom they imitate in these pranks, and are truly sorry that their pertinacious adhering to such divisive and destructive courses, notwithstanding all the sad fruits which they may daily perceive to flow from them, doth discover them so much to all impartial observers. 2. Our controversy being with them about the Public Resolutions, and admitting of persons to employment in a Civil State and Army, and about the constitution of a General Assembly, we see not what could cast them upon the necessity of this defence of traducing all the Ministry in that cause; seeing they were standing Ministers in the Church before, not declared uncapable of being in a Gen. Assembly; And sure they fell not within the compass of the Question of the Public Resolutions; and therefore they might well have debated these points without reflecting upon the Ministry, save in so far as they pleased to quarrel so many of them as were upon the Commission and Assembly, for their approving the Public Resolutions, wherein they have been sufficiently answered already, and those who are concerned, are still ready to defend and justify themselves. The truth is, after these debates about the Resolutions and Assemblies were become threadbare and invidious to all sober spirits, that they should keep up a rent because of them, they fell to a new clamour about purging, of which they here speak, and in which we did not controvert with them, neither before nor in the time of their rent, yea, nor since, save in so far as we have still complained, that their disturbing of Church-unity and order, made it ineffectual in many respects. What their design is in it, may clearly appear from this Pamphlet, wherein oftener than once they insinuat and declare, that they hold our Judicatories corrupt, and would not join in a General Assembly so long as men, who (as they allege) have made a defection, by approving the Public Resolutions, are the plurality in them. So that to have themselves again in power, and others out, they make this clamour against us, which is unjustly said to be in their own defence, but rather in prosecution of their design to overturn the Church-judicatories as now constituted, that so they may get all the power in their own hands, as was told them in the Declaration. 3. It cannot be accounted an act of defence for them to divulge men's supposed faults, in stead of seeking to have them judicially tried and censured, and when none was pursuing them, to blaze them abroad in another Nation and Church, to make way for their obtaining of power to themselves over their Brethren. 4. Albeit we should be silent as to the truth of their charge, yet that passage, Hos. 2.2. will not justify their way of proceeding. We hope they will not make the state of this Church parallel to the state of Israel at that time when this command was given to the Godly, which they now pretend to imitate. For than they must conclude this Church not to be God's wife, but an harlot; and though she have corrupted neither Doctrine, Worship nor Government, yet she must be put in the same class with vile Idolaters. Withal, if even when a Church is not God's wife, but idolatrous, yet her children are bound (by that command) to plead with her as a Mother, before she get an actual bill of divorce; Then certainly a true Church, keeping the purity of Religion, should not have her nakedness discovered to the world, by divulging the faultiness of some of her Members or Teachers, without dealing with herself to take course therewith. And it hath been long since told them in the Observations, pag. 17. that Mr. Burroughs was of another spirit, who adviseth that we should plead with a Church orderly, in so far as may be, and by her Judicatories and Ministers, which are her mouth: and peaceably, sitting down when we have discharged our consciences. But they have observed no such rule nor moderation.  
Thirdly, But to make out the truth of their charge, they make a long deduction of a story, That the body of the Ministry had been corrupt under Prelates, that the General Assemblies had acknowledged this remaining corruption, and therefore judging that Presbyteries and Synods were not able or willing to purge themselves, they found it necessary for several years to appoint Commissions to try and censure Ministers and Elders, as was accordingly done: That these Visitations again appointed in the year, 1650. were not kept by reason of the war: And that since that time few or none have been purged-out by Presbyteries and Synods, but many of those who were formerly purged-out, are taken-in without sufficient evidences of their repentance. Answ. As we are very unwillingly brought upon the necessity of vindicating our own and others integrity, when we believe the Lord is calling us, and our Brethren also, to be rather lamenting after Him, and confessing before Him our failings and miscarriages, for which He is contending with us: So we hope we may without vanity say what hath been openly avowed by some of their own side, that (whatever failings are among us) we have generally as well qualified a Ministry as any other reformed Church they know. We are sure this long story is a very poor proof of their charge, and they had better made it out by proving, (or offering to prove it at least) against the particular persons in their respective Judicatories. For, 1. it is a very unconcludent proof against the present Ministry of this Church, that many of them were corrupt and prelatical before the year, 1638. and that the General Assemblies did then and after complain of it: For now, in so far as we know of this Church, few of them are alive or unpurged-out, by the Commissions they speak of and other Church-judicatories who were corrupted under Prelacy (and no wonder if twenty years make a great change of the Ministry of a Land) and generally the Ministry doth now consist either of those who were opposite to Prelacy, or who have been since planted. And if some few of these be in the Ministry, who were led away in the time of Prelates, as we believe they have proportionably their own share of those on their side; So those whom we know of them adhering to the Judicatories of the Church, may hold up their faces against all malice and detractors, for their sincere renouncing of that course, their ability to serve God in the Gospel of His Son, and their blameless and Godly conversation, and we believe many of their opposers would be ashamed to compare with them in any Reformed Church. 2. Though we judge it great presumption in them to assert the inability, far more the unwillingness of Presbyteries and Synods to purge themselves, because the General Assemblies did appoint Visitations:  the Assemblies themselves did give no such reason of their deed, and they might well take their own ways of visiting and taking notice of the affairs of this Church, to the good liking of the Respective Judicatories, and without any such imputation upon them. Yet had it been so as they assert in the time when they made complaints of the corruption of the Ministry, who did only in an external way renounce Prelacy, the case must needs now be altered, when (as is said) these men are generally gone. 3. Because the Assembly, 1650. did appoint Visitations for trial and censure, which did not meet, must we therefore conclude the body of the Ministry corrupt? Sure their Commission was to try before they censured; and may it not as well be supposed they might have tried and yet found nothing like the clamour these men raise? And would not the ensuing Assembly have approven them if they had used diligence, unless also they had cast out the generality of the Ministers (as this charge must bear it) where they visited? This seemeth to us strange arguing, that because an Assembly appointed men first to try, and then to censure as they found men guilty, (which imports at most but a presumption that some guilty persons might be found where they visited, for we remember not that either information or accusation against any person or persons within these bounds, gave a rise to most of these Visitations) therefore the plurality in those bounds must be corrupt, and these Visitators could not have given a faithful account unless they had cast them out; and that if Synods and Presbyteries have not purged out many since (for even the purging of a few will not suffice them) therefore they are cooled in their zeal. We seriously profess, that as we do not omit to search out the faults of Ministers, by enquiry at Visitations Presbyterial or Synodical, as need requires, or otherways by formal Process, when either there is a scandal raised on them, or information or accusation given-in against them: And we durst appeal to the Consciences of these our Brethren joined with us in that work, whether we have not been most exact, not only in continuing them under Process, were it for years, so long as there was any probability to prove any thing against them, but in censuring the least thing that we found (which yet hath oftentimes been very little after some years' toil) according to the strictest Rules of Discipline: So that we know no cause these Witnesses have to complain of us, but that we will not thrust-out men, whether we can find them guilty by an orderly way of trial or not. If we took pleasure to recriminate, we could easily make it appear that they have done less these years bygone for purging-out those of their own judgement, in places where they have power, than hath been done by us in reference to those of our judgement. For, albeit it be not our way to make such clamours of the corruptions and insufficiency of men of their judgement, as they do of us; yet it is known that divers of them are suspected of insufficiency, and divers reports of gross scandals have been vented of others of them, of which they have taken little or no notice. 4. As for the reponing of some men to the Ministry who were formerly deposed, we believe that these seven years passed there have been fewer reponed by far, than used to be reponed by Assemblies and other inferior Judicatories in so long time before. And as the particular Judicatories, who reponed them, are ready to answer to their Judge competent for their deed, and to give in the meantime a satisfactory account to any  person; So, were the matter as gross as they can make it, yet the number of those who are reponed, are not so many, nor in so many Synods (for they insist chief on one) as to prove this general corruption of the Church. And if any favour hath been showed to some, who are deposed simply for their being silent in the matter of the Engagement, 1648. (who yet did acknowledge much sin in that complex course before they had liberty to Preach) as (to our best remembrance) it was not the deed of those of our judgement only, but some of our Brethren did join in that matter; So we believe, that were the men known, it would be judged no corrupting of a Church to enjoy such Labourers; and we have credible information, that those of their Congregations, who sometime opposed them upon our brethren's principles, do judge so of them.  
Fourthly, They close the confirmation of the truth of this charge with the testimony of the Godly, bewailing the same things with them; declaring also, that Malignants who were formerly enemies to Reformation, and to the Government and Judicatories of the Kirk, do now cry-up the Judicatories and Ministers who are opposite to the Protesters; And that now the weapons of Kirk-government are employed against the Godly, which are appointed of God for their defence and comfort. Answ. We have been so long acquainted with their arrogating the title of the generality of the Godly to their party, and with arguing from men's testimonies in this cause, that they cannot have much weight with us; only it would be thought a strange paradox with them if we should assert (as truly we may) that many precious and godly persons, both Ministers and others, are deeply afflicted for their irregular and divisive courses, and that they will never give over contending, nor join with their Brethren in the Lords work, and that they are too lavish in their charity, in crying-up of all who join with them, while they spare not to load, even the best of those who are opposite to them, with calumnies: But as to the business in hand, we think it not strange that their party be ready to cry-out of the Ministry of the Land, seeing that hath been their Leaders work these years bygone, to traduce the generality of the Ministry in their Preach, and on all occasions, and to possess people with prejudices against them, that so they might fix them to themselves. And when we find some of their Scholars such proficients, as after they had brought them to abhor the body of the Ministry, they came at length to renounce themselves, yea, and all Ministry, at least a Ministry of the Church of Scotland; and others have not feared to assert, and that to some of ourselves, That they would not have the Apostle Paul to be their Minister, were he not of their judgement, and that they would count it good service to Christ to stone some of the most godly and able Ministers not of their judgement, whose praise in the Gospel is throughout the Churches of Christ; When (we say) some have made such proficiency, it is no wonder they have prevailed with the generality of them to be dissatisfied with the body of the Ministry. They have (if they would consider it) an heavy account to make for their misguiding of people in this particular, and for mis-employing their zeal and affection, (which should be taken up mainly about their own condition) upon these controversies and debates, and by teaching them to reject their Teachers who are neither erroneous, insufficient, nor scandalous, have learned them (we fear) to run too wild in this particular, and even to weary of those whom they account good men, upon an apprehension that comparatively they are not so good as others. Whereas diversity of gifts hath always been in the Church, and men ought not therefore to be contemned because they cannot equal others (though really it were so) since Christ appointed His weak Disciples to be heard in the days of His own Ministry, and the Apostles did appoint ordinary Ministers to be heard in their own days. And as to what they say of Malignants, we are often in this Piece cried out upon as huggers of the Malignants, countenances of, and countenanced by them. And yet the world seethe that some of our Brethren are the great Courtiers with divers of them, even of these whose receiving by the public Resolutions is their great quarrel. For our part, as we have learned neither to love nor loathe a cause because of persons owning or opposing of it, but as it shall be found to agree or disagree with the Rule; So we bless Him from whom we have received mercy not to countenance or approve of malignancy, profanity or error, though we hold ourselves bound to become all things to all men that we any gain some, and not to give even the worst just occasion to reject or take a prejudice at our Ministry, if so be we may draw them to Christ, which is the great end of the Gospel committed to our trust. If men who have been, or yet are Malignants, do approve a truth or a good course, we cannot therefore reject it, but do rather see cause to bless God, that any do own the truth of God, and respect this poor Church, when they are so busy to ruin it. We hope they will not judge the cause of Anabaptists, Quakers, Antiscripturists, and the like Sectaries, a whit the better, that they can object that profane men do countenance their opposers, and the Truth's oppugned by them. And take the case as they state it; let themselves be as good and holy, and others as bad as they call them, and all that can be inferred from it, is, that they have so much the more cause to mourn that they should let such men outstrip them in a good turn, and be founder in their principles and way than they are. We suppose it was no small aggravation of David's fault in numbering the People, that he was so violent in the matter, when even a bloody Joab is opposite thereunto, and did not only witness against it, but it is abominable unto him, 1 Chron. 21.3, 4, 6. We do also acknowledge, that Government and Discipline are appointed for the defence and comfort of godly men, following the way of holiness: But we do not think it is appointed for the defence and comfort even of godly men in every course they take in hand, save in so far as it is appointed as Gods own medicine to cure them when in a distemper, and His rod to reclaim them when they are wandering: And therefore when they are wrong, were it employed against their evil courses (though we know nothing done but the naked testimonies of Judicatories against them) they ought not to repine.  
iv As to their vindication of their endeavours to set up extrajudicial Committees of equal numbers, for managing of the affairs of this Church; to which they speak, pag. 31.— 39 We cannot but observe a notable piece of nimbleness in their managing of this defence: For they bring-in this challenge, mentioned in the Declaration, only as it is complained of, that the not granting of that Overture of extrajudicial Committees of equal numbers of both judgements, to be chosen by the respective parties, was a cause of breaking-up the Conference for Union: without mentioning that other part of the complaint, that they endeavoured and with much eagerness prosecuted that design (employing all their credit with all sort of persons for that effect) to have the same imposed upon us when they were at London. Only they huddle-up what is said of that as a resuming and prosecuting that same point: As if the Authors of the Declaration were complaining in both places of their breaking off the Conference only upon this matter. And so all-along, they hold us to the Article as propounded to us; Only they give an hint of an Overture, the same for substance as it was propounded to us, without speaking to what an Overture it was, and when or how given-in. This is indeed an handsome (or rather unhandsome) conveyance or shifting of what they had no will to meet with: For, to say no more, any  person will see a vast difference betwixt a desire to have an extraordinary Overture take place in a Church, by the common consent of those who are concerned; and some private persons endeavouring (and that after other designs, to the great prejudice, if not ruin of this Church, had miscarried in their hand) to have such things imposed upon the Church by the Civil Power, when they had no Commission from the Church for that effect, and knew it was dessented from in a former Conference, by the Ministers of the Church, upon whom they would have it imposed. This is an usurpation upon a Church and her Government, which we believe no sound Presbyterian will justify, nor any others who are not Erastians', as was judged by godly Presbyterians upon the place when these Proposals were made, to whom the Churches of Christ own thanks for their testimony to the Truth against such projects.  
But to consider what they say, (leaving that distinction betwixt the essentials and circumstantials of Government. pag. 33, 34. to which we have spoken before) They confess it is an Overture out of the common road of ordinary procedure, pag. 37. and therefore they are but in petitorio with it, and had need to make their arguments for persuading us to run out of the way (which we believe to be of God) very pungent and pressing, before we can yield to their desire. We conceive their discourse on this subject may be reduced to these heads.  
First, That the decaying and distempered estate of the Church calleth for and alloweth such an Overture, otherwise they profess they would be as far from pressing it as any other, pag. 32, 33. Which is, upon the matter, (as we may hear more fully afterward) that were they once the plurality and in power, they would be loath to let it out of their hands, or let any such Committee be set over them, or any party presume to nominate an equal half of these Committees. This we do very easily believe; but now so long as they are out, and cannot be content of their lot and share in Government, as their number in Judicatories alloweth, all must be corrupt. and all the Judicatories cast lose and trod upon, as unwilling and unable to do a good turn. But to the matter, As we know no other distemper nor unpeaceableness of this Church but what themselves have made and continued, and therefore may cure it whenever they please to weary of these courses; So, for the supposed corruption thereof, we have already considered how they have made it out. Only we bless God, they will find no unsound Doctrine or Worship, nor scandals in conversation approven in this Church, nor yet that this Church is upon the declining hand since our differences, as to the planting of able and honest Ministers: And we do again assert, That whatever corruption there be in Members of this Church, yet this remedy once admitted, of turning the Government out of the channel which we believe to be of God, would be far worse than the disease, and a preparative of most dangerous consequence, whenever any party should be pleased to make use of the same. Yea, if upon the supposal of our corruption, they infer the necessity of extrajudicial Committees, may not others gather much more from such premises? Were it even a separation from us, or a prelacy (as their Committees are in effect) in some honest hands to control us in our actings. They again inculcate, pag. 33. That General Assemblies conceived extraordinary visitations needful; when the Church was in a better condition than now, and when not a few in Presbyteries and Synods did say it was a foundation for an imputation upon Synods and Presbyteries. Answ. But (to repeat nothing of what hath been said of the present case of this Church) any body with half an eye may see a difference betwixt a General Assembly the Supreme Nationall Church-judicatory, their appointing their own Delegates, chosen without respect to factions, by plurality of Suffrages, for going about a work, and this extrajudicial Committee, chosen by parties to do the affairs of Presbyteries and Synods. Must it not be strange arguing, That because General Assemblies appointed Visitations to try and censure, therefore they should conclude guilt is found on the plurality of Ministers; whereas themselves have found it otherwise where they have power and made trial of men, and where they made as great a clamour of the corruption of men of our judgement, as now they raise of them in other places? And therefore also either must they, who are a dividing party, have matters tried in an extrajudicial way without order, otherwise they will do what they can to overturn the Church. They retort, pag. 37, 38. That though they have not the same power the General Assembly had so to do, yet the Assemblies ground and reason moving them to appoint these Visitations, doth yet remain, viz. that Presbyteries and Synods were not so healthy as to do these things of themselves, which is much more true now when malignant men are got above hatches, and sundry of them set to the helm. Answ. But, 1. Is it not great presumption to parallel Visitations appointed by Assemblies, and chosen by themselves according to Order, and these Committees chosen by parties? Did Synods choose such Visitations according to Order (as they do upon occasion) within their own bounds, who would condemn it? but for parties to impose a Nomination on a Synod, is another matter. 2. Is it not as great presumption in them to judge that to have been the Assemblies moving cause in appointing Visitations, which they have not given-out themselves, but only of some few Presbyteries here and there, especially in the remotest corners; as if they could appoint none but where their Delegates must find guilt, whether it be or not. Might they not well enough appoint Visitations to try and know the estate of the Church in several corners, and to censure where they found aught amiss, without concluding that Synods and Presbyteries were unhealthy to do their work? We can instruct they appointed places to be visited where our Brethren themselves would be loath to say, Judicatories were not able nor willing either to do that work themselves; yea, their mentioning the miscarriages only of some Presbyteries, as the cause why they appoint them to be visited, doth clearly assoil other places appointed also to be visited, where there is no mention of any such thing, as may be seen from the Commissions themselves. But to clear this matter a little, it seems these Witnesses have a faculty of forgetting any thing that is not to their purpose: For others who were at the Assembly, 1648. (at which time these Visitations first began, those of the Isles and Highlands only excepted) and the Assemblies following do very well remember, that albeit the enormities of some few Presbyteries did call-for such Visitations, and albeit all these Commissions were drawn up in the general and ordinary form, giving power to try and censure any faults that should be found, and that (in some of them) in any Presbytery within a Province as well as another; Yet the Assemblies were moved to appoint most of these Visitations, neither upon the account of the general corruption or averseness of the greater part of the Presbyteries, to do that work; nor yet mainly for cognoscing upon other scandals; But chief for the trial and censure of such as had accession to the sinful courses and defections of the time, to the prejudice of the work of Reformation; Wherein the Judicatories were like to meet with difficulties from persons within the several bounds, who were either actually carrying-on, or censured for these courses, and not as yet reconciled to the Church. And therefore the Assemblies did fall upon that way as the most effectual in that exigent for carrying-on the work, notwithstanding these difficulties, and did choose rather to take that matter into the hands of their own Delegates, than let Presbyteries wrestle therein, with much disadvantage in several places. Which being well remembered, will commend much the prudence of the Assemblies, but not at all reflect upon the Presbyteries. 3. We have already cleared that there is no cause to assert that this Church is in a worse condition now, than when many of these were in, who are now purged out, or that there is any malignant faction among us, except they will call them so, who do oppose their irregularities; and therefore they would first prove that there is a faction standing in opposition to the work of Reformation, before they so often cast it upon us. 4. As we are not bound to maintain the language of any particular persons against the proceed of Assemblies, who, it may be, were afterward for just causes put to the door; nor yet to believe all that they assert of this kind; So that they dare not fasten this upon any Presbyteries or Synods, (though they are pleased to speak of not a few in them) is to us a proof, that Presbyteries and Synods were not unwilling to have that work done, as they allege. And withal, the carpings of some men at the regular and orderly proceed of their superior Judicatories (who, had they been in these times, might have learned not to submit to them, since they judged not their Sentences just) should not stop our mouths from challenging the usurpations of others. They tell us also, pag. 38, 39 that, to avoid this Overture, they did offer that the Commission and Visitations of the Assembly, 1650. might sit, if not by Authority derived from that Assembly, yet by the mutual condescendency and approbation of Presbyteries, whereby also they might have power to compose differences. Ans. But they having before that time approven their own Protestations, and condemned two General Assemblies, and upon that account sitten in that Commission, (without so much as a copy of their Commission) as a Judicatory to continue so long as they were pleased to protest against any subsequent General Assemblies, and to manage all the public affairs of the Church; In that case it was not lawful for us to accord the Overture of setting up Courts, whose Commissions were long ago expired, and some of which they had striven to keep up upon the ruins of the Assemblies. Nor do we see that Presbyteries (except convened in a General Assembly and by giving a new Commission) could authorise men to act in so universal and large a capacity, where themselves had no jurisdiction, or authorise men in no other Provinces to exercise jurisdiction over themselves.  
Secondly, That our exceptions against this extrajudicial Committee are irrelevant. To this purpose they speak several things, pag. 34, 35, 36▪ 37. whereof we give this brief account, 1. They tell us that they desire none to be in these Visitations, but members of the respective Synods. Answ. But then sure the Committee in whole (being of equal numbers) will be but a small number, if any at all, in some Synods, where few, or none of their judgement are. 2. They tell us that no power is desired to be given them, but what is Ecclesiastical, and that they are not to proceed by any rule but by the Word of God and Acts of uncontroverted Assemblies; (where we must at all occasions lay by other Assemblies, because they are pleased to controvert and question them) Answ. But they should first have cleared to us that such a Court so chosen, is a Court of Christ's institution, and that to be equally divided of different judgements, and these chosen, not by the Synods, but the respective parties, are scriptural qualifications of a Church-judicatory. 3. They tell us that they desire not their power to be derived from any fountain, but from the Synod itself. Answ. But yet they endeavoured to have it imposed upon the Synods, that they should give them that power, and the Synods may justly question if they be bound by the Word of God to give their power to persons, whom they have not the credit to choice, whose election, qualifications, (that they be of both judgements in equal numbers) work, and way of their calling them to an account, are all imposed upon them and prescribed to their hand. 4. They tell us the nomination is made by no forinsick persons, party or power, but by intrinsic members of the Synod itself. Answ. But they well know that this is not the way of Church-government, where nominations go by the suffrages of the Judicatories. 5. They tell us we wrong them in saying that they are not to be subordinate, and that Synods cannot call them to an account, seeing in the Overture, as propounded to us; the contrary is expressly provided. Ans. But hereby they give us occasion to put them in mind that the same Overture concerning particular Visitations, as it was proposed elsewhere at London, hath no such express provision: And if the plurality of them were of the same judgement with these Witnesses concerning Subordination, it were a pretty compliment given the Synods, to tell them that they are subordinat, and so countable to them, only so far as they give them no cause to think they give an unjust sentence against them, according to their Doctrine in this Pamphlet. We think Synods will be tender to whom they give their power when Subordination is so described. But this may seem yet more strange that because of the corruption of Synods, therefore they cannot be trusted with the nomination of the persons, nor with the doing of their own work but in this extrajudicial way; and yet it must import no small honesty, that these Delegates will be subordinate and countable to them for their actings, as these Witnesses would persuade us: Would not this soon make all their labour vain, by the Synods (who are so corrupt, as they say) reversing all they do? But, 6. When we allege that the clause of not reversing any thing done by these Committees without the previous advice and consent of a general Committee of Delegates, Doth bind up the Synods hands: They tell us that they may take an account of their proceed, may admonish and rebuke them, yea, and take away their Commission and Power in the case of maladministration, and give it to others of their number nominated as aforesaid. Answ. But sure this is a notable Subordination: The Synods may be angry if they please, and lay by these Delegates, but they have no power to reverse their actings, nor rectify their mal-administrations, till some others give them leave, and till they not only wait until these general Delegates be convened from the several parts of the Land, and they have sought their advice; but even till the Delegates conveened be pleased to give an advice to them, which it may be their party (being the equal half) will never suffer to be given; far less may they resume their power into their own hands, or be at their own liberty in choosing fit Committees than these wrangling equal numbers, but they must over again renounce their credit with their own consent, and let others impose their new Delegates upon them. And yet we know not if their Overture will bear so much power to be left to Synods as this poor pittance will amount to, unless these Witnesses know more of the mind of the projectors of these things, than we could read in their Papers: And withal, if it come to a new nomination, their number in the most of Synods will hardly (if at all) admit thereof, unless they will choose these same men over again who have already forefaulted their credit. 7. They tell us they can see no such thing in their Overtures, as that the Synods should set up a jurisdiction above themselves, as is asserted in the Declaration; But only a power of advice upon the part of these Delegates, (they mean the general Delegates) and a brotherly condescension in the Synods, etc. Answ. But they take quid for quo, and do not tell the whole tale: For albeit this be slavery enough upon Synods, that they may not meddle with affairs entrusted to them by Christ, without the previous advice, yea, and consent also of these general Delegates to whom Christ hath not subordinat them, (and how far this falls short of a material exercise of jurisdiction over them, and a negative voice, let any judge) Yet the Authors of the Declaration did also include here these Committees of Delegates in every Synod, who if they be not set over Synods with jurisdiction in the matter of purging and planting Ministers and Elders, and composing present and future divisions in Congregations and Presbyteries within the whole bounds of the Synod, we know not what they are: And if they have not a negative voice, being sheltered under the wings of the general Committee, it is because they have more. Sure we are, their half in these Committees have a negative voice in all these things. 8. They tell us a negative voice doth not infer a superior jurisdiction and power, but at most a coordinate power. Answ. And neither doth the Declaration prove their superior jurisdiction, by their having a negative voice, but only assert that it was a jurisdiction over the Synods, and that with a negative voice. It is enough that a negative voice doth so far set them over the Synods, that they may neither act in these particulars, but by the particular Committees; nor cognosce upon what these Committees do, but by the general Committee, and this is more than is due to any party over a Church-judicatory: Yea, it is greater jurisdiction over Synods, than any Synod can exercise over a Presbytery, by these Witnesses way of urging the cumulative and not privative power of Synods; for thereby the inferior Judicatories may act, and not be hindered by the superior; but here the Synod is so far at under, that it can neither act first, nor last, but by these. 9 They tell us that this negative voice extends not to all cases, nor all the actings of Synods. Answ. And when the one Committee takes from them, and Presbyteries also, the matter of purging and planting Ministers and Elders, and of meddling in all present differences, and whatsoever they or any others shall be pleased to make a future difference; and the other takes from them liberty, till they please, to reverse any thing they find done amiss; We will be obliged to them to tell what they have left the Synod beside, that is worth their pains and meeting, unless it be to approve simply what these Delegates have done; or else (as the Witnesses a little before gave them leave) be angry at them and show their teeth, and possibly stoop down to accept of such another nomination from parties (which they have found by experience to be so useless a way) without any power to help oppressed men and Presbyteries and Congregations. But they assure us, that a Synod is free by the Overture to ratify the proceed of these Committees, not only without but against the advice and consent of the General Delegates, if they please. Answ. It seems they have not been afraid, but their equal number of Champions would be stiff and clamorous enough (as none that knows some of them will blame them of insufficiency in these particulars) as if not to draw some of the other side to yield to their determinations, yet to keep them from concluding any thing which they will fear to hazard upon the approbation of a corrupt Synod: But why should they not also have power to reverse any ill that is done, without needing to call for a meeting of Delegates from all the parts of the Country, and waiting their leisure to advise and consent, while in the mean time their Committees may put the matter past remedy one way or other: And how can a Synod out the ratification of their proceed to the question, If the not ratification of them be not the other member of the Question? And if not ratification import a reversing, do not the Synods make too bold with their Masters and Tutors, to hazard that upon a Question? Or, if it import not a reversing, than we must learn this new principle of Government, that a Synod may not only refuse to ratify, but by a judicial sentence pronounce the non-ratification of the determination of a Committee subordinate and countable to them, and yet these determinations stand unreversed. But they assure us further, that not only is the Synod free to ratify, but they are not simply tied by the Overture to follow the advice of these Delegates, in case of their advising them to reverse the deeds of these Committees. Answ. But we are sure they are so tied by the Overture, that suppose they themselves judge the most part, yea, all of their Committees deeds to be not only simply worthy to be reversed, but most horrid and blasphemous; yet they may not without the consent foresaid, reverse any of them. And if they will allow the corrupt Synods so much as a liberty not to hearken to their Tutors advising them to reverse what they think amiss, why will they not also allow them as much on the other hand, as liberty to reverse what themselves think amiss, though their Counsellors differ from them in that also? The truth is, we hardly think that indeed they do allow them any such liberty, and that there may be a safe gloss (were the matter once practicable) put upon the Synods not being simply tied by the Overture, which would teach them better manners, than to slight the advice of their betters. But we profess we are weary and grieved to see men so ludere in re seria, and think to please judicious and conscientious men with compliments. 10. They tell us further that we wrong them in saying this Overture was propounded as a perpetual standing way, always to be followed, to perpetuate difference and contentions. Answ. And yet they have not answered the argument which was propounded in the Declaration for proof of this, viz. that yoking of parties of equal numbers together in debates (as must be in these Committees) will rather widen a breach than heal it, seeing they will not probably cede to other: Sure we are, we may lose hope of some of them, who in our Judicatories can by no reasoning be drawn to quit the conclusion which they had (in all appearance) instilled into them before they came in. Withal, they had done well to answer another argument insinuated for proving this, viz. that their power continuing till the present differences be healed, the composing whereof (with all future divisions) is put in their hands, and not at all to be meddled with by the Judicatories; Are not all the Judicatories then at their mercy to continue them short or long, yea, perpetually if they please? It is true, they make an alternative of another better way to be ministered in providence for settling peace, upon which their power is to expire. But the Judicatories are at a loss about that also, being sure our Brethren or their Delegates have a negative voice whether that be a better way indeed or not. And we are so much the more afraid of this better way, since in case this present way shall not please them, they give us no hope of recurring to Christ's own Institutions, but they will have us look for some better way to be ministered in providence for settling peace; which for aught we know may be ten times worse. This also being hinted in that short Declaration, with other considerations against those Proposals, we leave to others to judge why they lost it, with other two above repeated, in their so large Answer to a short Paper, wherein but a few prejudices of many were-mentioned, as might be easily made-out by a large addition, were it needful.  
V As to our challenging of the Order procured by some of them, putting the power of giving testimony to Intrants (which is due to Presbyteries only) in the hands of some select persons of their own choosing: They say (pag 61, 62.) 1. That they wonder this should be mentioned, seeing the Protesting Party did not embrace nor make use of that Order. Answ. But if they did not embrace nor make use of it, because it was prejudicial to the right of Church-judicatories, than they confirm all that is said of it, viz. That it was an endeavour of some of their party to enervate the power of Church-judicatories, though it pleased the Lord to break that snare; For their making use of it is not spoken to in the Declaration. Yet we must add, that some will tell them, That even those who pretended not to embrace that Order, yet dealt with others, who were for it, to let them have the benefit of it in their particulars, which will hardly amount to a serious testimony and opposition. 2. They say, that he who is blamed in this matter did but give his advice in that matter, being required, and when he saw the Order was not accepted, he laid it aside and did not prosecute it any further. Answ. But who authorised him, or others, (if any others of them did join with him in it) to give advice in matters concerning the whole Kirk, without the consent of, or Commission from the Kirk, which was the crime laid of old in the Prelates dish, as a breach of these Caveats, whereby their power was at first restrained, after they had crept into this Church? What warrant had he to lay aside the Presbyteries in that matter, as not worthy to be entrusted with testifying concerning those whom they are authorized by Christ to try and ordain, and put it in the hand of a Juncto? Was it to teach those in power to sleight Church-judicatories? With what face can they assert, that he thought it fit, Certificates should be granted by a select number of both judgements, as if this had been a Committee of equal numbers, when the quite contrary is clear from that Order? For therein, Scotland being divided in five Circuits or Provinces, and no Intrant being to have maintenance without the Testimony of four (at least) of these persons authorized for that effect in the respective Provinces: The matter is so conveyed, as in no one Circuit there are a competent number to give a Certificate named of our judgement, as there is of theirs in every one of them, and only here one and there another of ours added; and yet there are a sufficient number of Independents named for one of these Provinces, which containeth so much bounds as made up formerly five Dioceses of our Prelates: Further, if he but gave his simple opinion upon demand in this matter (and was not a projecter and procurer of it) what needed any opposition to make him lay it aside, and not prosecute it any further? And how will he, or they either, convince knowing men, that it flowed from his condescendence, that that Order was laid aside, when it was the deed of these in power here, who, perceiving the inexpediency thereof and the prejudice redounding to many Ministers thereby, procured the annulling thereof? This also we may say further, It was no sooner laid aside, but they were upon new projects prejudicial to the Church, as is asserted in the Declaration. 3. They say, that we have done worse ourselves for bringing the Ministry into bondage, by clandestine capitulations about Intrants to the Ministry. Answ. We wish they had spoken out what they think needless to mention; and if they had spoken truth, it would have appeared how falsely they have charged us with any such clandestine capitulation, and how much more falsely they have charged us with bringing the Ministry under bondage. In the mean time, for our part, we deny that there was any such thing. And Mr. Rutherfurd, who in his late Preface to his Survey, chargeth this on a meeting of Correspondents from Synods, hath given in print as much under his hand as that Engagement he speaks of amounts to; so that if the rest be of his mind, they quarrel not the thing itself, but that they have not the credit to do it alone.  
VI In answer to what is said of their design in their three Proposals at London, they give us an account (and that in a different character) of what we say of the first, concerning their seeking a Commission for Plantation of Churches, pag. 62. and in more than three pages following, speak highly to our observations thereupon: but never a word of the other two Proposals, which the Authors of the Declaration laid most stress upon for proving their Conclusion, and therefore subjoined them to the former in a different character, that they might be taken notice of. These Witnesses foreseeing how truly all these three together might prove the charge, did therefore shuffle in these (as was said before) with the business of the Conference where these same things were debated; That so they might set their thumb upon them, as if there were nothing of them here, and then cry, How weakly is it argued to conclude their attempting the ruin of this Church, &c, because they desired a Commission of Plantation, having power of disposing of the legal maintenance of Ministers? As if because one of them (and possibly the weakest of the three) do not conclude it, therefore all the three together will not: And as if to endeavour the imposing upon Ecclesiasticall-judicatories in Ecclesiastic affairs, by the Civil Power, were but a peccadillo not worth the noticing by men who are writing Apologeticks of their respect to the Government, and answering Calumnies (as they call them) cast upon them in that matter, and when that is one of the particular and weighty charges laid at their door. We believe it is no incivility to desiderate ingenuity and candour here, and to suspect that this tergiversation speaketh no excess of honesty in this particular. And they know that if all the circumstances of their carriage and way in prosecuting these Proposals and other projects at London, tending to the same end, were laid open to the world, it would give such a character of their respect to Presbyterial Government as would be little pleasing to them.  
But what do they say even as to that Proposal, 1. They tell us, that they finding the inconvenience of putting the disposing of the legal maintenance of Ministers, into the hands of a peculiar Court, and then of the Council, they did supplicate to have all that way altered, and that Ministers might have full access to their stipends, without Bonds or Engagements, etc. And that there might be a Commission for Plantation of Churches, who might also do the duty of the Civil Magistrate anent Ecclesiastic matters, etc. Answ. We have never heard more of the first part of their Supplication (which we hearty wish were granted) that they are pleased to tell us here, and therefore fides penes Authores; and if they have done good service in preserving the Liberties of this Church (as they are pleased to take a good Testimony to themselves, with a reflection upon their neighbours)  men do perceive, their Proposals do witness, and one day, which neither they nor we can get declined, will declare. But why do they huddle-up so darkly the matter, concerning the power of disposing the Legal Maintenance of Ministers to be given to that Commission, under these generals, that th●y might do the duty of the Civil Magistrate anent Ecclesiastical matters? which are the terms they give us of their Supplication; Or, why do they make only a supposition of their desiring it, when it is in terminis in their Proposal? We shall wish them more candour than thus to deal with us and the world in print, speaking so to the thing upon supposition, as if it were in doubt whether they had done it or not. And if their Supplication was so general, there have been more injuries than one in it, to desire that all the duties of the Civil Magistrate in reference to Ecclesiastic affairs should be laid upon the shoulders of that one Commission: For such a power, taken in its latitude, might not only include the late Order (to which we spoke last) in a new dress, and all the power which the Prelates had by virtue of their High Commission, but all the power which Civil Courts or any Magistrate did exercise in Ecclesiasticis. 2. They tell us it was no fault to endeavour to translate the exercise of that Power from one subject to another, the Council being otherways necessarily diverted that they cannot conveniently attend it. Answ. But, upon supposal of the resolution of the Civil Powers not to alter the former way of disposing of the Legal Maintenance, which they had not only accounted inconvenient, but even now, (pag. 62.) had taxed it as a bondage upon the Ministry by our Capitulations: It had been more honesty for them not to condemn themselves in what they allow, than thus to meddle to involve more in the guilt of drawing Ministers into such bondage. The Council is beholden to them for caring for their ease, though few Ministers are wearied with long attendance in that matter; But we know these Witnesses better, than to believe they would be so officious as to go to London and prosecute this Proposal so vigorously only, for the Councils ease, if they had not their own interest wrapped in it. 3. They say, that suppose their design in that Proposal, had been to call the Authority of these late Assemblies in question (as is charged on them in the Declaration) yet not only that, but the pronouncing them null, would not bring utter ruin to the Church and those that plead for them; Nor do they see any inconsistency betwixt that Commissions exercising their power, and the standing of the Authority of these Assemblies. Answ. We must tell them again, that had they taken-in all the Proposals here, the Consequence had not been so dark; And yet even that of their pronouncing the late Assemblies null, hath given a sorer stroke to the Church than they will know well how to answer for, (as we have said, and elsewhere cleared) and keepeth men who plead for these Assemblies under the imputation of a defection and tyrannical usurpation of the power of a Gen. Assembly in this Church; And this they will have still kept on foot, were it but in such a matter as this, till they be at leisure or have power to call them to an account for it. And though we make no question but that Commission, or any other Civil Court, might exercise their lawful power, without any prejudice to the authority of these Assemblies, or from the standing thereof: yet any who please may see that their desire concerning the rule and way of that Commissions exercise of their power, doth conclude them controverted Assemblies. 4. In answer to that charge, that the design was to have the maintenance put in the hands of men to their mind, that so they might discourage all from the Ministry who are opposite to themselves▪ They are pleased to recriminate upon the Acts of the late Assemblies; to which we have answered already, and may meet with it again hereafter: For they are afraid we forget it, and therefore we are so oft told of it, to make the volumn the bigger. In the mean time, we cannot but tell them, That had the Church made use of those Acts, (as they did not) yet the comparison is odious betwixt a Church taking course with those who renounce her Authority, and are opposite to her just Determinations; and a parties endeavouring to crush their Mother-Church, and such as adhere to Truth in her, that they may promote themselves. They tell us again, that though they cannot say they are so selfdenied, as not to have wished it so, (which we as easily believe, as we are sure de jure they ought not to have wished it so) yet they never expected nor proposed that there might be such a Commission as might wholly consist of men to their mind. Answ. Neither did any charge that upon them: for, sure the Maintenance might have been put into the hands of men to their mind, although that Commission did not wholly consist of such. It might have sufficed for securing that, if they had kept but such a proportion as men to their mind keep in that Order, of which we spoke in the last Section. And though they put us off with this handsome shift, yet we are sure they did not labour so hard in it to play an uncertain game to themselves, by admitting an equality of parties, or any thing like it, in that Commission. But they say further, that though the Commission had consisted mostly or wholly of such, there would have been room and encouragement for men of our judgement both to continue and enter into the Ministry. Answ. Why they mention our continuance in the Ministry here, (not to insist how much it would encroach upon the just power of Congregations and Presbyteries, if our room to enter into the Ministry did depend upon such a Commission) we know not, unless it be to put us in mind to tell them that there was a project also to meddle with the Maintenance of settled Ministers, and to have the Stipends of all the Ministers, admitted since the year, 1650. sequestrate, till they should come before such a Commission. And though we do think, than there were sober-minded men of their judgement let alone by such as these Witnesses, and taught to meddle more with what concerned their eternal salvation, and not to embark themselves in controversies of this kind, we needed not doubt of receiving all kindness from them; Yet so long as they make it their trade to stir-up all who will give them any credit, to traduce even the best of those who are opposite to them, we will be sparing of setting our seal to their assertion, unless there be an ambiguity intended here in the matter of encouragement, which honest Ministers will never want in the work of the Lord, even though Maintenance were withheld from them.  
Having considered what they speak to this head, of their own Vindication (except what they say here to the matter of Subordination, which we leave to come in with the rest that followeth on that subject) we shall briefly consider how they remove two other prejudices before they come to the Overtures of Union.  
I. Whereas it was laid to their charge, that they began a needless rent in the Church upon a question so extrinsic to our Doctrine, Worship and Government, and that it is a tossing of a debate now so far removed out of our way, meaning the debate about the Public Resolutions: To this they give several Answers, pag. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71. And first, They tell us we began the Rent, in that some of the Commissioners of the General Assembly, without giving timous warning to others, did in the year, 1651. suddenly take these Resolutions, when the whole Church of Scotland was in possession of, and by Covenants and Vows engaged to the Truths to which these Resolutions are contrary and destructive. Answ. As to the proceeding of the Commissioners in taking these Resolutions, as they needed not go into corners with that Question, (it being well known, that though all of their judgement had been present, they would not have made any considerable part of that Commission, for stopping their procedure to any such conclusion) so they are able to justify that there was no surreptitious dealing in that matter; But that, before that Question came to be debated, that party had deserted their trust in the Commission, in that time of straight, and would not come to it. But as to the matter itself, though their having truth on their side would not justify them from being the makers of the Rent, if it were not relevant, or tanti, as to bear all the sad consequents of a Schism: Yet, we are content the Rent be laid to their charge who shall be found in the error in this debate. And we must again tell them, that it is not fair dealing, to stuff so many Pages on all occasions with loud outcries against these Resolutions, without so much as one Argument to make good their Assertion, or any endeavour to answer what is written against them in this mater. Let them make it good that there is an error in these Resolutions, That they are condemned either in our Covenants, or in the solemn Engagement, (concerning which it hath already been told them, that that Paper was so contrived of purpose as it might not precondemn these Resolutions, if ever it should be needful to take them) Or, that the Church of Scotland did ever since the Reformation from Popery, oppose these Resolutions (as they tell us afterward in the second branch of their Answer) or own any Doctrine contrary to these Resolutions, and did not rather practise them and print Declarations conform to them. And let them answer what is said to all these particulars, in the printed Papers formerly mentioned, before they so magisterially tread underfoot both the truth and us. 2. They tell us that it is not a question so extrinsic as we would make it, but involves a portion of the precious Truths of God revealed in His Word, and is a truth holden forth by the Kirk of Scotland as containing what is necessary for preserving the rest of the Doctrine, Worship and Government from the pollutions which ill men use to bring in or give way unto, whereof they give an instance in the desires of the Commission of the Assembly 1648. concerning qualifications of Instruments in the unlawful Engagement; And they desire us to remember, of what spirit that man would have been judged, who in the Assembly 1650. (it seems by what follows it should be 1648.) would have pleaded this to be a question much extrinsic to our Doctrine, Worship and Government. Answ. Whatever was said concerning the nature of that question; Yet it was never our mind to assert, that there is not a matter of truth and error in it, to be determined by the Word of God; nor yet will we deny, but (where the case is practicable in any Nation under heaven) their opinion in this matter is of sovereign bad consequence to the State and Nation, as not only exposing the Nation to unavoidable ruin, but even exposing the Doctrine, Worship and Government to the mercy of Turks and Pagans, or Papists, if they please to invade it, rather than they will trust fellow-subjects to defend themselves and the common Interest of the Nation, and that because they may bring in or give way to corruptions, as there they express it. Only we have still judged, that when the Church of Scotland is no way concerned nor put to it to determine that Question, who may be employed in State and Armies; And seeing this question is not determined nor debated in our Confession of Faith, and we may very well Preach Christ and the Gospel, and what concerns the practice of the people of God, without dipping upon that Question, yea, and may observe the Directory for Worship, and keep up Presbyterial Government without it; Therefore it hath been thought strange, we might not lay such a Question aside, and join ourselves in the work of the Lord which is presently put in our hand. But since those Witnesses will have it of such importance still, we do again put them in mind of their work, to make out their assertion in this controversy. Mean time, lest their state of the Question be as lax as that concerning Subordination is here, We must put them in mind of these few particulars, (1.) That they must state the Question more accurately, than to make it amount only to this (as they hold it out, pag. 67.) Whether we should entrust known wicked malignant men, enemies to Truth and Godliness, with the Interests of the Lords Work and People? For we will easily reply, that this state of the Question would be found faulty in divers respects, as to that case. It will not be granted them, nay, their own Consciences dare not assert, that all of these then in question, were known wicked Malignant men, enemies to Truth and Godliness, but rather that many of them were forward in the defence of the Truth and cause of God from the beginning, though they were led away in the matter of the Engagement. Neither will it be granted, that men Ecclesiastically purged from what accession they had to evil courses, must still be accounted what they were before the profession of their repentance, and while they were going on in their wicked courses. And they must also remember, that the Question will take-in more than the Interests of the Lords work and People, as they are pleased to take those in a restricted sense. For, the common interests and safety of the Nation, and of every particular person and family therein, are supposed to be concerned in the question betwixt us, and consequently will allow more to be engaged than in a quarrel purely religious. Yea, in such a case of common hazard and combustion, they will hardly persuade rational Christians, but that fowl water may very lawfully be made use of to quench fire. (2.) That they must bring better proofs than that of the Commissions desire, 1648. to prove their assertion. For, there the Engagement was unlawful, and the War was offensive, and an Invasion of another Nation; (to say nothing of the different condition and posture of the Supreme Magistrate in these two cases) And if they will grant that the unlawfulness of that Engagement consisted only in the employing of persons wanting the qualifications in the Commissions desire, and that it had been lawful, if put in the hands of Confidents, they say somewhat: Otherwise, it will be found wild reasoning, that because a Church being jealous of the States intentions in an offensive War, otherwise unlawful, desired this, as one mean of removing their fears, that confident persons might be entrusted with the management of the War; Therefore in a defensive war, which none of the parties questioned to be lawful, and wherein the whole Nation in general, and every person in particular, are concerned as much as they are worth, no other persons may be employed. (3.) Whether they mean the year, 1648. or, 1650. we know not what strange thing it would have been thought to maintain this Thesis; But we are sure that the Commission shortly after the Assembly, 1648. did, upon the debate, word the solemn Engagement so, as it might not precondemn that Thesis, as is said before, and is elsewhere cleared; And the Commission of the Assembly, 1650. did shortly after that Assembly take these Resolutions, and that when it consisted generally of men who were most eminent friends to Reformation. 3. They retort this consideration upon ourselves, enquiring why we are so tenacious of the Determinations of our Assemblies about this Question, which we judge so extrinsic, and will not, for the peace of the Church, take course that these Determinations be not looked on as the definitive judgement of this Kirk, or any of the Judicatories thereof, and why we make and keep up Acts against those who submit not to these Determinations? Why also we sometime place the standing or falling of this Church therein? Some of this stuff is laid in our dish again with vehemence enough, Pag. 85. But we answ, If we look to what is past, and the Question were put, Why the Assemblies did define and determine in these matters, and make these Acts? Our Reply would be, because the things determined and defined are lawful and just, and they were required by the Civil Magistrate in a time of extreme exigency to give their judgement therein; And because public opposers of these Determinations, when practicable and necessary, are turbulent men and drawers on of the ruin of any Nation where they live. But if we turn to our present case, had the Question been, Why do we not lay aside these debats, and take away these Acts for peace? And why do we not forbear to impose these Determinations upon their consciences, that they should approve them as the definitive sentence of this Kirk; yea, why do not we promise that they should never be urged against them as the definitive sentence of this Kirk? Our Answer is as easy, That all this is offered to them, in our Conference for Union, and rejected by them: But as to their Question, we say, That therefore we do not take course that they be not looked on as the difinitive judgement of this Kirk, because we are persuaded in our consciences they were lawful Assemblies who did take cognition of these matters; And we know that de facto they did define and determine in them, and therefore we can not lie against our consciences and knowledge to say the contrary; nor can we, being private men, annul these Determinations simply, which is only competent to another General Assembly, if they find just cause so to do. And if they can instruct, that ever private men did repeal the Acts of Civil or Ecclesiastic Judicatories (especially which they held in their consciences to be lawful Judicatories) and declare them not to be the definitive judgement of these Judicatories (as it seems they would have us believe, pag. 85. and is the thing they seek of us) Let them produce their evidences. But we believe they will succumb in their probation, and that it will be found a practice intolerable either in a State or Church. And as to the weight they say we sometime lay upon this matter; We do indeed judge that Question about the Resolutions very weighty, where a Nation is put to practise them. But they do here alter the Question from what they are upon in this Section, and turn-in upon the Assemblies and their Determination therein. For we do not think (nor ever did we say) that the laying aside the Debate concerning the Resolutions, would be the falling of this Church: Only we assert, that their questioning the Authority of these Assemblies, upon the grounds produced, and our consenting to them herein, were in effect to expose the Church to ruin, by granting a liberty to private men to overturn National Church-judicatories at their pleasure, and so to repeal their Determinations, as to declare they had no lawful Authority therein; And yet this doth nothing contradict our Assertion, that the Question about the Resolutions is so extrinsic to our Doctrine, Worship and Government, as they need not hold up perpetual debates about it, which is the Assertion they are now refuting. 4. They assert, that the subject matter of this Debate continueth, in respect of the sin and guilt thereof, not taken with nor repent of, and in regard of the Synodical approbation and tye, the Acts of Censure, public Warnings, Declarations and Remonstrances against the opposers thereof, the authoritative approbation thereof by Synods and Presbyteries, in regard of the execution of these Acts against some, the taking-in of malignant men to have Ecclesiastic privileges and trust, and to be Elders; and in regard of many sad fruits and evidences of defection following thereupon, which they long ago represented to the several Synods. Answ. We leave them in what they have given-in to Synods, to the Returns given them by the Synods, since they pass it here in a general, Only we say this, whatever were their faults in what they gave in to Synods themselves; It had been more tolerable if they had sisted there, and had not cast-off tenderness and shame, in aspersing the Judicatories and Servants of Christ in this Church, among strangers, by their Papers spread at London, containing manifest untruths, as the particular Synods concerned are able to instruct. But for what they express here, as many of these particulars have been answered before when they laid these things to our charge; So for these which they refer to their considerations upon the Overtures of Union, pag. 71. We shall remit them thither also to see if they will be able to make out (as we are sure they will not) that any of these things they complain of were to continue upon an Union (which is the case in hand) further than in so far as might reserve the freedom of our own judgement concerning the matter of these Resolutions, and the lawfulness of these Assemblies; Or, if any thing was required of them which might either continue them under censures or censurablenesse, or import their approbation of these things in their judgement. And as to the matter of Repentance, we trust we have obtained mercy, not to decline the taking with, or repenting of real guilt, when it is made out unto us, though we dare not sin against our souls to repent of our duty, and of owning the Truth of God, as we believe we do in this particular, whatever they say here to the contrary. We shall not insist to regrate how little there is indeed of repentance for faults among us, nor shall we offer to do any thing like recrimination in so serious a business; yet we must tell them, that as all of us have need of more repentance before the Lord, So though (we believe) it is their duty to repent their opposition to the Truth in this particular, and their violent prosecution thereof to the running-down of their Mother-Church, Yet we never did urge this as a thing without which an Union might not be: Yea, we think it strange Divinity, that there can be no Peace or Union in a Church unless every man will renounce and repent of every thing wherein he differs from another in judgement. We think God hath set other limits of mutual forbearance for avoiding of a Schism.  
II. Whereas it was alleged, that their courses did speak them men affecting pre-eminence, and to set up a domination of their Party in the Church and over their Brethren: They begin with an acknowledgement of that bitter root of pride and ambition common to them with all men; but they deny that charge, though they grant they would wish all to be of that judgement in these points of difference, because they judge it to be of the Lord: So, pag. 71, 72. Answ. As we shall wish them (and ourselves both) more sense of that bitter root, and of the breaking out evidences thereof, according as their guilt is; and we are sure some of them will not get many compurgators of that very crime: So we leave it to the judicious to consider how they acquit themselves of the charge in the matters in debate, in their unreasonable demands of, and endeavoured impositions upon their Brethren, and in their endeavours to overturn and reject all Judicatories, where they are not the plurality, that they may have, at least, an equal hand in all things by their Committees of equal numbers, as is frequent in this Pamphlet. In the mean time, they ought, first, to prove their way to be sound, before they be so industrious to make so many proselytes. Next, they purge themselves of the crime, partly, in that, though the Commission of the Assembly, 1650. be in their judgement still in force; yet, after these of their judgement, who are Members thereof, had sitten in that capacity, only till they had (with the advice of other Brethren of their judgement) published Causes of God's controversy against the Land, they have not since acted in that capacity: And partly, that having offered that we by ourselves, and without them, would purge the house of God, and we doing nothing, but rather polluting it; it was no affecting of domination to take some other course, wherein yet they were content we should have more than equal share with themselves, pag. 72. Answ. 1. Though they boast also of this their condescendence about the Commission, pag. 38. Yet, as it was the highest of domination in a National Church, That a party should judge of the nullity of her supreme Church-Judicatory, and thereupon continue themselves in a power which was extinct by the meeting of that Judicatory, and which upon the same grounds they might perpetuate over the whole Church so long as they pleased: That they should also usurp upon their Brethren who were joined in that Commission with them by the Assembly, 1650. in convening and meeting themselves without calling to them to meet with them: That they should meet without their Commission, or a copy of it, whereby they should know their Members and the Quorum of the Commission, and the power and work committed to them, and without which they were in mala fide to act: And, that they should obtrude upon a whole Church and the several Synods, such things to be Causes of God's controversy as were approven duties, and had been owned as such by the former Assemblies of this Church: (as hath been already made out in former printed Papers) As (we say) those pranks did speak the highest of usurpation that hath readily been heard of in a R. form Church; So it is well known, that after they had published those Causes of Wrath, they have adjourned the meeting of that Commission from time to time, and at last did vote in their meetings to set it up again, and act in that capacity; and had done so, if the Council (whom they supplicated for that end) would have owned them in it: So that their ceasing to act since in that capacity, is to us no evidence of their coming down in their spirits: As may further also appear from the other courses they have since taken up, as more compendious for attaining their ends, than the way of that Commission. For beside (as is said) that they have no copy of their Commission, nor do know the tenor of it, and the number which make a Quorum, they are but a very small number of the Members of that Commission; And if they could make a Quorum, yet few more, so that they behoved to be constant Prelates attending on this thing. Withal, had that Commission right to meet, they know if he who was Moderator thereof, would conveen all the members, they would not signify much in that meeting, and therefore it speaks no great want of a desire of Domination, not to insist on that. 2. As to the matter of Purging, and the means they have projected for making it effectual, we have spoken thereto before, and it will come in afterward. Only we shall leave to  men, from what hath been said, to judge whether their means savour of ambition or not; and whether the Church-judicatories and their Brethren have the credit of an equal share, let alone more than an equal share as they affirm (which indeed is to us a mystery) in managing these trusts. And as to the occasion putting them on these courses, we own them thanks indeed that they desired us to purge by ourselves, when they, by their irregularities, and dividing from us, have made it scarce practicable, yea, and altogether of none effect, did others follow their principles and example. But we desire to know where we neglected to try any upon any scandal; wherever we did forbear to censure condignly when any thing was found, and wherein this Church hath been polluted by admitting so many, or so vicious men, as should put them upon these extraordinary remedies? Would they (as is said before) have as purge whether we find guilt or not, or else they will fall upon some odd courses? Sure, where themselves have power and made trial of men of our judgement, they have not found so much as to need all this noise. And we think it were safest for them to content themselves that they deliver their own souls, in their respective stations, in thess matters, without stretching themselves so far without their line. In the last place, They shut up this Apology, with a remark that it is one of Satan's policies, when he cannot find faults in the outward carriage of men in a good work, to charge them with inward abominations and mischievous designs, which cannot so easily be refuted as justly denied, pag. 73. Answ. But as to our case in hand, there is no need of secret or inward search to find these things which are engraven upon the skirts of their actings: And if the things themselves do not make-out our charge to all  discerning men, we shall pass from our compearance.  
Having considered what they say for their own Vindication from alleged aspersions, we proceed, in the second place, to take a view of their thoughts concerning the Overtures for Union held-out in the Declaration, passing their challenge against the Narrative premitted to it, as being spoken to in the entry. Here, we may be the more brief, partly, because somewhat hath been spoken to this purpose in the Representation, where an account is given of the Conference for Union, and the breaking it off. Partly, because the things quarrelled and spoken-to here, have (many of them) occured often before. Yet we shall give an account of the whole matter in these particulars.  
1. This is in general a brief and sad account of it, that our terms of Union are rejected, and no other offers made by them, but what we may gather from their exceptions made against what we offered. They profess indeed, pag. 118. that our divisions are among the deepest wounds and greatest afflictions to their souls, and that they would redeem a sinless Union at any rate, that might not pollute their consciences, and widen the breach with God; And yet, why do they leave it to us to make better offers, pag. 9? And why would they not here publish to the world what they would be at in order to Peace which they so much desire, that either we might embrace it, or be inexcusable before the world, if we rejected it, or urged any thing upon them which might entrench upon their consciences, and widen the breach with God? The truth is, whatever charity we have of the Protesting Brethren (of whom they speak, pag. 118.) that many of them are grieved with these divisions, and would be at an Union, were they let alone: Yet we have not the charity that these Witnesses are any of that number, but the very fomenters of the flame.  
2. Because it is declared that we will not accord to their Proposals of extrajudicial Committees (of which we have spoken before) nor recede from the established Government, nor go out of the common road of the Judicatories (to the corruption whereof we have also spoken, and will speak to Subordination thereunto afterward) Therefore they count Union very hopeless, pag. 73, 74. Which is in effect, as their arguing afterward cleareth, to call it desperate. So that it is now come to this, No Peace, not only except the Resolutions and Assemblies be laid aside, but except also the other Judicatories be laid aside, and men be allowed to submit to no more of their Sentences than they think just: A good and safe bargain for the Church of Scotland indeed! But we are yet resolved not to quit the Judicatories God hath given us, specially, since we have no hope of better to be raised out of the rubbish of these.  
3. Because the Declaration made mention only of these Overtures for Union which were most material, upon the according whereof, other things in the Conference might easily be settled; They are pleased to question, pag. 74, 75, 76. whether we adhere yet to all the condescensions and offers made by us in the Conference: And yet the very words of the Declaration, cited by themselves, do expressly say so much. But where men have no good liking of things, it is easy to fish faults at them.  
4. Because our judgement is asserted concerning the Acts of Assemblies relating to our present differences; Therefore they allege we obstruct Union, and (pag. 76, 77.) a great noise is made of our receding, upon politic grounds, from things wherein we pretend to conscience, justice and necessity, only because the times are changed: And withal they tell us over again the injustice of these Acts, about things we account so extrinsic, and which they account contrary to the Covenant. Answ. And yet all this needed not as to the matter of Union; but that they would needs let a fling at us: for however we think them just, yet it was never required of them to think them just in order to an Union; yea, it was promised they should never be troubled with them: But when they have spoken here with as much vehemency against them, if not more than we have done for them: We are both free, when all is done, to agree not to impose upon one another's judgement about them, and to lay them aside. We shall add no more to what we have said of the justice of these things about which the Acts are; for till they prove them to be open breaches of Covenant and Engagement, they remain to us Truths of God: Nor shall we make any further enquiry who they are that change with times, and do bring the Ministry in contempt, for that is too well known, and is no pleasing subject whoever have hand in it. But for the thing itself, we see no such change in ourselves as they would give out. We judge the thing itself contained in these Acts, being considered simply, to be just and true at all times; That persons obstructing the defence of their Country going to ruin, and overturning a supreme Church-judicatory, do deserve Censure; and that it is necessary it be inflicted when it may reach the end, to prevent, or render ineffectual their oppositions: And yet not only prudential grounds, but even conscience telleth us that it is neither expedient nor necessary to make such Acts, where the matter about which men controvert is not practicable, nor to keep them in force, when by laying them aside we may obtain the Union of a broken Church. In a word, we hold it no paradox in Divinity, that practical conclusions, relating to the public State of a Nation, do alter much with times, altering the face of affairs; And that in some times, things may justly, and ought necessarily to be done, which at another time, conscience teacheth men ought not to be done. And as for the future, we have offered sufficiently to secure them (so far as we can) against the hazard of these Acts, and that upon the same grounds of conscience, which teach us now to lay aside Acts about a Question that is extinct; though we cannot be surety that the Church in the like case of a foreign Invasion, and being interrogate by the Civil Power, shall never determine concerning these Resolutions as they have done, and concerning any, who shall make the like opposition they have done. Yea, we are persuaded, would themselves but essay their hand with their wont principles and practices now, it would soon be seen how it would be relished. We shall only add further, that as to what they insinuate of change of times, it would be more like kindly children for them to be the more peaceable and respective of their Mother, that they think the times allow them a liberty to do otherwise. It is no great magnanimity to take advantage of her low condition.  
5. As to what is said, by way of Answer to their outcries, [that though some very few Presbyteries have required of Intrants of whatsoever judgement, that they promise not to trouble the peace of the Church with these debates; Yet none of these Acts have been, de facto, a bar to hold out godly men lawfully and orderly called and tried: Though they be industrious to thrust in men of their own judgement, and crush Godly and able men who do not agree with them:] They tell us, 1. Of much and many wrongs done by these Acts, pag. 78. Which we entreat they may verify and instruct (as they say they can) before we can answer. For whereas they appeal to our knowledge, We do declare we know Elders of their judgement kept in, and brought-in in Judicatories where we are the plurality, though in some places they have cast out of their Elderships all who differed from them in judgement, and have never since made another Election, though usually before they did yearly change. We know also Expectants of their judgement, not only admitted among us to trial in order to a liberty to preach, but (being lawfully called and tried) admitted to the Ministry where we have power, We fear many young men who went to other Presbyteries to pass their trials, went not upon the account of their judgement, but that they might shun the more accurate trials used in Universities and Presbyteries where more learned men are. 2. They are pleased indeed to jest, by saying that we love to jest in our speaking of what some Presbyteries required of men of whatsoever judgement, enquiring if they laid bonds on men of their own judgement, that they should not debate for the Protestation? and who gave them power to lay bonds on men of their own judgement, seeing the Assemblies Act speaks only of men of the other judgement? To which we shall only answer with silence, (seeing the matter is plain enough to themselves when they are pleased to come to it at last, and Presbyteries might do all that, had there been no Act of Assemblies in these matters) confessing that indeed this is no matter of sport, and if we be very merry, we have not so much cause as some of our neighbours, if we reckon by outward advantages. 3. They break high upon us, That some Presbyteries should impose silence upon men of their own judgement, and yet we give them so ill example in our Representation and Declaration, pag. 79. And what doth all this amount to, but that we would be peaceable, but they would not let us, but either we must let them run all down, or say somewhat for our own defence? And yet the scope of all that is said in these Papers, is, to draw them, and with them ourselves, to lay by the debate. 4. As to what they deny of their activity for strengthening their Party, and do insinuate of a reflection upon the Expectants of our judgement; The particulars being so notoure through the Church, both what they have done, and what many of these Expectants of our judgement are, we shall rest confident that such assertions as these will gain them but little credit, where the truth of things is known.  
6. They take it ill that any thing is said in behalf of the Assemblies proceeding to censure any of their number (which yet they cannot condemn till they make good their charge against these Resolutions and Assemblies) and that we should lay any weight upon their Non-submission:  we are not to thank that they did not submit; they having suffered so many things at our hands, and with our connivance: But it proceeded only from the conscience of their own innocency, and the iniquity and nullity of these Sentences, pag. 80, 81. Answ. But as we are sure many others do not judge of these Sentences as they do, nor it may be will they so look upon them themselves, when they are brought to think seriously of making an account for their carriage, both before and since these Censures: So it is true, notwithstanding all they say, that they have not submitted. And it is no great wonder if their not submitting, and not harkening to terms of Peace, have bred themselves and us both some trouble; or that many in the Land do look upon them as turbulent and implacable men: Yet all they can truly complain of, amounteth to no more but this, That a Synod did (not to refuse to admit, but) take time to deliberate if they should admit one of them for a Correspondent, seeing it would import their condemning of a Sentence inflicted by a lawful Judicatory, though his spirit could neither submit to such delay, nor suffer him to go away without such a carriage toward a Judicatory of Christ, as we believe himself may find cause to be ashamed of; That Judicatories, of which some of them formerly were members, could not own them as Ministers, who had been deposed by a lawful General Assembly, but did intimate their Sentence, when they found they would not hearken to terms of Union; And that some of their Congregations, who could not own them for their Ministers, when they could not be rid of them, did seek to themselves a lawful Pastor to whom they might submit. And for what hath been between some of their Congregations and them, we believe their pursuing of their people criminally (though they were assoiled in Law, and it was found they had pursued them unjustly) will speak who exposeth others to suffer most. However, all these inconveniences might easily be helped by an Union, if they had not the humour to force themselves upon the consciences of Ministers and People, whether they will or not.  
7. Albeit (whatever might be said of these Sentences) we were content they should be taken-off in such a way as might not bind upon them the acknowledgement of the two late Assemblies, or of the lawfulness and justice of these Censures: Yet that doth not please them, seeing the Censures are not to be declared void and null; Which (as themselves interpret the meaning, pag. 81, and 82.) importeth that they should be declared not only unjust Sentences upon the matter, but no real Sentences, as proceeding from those who had no Authority. And if this be an equal mean of Union, without imposing upon our judgements to condemn that Authority, let indifferent men judge.  
8. Albeit it was offered to them, as to the Acts concerning the Public Resolutions, that they shall be rendered of none effect as to Censure, and that they shall never be alleged against them, as the definitive judgement of this Kirk to any effect: And albeit it was offered as to the constitution of the two late Assemblies, That (though we, for a salvo of our judgement asserted, that no unwarrantable prelimitations were put upon the election of Commissioners to these Assemblies) no unwarrantable prelimitations should be put upon future Elections, but that these matters should be carried-on as in former Assemblies proceeding our differences: Yet this doth not satisfy them, pag 82, 83, 84, 85. They count it insufficient that there be a cessation from executing Acts relating to Censure till they be made void and null by the next General Assembly. Answ. And yet we know no Judicatories (far less private Ministers) who have power to repeal their Acts but themselves. They count it a mock-remedy that the Question concerning the Public Resolutions be remitted to the Determination of a General Assembly. Answ. And yet they are the only competent Judges in that matter. But they allege it is a mock-remedy, because by the Acts they are secluded from being members. Answ. And yet it is expressly provided in the Overtures for Union at our Conference, That none of the particulars of our late differences shall be alleged, on either part, against the sitting of persons as Commissioners in ensuing General Assemblies. They allege further, that it is a mock-remedy, because we will be the plurality in an Assembly. Answ. And we desire a remedy for this, unless they will have us renounce our judgement, or cast the constitution of the Church as corrupt, and gather a new one out of the rubbish; And yet it is offered and assured in the Conference, that upon an Union, we shall in our judicial actings abstract from these bygone differences. They think it strange we should judge it a quitting of our judgement to condescend that the Public Resolutions should not be lookedon as the public definitive judgement of this Kirk: And that seeing we agree to repeal Acts concerning Censures, without quitting our own judgement, we may as well repeal these Acts that declare these Resolutions to be the definitive judgement of the Kirk, without altering our judgement concerning the things themselves. Answ. But as we know no such Acts declaratory, that the Resolutions are the definitive judgement of this Kirk, save only the Act of Assembly approving them as sound and orthodox▪ So there is no such need of piercing judgements to take up a difference betwixt what we concede, and what we cannot yield: For, an ordinary capacity will discern that particular Conclusions concerning Censures may well be repealed, and declared of none effect as to execution, without encroaching upon men's judgements concerning the lawfulness thereof, or of the Authority establishing the same: And yet a dogmatic Conclusion determined in an Assembly, cannot be declared not to be the definitive judgement of a Church in her representative Judicatory, unless men will either lie against their knowledge, and say it was not determined there, or against their light, and say it was not a lawful Authority or Representative that did determine it. There is but too much Sophistry in asserting we may take off the Synodical eye, without quitting or altering our judgements concerning the things themselves: For who Questions but men may be of such an opinion, had the matter never been determined, or should the contrary be determined? but they know this was never urged as the reason or our refusal of that desire, but only that we could not condemn the Authority that determined in these matters. And however they are pleased to twit us again with our holding these things to be extrinsecall to our Doctrine, etc. Yet we hope, were they of never so small moment, they will not have us lie or condemn our own judgements in them. And as to their apprehensions concerning our designs, (which we know not why they repeat so often) As we do not readily expect that this or any Reformed Church will be put to the resolution of any such case: So we nothing doubt, that wherever there is occasion, their judgement will be condemned by all but themselves, and we are sure themselves will not allow of it in all cases.  
9 They make a great noise of the insufficiency of our Overtures concerning purging, pag. 86, 87, 88 (though we have better cause to complain that this being no cause of the Rent, should therefore not keep up the quarrel) Asserting, 1. That for all our good words, yet we have purged few these seven years bygone. Answ. But, (not to insist on what is said before, how few of their own judgement they have either censured, or so much as put to a trial, notwithstanding clamours and flagrant scandals upon divers of them, and how much their division and irregularities obstruct that work in our hands) we thought the Question had been, not how few, or how many we had removed, but how diligent or negligent we had been? since we must not put out men whether we find cause or not. We say it as before the Lord, that (for any thing we know) if there hath been any excess in this matter, it hath rather been in laying aside men upon small causes, than in sparing Delinquents. 2. They assert, that in one Synod more have been brought-in who were formerly censured, than have been put out by us all, beside these who (having been formerly twice deposed) are connived at to Preach and Administer the Ordinances. Answ. It seems they have been unwilling their Pamphlet should want bulk, and therefore when they have told us this already (where we have considered it) they must now tell us it over again; yea, we look for it the third time in a new dress, where we shall take a new look of it. In the mean time, if these proceed of that one Synod (which is the sum of all they can say, though they will not be so ingenuous, but leave the matter so, as if possibly the like were done in every Synod) have been according to Order, and they are ready to give an account to their Judge competent; what further can be said of them, but that they have done what was the constant practice of this Chutch since the late Reformation? And as to these they say are connived at, we hope it cannot be charged on us as guilt, that deposed men having the countenance of the Civil power, do intrude upon Congregations, against our heart. 3. They assert we are become so backward and slow in this business, that in the Processes of some, we exercise our wits to raise notional debates to hinder their purging out. Ans. As to this charge, we are content to take their own course of committing the matter to God, who knoweth who they are that are faulty in this matter of employing their wits for such ends, and who do bend their wits to cast iniquity upon some men, while they are no less industrious to obstruct the trial of others. As we dare say, that we are not conscious to ourselves of any such sinistrous courses taken by us, to obstruct the trial of persons brought upon the Stage; So we can truly affirm, and they cannot deny it, that they have very much exercised their wits in such notional debates, when some of their judgement were brought to trial. We are content our whole procedure, in these particulars they reflect upon, were laid open to the world, that they might see what our carriage was in admitting of Witnesses, and judging of their depositions. And we dare yet again confidently assert, that it is a malicious calumny, that any of these are kept in against whom any gross scandals (under which they say some lie) are proven, or that we have neglected to try scandals under which they lie, were it even to continue them under Process for several years, and to examine so many scores of Witnesses. And for the issue of any Processes we know of, in suspending of some, and removing of others from their present station, we know nothing done, but what these of their judgement joining with us did approve of.  
10. Whereas, (from the experience we had of their endless contentions in taking waves to prosecute some Ministers, which when the case came to befall some of their judgement, they said it was out of the way of judicial Processes) it was offered that they should agree upon the strictest rules of purging could be desired in justice, provided they be binding to all, and to which all will submit; This they reject, pag. 88, 89, 90. 1. Because we do not adhere to, nor practice rules already agreed upon; and (say they) why then should new rules be agreed upon? This (which is as easily denied as asserted) they offer to make-out; partly in that Synodical Visitations formerly agreed upon, are now out of use, save in very few Synods; partly, that now we descent from the Kirk-judicatories their trying of Ministers by way of Inquisition, and without a Libel, yea, and an Accuser too; and partly, that many of us do now so extenuate the faults of drunkenness, swearing, etc. as not to censure men for them with Suspension and Deposition, as formerly, unless the habits, or many continued reiterated Acts of these things can be proven. Answ. All these quarrelings might easily be ended by reviving and renewing whatsoever of these hath been formerly agreed on; and put it to trial if either Judicatories, or many of our judgement, (whatever be the thoughts of some particular person, which yet they have not made-out) will not be content to engage to observe them on the terms offered. For present, we answer, (1.) That Visitations have been kept, not only by Presbyteries, as is the usual practice, but by some of our Synods, they deny not; and we are ready to renew and continue them, as either matters come to Synods by Reference or Appeals, or Presbyteries are found negligent, which yet must not be holden as proven, because these Witnesses say so. (2.) Albeit we think it a very hard case, for Ministers or others, to have Libels and Informations given in against them under-boord, possibly by them who sit as their Judges, and that any should give-in a Libel openly against them, and yet incur no Censure if he succumb in his Probation; or that any, and particularly a Minister, should be suddenly put upon the Stage as a Delinquent, where there is no probability of making-out any thing, and he is sure to be a loser thereby: Yet they know, that the way of trial (which they are pleased to call Inquisition) practised in this Church, is still in force and practice, and that Presbyteries (beside their private trials one of another, before the meeting of the Synod, twice every year) do usually once a year visit Congregations, where the Eldership are put in mind of their Oath to declare if they know any thing against their Minister; and the Congregation are likewise called to for the same effect, where, if any thing be informed, it is put to trial and probation: And in case there be any fama clamosa of a scandal, extraordinary Visitations are kept by Presbyteries or Synods, and enquiry made into that matter. And what other Inquisition they would have, we know not, except it be the Spanish Inquisition, or super inquirendis. (3.) As to the matter of drunkenness and swearing, and what else they are pleased to comprehend under that, etc. we trust never to be left to ourselves to approve or connive at such ills, especially in Ministers. We hope through the mercy of God, we have a witness in heaven of our detestation of, and sincerity of zeal against such abominations. And we wish the Lord may lay it indeed to the Conscience, but not to the charge of these Witnesses, that they suggest such foul aspersions to defame us. Nor shall we dip into an enquiry what hath been the practise of this Church, in censuring these faults in all the kinds and degrees thereof, and considered in all their circumstances, which will not be found, we are sure, to amount to what they say: nor yet shall we need to debate upon the particular opinions of any, concerning the Censure of one rash oath, (or rather a minced oath, as it is commonly termed, which is the thing they make so much noise of) or some degree of excess in a man, not known to be given to such evils, and that Admonition is a Church-censure to be sisted at in some faults and in some cases: Only for the Judicatories' part, we can instruct where some of these faults have been censured, by us, with Suspension, where there were not many continued reiterated Acts proven. 2. They except against this Overture, upon this account, that these rules must be applied by us who are the plurality, from whom they expect no purging. To this we have already spoken, as also to that of our being the plurality: Only this puts us in mind, that a new Question is often hinted to us, whether the Church of Scotland be furnished with Judicatories worthy to be entrusted with the managing of Christ's affairs? Wherein we wish they would give 〈◊〉 some more convincing light that we may all quit it, and put them in who are the honest men, if we take their own testimony.  
11. They profess they cannot accord to these Overtures, because it is not provided that the plurality shall be laid aside in Congregations, in the matter of calling of Ministers, pag. 90. Which is in effect to lay by the body of the People as incapable of Church-priviledges (when yet they are admitted to Church-ordinances) and put them in the hands of some few: And is not this a fine way to draw in to Congregations of an Independent Constitution? Though we know Independents themselves will not deny the liberty of giving a Call to them who are their Church-members, and partake of the Ordinances with them: For our part, we offered, and do offer to observe the Acts of this Church in that matter, and particularly, the Act of the Assembly, 1649. and are content to have a special respect to the most Judicious and Godly in that matter, though not to prejudge others of their privilege.  
12. They make it another obstruction to Union, that there is no remedy provided for putting out of those Ministers, Expectants and Schoolmasters, who, being deposed, have intruded themselves, or are reponed again since our Differences, pag. 90, 91. Answ. And yet, were all they say of them true (which hath been spoken to before) they are not so many, as to cause men keep up a Rent because of them: And withal, it was offered in the Conference for Union, that since a General Assembly did not meet, an account should be given of these matters by those who had acted therein, to Correspondents of neighbouring Synods or Presbyteries respectiuè: who, if they find any thing done amiss by these Synods and Presbyteries, they shall labour with them to rectify the same. As also that we shall do our endeavours that Intruders be censured and removed.  
13. They complain also, that nothing is offered about the way of calling a General Assembly, the electing of Commissioners thereto, and handling of matters therein, pag. 91. Answ. And are not here Prelimitations enough sought to be upon a future General Assembly? seeing they are not content that we promised to follow the ordinary Rules in these matters, observed before our Differences, and are content it be so called by a meeting of Correspondents, as may not involve them in the approbation of the two last Assemblies. The truth is, these things do justly stumble us, that they have raised such a confusion about alleged Prelimitations in the election of Members of the two late Assemblies (which in effect were not) and yet will not hear of another Assembly (if God grant the opportunity) without both Prelimitations and Preingagements, as to the way of Elections and handling of matters in it.  
14. They are pleased to allege further, (pag. 91.) That it is an impediment to Union, that no mutual evidence and assurance is given in matters concerning our Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, and the enemies of Truth and Godliness, and the work of Reformation, for adhering to these Articles of our Covenants, our Engagement, and Acts of uncontroverted Assemblies relating thereunto, in the literal and genuine sense and meaning thereof, as they desired in the Conference. Answ. But if by what they foist-in here (beside what was propounded in that Conference, as they set it down, pag. 40.) they mean we should engage to condemn the Public Resolutions, as Contrary to our Covenants, Engagements, or Acts of Assemblies, we think they will not soon obtain that. But as to the matter of our adherence to the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government of this Kirk, to which we are tied by Covenants and Engagements, and was the thing required in the Conference; Such satisfaction hath been offered therein, in the Conference, according to their explication of their own desire, as we wonder with what confidence they call it (as they do, pag. 40.) a shy answer; Or, how they can expect that the world, who knoweth them and us, will believe that they are the men adhering to these things and the principles of this Kirk concerning them, while we are giving cause of jealousy that we do not, or will not stand firm.  
15. They would make the world believe we impose upon their judgements in the matter of their Protestations, pag. 91, 92, 93. When yet we neither bid them renounce them, nor acknowledge the lawfulness of the Assemblies against which they were. Only we desired they should not in any Judicatory of this Kirk make use thereof to call in question and annul the Constitution and Authority of these Assemblies. Withal declaring, that this did not import their passing from them as standing Testimonies of their judgement, nor hinder them to make use thereof as a legal defence, if the Constitution and Acts of these Assemblies were urged against them: Yea, nor to make use of them in so far as they related to the Public Resolutions, if they think fit to offer their Reasons against them in an Assembly, though we judge they would succumb in that cause. Is not this far from imposing on their judgements in this matter? To make this Assertion out (beside their constant clamour against Subordination, which is to be considered in due time) they offer, 1. That this were a passing from these Protestations as a remedy against the corrupt constitution of these two Assemblies. Answ And do they not by our concession stand as a testimony of their judgement against them? And what other remedy would they have, unless to draw us to condemn these Assemblies? 2. That it should make way for the future Constitution and Authority of these two Assemblies. Ans. If they mean the Constitution of future Assemblies as these were, to this (whatever our own judgements be) there is a sufficient remedy provided in our Offers concerning the future Constitution of Assemblies above mentioned: If they mean the future approbation of the Constitution and Authority of these Assemblies in a subsequent Assembly, It is also provided that they are free to make use of their Protestations as a legal defence, if any such thing be urged against them. 3. That it is unequal to submit these things to a General Assembly where we will be the plurality, and are many ways engaged for the Resolutions which are contrary to the Covenant, and Acts and Declarations of uncontroverted Assemblies? Answ. That these Resolutions are contrary to the Covenant, etc. is oftener said than proven; and though they say it hath been already declared, yet we have not seen it proven, nor (we believe) any body else. But this is plain language, that they will refer nothing to a Church-judicatory, either where we are the plurality, or are engaged for the Resolutions, and is not this an imposing on our judgements ere there be an Union? And is it not fine language for a party, because their Mother-church is not of their judgement, in what she believeth and is able to prove to be an error, therefore they will submit nothing to her Determination? When Prelates excepted this against the General Assembly, 1638. they had their Answer, and we believe they would not bear this of us, were they the plurality; Nor did it relish from the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort. Nay, upon this account, it is impossible for any Church ever to compose a difference, unless they will cede to every party that pleaseth to contradict them. And yet we must add, that all this is an unjust clamour, as to the matter of Union, seeing (as hath been often told) all rational satisfaction and security is offered that they shall not be troubled with those bygone Questions.  
16. They shut-up their thoughts in these things, with a sad reflection, pag. 93, 94. That it smelleth rankly of a carnal politic spirit, to half and divide the things of God for making peace among men; though we do not come up to our own professions in that matter, of offering equal conditions. Answ. This we do very easily understand, by what they give out of our condescensions among their followers, That we are men who do not adhere to these things out of conscience, otherwise we would not concede so much. We leave so rigid a frame of spirit before Him who knoweth what we are put to suffer, in desiring to heal the breaches of a sinking Church. And as none but men of Donatus' temper will judge it an halfing of the things of God, to lay aside debates concerning things removed out of our way, and to forbear the execution of some Acts of Discipline, if thereby we may bind-up the breaches of a bleeding Church: So, this giveth us a compendious account of all this debate about Union, viz. That they will neither halve nor abate an ace of these things they hold, for peace's sake. And indeed upon a serious review of all their Overtures, however to allure us to quit the way of administering the affairs of Christ by His own Courts, they will allow us an equal number in their extrajudicial Committees, whereas now we are granted to be the plurality, and however they have of late not acted in the capacity of a Commission, 1650. upon the reasons formerly mentioned; though we have no assurance how soon they may usurp it again, if they find it may serve their turn: Yet it will be found, they never recede a jot, not only from their judgements, but even from any of their actings in reference to the Resolutions and their Protestations. And so we leave the case of this poor Church in His hands, who knoweth how to prove a Physician to her.  
Having now gone through these toilsome passages, which cannot but be unpleasant to judicious Readers, as it hath been indeed to us, to dwell so much on stories and bitter reflections. We proceed, in the last place, to take a view of their judgement in a very material Question, concerning Subordination to Judicatories, and Submission to the Sentences thereof; wherewith, from the very title to the close, they stuff this Pamphlet, and do more largely insist on it, both in their vindicating themselves from the charge of their small respect to the Government, pag. 40, to 61. and do dispute it as a reason why they will not accept the Overtures of Union, seeing Subordination is required in them, pag. 94. to the end. In this debate they do not only argue against the thing itself, but do express their prejudices against us, because of our urging Subordination in the Conference for Union with them. They tell us, pag. 10. that there could not have been a more unhappy assertion concerning the Government of the Kirk fallen upon and published in these times, and that both in order to the peace we pretended (as they are pleased in their charity to speak of us) and because of the bad use prelatical men and Independents may make of it. And, pag. 41. They put us in mind of what return they gave to that Overture in the Conference, viz. that they conceived it inexpedient to start and debate such Questions at that time, etc. But as we concur with them in asserting the inexpediency (to say no more) of bringing that into debate, which formerly had been held as a foundation in the Government of this Church; And we shall (God willing) consider in its own place, whether their be any (far less a superlative) unhappiness in our assertion upon this Question: So our propounding of that matter of Subordination to them (not as a ball of contention, but) as an overture and mean of solid Union, was most rational and seasonable. For, several of their judgement having, by their irregular practices, counteractings, and not submitting to the Sentences of their respective Judicatories, overturned that basis of Government, and opened a door to licentiousness and disorder, We rationally conceived, that no agreement in other matters of our differences could make a solid and lasting Union, so long as that backdoor were left open to them, at which they might run-out again at their pleasure, and until both we and they (as was offered in the Conference) should give assurance in that matter. And now others may find, as well as we, that their new doctrine here published, doth more than vindicate us in this particular, and pleadeth for the necessity of our propounding that Overture to them. We have often read the Writings of Presbyterians, pleading for Subordination and Submission of Congregations and their Elderships to superior Judicatories, against the Independents; But this is the first, (except what hath dropped from Mr. rutherfurd's pen in his late Preface) and we hope shall be the last, that is found to be written by professed Presbyterians, pleading against Subordination to Judicatories of Christ's own Institution, in any Church where this Government is set up. We do not read of any (Remonstrants at Dort or others) who have ever refused or declined it in the Reformed Churches abroad, but their name is unsavoury; nor know we of any, save one, since the Prelates t●me in this Church, who ever essayed it, till our late Differences, wherein some of our Brethren have brought it in fashion, and now have published their doctrine of it to the world in print. Had this principle been but started some years before, when several Ministers were deposed for simple silence in the matter of the Engagement, and for other the like causes, what would these Disputers have judged of it? Certainly they would have been with the first to excommunicate such stubborn children; And yet these men might as soon have said the Sentences were then unjust, as they take upon them to say it now. This is the true rise of all this dispute, that these men being but too apprehensive of an imagined hazard, if they should submit, have but little considered the evils of Non-submission, That their refusing to do it, reproacheth our Church in the view of all her adversaries, and their doctrine about it, opens the door to a few Heretics to continue themselves in a capacity to infect a whole Church, let the Judicatories do what they will, if so be these Heretics count their Sentences to be unjust. Beza (Epist. 1.) taketh notice of it as a special proof of God's kindness to the Church of France and Geneva, that no opposition of Adversaries had shaken lose their Church-discipline, no not in times of confusion and war. But, were he now alive, and among us, he would find that lose times had ministered opportunity, even to pretended friends, to make great breaches in that hedge; which, being once broken-down, doth expose all the precious Interests of Christ to manifest hazard, as there, and frequently elsewhere he inculc●ts. Were King James now alive, and found this principle and practice in fashion, he would soon revoke his former testimony, That Presbyterial Government was the most invincible Bulwark against error, for now a breach is made in this Bulwark. Our first Reformers, who, in the Second Book of Discipline, ch. 7. pag. 81. do reckon Schism and Rebellion against the Kirk among these evils which do deserve Deposition (which also is the judgement of the Churches of the Low-countries, Harm. Synod. Belg. Sieve Canon's Regim. Eccles. etc. per S. R. Cap. 14. Art. 14. and of all Reformed Churches we know) might now wonder, were they alive, to find Rebellion against the Church's Sentences owned by these men who pretend to adhere so closely to their principles. Worthy Mr. Henderson of precious memory, might likewise revoke his Testimony given to the Government of the Church of Scotland upon this very account of Subordination, in that Treatise printed Anno 1641. Of the Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, pag. 60. 61. Yea, this principle and practice is inconsistent with any Government Civil or Ecclesiastical under Heaven. For the very light of nature holdeth forth the inconsistency of Government with the want of Subjection: For where Subjection is not, there must either be Anarchy and Confusion, and every man become his own supreme Judge, or else the Non-submitters must turn-out their Governors to set up themselves: And so, by parity of reason, where inferior Judicatories are not in subjection to the superior.  
But before we enter upon their dispute in this matter, we will first premit some general Considerations of the business, which may somewhat prepare our way to a more particular handling of the Question; And,  
I. It is to be considered, that the Overture given in by us to them in our Conference [viz. That all the Members of this Kirk, Ministers and People shall submit themselves to their Presbyteries and Synods respective: And if any be grieved with the Determination of a Presbytery, they may appeal to the Synods: And if any be grieved with the Determination of a Synod, they may appeal to a General Assembly: But that in the mean time, the Sentences of Presbyteries and Synods are to be acquiesced unto, until the Determination of the respective superior Judicatories thereupon] doth not only hold out the constant practice of this Church, but is the very thing wherein the Learned before us do hold the being of Presbyterial Government to consist; and which they press as the duty of all who live under that Government. This might be confirmed by many instances of particular Divines writing on this subject. Such as Beza in divers of his Epistles, which come afterward to be spoken unto. Also Zepperus, De Polit. Eccles. Lib. 3. cap. 6. where he asserteth, That no man, though he think he have just causes, aught to alter any thing of established Order, before the Determination of a Synod. Likewise Mr. Edward's of late, who in his Antapologia, pag. 153, 154. putteth this as the main difference betwixt Subordination in the Classical Government, and that which Independents profess to be due unto Synods by particular Congregations, That in the first there is such Subordination and dependence, such stated and fixed meetings, that if men should escape one, they do not escape all. But in the other, they only submit to hearing and counsel upon it, but not to determinations, unless it like them: In the one, they are bound and must do, in the other they may do or not do. The whole passage is worth the Readers perusal in the Author himself: But we shall pass these and many others, and at this time shall content ourselves with two Testimonies, which may be in stead of many. One is, that of the Reformed Church of France, who in their Ecclesiastic Discipline, printed in French, do not only urge the keeping up of Ecclesiastic Assemblies, as the bonds and props of their union and concord against Schisms, Heresies, and all other inconvenients, Chap 6. Art. 5. But, Chap. 5. Art. 28. where (as may be seen at length in the Article itself) speaking of referring debates, betwixt any of the People and inferior Judicatories, to a superior Assembly, they do expressly provide, That the inferior Judicatory, who refer that matter, do first cause the Contradicters to make promises, express and upon record, that they shall not in any manner of way whatsoever, sow any thing of their opinions, but wait for the meeting of the superior Judicatories, under pain of being censured as Schismatics. And if they refuse to make these promises, they shall be censured as Rebels, according to the Discipline. And, Art. 29. they determine, That a Pastor or Elder, breaking the Unity of the Church, and refusing to submit to that which the Colloque hath determined, shall be suspen●ed from his Charge, to be further proceeded with at the Provincial or National Synod. As this testimony is most clear for the Submission pleaded-for; So, the next is no less evident, which is that of the learned Cartwright and other Presbyterians in Queen Elizabeth's days, who in their subscribed Book of Discipline (as not only it is cited by Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, chap. 26. pag. 305. but printed itself, Anno, 1644. according to the Copy found in Mr. Cartwrights own Study, in the Head of the Assemblies of the Church, Sect. last) having granted liberty (unless it be a plain act, and manifest to all) to parties who think themselves injured by a lesser meeting, or Judicatory, to appeal to a greater, till they come to a general Council, so that they ascend orderly from the lesser to the next greater: They expressly add, But it is to be understood, that the Sentence of the Assemblies is to be holden firm, until it be otherwise judged by an Assembly of greater Authority Here is our very Overture in substance, and almost in terminis, which vindicateth us from any Novelty, or receding from the received principles of Presbyterial Government in this matter. It will be to little purpose for them to bring in their Praecognitum, or Praesuppositum here, of which they make use to elude all the Acts of our Assemblies in this matter, pag. 52, 53. And to say these Divines meant of just Sentences, which (say they) is a thing presupposed of all these who require obedience to Laws, that they mean of just Laws: For if they had meant only of just Sentences, they had ordained them simply to hold them firm, without giving liberty of appealing from them; Yea, the very liberty of appeals (for they do not allow liberty of an appeal, if it be a plain Act, and manifest to all that the Sentence is just) and the supposition of the matters being otherwise judged by an higher Assembly, doth presuppose a possibility of the injustice of the Sentences, and the Appellants deed of appeal proves that he actually judgeth it to be so, and yet they appoint the Sentence to be holden firm till it be discussed and judged.  
II. As our Overture is agreeable to the ancient principles of Presbyterian Government, held forth by the Learned abroad: So we declared also that in this we required no other Submission, than what hath not only been the constant practice of this Church, till our differences, but established also by Acts of Assemblies: So that we required no new thing, but what this Church had been in possession of by practice and Law. As for the practice, themselves deny it not, (only we must except one, of whom we will speak afterward) And as for the Acts of General Assemblies, The first time they had occasion to give a dogmatic determination in this point, was in the Assembly, 1647. where, the seventh head of Doctrine they approve in the CXI. Propositions tendered to their consideration, is, That the lesser and inferior Ecclesiastic Assemblies ought to be subordinate and subject unto the greater and superior Assemblies. Which how far it ought to have place in the matter of Submission to Sentences, in the judgement of this Kirk, is manifest (notwithstanding their glosses on this Act) from the judgement of the next Assembly, Anno 1648. Arg. 5. Sess. 30. Where it is expressly ordered, That whosoever, after the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against them, do either exercise any part of the Ministerial Calling in the places they formerly served in, or elsewhere, or do possess, meddle, or intromet with the Stipend— they shall be proceeded against with Excommunication. And if any suspended Minister, during his Suspension, either exercise any part of the Ministerial Calling, or intromet with the Stipend, that he be deposed: and after Deposition, continuing in either of these faults, that he be processed with Excommunication. These are so clear testimonies of the judgement of this Kirk, that we think it strange any should deny it. But these Witnesses think to end all these testimonies, by saying, that the Submission formerly practised in this Church, was to just Sentences, and consequently due to them, and that it will be time for them to bring instances of Non-submission and counteracting, when we bring instances of unjust Sentences then pronounced, So pag. 56. and, that these Acts, (as also Ministers engagements to be subject to the Church-judicatories at their entry) are to be understood only of Submission to lawful and just Sentences, which is to be understood as a Presuppositum, or Praecognitum, of all those who require obedience to Laws, though it be not expressed. So pag. 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60. We are not yet entered upon the debate with them, but shall refer it till afterward: nor shall we insist to show that, as to the practice of this Kirk, themselves know that many did think their Sentences unjust (else they would not so oft tell us that some of them have not yet confessed all the particulars in their Sentence) who yet submitted to lose their Ministry, rather than to disturb the quiet of a well Reformed Church, and open a door to all confusion. We might also tell them, that whatever we may suppose of the injustice of a Sentence in the following debate, yet we are confident, they will never be able to make-out the injustice of any Sentence hitherto pronounced, as a just cause for them to start this debate, unless themselves be both Judge and Party. But to leave this to its own place, let us see the judgement of this Church, even of Submission to some unjust Sentences. God did indeed so singularly bless this Church formerly, with unity and mutual Submission, that it is a wonder there was ever occasion to speak any thing distinctly to this ease: Yet providence would have one instance of it for clearing the mind of this Church concerning such after-debates as these. And that was the case of Mr. James Morison and the Presbytery of Kirkwall, which was determined in the Assembly, 1646. This case these Witnesses do very boldly read without Book, as to what is in Question, pag. 53, 54. which we shall help from the very Act of the Assembly. The case was this, Mr. James Morison (as they truly report that part) being Suspended by his Presbytery, did appeal to the General Assembly, and go on in his Ministerial function: for which the Presbytery did depose him, yet he adhering to his appeal, went on and preached. The matter coming before the Assembly, they find that the Presbytery of Kirkwall hath not upon sufficient grounds suspended the said Mr. James Morison: And yet that the said Mr. James was contumacious, in that he did not give obedience to the Presbytery, in forbearing to preach during the time of his Suspension, or until the matter should be tried by the Assembly to whom he had appealed; As also in preaching after his Deposition: Therefore for the present (referring the further trial of all particulars concerning his Suspension and Deposition, with the final decision thereof, to a Commission; seeing themselves had not received sufficient Information, so as to give full and final determination therein) the Assembly thinks the Presbytery deserves rebuke for the said suspension, and desires Mr. Walter Stuart (their Commissioner at the Assembly) to give notice to them hereof: and siclike, that the said Mr. James deserveth a very sharp rebuke for his contempt and disobedience aforesaid: and that the Moderator accordingly reprehend him sharply in face of the Assembly, and ordains him to humble himself to his Presbytery, and acknowledge humbly before them his offence aforesaid, and his sorrow for the same. And in the mean time (till the Commission abovementioned try and give a final decision in the matter) repon●s the said Mr. James against the Sentences both of Suspension and Deposition, and to the full exercise and benefit of his Ministry, sicklike as if they had never been pronounced. And ordains the said Presbytery so soon as the said Mr. James shall in all humility acknowledge his fault, to accept of him as a Minister and Brother of their number, and to possess him again in the exercise of his Ministry. This account expressed in the very formal words of the Act, as it showeth how bold these men are, before they want an answer, to say any thing: so it holdeth out several true principles of this Church point-blank opposite to the Dictates in this Pamphlet. 1. A Sentence is not only judged by the Party, but found by the Assembly to be unjust, as wanting sufficient grounds, and for the inflicting whereof, the Presbytery deserve rebuke, and are rebuked accordingly, and the Assembly takes it off; And yet the party so censured is declared contumacious, for Non-submission, thereunto, but counter-acting, and that he deserveth a very sharp rebuke for his contempt and disobedience, and is accordingly reprehended sharply in face of the Assembly, and is ordained to humble himself before his Presbytery and acknowledge that offence and his sorrow for the same, before they accept of him, or repossess him in the exercise of his Ministry. 2. In their judgement, an appeal, (though it keep a door open for the judicial hearing of a cause again; yet) doth not warrant an Appellant not to submit to the Sentence of a Judicatory, but to go on enjoying his former privileges taken from him by that Sentence: for he is declared contumacious, etc. as aforesaid, for not giving obedience to the Sentence, in forbearing to Preach, until the matter should be tried by the Assembly, unto whom he had appealed, And upon the same account, for preaching after his Deposition. 3. We find the Presbytery judged to deserve rebuke for the Sentence of Suspension; but not at all charged for Deposing him for his Non-submission to the Sentence of Suspension: Which in a judicial Sentence cognoscing upon their whole proceed, importeth an approbation thereof, as just, though it was needless formally to ratify it: seeing both Sentences were presently to be taken off, the Suspension, because pronounced not upon sufficient grounds, and the Deposition, upon his humbling himself to the Assemblies rebuke, and his readiness to humble himself to his Presbytery for his contumacy, which was the ground of the Sentence. These and the like principles, as they evidence this Church to have been far from allowing Judicatories to do things, pro arbitrio & imperio, (as this Pamphlet often asperseth this opinion) so also to have been as far from allowing men, because they suffered somewhat unjustly, to overturn the very foundations of Order and Government.  
III. Whereas these principles of this Church, are branded by these Witnesses, as giving great advantage to Prelates and Independents, and favouring of Popery and Tyranny: they do bewray what their respect to their Mother is, in borrowing the dirt out of her adversaries hands, to throw it upon her themselves. To this purpose they tell us, (with reflection tart enough.) pag. 10. That this assertion will more than probably make men of a Prelatical spirit take hold of it, and press it on, to re-introduce their way, and that Independents will make use of it to render Presbyterial Government hateful. And as to the imputation of Popish-tyrany, their very Title importeth, that they hold such a Presbytery to be a Papacy. And, pag. 45. they insinuate that this Doctrine might justify Mr. Sterry's raving comparisons betwixt the Northern Presbytery and Roman Papacy. Yea, pag. 47. when this Subordination is urged as a mean to continue unity and order in the Kirk, without which it cannot be long kept; They tell us, that this is the very argument and language of the Advocats of the Sea of Rome, and the thing that set up the Man of Sin to sit in the Temple of God, as God, etc. So, pag. 112. arg. 14. They call it a Tenet purely Popish and Antichristian, and cite a sentence of Duvallius concerning the duty of an Excommunicate man, albeit innocent, to abstain from holy things. And, pag. 111. arg. 13. They urge the Canon of Prelates ordaining Non-submitters to the Sentences of Suspension or Deposition, to be Excommunicate. And generally throughout this Pamphlet, they traduce it as an absolute, arbitrary, unlimited Submission that is required, and a tyrannical Imposition. Of all which it concerns them to see how they (if they be kindly children) will clear the Doctrine of their Mother-church above expressed. But to give a more particular answer (so far as is necessary at this time) to these things. 1. It is indeed too true, and sadly felt, that the schismatical and turbulent carriage of such as the Authors of this Pamphlet hath given but too great advantage to all the enemies of truth, and of Presbyterial Government in particular; while Popish Seminary Priests take advantage to persuade people to the obedience of Rome, since we cannot agree among ourselves; while prelate's and their faction have occasion to boast, that shortly after they were outed, we run all into confusion; and while Independents see no such beauty, unity, and order, in a National Church, as was given out to be under Presbyterial Government; and while they hear them traduce one of the best Reformed Churches, as corrupt both in the generality of her Church-members and Ministers. But that this assertion can be a stumbling to any, is to us incredible. For, (2.) If we look upon all Governments, Civil or Eccelesiastical, under heaven, albeit there be different judgements concerning the subject of the Authority (as in a State, whether the Government should be democratical, and the Auhority in the body of the People, or Aristrocraticall, in the Nobles, and better part, or Monarchical in one person, or mixed and made up of two or all of these. So in a Church, whether the Authority should be in a Congregation, or congregational Eldership, in Presbyteries and Synods, in Bishops, or Popes of Rome?) Yet all agree that Subordination and Submission is due to the Authority, in their persons whom they hold aught to be invested with it. And particularly, as for Independents, we assert with Mr. Rutherfurd (Peac. Plea, pag. 246.) that we require no other subjection than they do; For they make ten to be subject to five hundreth in an Independent Congregation. In so much that either these ten must submit to the determinations of the rest (let them judge them never so sinful) if they cannot persuade the rest to be of their mind, or else they must resolve to be cast out by Excommunication, or to go out and renounce communion with that Society, and make up a Church of their own; But abiding in that Society, the Submission is unavoidable. So Mr. George Gillespie in the Assert. of the Govern. of the Church of Scotland, part. 2. chap. 4. pag. 152, 153. in answer to that Objection [That it is contrary to Christian liberty, and the use of the private judgement of discretion, to inflict Censures upon any who profess that, after examination of the decrees, they cannot be persuaded of the lawfulness of the same] among other things, saith, This Objection doth militat no less against Ecclesiastical Censures in a particular Congregation, than in a National Synod, And they who do at all approve of Church Censures to be inflicted upon the contemptuous and obstinate, shall put in our mouths an Answer to Objections of this kind. Yea, our Writers against the Independents, and particularly the Assembly of Divines in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, pag. 253, 254, 255. follow the charge so home, that the charge of Tyranny, or Injurious Independency, laid by Independents at the door of National Assemblies, where there is not the remedy of a General Council, is most justly retorted upon themselves, who take upon them to inflict the highest Censure of Excommunication, without any remedy under Heaven to any grieved person, it not being reversible by any on Earth but by themselves. Whereas in this Government, after a grieved person hath followed-up his Appeal even to a National Assembly, there is yet a further possible help by a well constituted Occumencal Assembly, if it may be had. By all all which it appears, that Independents need not take advantage of this Assertion, though we and they differ about the Subject invested with the Authority. The words subjoined by these Reverend Divines, pag. 255. are worthy to be marked to our purpose: But (say they) If a person conceiving himself to be injured in a National Assembly, cannot obtain redress either from another succeeding National Assembly, or from a superior Assembly, he must commit his cause to God, (as having indeed exonered his own Conscience, and pursued a remedy in the use of all lawful means) And so must he that may conceive himself wronged by Classical or Provincial Assemblies, if he cannot have the opportunity of appealing further: in like manner, as he that thinketh himself civilly injured by the Parliament or Supreme Power in a State, and hath no other way to obtain redress. As these are expressions beseeming the piety, wisdom and moderation of men of God, lovers of true Order and Government in Christ's House: So they clearly homologate the opinion of the worthy Presbyterians in England before them, and the judgement of this Church, expressed in the former Articles; and do fully evince, that in their judgement, a party, though conceiving himself injured, (and possibly, really injured, as is supposed in his liberty of appealing, as was cleared before) ought yet to submit to the Sentence, not only till his Appeal be discussed, but after also, if his Appeal be decided against him, even as private men do submit to injuries from the Supreme Power in a State. To which purpose also we have the testimony of Mr. Henderson in his Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, pag. 34, 35. where (agreeable to the Doctrine of ancient Presbyterians) he asserteth it lawful for a person wronged by an inferior Assembly, to seek relief of the greater, providing it be done in an humble and peaceable way. So also Beza, Epist. 68 One may appeal, if he do it without tumult and public scandal. 3. As to the imputation of Popery and Prelacy cast upon us in this, They are not ignorant that many before them have charged this on Presbyterial Government, and have been as often answered: Had they consulted with what our Divines say in this matter, and among the rest, with Mr. Rutherfurd, in the place before cited, (Peac. Plea, pag. 246.) concerning the many differences betwixt our, and the Popish and Prelatical Synods; they might have forborn all this obloquy. In the mean time, they know we not only differ from them concerning the subject invested with Ecclesiastical Authority, but in many other weighty circumstances as to the manner of Administration, to be cleared hereafter: Though yet all Governments do agree in some common principles and rules, among which this Submission for which we plead, is one. This will evidently appear (to go no further) if we will but compare that Act of the Assembly, 1648. above repeated, with this very Canon of the Prelates, which they bring in to prove our Opinion Prelatical, pag. 111. for, the Assembly judgeth the common principle of Submission, to be a sound Maxim of Government in a true Church, (though they condemned the power of Prelates, and their sentencing men for not corrupting of Worship and Government) and therefore do express the substance of that Canon in their Act, as fit to be observed in Presbyterial Government. Yea, and without mentioning that they must be lawful Sentences (whereof these Witnesses make so much noise that it is to be understood) which yet is expressed in that Canon. And as to that of Duvalius, which we believe is a Maxim of their Canon-law, (as the Schoolmen do generally dispute that Head of Excommunication and other Censures out of the Canon-law) Albeit we leave his consequences to himself, hoping to make some other thing appear out of our opinion; and albeit we disclaim his Pope and Church too, (whether alleged to act as Christ's Instrument, or not) as no Church-ruler, or Judicatory invested with power from Christ, and consequently not to be submitted unto: Yet we know some of these Witnesses are not so ignorant as to reject all their Maxims of Government, being exercised by a true and orthodox Church. Otherwise, they may as well reject the Baptism of Infants, all Deposition of Ministers, Excommunication of Members, and innumerable other things, as matters purely Popish and Antichristian, because (forsooth) they are observed in the Romish Church. We know that methods observed in Appeals, Processes, and the like Ecclesiastical Procedures in Assemblies, are not rejected as tenets purely Popish, because recorded in their Canon-law, and practised in their Courts; they being in themselves agreeable to sound reason and the light of nature: As this Maxim also is, of Submission even to some unjust Sentence, when it is pronounced in a rightly constituted Church, sound and orthodox in Doctrine, Worship and Government, and only mistaking in this or the like particular case, in applying Rules to persons and cases. And albeit Protestant Divines do dispute against that particular Hypothesis, that the Pope's Sentence is to be obeyed, because the Pope hath (in their judgement, and that according to truth) no power, and would have them cast out of all Church-society, and submitting thereunto, because they forsake him and his errors and idolatries: Yet they never dispute that Question in Thesi, that in a true Reformed Church, as is above described, Submission is not due.  
Having premitted these Considerations, and being to fall about a more particular discussion of the Question; We cannot but in the entry complain, That upon the Overture propounded in the Conference about this matter, they have not only all along given this sense of the Controversy, that it is an arbitrary, absolute, and an unlimited Submission to the will and lusts of men, which we crave; and do aver, pag. 41. that in the Conference, we did, upon the matter, require an absolute and unlimited Submission: But in their very dispute they give so lax a state of the Question, and do so ramble through all the places of Invention to heap-up Arguments against our Assertion (which yet may be reduced to a very few) as might make the world believe we were not a Reformed Church, but a crew of Papists and Arians, opening the door to all abominations by our opinion, and to the overturning of all Christ's precious Interests. Whereas any  person might perceive, and themselves knew by the Conference, and from these very Answers given to their Queries, upon which they build their Assertion, pag. 41. that our desire of Submission was relative to the present state of this Church, as it is now▪ through mercy, settled in the matter of Doctrine, Worship and Government, and that such a Submission only was desired, as had been established, and constantly in practice in this Church, till our late Differences; And was required of them (and mutually offered by us) together with an agreement in all matters of difference which might possibly minister occasion of jealousy and diffidence: Yea, the Declaration itself which hear they take to task, speaketh of no other Submission than that to which they and we were solemnly engaged at our Admission to the Ministry, pag. 5. and so could not be fairly declined by them: and again, pag. 8, 9 there is a Submission required only according to the lawful known principles wherein we have walked formerly; and pag. 10. the Submission constantly observed in practice, until the times of our late differences. This their way as it hath been very unhandsome and not fair, so it necessitateth us to take a new method in clearing this Controversy, and not to follow them in their discourses and arguments (which almost at every step would put us to a repetition of the state of the Question) but to sum-up the state of the Controversy, with the difficulties therein, in some Articles, where we shall, as it may come in, meet with any thing that hath sinews in their discourse and reasonings, which hath not been spoken to in the foregoing Considerations, and tither discover the impertinency thereof, as to our case, or the invalidity thereof to impugn our Assertion. And,  
I. As to the fountain and ri●e of this Submission; We do not derive it from, nor do we urge it as a due to any Church-officer or Judicatory, upon the account of their infallibility, and that we must receive their Conclusions, as Articles of Faith, or binding the Conscience, eo ipso, because dictated by them. This, being well considered, putteth a vast difference betwixt us and the Popish principles and way wherewith they so often brand us, and may tell them they might well have spared their pains in many of these things premitted to their Arguments, pag. 95, 96, 97.  we acknowledge all men to be fallible and liars, to have no privilege or authority to do wrong, and that their Sentences are regulae regulatae, and do not oblige the conscience, save in so far as they are conform to the Word. And upon the same account, we do hearty subscribe also, to what they cite out of the Jus Divinum, written by the Ministers of London, and Mr. Gillespies Assertion, pag. 116, 117, 118. and out of the CXI▪ Propositions, pag. 56, 57 Though yet we must tell them that these passages relate only to the matter of active obedience, as is clear from the very words of Mr. Gillespie in his Assertion, citing the Prelate's tenet to that effect: and consequently, do not speak to the case of passive submission, which is the matter in debate betwixt us, and for which we hope to give relevant grounds, these principles being all granted.  
II. As to the persons or Judicatories to whom this Submission is due; We do not urge Subordination or Submission to any Judge incompetent, or which is not Ecclesiastical; Nor to any Ecclesiastcal Officer or Judicatory that is not of Christ's institution: Nor to any corrupt society, calling themselves a Church or Judicatory of Christ, while they are a Synagogue of Satan, standing in opposition to the Doctrine of Christ. But we plead for Subordination and Submission in a true Church, and to Christ's own Courts and Officers in her, such as we hold the Church of Scotland now constituted to be. For further clearing their mistakes in this matter, we shall branch-out this Assertion in these,  
1. We plead not for Submission to an incompetent judicatory, or a Judicatory not Ecclesiastical; Upon this account, (among other reasons to be after mentioned) as they might have spared Amos his not submitting to Amaziah, pag. 100 who was not his Judge, and the Apostles not submitting to the Council at Jerusalem, pag. 101. which was no Judge-competent to any Officer of the Church of the New Testament, (there being other Courts appointed for the Government thereof, as they conveened a Synod, for judging of Doctrine and censuring of Offenders, Act. 15.) So all their instances of Non-submission of Church-officers, in the matters of their Office, to Civil Authority in the first instance, fall to the ground: For we hope it is agreed that Erastianism is contrary to the Word of God, and condemned in this Church. Though as to this matter we know not what to say of the judgement of these Witnesses: For on the one hand, they seem to magnify Osianders' observation (though none of the most Orthodox Divines, nor yet the most moderate of his party) concerning the liberty of fleeing to the Magistrate, pag. 58, 59 and yet, pag. 100 they put Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority in one Class, as to the matter of Submission. We are sure, whatever hath been their practice of application to the Civil Power, it hath not been to preserve them from persecution, but that they might obtain power to persecute. And if they will turn Erastians', we can say no further, but the more wrongs the worse, and omne Schisma parit Errorem, as we have too much proof of their many new principles. Though indeed, whatever their pretences be for their own ends, they are known to be alike respective both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority, and that the overturning of either or both is alike to them, before they reach not their ends.  
2. We plead not for Submission to Officers and Judicatories not of Christ's own institution; such as, not only Popes, but Prelates who drew all things in subjection to their Cathedral Church, (as is cleared by Divines destinguishing betwixt Presbyterial and Episcopal Government and Synods) and were no lawful Church-Officers. So that here their arguments conclude not, taken from the practice of Ministers not submitting to the Sentences of Prelates in this Church, pag. 55. For, 1, It is not clear to us that they did not submit to the Censures inflicted. We do find the contrary supposed in the Writings of these times, both of one side and other, that upon these Sentences they were to be put out of their places, as is insinuated in a Treatise published anno, 1620. by an opposer of Conformity, bearing the Title of A Dialogue betwixt Cosmophilus and Theophilus. As also in Mr. Struthers Letter to the Earl of Airth, in the year 1630. printed 1635. It is true, some of them preached after their Sentences; But it is to be remembered that whatever was the after-strictnesse of Prelates in their Canons, published anno 1636. of which mention is made by these Witnesses, pag. 111. Yet at their first dealing with honest men, so far as they can remember who suffered by them, they did not depose them simpliciter from the Ministry, but only disposed or removed them from their Ministry at the Kirk where they served, and from the Benefice: And this they all submitted unto (having by their Protestations and Declinators, born testimony against them as incompetent Judges) though they preached elsewhere. And this is the more probable to us, in that never any of these sufferers were pursued (so far as we can remember) with any Censure by them for their preaching after the Sentence: and in that when some of them were permitted to return to their charges, there was not any readmission of them thereunto, (which had been necessary if they had been simpliciter deposed) but a simple returning to their work. 2. But suppose they did not submit, and let it be yielded also that their Non-submission was nothing the weaker that the cause for which they were Sentenced was unjust, as they urge, pag. 55, 56. and particularly, that they were Sentenced for not conforming to Popish Innovations introduced in the Church, or not acknowledging Prelatical Authority; (which is far from our case, as we shall after hear) yet they laid the weight of their Non-submission upon their Judges being no Officers appointed by Christ to rule His House; which, some, if not all, of them witnessed by their Declinatures in the time of their being Sentenced. For they can bring no instance of any one of them Sentenced by Presbyteries only and they not submitting. And however they allege (pag. 55.) that the Prelates did sometime associate to themselves the Ministry of those bounds where the supposed Delinquent served, that is, the Presbytery whereof he was a member, which was a lawful Authority: Yet we cannot learn, that de facto they did associate these unto them in censuring such as did not submit, (whatever was their practice in censuring some others for gross scandals) but did proceed in these in their High Commission Court; Nor do we think these Witnesses believe they did associate or call these unto them, that they might act authoritatively with them as a Presbytery, but they did all by their own Authority. 3. Withal, it is to be remarked, that however some Ministers did not give Submission to the Sentences of Prelates in this Church, where Prelacy was but in introducing, and was not fully settled, to the divesting of Presbyteries of their power; Yet the practice of Non-conformists in England, where that had been the only Government from the beginning of Reformation, was different, where they not only submitted to the unjust Sentences of Prelates, yea, of their Commissaries and Officials, but being quarrelled therefore by the Brownists, they wrote a Treatise in defence of the Church of England and themselves, (since published by Mr. Rathband, anno 1644. under the tittle of A most grave and modest Confutation of the Brownists) wherein they assert, That the Church of England being a true Church, and Episcopal Government the only Church-government established by Authority, though disallowed by them, they held it their duty rather to submit to their unjust Sentences, than to rend the Church; as may be seen throughout the whole Treatise, and especially, pag. 39, 40, 41, 42. Some passages whereof, we will have occasion to cite afterward. In the mean time, these principles and practices of theirs may give a sad check to the miscarriage of these Witnesses towards Christ's own Courts and Officers. To this we shall add a testimony of Beza (no novice in the point of Church-government) in his Epistle directed to some Englishes, who wrote to him for resolution in some matters of Church-government, Epist. 12. Pag. 105. Where, hoping some other course would be taken with learned and godly men in England, by the Queen and others, than that either they should be put to do that which is evil, against their consciences, or be forced to quit their Ministry: He addeth, Tertium enim illud, etc. For as to that third course (which it seems they had propounded to him,) viz. That they should exerce their Ministry against the Queen and Bishops will, we abhor it yet more, and that for such causes as may be easily understood, though we hold our peace. Who so will read these Epistles, may find very much to this purpose, and of the necessity of Order, for preservation of Doctrine; particularly, Epist. 14. and 24. and 59 and divers others, wherein he speaketh to our case, as if he were alive and consulted in it, and vindicateth the Government from the aspersion of Tyranny then also cast upon it.  
3. While we plead not for Submission to a corrupt Society, calling themselves a Church or Judicatory of Christ, but in a true Church, and to Christ's own Courts and Officers; Such as we hold Ministers of the Gospel and Elders, assembled in a Session, Presbytery, Synod, or National Assembly, to be; They might well have spared all their parallels with the Popish Church, formerly mentioned, which we account Babylon and not Zion; And that example of Athanasius, pag. 57, 58. 106. who, though he quarrelled not the constitution of Synods as they were made up of Bishops, yet he saw well enough they were but a company of Arians, not worshipping nor acknowledging the Son of God, and therefore not worthy to be accounted one of His Courts. But of this more afterward; Only as to the matter in hand, we desire it may be remembered how much stress Protestant Divines lay, in this Question, upon this, that the Churches are true Churches to which Submission is required. Beza writing to a Church-disturber (Epist. 5.) rejecteth all his pretences of zeal or love in that matter; affirming, that having acquainted his lawful Pastors, or delated the matter, with which he was dissatisfied, to the Synod, he had sufficiently exonered himself, as to his duty: For otherwise (saith he) What can be established in a Church (I speak of TRUE CHURCHES, such as we affirm all our Churches through grace to be) though never so rightly or holily, but the pretence of zeal and love may overturn it? and closeth that discourse with that passage of the Apostle against contentious men, 1 Cor. 11.16. When the Remonstrants at Dort gave in their Declinator against that Synod, as a Court they ought not to submit unto; How sharply did the Divines tax them upon this very account of their declining to submit to a Judicatory consisting of Officers of true Reformed Churches, lawfully called and authorized to be a Court of Christ? The Synod of South-Holland, met at Delft, had told them before, that if they would not submit to the judgement, of the Reformed Churches, they could not be acknowledged for Ministers of the Reformed Churches; As their Judgement recorded in the Acts of the Synod of Dort, pag. 88, 89. (Edit. in folio) doth more fully clear. The Divines of Hassia tell them, that their Declinator did openly proclaim, that they held not themselves members of these Churches, but had gone out and made a separation from them. The Divines of Geneva, having answered their exception, that Protestants refused to submit to Popish Councils, they press the necessity of Order and Submission to Judicatories in true Churches, according to the Rule of Christ, Matth. 18.17. And close all with this, That the Remonstrants adhering to their Declinator, do thereby declare that they renounce Union with the Reformed Churches of the Nether-lands; In which case, they conceive it is incumbent to the Supreme Magistrate to consider what ought to be done. And the Divines of Breme look upon their practice as opening a door to all confusion, as overturning all Church-judgment and authority, to which Christ Himself did remit us, and making way for a perpetual disturbance of the Church by contentious men.  
4. While we assert, that in this case, we require Submission in a true Church of Christ in Scotland, and to His own lawful Courts and Officers in her (in which case we think Submission is due by all who account them such) we are to consider,  
1. That these Witnesses have drawn this Question to a further extent than it was at the beginning. For, at first, when four of their number refused Submission to the Sentences of the Assembly at Saint Andrews and Dundee, the reason given out was, because they had protested against that Assembly as no lawful Court, nor having any Authority to inflict Censures, and so they were not obliged to submit. But now they make it the question, not only, whether they may refuse Submission to an Assembly which is protested against, and which, (consisting of elected Members out of other Judicatories) may be corrupted by prelimitations upon elections, or otherwise, and so have no lawful Authority? But, whether submission be due to the standing and ordinary Courts of a Church, how lawful soever in their Constitution (as consisting of the ordinary Ministers and Elders in such a bounds) if so be their Sentence be wrong upon the matter? which reaches yet a sadder blow to a Church-government, while they stand Courts clothed with Christ's Authority, even themselves being Judges, and yet Submission is denied unto them.  
2. That it is a Question worth our inquiry in this matter, whether they do indeed acknowledge the Judicatories of this Church to be lawful Courts, or whether they do not judge them so corrupt, as upon that very account, they are not to be submitted unto? Their joining with us in the Judicatories, without any protestation against their Constitution, as corrupt; and their other carriage in reference to our Judicatories, which they mention, pag. 13. gave us some ground not to suspect any such thing of them, But now this Pamphlet affords us other thoughts; for, all along they not only decline to join in a General Assembly as a lawful Judicatory, where we are the plurality of the constituent Members (who yet are the standing Officers of this Church) So, pag. 84, 93. and elsewhere it is put as a stop to all Overtures of Union, so long as the execution thereof is put in the hands of Presbyteries and Synods, where we are the plurality, and many of us not so fit as we ought to be: So, pag. 39, 90, 93. and frequently in this Pamphlet; yea, it is clear all along, that they lay a great part of the stress of their Non-submission upon our corruption, as may appear from the places even now cited; and else where they assert, that Submission cannot be yielded, especially there being, to their sense and apprehension, so much corruption in the plurality of Presbyteries and Synods, pag. 42. And they (at least) insinuate, that we are not Judicatories modelled according to the pattern shown in the mount, pag. 47. And, pag. 116. they expressly assert the Church of Scotland not to be sound in the plurality of her Judicatories, as not improving the Ordinances of God, but abusing them to carry on a course of defection and persecution. So that to us it is a great question, Whether (notwithstanding all their other arguments against Submission) the great stress lieth not rather here, that we are corrupt Courts? For, as we had occasion formerly to remark their own assertion concerning their Overture for extrajudicial Committees, pag. 32, 33. viz. that if the Church were sound and peaceable, there were no need of any such Overture, and they would be in that case, as far from pressing it as any; which is in effect (as is clear from the whole tenor of the Pamphlet) that were they the plurality, and had matters in their guiding (as it is usual with them still to propose such distempers in Church and State, and such causes of God's wrath against them, as only their being set at the helm can remedy) they would admit no such extrajudicial courses: So we take hold here of their assertion, pag. 115, 116. That if the case were only of particular persons, and in things of more private interest, and personal concernment, and of Judicatories employing their power to edification, in the current of their actings, they would not much contend about it. As to their other limitations, here set down, we shall take them in afterward: But to the matter now in hand, if we understand (as we must do, if they be ingenuous, and not scorning the world, in their assertions) the case here, of this matter of Submission, which they denied to yield in the Conference, and now do so hotly dispute against, and their not much contending about it, to import their ceding and yielding; then their concession must amount to this, That were the Judicatories not corrupt, but employing their power to edification in the current of their actings, than they would submit to their Sentences concerning themselves, however they might err in them. And have they not then taken a very strange course, to dispute a Question so hotly, when all their Arguments may be answered by this, make them the plurality, who will employ their power to edification in the current of their actings, as others do not, and then they will not debate much about Submission, even to unjust Sentences, in things concerning particular persons. And so they might have spared their pains in all these Arguments, and betaken themselves to that where the stress of the controversy lieth, to prove that we are corrupt Judicatories, which alone can have weight to prove their conclusion, by this their concession. And so much the rather do we urge this, when we remember, that at our Conference with them, one of them, after much debate, being put to it to declare whether if they had the Judicatories constituted to their mind (or, as they were pleased to phrase it, as before our Differences) they would require such a Submission as we pressed; His answer was, It is another case now, in statu Ecclesiae perturbato & corrupto.  
However, here is a new Controversy started in the by, concerning the corruption of the Judicatories of this Church, though not as to the nature & kind of them, yet as to the members constituent: wherein we have been all along telling them that they are better at assertions than probations. And though we have, as occasion offered, wiped off this imputation in the preceding discourse, and will speak more to it, as it relates to this Question, upon the third Article following; And we might here also insist to tell them how the Reverend Assembly of Divines did relish this exception, of the corruption of the greater part of the Clergy, from the Independents; Namely, as proving Parliaments to be corrupt, as well as Synods, (seeing the greater part of these who choose them may be supposed to be the worse, as well as the greater part of Ministers) and so striking at the root of all Government, yea, and not only blasting (so much as they can) the authority and power of Synods, but the office and work of the Ministry. Answers to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, p. 291, 292, 293. Edit. Edinb. 1648. Yet, for present, we only offer these things to their consideration, 1. As to what they cite, p. 52. from the Assembly, 1647. their Exhortation to England, concerning the not entrusting of men with the Government, who are not purged from their old profaneness, or from the prelatical principles and practices; They know it is directed by the Assembly to the Church of England, a Church not constituted in point of Government, and where many did avow and adhere to their old principles and practices. And so is not to be made use of against this Church already settled in that matter, and where never Minister, not under Process or Censure, was declared uncapable of being a member of a Church-judicatory, nor are any allowed to be in the Ministry, who can be found guilty of any profaneness, or who hath not both in profession and practice renounced Prelacy and their ways. In which case, that very Exhortation, a few lines thereafter, alloweth the right hand of fellowship to be given men. 2. However, they may condescend that they would submit to a Presbytery so and so constituted, possibly in Utopia; yet, by this their tenet, they have defamed their Mother-church and the Judicatories thereof, and so do abundantly serve the interest of all Sectaries in their opposition thereunto, and to all the Reformed Churches through her sides. 3. If they lay the stress of our unsoundness mainly (as they do, pag. 116.) upon the Public Resolutions, they must take more pains (as hath been said) to satisfy the world of the sin of these, before they can draw such consequences from them, and persuade the world that they are not erroneous and turbulent in their opposition thereunto. 4. We desire they may make it out, that Members, Officers and Judicatories in a constituted Church, though they be corrupt, ought not to enjoy all their privileges, till they be formally cast-out from them, or, at least, processed for their corruptness: Since very Independents do allow this in their Churches; and consequently, the Judicatories and Officers of the Church of Scotland, aught to enjoy the privileges due to Christ's Courts and Servants, so long as they are not formally declared incapable thereof. 5. We desire also they will make it appear to rational men, how Submission can be denied to Judicatories upon the account of their corruption, whom they not only do not desert as corrupt, but do sit and join in them as Courts of Christ, without any Protestation against their constitution: yea, and do offer and submit themselves and their ways and ministerial actings, to be tried by them as their competent and lawful Judges; and yet when it cometh to a Sentence upon what they submit to be cognosced upon, they refuse to submit to it, because they are corrupt in the current of their actings? These we believe will be found very inconsistent by any but themselves; for if they will not submit at last, deserting of them, and Declinators in the entry, are the only fit premises from whence to draw their conclusion. For, as we heard before from the Divines at Dort, such Non-submission is in effect a secession. And Mr. Gee, in his late Treatise of the Civil Magistrate, pag. 178. layeth it as a foundation of all Order, that the minor part of a Community, must either submit to the major part, or else they must make a secession from them, and erect a new Society. And therefore if our Judicatories be thrones of iniquity that have no fellowship with God, as they would insinuate, pag. 48. it were fit they spoke it out, and it should seem more congruous they should have no fellowship with them either.  
III. As to the matters wherein we require Submission: We do not urge a Submission, in this Question betwixt us, in matters of Doctrine, or Articles of Faith, in Worship, Government, nay nor Rules of Discipline; for in all these we are agreed, and through mercy they are established among us. We only plead, that in the matter of applying agreed-unto Rules of Discipline to particular persons and cases, there be a Subordination and Submission observed: And that in the matter of inflicting of Censures on Officers or Members, or of judging of the Call of Ministers, according to these agreed Rules, and in the like cases incident in the Judicatories of Reformed and settled Churches: there be a sisting of Contentions, and an avoiding of Schisms and Confusions, by the Submission of persons to Judicatories, and of inferior Judicatories to superior.  
To clear and branch out this Assertion more distinctly, Consider,  
1. While we do thus limit this Question; Our purpose is not to retrench the just power, Dogmatic and Diatactick, of Christ's Courts: nor to insinuate any thing prejudicial to the Submission due to them in these respects; and given to them both at home and abroad. But our scope is only to discover to the world how the case stands between these Disputants and this Kirk. We have not only a Confession of Faith, Directory of Worship and of Government, but also settled Rules of Discipline in matters that fall under the Critical power of Judicatories: So that nothing remains in debate, but whether in application of these Rules, the Sentence and Judgement of Judicatories ought to be acquiesced unto without further contention.  
2. This being the true case between us; we think their instance of Athanasius not submitting to Arians deposing him for his asserting the Divinity of the Son of God; And that Arg. 11. making a supposition of our enacting the Mass, and all the Heresies of Rome, do shoot short of the conclusion and mark. For when Church-judicatories deny homage to the Son of God, and return to Rome, we shall not debate the point of Non-submission only with them, but shall run from them as from Synagogues of Satan. Likewise, they might have spared their Argument about the Subscriptions taken by Prelates, pag. 110, 111. Arg. 13, For not only is there active obedience imported in these engagements; whereas we are only speaking of passive Submission: But they did also tie men to approve corruptions in the point of Church-government, and in the matters of God's Worship, which falls not within our Question. This also might tell them, that that instance, pag. 50, 51. of our Confession, anno 1567. concerning Articles of Faith, or Constitutions repugning to the Word of God, was needless: As also that great noise they make of all the precious Truths of God, and interests of Christ, at the stake, pag. 49. And that there is no Ecclesiastical remedy in case of a general defection, Arg. 15. pag. 113. And that salt allusion to the crucifying of Christ, pag. 99 and their citation of Gal. 1.8. pag. 108. Arg. 8. These and many the like big assertions, whereby they endeavour to render us odious, have no place in this Question. And it was well told them to this purpose in the Conference for Union, where they started these same difficulties, That our confidence is, that such cases shall not fall out in this Kirk, we being united in one Confession of Faith, form of Worship, Discipline and Government; and that it is contrary to prudence, and inconsistent with any well ordered Government, upon the supposing of a case which can but rarely (and we hope, through grace, never shall) fall out in this Kirk, to enervate a general rule, and make an open door for Schisms, contrary-actings in subordinate Judicatories, and Divisions upon Divisions, upon every occasion.  
3. This then being the true state of the Question, may we not again resume their assertion, pag. 115▪ 116. and take them at their word? That if the case were only of particular persons, in things of more private interest and personal concernment, and of Judicatories employing their power to edification in the current of their actings, they would not much contend about it. As to the first, this case concerneth only particular persons, and that only in such private and personal concernments as fall within the compass of Church-discipline, while the work of God standeth entire in the Church; and this hazard may be of very few, yea, through grace, of none at all who may suffer injury, and for them in particular, sufficient remedies were offered in the Conference for their security. And as to the second, however they are pleased to play upon Submission upon the account of soundness, pag. 114, 115. yet we assert, that as to our principles, we are sound in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government; As to our qualifications, we approve not of, nor do we tolerate any manifested and proven iniquity in any of our Members; and as to the current of our actings, we forbear to censure none who can be found guilty, nor to try any of whom there is any suspicion or presumption. And we are so far from any crushing and bearing down of Piety, that no man is obnoxious in the Church of Scotland to any hazard, either for profession or practice of Godliness, but it is a part of our constant trial to find out mockers of Piety. Men may follow all the duties of holiness and righteousness, and the duties of edification, according to the Word of God and the established Constitutions of this Church, not only without hazard from, but under the protection and favourable aspect of Church-judicatories. And all the while this Kirk hath declared her dissatisfaction with our Brethren, who (either being Godly, or under the pretence of it) have brought in such confusions and disorders, they cannot give one instance to infringe the truth of this our Declaration. Now matters being thus, we think their own assertion may bind them to Submission in these matters, where the greatest hazard is of men's personal suffering only, without any prejudice to the interests of Christ.  
4. But whether they adhere to their own assertion or not, yet this Submission so qualified as to the matter wherein it is required, is to us beyond all controversy, that it is due in such a Church, and to such Judicatories: And Submission to Sentences in these matters, whether just, or supposed unjust by the parties suffering, taking it generally (for we shall speak more distinctly afterward to what they insist so much upon, concerning unjust Sentences) may be proven by all the Arguments whereby Divines do prove Subordination. Christ's own Rule, Matth. 18, 17. doth to us demonstratively conclude it, where the last Church-remedy in the matter of offences, is, Tell the Church. There is an express Precept for it, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. And that Order established, 1 Cor. 14.29, 32. that the Prophets should judge of one another, and the spirit of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets, doth hold out this Submission most clearly, as may further appear from the reason subjoined, vers. 33. that God is not the author of confusion, (which cannot be avoided if we follow the Doctrine of these Witnesses in this matter) but of peace. And accordingly it is urged by the Synod of Delft against the Remonstrants, Act. Synod. Dordr. pag. 87. The very light of nature (from which the Ministers of London in their Jus Divinum, and Mr. Gillespie in his Assertion, do argue in this case) doth strongly evince, that in no Society in the world it will be allowed, that particular persons and Societies should not submit but counteract to the whole; and that Government cannot stand where there is not a Submission, at least passive if not active, and that it is a ruled case, that rather one than unity should suffer; Let it be but applied to civil Societies and Authority, and the case will soon speak for itself. The pattern of the Jewish Church, (from which they likewise argue in this case) doth also evince it. For, no doubt, as (they are pleased often to tell us, particularly, Arg. 1. p. 89.) their Judges and Priests were bound to judge according to the Law, and yet it is not to be supposed, that if parties judged their Sentence unjust, they might not submit but contra-act. Suppose the Priest had pronounced a man leprous, (as was his office to determine in these cases) and yet the man judged the Priest had erred in his determination (as it was possible in these cases wherein he consulted not with Vrim and Thummim, he might) but could not get the Priest persuaded it was so; Is it probable he would either stay, or get leave to stay within the Camp, for all that? Yea, this assertion is of so universal verity, that the very ends of Government (for preserving unity, and being an hedge about Doctrine and Worship in a Church) are overturned thereby. For once cast lose this Submission in a sound and well constituted Church, and then how shall Government reach its end? or, cui bono shall Judicatories meet to Sentence any? seeing they will get no Submission, but as the parties please to think they are right: yea, not only parties censured, but even such of the Judges as vote against the Sentence, are free to sleight and contra-act. By this priciple also, we must either establish a Toleration, or else keep up Judicatories to clash perpetually with parties, either before or after the Sentence. It were far more prudential to declare Judicatories only consultative meetings, (as indeed they are by this opinion. For what they attribute unto them, (pag. 46.) of binding us by virtue of their Authority, is not denied to Synods by very Independents. Cotton's Keys, pag. 25. And yet Mr. Edwards telleth us, in the place before cited, that indeed they are to them but as Arbitratours for hearing and counsel, the parties being still their own Judges, as it is here also) than under the notion of juridical Authority, to overturn all order and peace, by the clashings of them and the parties convened before them. For (as Mr. Rutherfurd asserteth in his late Piece against Hooker, pag. 465.) every appeal, whatever unjust prejudice be in it, must not stop the actings of Christ's visible Kingdom and called Pastors. Now, if persons censured, be not allowed to submit, but to contra-act, when they judge the Sentence wrong, and yet cannot convince their Judges that it is so, what must Judicatories do? They look upon themselves as entrusted with the Government of Christ's House, and do judge the contra-actors to sin dangerously, and must they stand still and look on, while their party, pretending a call from God, goeth on in his contempt? were they only consultative meetings, they had delivered their souls by giving their advice, without raising any further stir; but now they cannot be answerable to their trust, to let men go on and sin. And on the other hand, the party cannot obey men rather than God, (as these Witnesses argue) and so they must clash till they ruin all. Further, By denying of this Submission, things must either come to this issue, That in case a man cannot get his will in Church-judicatories, he must turn Erastian and bring the matter to the civil Magistrate (as Poppius Boorsma did in Frizland, with deserved bad success) or when he thinks his Judge wrong, he must endeavour to put him out of the Chair, and set himself there to guide better, and when he is set, another must serve him in the like kind, and so in infinitum, Judicatories shall be pulled down, set up, and tumbled down again: Or he must resolve to be his own Judge and ruled by none, though all the Judicatories of a National Church determine against him: And the Judicatories must either take off his Censures, though in their consciences inflicted upon just causes and truly proven, or let him, and as many as please to follow him, go on to counteract their Sentences, till they be left Beacons on an hill, and none to submit to their Authority. Whereby also it may soon come to pass, that some few Heretics may continue themselves in a ministerial capacity, to propagate their errors, in despite of all that the Judicatories can do; And a Church be exposed to all the confusions which our Writers charge upon the Independent Government.  
These few Considerations may suffice to clear how necessary it is, that Subordination and Submission be observed, especially in an orthodox and well constituted Church, and how the contrary practice will bring confusion upon all Societies, Civil and Ecclesiastical, on earth.  
5. But to consider what they offer against this distinction and state of the Question, as to the matter of Submission: And, 1. we find them arguing, Arg. 5. pag. 103, 104, 105. That if Submission be due in matters of Discipline and Government, than also in matters of Doctrine and Worship, unless God hath either put a greater respect on the first, than those last, or hath given greater latitude in the one than the other. Answ. To say nothing here of the Submission due in matters of Doctrine and Worship, as not lying in our way, (as was said before) seeing passive obedience, which is the matter in debate betwixt us, is relative only to the Critical power of Judicatories; We can soon give them another ground of difference in these, than what they are pleased to find out for us, viz. That however God hath not put a greater respect on Discipline than on Doctrine and Worship, nor hath allowed men to take a greater latitude in the one than the other, (though yet in many things of Discipline and Government, God hath left us to be directed by the light of nature and rules of prudence, common in like cases in all Courts, as He hath not done in Doctrine and Worship; and consequently, the multitude of Counsellors, in a judicatory, are more to be respected than one who is loadened with a prejudice of passion and interest in his own particular) Yet to submit in the matter of Discipline, where the hazard is only personal and of a man's suffering, is not tanti to disturb a well settled National Church, where Doctrine and Worship are in their integrity: whereas the case is of greater moment when a National Church, in her Judicatories, introduceth false Doctrine, and corrupt Worship, to be imposed upon a Church. 2. They argue, Arg. 6. pag. 105. 106. That Submission to the Critic power or exercise of Discipline, will infer Submission in matters of Doctrine, for which they instance the ratification of, and Censures ordained to be inflicted upon the matter of the Public Resolutions, and the matter of Athanasius, of which before. Answ. We see no cogency in this Argument, that because a Church may censure Heretics, who submit not to their Dogmatic determinations, (which none of us ever doubted of) therefore our Question with them is not about matters of Discipline only, when we are settled in all other points, and do profess our adherence thereunto. But as to the matter of the Resolutions. 1. As we wonder with what face they can conclude all these men, taken in, to be sons of Belial, if it were for no more but upon the account of their own professed respects to many of them: (To say nothing of the good parts, yea, and real piety of (at least) some of them, who failed in an hour of trial) So they must first prove these Resolutions to be an error, before they can make the Sentences concerning them unjust. This we are forced to tell them often, because they have the good manners so oft to say much, and prove nothing at all. 2. This Question being extrinsic to our Doctrine, Worship and Government, (as hath been said) men may well be enjoined silence in it, without entrinching upon the matter of Doctrine, or men's opinions: we are sure it is maintained by the Learned, that men having declared their judgements concerning some truths of an inferior nature, they may be silent for peace's sake. And so contending Divines have been enjoined silence by Church-Judicatories. And if any would but have a touch of the necessity and equity of these proceed of the Judicatories, against the opposers of these Resolutions, let them but take a view of these men's ways; and let these Witnesses but re-act a few of their former pranks. Let them but oppose any of these public Resolutions, of conjunction of Forces with either Malignants or very Papists, that may be in practice in these Nations: Let them refuse to act, or enjoy their public Offices, under an Authority owning and putting in practice these Resolutions; let them not only write and preach against them, as a defection and sin against God, but let them protest against Judicatories, as not lawful, who own them; Let them draw a faction and keep up a Rent, till they be repent of, or at least made void, and assurance given against them for the future: Let them (we say) but show forth a little of this their wont spirit, and we hope others will see what they are, as well as this Church and Nation hath felt it. And if they be true to their principles, they must do so still, in all times and cases, in these confederate Nations; Otherwise men will have just cause to suspect them of little conscience in the things they have done. But, (3.) This instance hath nothing to do with our Question; for, in our Overtures, wherein Subordination was required, it was also offered, that all debates and censurableness about these matters should be laid aside and made void. And so, had they accepted the Union, that would have had nothing to do with the Subordination required for the future.  
iv As to the persons of whom Submission is required; Two things come to be considered, which may further clear the Question.  
1. That Submission is required of ordinary Officers and Church-members only: So that their Arguments from the practice of the Apostles and Prophets, pag. 47. and Arg. 2. pag. 100, 101. might well have been spared. For, (to omit what further may be said afterward to the instance of the Apostles) their Calling being neither of man, as to the Office itself, nor by man, as to their call to it, but being immediately called by Christ Himself, without the interveening Ministerial Power of Church-judicatories: We assert they were not subject to any Church-judicatory on earth, as to their continuance or noncontinuance in the exercise of their Ministry. But ordinary Ministers as they have their Call mediately by the Church, without whose authoritative Mission no inward Call can warrant them to thrust-out themselves; So, in their continuance in that Office, which they have from the Church. they are subject to the Church. And if they will assert a warrant for their continuance in the Ministry, whether the Church will or not: Tub preachers may as well improve it to thrust themselves in over the Church's belly. And here we may take notice of what is said by the Authors of that Treatise, published by Mr. Rathband, formerly mentioned, who, speaking of their yielding to Suspensions and Deprivations, by Bishops and their Courts, pag. 41. they tell us, that it lieth in them to depose, who may ordain, and they may shut that may open; and afterward, and pag. 42. They answer that very Objection from the Answer of the Apostles, Act. 4.19, 20. urged by the Brownists against their Submission, by showing the differences betwixt the Apostles case and theirs, 1. That they who inhibited the Apostles, were known and professed enemies of the Gospel. 2. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel, which (say they) was more hard than their case under Bishops, who, though they cannot endure the truth concerning Government and Reformation of the Church, yet are content the Gospel should be preached, and preach it themselves. They add, 3. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from men, nor by the hands of men, but immediately from God Himself, and therefore al●o might not be restrained or deposed by men, whereas we, though we exercise a function, whereof God is the Author, yet we are called and ordained by the ministry of men, and may therefore by men be also deposed and restrained from the exercise of our Ministry. Where, as their first and second difference speak clearly to the second and third branches of our Question: So this last doth fully speak our mind in this. As to what they (and Mr. Rutherfurd before them, in his Preface to his Survey) say of private persons being Excommunicated, their Non-submission to abstain from public Ordinances; As Excommunication is rarely pronounced in this Church, except in the case of obstinacy, and therefore may easily be prevented: So we cannot understand how they can avoid Non-submission, unless either they will forcibly obtrude themselves on Ordinances till they be thrust-out, and so must come to Non-submission at last; Or, unless they get Ministers who will admit of them, and so refuse to submit to the Judicatories, which will at last fall in with the former case. Though we, in the mean time, would have such a person seriously to consider, whether his edification by these particular Ordinances, from which he is debarred by the Sentence (means simply necessary to salvation not being taken from him, and the want of the rest being but his affliction, not his sin, take the matter in his own sense) ought to be laid in the balance with the breach made on Order in a Church constitute and settled as is said, with the contempt and scandal put upon the Judicatories, who yet stand invested with power to rule in Christ's House; yea, and with the stumbling of the whole Congregation upon whom he obtrudeth himself, who (perhaps) judge his Sentence to be as just, as he counteth it unjust.  
2. As to the Submission of inferior Judicatories to superior, concerning which they argue, Arg. 7. pag. 107. And again, Arg. 15. pag. 113, 114. We grant indeed that the power of the superior Judicatory is cumulative, and not privative to the inferior Judicatories, yet it must be understood in a right sense: for, 1. It is granted on all hands betwixt us, that, by the Constitutions of this Kirk, every Church-judicatory may not meddle with all things, but with things that are of particular concernment within their bounds, leaving things of more general concernment to the Church, to superior Courts: yea, within their own bounds, congregational Elderships do not meddle with the matter of Adultery, Excommunication, and Ordination of Ministers, but these things come before the Presbytery. 2. Albeit inferior Judicatories have intrinsic power given them by Christ, and may exercise it independently where providence affordeth them no superior judicatory; yet in a Nationall Church, it is the will of Christ, they exercise that intrinsical power with a Subordination to the superior Courts, so that (so long as they hold the Subordination, and do not renounce the Judicatories as Heretical and corrupt) they may indeed do all they have right to do, yet so as they must be accountable to others in the case of Appeals, or maladministration, who may lay as great claim to that promise, Matth. 18. as they can. And if the superior Judicatories judge their proceed to have been wrong, in the case now before us, it is no more lawful for them, than for private persons, to make a Rupture by Non-submission, or not suffering and being passive; which will prove a remedy worse than the disease. Nor doth this Subordination prove that these inferior Judicatories must be fenced in name of the superior;  they know, that even inferior Civil Courts are not fenced in the name of a Parliament, to whom they are subordinate. And if this hold not, it shall be to no purpose for superior Judicatories to meet, unless either to approve all that is done, or else it please inferior Judicatories to be convinced by them. And indeed, now it is no strange thing to see one private Presbytery not only reverse and declare null the Conclusions of a General Assembly, but judicially declare the Assembly itself null: far contrary to the Book of Discipline, where it is expressly provided, that Elderships, or Presbyteries, must alter no Rules made by General or Provincial Assemblies, Book 2. chap. 7. pag. 81. and no less contrary to the opinion of Beza, Epist. 44. pag. 244. who judgeth it iniquissimum & intolerabile, etc. most injust and intolerable, that things concluded in a General Synod should be rescinded by the Authority of one Consistory, unless the party pass from his right, or things be agreed among parties, without any detriment to Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
V As to the nature of this Submission, or manner of performance thereof, two things are worthy our consideration, for further clearing the truth in this particular.  
1. That in pleading for Submission in matters of Sentences, as is above qualified, we do not urge that men in conscience should approve of all and every of these Sentences as just, (however we do not therefore grant they are unjust, as we shall after hear) But only that (what ever their judgement be) they submit and suffer, or be passive (having done duty and exonered themselves) without counteracting. And that because, 1. However they count them unjust, yet they (looking through the prospect of passion and interest) may be deceived. The Judge thinks them just, and it may be many others, yea, all except the parties concerned. 2. However it be, yet it is better one or a few persons suffer somewhat, than that a Schism be made in an Orthodox and well settled Church.  
This being the true state of the Question, and indeed a safe remedy appointed by God, that when men in a Church cannot in Conscience obey a command, than they may with a good Conscience submit and suffer: (for, the Lord's commanding us to submit, and our engaging thereunto, doth import there may be cases wherein we cannot give active obedience) It is a miserable mistake all along in the most part of this debate, that Obedience is confounded with Submission and Suffering. That because a Church ought not in duty to domineer over the Flock, pag. 52. therefore none of the Flock may lawfully suffer an injury, (or supposed so) rather than do a greater injury, by renting the Flock. That because Prelates taught falsely, that the Sentence of Superiors is a warrant sufficient to men's Consciences to give active obedience to their constitutions, and that the Law must be the rule of men's Consciences, and did bind men to give obedience to their ceremonies upon pain of deprivation, (as they tell us, Arg. 13. pag. 110, 111.) Therefore there can be no ground for a Conscience to suffer when they cannot obey: That because it must be a praecognitum in every law to be actively obeyed, that it be just, therefore men are never called of God to suffer, even unjustly: Because it is asserted, that Conscience is not left unbound, by retaining the freedom of our judgements concerning the things which yet we act and do, Arg. 3. pag. 102. therefore the conscience, doth not retain its just freedom concerning an unjust Sentence, because a man suffers under it: As if our suffering under any thing did import an approbation thereof in our Consciences: Because men may not tyrannize over Consciences, pag. 48. Therefore Consciences cannot bear witness lawfully against what they count evil, even by suffering: And because Protestant Divines do say, that the judgement of discretion maketh a man judge of his own actions, and what he should do, pag. 97. Therefore it warranteth him also to suffer nothing, but rather to confound and overturn a Church ere he do so. These and many the like flowers of discourse and fallacious argumentations are scattered through this Pamphlet, which the judicious Reader will find to be clear non-sequitur's and very far from the scope of the Scriptures and sense of the Writers which they cite here and there, which we need not hunt after, seeing the similibus idem est judicium.  
2. That we urge no such Submission to Sentences of inferior Courts, As secludeth either Dissents, for men's own exoneration and keeping pure in what they think wrong, (which we conceive is the Scripture-duty in such cases, 1 Tim. 5.22.) or Appeals from one Judicatory to another, till they come to the highest can be had. Which speaketh much to the justice of the Government, that a man is not presently concluded irrecoverably under a Sentence by every inferior Court, as it is in the Independent Government, but hath a door left open to get his cause heard again, till he come either to a Nationall Assembly with it, or (if that cannot be had) to a Synod. Yea, though one General Assembly do not satisfy his desire, he may make his address by supplication to another after that; So that a man hath fair room to follow forth variety of lawful means, and to have his cause heard before variety of Judicatories, for righting any thing that is supposed to be amiss. Who, if they do right him, it is well, if not, he hath done his duty, and may sit down in peace, as having neglected no lawful means of defence, and consequently may commit his cause to God, as we heard before from the Reverend Assembly of Divines.  
As to the matter of Submission till the Appeal be discussed, whatever the practice of some of them be, in counter-acting upon their Appeal, before it be heard before the Judge competent: yea, and upon their Appeal to a General Assembly, (whereof we have wanted possession these years bygone, and know not when it may be had) they take liberty, in the meantime, to do what they will with the Sentences of Presbyteries and Synods: Yet we find them shy (to use their own language) to own any such thing in this Pamphlet; But they lay the stress of their Non-submission upon their succumbing before the Judge to whom they have appealed, pag. 48, 49. So also, pag. 99 they say nothing to Submission till a man's Appeal be discussed. But to us it is clear, that as Submission is due to the Sentence till the Appeal be discussed, by the Acts of this Kirk, and judgement of Divines writing on this subject, as we heard before; And as it were to no purpose to appeal, if men did not submit but went on, seeing they have no benefit to recover by their Appeal if they submit not, especially if they will not submit to the superior either; Yea, and it will be most absurd to say they will not submit in some cases, when the Judicatory, who may right them, is to conveen within a week, or very short time, and yet they will not have patience even for so long: So Submission, till the Appeal be discussed, will strongly conclude Submission after that also. And we think it must be a strange thing, if a Minister, having offered to maintain his Ministry before all the Judicatories of a Nationall Church, and all of them reject it, yet he will obtrude it upon them, nill they will they, and will make schisms and factions never so many, ere he be not a Minister. We may say it, though we account our Ministry (through grace) dearer than our life; yet so long as there were service to do to Christ in any part of the Christian world, we would be loath to use a Reformed Church so; yea, the loss of our life would not be so bitter to us, as to be accessary to the confusions attending such a practice.  
VI As to the nature of the Sentences, to which Submission is required, and the justice or iniquity supposed to be in them, we do hearty agree with them, that all Sentences pronounced by Judicatories ought to be just Sentences: yet we offer these Considerations, which may further clear this debate.  
1. Whereas it is taken for granted, all along, that the Sentence, to which Submission is required, is an unjust Sentence: Yet (notwithstanding what hath been, or may be supposed) this is sufficient to answer all their Arguments, that they but beg the Question in them: For it is not granted them that the Sentences are unjust. And (though we dispute the matter further with them, yet) this is indeed the true state of the Controversy betwixt us; Not, whether unjust Sentences, that are so indeed, aught to be submitted unto; But, whether parties are free not to submit to Sentences, though never so just, if they count them unjust? Or, whether in case of a difference in judgement betwixt the Judge and Party, concerning the nature of a Sentence pronounced, and neither of them being able to convince the other; The judgement of the Judge ought to carry it, as to the Parties passive obedience, and Submission thereunto? Ex. gr. When a Judicatory judgeth a Minister insufficient for the work, and he thinks himself able enough; Whether he be bound to submit to them, and forbear Preaching, or not? If we speak of the case betwixt them and us, we never urged any Sentences that were unjust to be submitted to by them (though for peace we have offered to wave that debate) nor do the Judicatories' purpose, in the power of the Lords grace, to pronounce any unjust Sentence, but that they will judge according to known rules. Yea, let this matter come in Question betwixt Judicatories and Parties, and it will be laid to the charge of Parties, that they submit not to just Sentences. It is true, they call them unjust, but, to whom, are they so? The Judge pronouncing a Sentence counts it just, it may be so do all others, but the Party: He will not submit to his Judge's Verdict, Can he then find any Arbitrators to whom he is rather bound to submit, than to his Judge; Or, must all return to his own private judgement of discretion, not only as to what he will approve or do, but what he will suffer? And yet was it ever almost found but that Parties Sentenced were grieved and dissatisfied therewith; And might not these Heretics who were Censured, Act. 15. have urged the same plea? And did not the Arminians at Dort, and do not Heretics at all occasions, condemn the Sentences of their Judges, and yet their Judges did not yield the Question to them? If a comparison be instituted betwixt the Judges and the Party; The Judges may safely allege, that it is not so probable they are in an error as the Party, as being a multitude of Counselors, wherein is safety: as being less blinded with passion and personal concernments in the cause, than the Party is, and having a more express promise (though they pretend not to infallibility) for direction and assistance in judgement, Matth. 18.19, 20. Thus Beza, (Epist. 59) pleading the Cause of Christ's Courts against some disturber, willeth him to consider, that though they consist not of sinless men, yet it is probable that many should be wiser than one. If we speak to their procedure, they are ready to offer all rational satisfaction: These Witnesses say, that it is a Praecognitum in all Sentences to be pronounced by Judges, and obeyed by Parties, that they be just Sentences, pag. 52, 53. That Ministers ought to be subject only to lawful admonitions, That Suspension and Deposition should be for lawful causes, pag. 51. That Intrants are engaged to submit themselves to Admonitions and Censures, only when they slide and offend, pag. 60. And the Judges say their Sentence is just, for lawful causes, and upon real sliding, though they cannot persuade the party that it is so. If they allege that even in the matter of Transportations, the Judicatories are bound to give reasons for the expediency of the same, much more should they deal meekly in Sentences, pag. 51, 52. The Judge declineth not so to do, they are ready to give solid reasons for their deed, though they cannot persuade the party to see them; Yea, they are ready to hear what the party can offer against the Sentence, though they cannot convince him that his reasons have no force. They will grant him that his private judgement of discretion maketh him a judge of his own actions (though yet but a subordinate judge) as to what he should do, pag. 97. but cannot allow it should hinder and bind them up from censuring what is wrong, or warrant him not to submit in the point of suffering. When we inquire what remedy is there to avoid a Schism, and preserve Unity and Order, if they submit not: They tell us, pag. 49. If the Sentence be unjust, it ought to be recognized and repealed: If it be just, and of an inferior nature, (that is, a lesser degree of Censure) if the persons will not submit, they are, after due procedure, to be cast out as those that will not hear the Church, etc. And what is this but the very constant practice of the Judicatories, though parties will not see that they judge justly? And what shall the Judge do, if after the Sentence of Excommunication is pronounced, the party still refuse to submit? They offer us no remedy, in that case, for preserving of Order and avoiding of Schism. So that, in a word, the case cometh to this, Not if they ought to submit to an unjust Sentence, But, whether, let all the Judicatories, even from an Eldership to an Oecumenick Council, proceed never so justly and conscientiously, yet the party censured is still supreme judge on earth of all their proceed, and his own actings and behaviour in reference to whatsoever of their Sentences; So that till he be convinced, he must suffer nothing, but counteract at his pleasure? And if this be a sound principle, all sober Christians will judge. And when they cry-out so much, that we do not purge; we desire to know how by this principle we can purge any at all; Or, if others be not free to make use of it as well as they? We shall shut-up this part of the discourse with some account of the judgement of others in this very matter, The Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, then at London (Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, and Mr. Rutherfurd being of that number) in their Reformation of Church-government in Scotland cleared from some mistakes and prejudices, pag. 17. do assert, that, To limit the censure of Excommunication (the like may be said of Suspension and Deposition of Ministers, and other Censures) in matter of opinion, to the common and uncontroverted principles; and in the matter of manners, to the common and universal practices of Christianity; and in both, to the parties KNOWN LIGHT, is the dangerous doctrine of the Arminians and Socinians, etc. To this we add a further Consideration of that Objection mentioned before: [How Judicatories can, without wronging Christian Liberty, inflict Censures, or put men to suffer, who profess, that, after examination of the Decrees or Constitutions, they cannot be persuaded of the lawfulness of the same?] To this (beside what is before marked) further answer is given by Mr. Gillespie (in his Assertion, part. 2. chap. 4. pag. 152, 153.) 1. That our Divines by these Tenets (of Christian liberty and the allowance of a private judgement of discretion) do not mean to open a door to disobedience and contempt of the Ordinances of a Synod: but only to oppugn the Popish error concerning the binding power of Ecclesiastical Laws by the sole will and naked authority of the Lawmaker, and that Christian People ought not to seek any further reason or motive of obedience: And we are so far from this, that we not only offer reasons of Laws to be actively obeyed (of which he here speaketh) but even of Sentences to be submitted unto, though the contemners and disobeyers will not see them. 2. A Synod must ever put a difference betwixt those, who out of a real scruple of conscience, in a modest and peaceable way, refuse obedience, (understand active obedience, to which he is speaking) to their Ordinances, still using the means of their better information: and those who contemptuously or factiously disobey the same, labouring with all their might to strengthen themselves in their error, and to persuade others to be of their mind. How applicable this distinction is to the carriage of these Witnesses, in the matters of our late differences, we leave even to themselves to judge. The same Mr. Gillespie, in his miscellany Questions, chap. 16. pag. 207. saith, It is no tyranny over men's consciences, to punish a great and scandalous sin (such as the refusing and opposing of the Covenant, or a dividing from it) although the Offender in his conscience believe it to be no sin, Yea, peradventure believe it to be a duty. Otherwise it had been tyranny over the conscience to punish those who killed the Apostles, because they thought they were doing God good service, Joh. 16.2.  
2. But seeing all men, and even Church-judicatories, are fallible, let it be supposed, that a Sentence is unjust, (and be it still remembered, that it is but supposed, and not yielded. For, as it can hardly be imagined that a Judge will pronounce a Sentence which he accounteth unjust, So we desire that our supposing the injustice of their Sentence, be understood without any prejudice to Judicatories right, in maintaining the justice of their own Sentences) And let the Question be of a Church so constituted, and sound and orthodox, as is before expressed, and of Sentences, such as we have qualified for the matter of them; And we do hold that they ought to be submitted unto, and suffered under, without counteracting: and that the former considerations, pressing Submission in general, do take place, even in this case. This we might easily confirm from the general practice of the Godly in all ages, and particularly of the Non-conformists, who, as they put a vast difference between subjection and obedience, so in their practice, they did cheerfully suffer under unjust Sentences, and did vindicate the aspersions cast upon their nonobedience, by their readiness to submit and suffer. Who so will be pleased to peruse Parker on the Cross, Chap. 4. Sect. 12, 14, 15. will find they were so far from owning Non-submission to these unjust Sentences of Bishops for their nonconformity, that they did own Submission, and vindicate their practice in submitting, from the aspersions cast upon them for it, and did encourage themselves and the Church, by believing that the loss of their Ministry should be the Lords gain and the Churches. It is the positive judgement of Beza (as we heard before from his Epist. 12.) that godly men in England should not continue to preach, against the Queen and Bishops will; where he addeth, that having in these cases, attested their own innocence, and essayed all remedies in the fear of the Lord, they should yield to manifest violence. The Provincial Assembly of South-holland, met at Delft, go a further length against the Remonstrants, Act. Synod. Dordr. pag. 86, 87. where, having spoken several things in answer to the Arminians argument against a Synod and their Submission thereunto, because the Members thereof are all fallible men; and having asserted, that there is ground of confidence, that Christ, according to His promise, will be present and direct a lawful Synod, gathered together in His fear, to judge in matters according to the Word of God, that nothing shall be decreed therein to the prejudice of His Truth and Kingdom: They expressly add, Sed fac aliquid ejusmodi decretum iri, etc. But let it be supposed, that some such thing be decreed, yet truth will not therefore still be kept at under, but will in due time break forth again. But, in the mean time, order, quietness and peace ought to be kept in the Church of Christ. For God is not the God of confusion or disorder, but of peace; and therefore will have all things to be done in His Church, orderly, peaceably and quietly. Now there can be no order nor peace in the Church of God, if every man be permitted to teach what he will, and be not obliged to give an account of his Doctrine, nor submit himself to the judgement of any Synod, according to the precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.29.32. Another instance in stead of many, is the judgement and practice of these Authors of the Treatise formerly mentioned against the Brownists, suffering for the cause of Nonconformity. They being challenged by the Brownists for going to the Bishop's Courts, for standing and falling at their commandment, or yielding to their suspensions and deprivations; After they have given their reasons for their going to these Courts, and reverencing and yielding to their Censures according to the Law of the Land, wh●ch did establish conformity: They add, (pag. 41.) If it be said, That the Church is not to be obeyed when it su●pendeth and depriveth us for such causes as we in our consciences know to be insufficient: We answer, That it lieth in them to Depose, that may Ordain; and they may shut that may open. And that as he may with a good conscience execute a Ministry by the Ordinance and calling of the Church, who is privy to himself of some u●…fitnesse, (if the Church will press him to it) so may he, who is privy to himself of no fault that deserveth Deprivation, cease from the execution of his Ministry, when he is pressed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltless person put out of his charge by the Church's Authority, may yet continue in it; What proceed can there be against guilty persons, who in their own conceit are always guiltless, or will at least pretend to be so;  they also will be ready always to object against the Church's judgement, that they are called of God, and may not therefore give over the execution of their Ministry at the will of man. By which it evidently appeareth, that the judgement and practice of these ancient Worthies and suffering Presbyterians hath been point-blank opposite to the Doctrine of these new Teachers and modellers of Government, and that the strength of the Arguments in this Pamphlet were not unknown to them when they thus determined and practised, as may appear from the very last words above cited, and from what we have elsewhere cited of their Answer to the Objection taken from Act. 4.19, 20.  
But that we may make this truth appear more distinctly, we premit these general considerations. 1. That the wise Lord hath been pleased to intrust the Government of His House into the hands of fallible men, who not only may, but sometime actually do err. 2. That no judge either Civil or Ecclesiastical, hath any Commission or Authority from God, to sin, or enact an unjust Sentence. And that this is not to be restricted to Church-judicatories only, cannot be doubted by any Christian who holdeth the Magistrates Authority and Commission to be from God, who doth not authorise any to sin. For, as power is given to the Church, to edification, and not to destruction; So Magistrates ought not to be a terror to good works, but to the evil, Rom. 13.3. 3. That every particular wrong act or acts do not divest a Judge of his Authority (though it be granted he hath no Commission or Authority to do these acts, as they assert, p. 96. praecog. 5.) but he remaineth the Judge and lawful Authority of the Church or Nation, as is clear in right reason, and by Scripture Rules. For if it be asserted, that an unjust Sentence, one or moe, do make void the Authority of the Judge, this will overthrow all Government, Ecclesiastical, Civil, or Economical. Mr. Gee in his Treatise of the Civil Magistrate, pag. 36, 37. urgeth, that indeed lawful powers are bound to use it lawfully, but yet asserteth it as yielded by all, that this is not simply necessary to the being of a lawful power; but a power that is unlawful only as to exercise, may be for its habit, and being, included in the Text, (Rom. 13.) and its irregular actings only discarded from it. 4. That by the Word of God, Submission or passive obedience is required and commended in some cases, and that of a different nature from the suffering of guilty persons, Matth. 5.10, 11. 1 Pet. 4.15, 16. And that in some cases, the People of God are called to suffer without resisting, as hath been the frequent practice of Saints, and asserted by all Orthodox Divines, writing upon Subjection as contradistinct to Obedience. 5. That as Schism is an evil disapproven, and never warranted of God; So a man may be guilty of Schism, who not only maketh a Rent and causeth disorder upon a cause destitute of truth, but also upon a cause not weighty and relevant, though true in itself. This is so obvious to all who are anything acquainted with the Scriptures, and with the Writings of the Ancients, or latter Divines upon the nature and evil of Schism, that it is needless to insist on the probation of it. Whoso pleaseth to peruse Mr. Baxter in his Explication of the Agreement of the Ministers of Worcester-shire, pag. 119. will find much to this purpose in few words. And, among others, these passages, If the Scripture were conscionably observed, men would take Church-division for a greater sin than Adultery or Theft. Mutinies and Divisions do more infallibly destroy an Army than almost any other fault or weakness: And therefore all Generals punish Mutineers with death, as well as flat Traitors. And a little after, Commonly they that divide for the bringing in of any inferior truth or practice, do but destroy that truth and piety that was there before.  
We might upon these grounds multiply Arguments, as they have taken pleasure, it seemeth, that way, to make a show of many, which may be reduced to very few; But we shall content ourselves with these. 1. If there be a Submission and passive Obedience due by Christians in any case to the Sentence of a Judicatory, and commended of God, as hath been presupposed, and cannot without contradicting the principles of Christianity be denied; Then certainly it must be due to unjust Sentences. For unto just Sentences, requiring a duty under pain of Censure, active obedience and not passive is due by the Word of God. And as for Sentences inflicting Censures, it is true, Submission to such just Sentences is due by the Word of God, but that is not the passive obedience required, and so much commended in Saints, in the Word, but only that suffering which is contra-distinct to suffering as evil doers, or for just causes, as is clear from 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20. and 4.14, 15, 16, 19 So that unless they will banish a command to suffer according to the will of God, or cleanly suffering with a good conscience, out of the Bible, they cannot avoid this. 2. As it is granted, that Authority and Submission are correlative, pag. 45. And that in just Sentences, beside the obligation of the matter, there is a formal obligation by its coming from such an Authority, pag. 46. So in an unjust Sentence, albeit Judges have no authority nor warrant from God to do that act, and it is null before Him; nor doth it oblige the conscience by virtue of the matter of it: Yet so long as they continue the standing Authority of a Church, somewhat is due to them relative to that Authority, and that is Submission. If they could make them simpliciter no Judges, because they err in a particular fact, they would say somewhat: but seeing they are still lawful Judges, even when they pronounce that Sentence, though they fail in it▪ It must be held as of general verity, that while persons continue invested with lawful Authority, Obedience, or (if obedience cannot with a good conscience be given) Submission is due to their actings by private persons: For, if Submission and passive obedience, or cleanly suffering, be due in any case, and that not to just but to unjust Sentences, and if the Submission be due not by virtue of any warrant given by God to pronounce that Sentence, (for there is none) Then certainly there is a Submission due to the standing Authority of a Judge or Court, as they continue still God's Ordinance, though they err in that particular. This consequence is not only owned and urged by Mr. Durham on the Revelation, pag. 100 That submitting unto Church-power is a necessary and concerning duty, and that without this Submission, there could be no Government nor exercise of Power. But their own very concession (formerly mentioned) pag. 45, 46. doth put it beyond all controversy. For, if Authority and Submission be correlative, and the one cannot subsist without the other, more than one relative can actually subsist without its correlative; Then we hope it is no slander to say, that Submission is essential to Presbyterial Government, seeing Logicians have taught us, and they grant it, that take away a relative, and the correlative ceaseth to be. And therefore also either must the Authority of Judicatories, when they pronounce some unjust Sentence, be totally annulled, or Submission must be paid as due to that Authority, as hath been said. This may (3.) be further confirmed à pari: Magistrates are bounded by the Word of God, that they may not, by their Commission, judge unjustly, nor pronounce an unjust Sentence, more than Church-judicatories: And yet albeit Magistrates do decree an unrighteous Sentence, they may not be resisted, but must be submitted unto by private persons, unless they would resist the Ordinance of God, though coming short of the Rule in that particular act. Now, if this be granted to the standing Authority of Magistrates, erring in a particular fact (and granted it must be, unless men will blow the Trumpet of Rebellion to every private person, and condemn Saints in former ages, in their suffering under the unjust Sentences, even of wicked Magistrates) it cannot be denied either to the standing Authority of Church-judicatories:  the case is alike as to the Authority of both to do evil, and Subjection is due only in the Lord to the one as to the other. And here we desire the Reader to take notice of a passage of Mr. Burroughs, in his Lectures on Hosea, chap. 1. ver. 10. pag. 111. cited by Mr. Gee, Treatise of the Magist. pag. 257, 258. where, having denied that Submission, active or passive, is due to the Commands of men till it be brought to a Law, and they be a Power; He subjoineth, When things are brought into a Law, (understand a lawful Authority established according to the Agreements and Covenants of the place where we live, as the following words are) and then suppose this Authority be abused, and there be an ill law made, then (I confess) if the law be of force, we must either quit ourselves of the Country, or else submit or suffer. When then it cometh to be a power, to be a law, it is Authority though abused, and we must yield obedience to it, either actively or passively. If it be said, that men submit to the force, not to the Authority, of the civil Magistrate, in these cases. Ans. Not to insist that they know the Church also useth all the force they have, and so the case is alike; It would be considered, That to submit only to the force of a Magistrate pronouncing and executing an unjust Sentence, is only that Submission out of prudence, and for preventing other disturbances, which Mr. Burroughs (in the forecited place) granteth may be yielded to unlawful powers: But it is not that Submission out of conscience which he holds to be due to lawful Authority and their laws, even when Authority is abused in making them. For it is a Scripture Rule, that we are to be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience sake, Rom. 13.5. Which Mr. Gee (pag. 112.) expoundeth, a subjection of conscience, as the principle of conscience is contra-distinct from terror and compulsory punishment. And it is known, sufferers use not to wait for force to make them submit, but do it in submission to Authority. Condemned persons wait not till they be drawn to the place of execution, but go on their own feet, and banished persons will departed upon the charge of a Magistrate. Yea, where men unjustly Sentenced have been in a capacity to resist force, (as Christians were in the Armies of Pagan Emperors) yet they have submitted to Authority and suffered. 4. That which taketh away all use of Appeals, instituted by Christ in the case of maladministration, cannot be of God; for one Ordinance of God doth not make another of no effect. Now this Doctrine of Non-submission and counter-acting doth make void all use of Appeals; For (as hath been cleared before) the Appeal from an unjust Sentence, supposeth submission to it in the mean time: for, let it be holden, that such a Sentence is null and not to be submitted unto, and let a Church own that principle, and there needeth no Appeal. 5. That also which involveth a man in the guilt of Schism, cannot be of God: But a man not submitting to some unjust Sentence, is involved in the guilt of Schism, because though he have right on his side, yet his personal suffering is not tanti, as to be laid in the balance with the confusion and open contempt of lawful Authority, and other inconveniences attending upon his Non-submission. And albeit his Judge must answer to Christ for his unjust Sentence, yet he must answer for his Schism, if he suffer not patiently. 6. To this may be added, That it should rub an imputation upon the wisdom of God, who hath put this trust in fallible men's hands, who may and do err, if Submission were not a safe medium to be acquiesced in, betwixt the rocks of sinful obedience, and schismatical contra-acting in a Church, or rebellion in a State. For the governing of us not being entrusted to men who cannot err, without this medium men can hardly walk under the dispensations of providence toward them, but either they must split on one hand or other; Whereas now by yielding suffering to be commanded of God, and a duty laid upon us in such cases, we wipe off all imputations cast on Him, and may walk in peace of mind, though with some personal prejudice.  
VII. As to the Arguments which they muster up against this Submission, if we hold them at their word, pag. 115, 116. that in some cases they would not much contend about it, (of which we have also spoken before) we might leave it at their own door to answer them, and to clear how, in any case, they would not contend about what they plead so much against as sinful. For sin, in any case, and in any matter, is sinful, and so not to be yielded unto. And if they can bring sufficient reasons why, in the cases they mention in the forecited passage, they may submit to an unjust Sentence, They will save us a labour in vindicating ourselves, and answering their Arguments, against the Submission we plead for. But for further satisfaction, As we have already in this debate met with many of their reasons and particular branches of them, and either answered them, or laid them aside as impertinent to our Question, which we shall not now repeat; So we do offer a brief return to what is (or seemeth to be) further material in their reasonings, in these particulars.  
1. Their scope in a great part of their discourse and Arguments, is, to evince, That because Judges have no Commission or Authority from Christ to pronounce an unjust Sentence, Therefore they are not to be submitted unto, unless men will take their will and arbitrament for a law to their Consciences. But this is a great fallacy and confounding of things that are very different; Namely, of the Rule whereby Judges ought to walk in their administrations, and the rule whereby the Lords people ought to walk under these dispensations of providence toward them, whereof humane Judges in their administrations, are the interveening Instruments. We yield, that Judicatories are limited by their Commission, that they may do no unjust act; and if they do, they must answer to God for it: We yield also, that the rule of their Commission, doth regulate also those who are under them, as to their approving or giving active obedience to their injunctions. But when it comes to the matter of suffering, and being passive after we have exonered ourselves, we do not look to their will as our rule or ground of our Submission, but to a peculiar Command of God enjoining Submission in such cases, to prevent schism and confusion. This may easily take off the most of their reasonings. They urge Acts of Assemblies, pag. 51. that Ministers ought to be censured for lawful and just causes; and take much pains to prove that Judicatories are bound to judge according to the Word, Arg. 1. and elsewhere; And when they do otherwise, that they act that for which they have no Commission nor power, pag. 96. All which we grant to be true of Ecclesiastical Judges, as it is also alike true of Civil Powers, that none of them have a power to judge unjustly, and that God who commands us to be subject unto them, commands them to judge justly: And therefore in the case of unrighteous judgement, we neither approve nor give active obedience: yea, we are free, for the liberation of our own souls, to contradict even an Oecumenick Council, Angels, Prophets, and Apostles, if they determine contrary to the Word of God, as they have it, Arg. 8. (yea, and to do more also, if they bring in another Doctrine of the Gospel, to which the Scripture there cited speaketh, Gal. 1.6, 7, 8.) And so shall deny them also any power over our Consciences, nor shall we set them on Christ's Throne (which they charge upon our opinion, Arg. 3.) as to the acknowledgement of their Sentences to be just, or any approbation, in our practice and active obedience, of what in our Consciences we disallow, (which is all can be inferred from the principles of Non-conformists, concerning the freedom of Conscience, mentioned also, Arg. 3.) Yet it cannot from all these be inferred, that there is not a command of God obliging us, in Conscience, to suffer unjustly, rather than make a Schism, and pour contempt upon standing lawful Authority. Nor is it sound argued, that because they do not their duty in their station (for which they must give an account to God) therefore we are not bound to suffer what we are called to, in our stations, Or, that suppose men should play the Popes in pronouncing an unjust Sentence (such as is above qualified) against a man, as they have it, Arg. 14. Therefore the sufferer may lawfully sin too. This opinion is so far from dethroning, that it doth exalt Christ, and doth deny to men what is not due to them, and yet giveth to Christ what is due to Him. Likewise, when they urge so much, Arg. 9, and 10. that it argueth the Scriptures of imperfection, giveth what is due to them to Judicatories, and must infer the infallibility of Judicatories, that they must not be contradicted, nor contra- acted, but their will must be a law, as they elsewhere tell us; There is all along a great mistake in the case: For, not only is that of not contradicting put in without cause, seeing men may contradict, as to the declaration of their judgement, when yet they submit; But we never asserted a Judicatory might be contra-acted in no case (as we cleared before in laying aside their eleventh Argument, and other reasonings) we are only now debating about Submission to Sentences qualified as is above expressed: And what submission we pay in these, we are so far from setting up men's infallibility, or from derogating from the Scriptures, as to their perfection, and sole Authority over our Consciences, that it is not out of conscience of the justice of the Sentence, but in obedience to the sole command of God, bidding us respect lawful Authority and suffer in such cases, that we pay it. And it is upon the supposition of the Judge's fallibility, yea, and their erring actually, that we press this Submission, as contra-distinct to active obedience. So also as to the Scriptures which they cite, Arg. 2. That we should not be the servants of men, but stand fast in our Christian liberty, and obey God rather than men; They have borrowed these weapons from Independents, who (as Mr. Rutherfurd telleth us, Peac. Plea, pag. 193.) borrowed them from Anabaptists and Socinians, arguing against the places of Kings, Judges and Magistrates. But the argument is easily answered, that we obey God and not men, and are His servants and not theirs, in this Submission; And that the people of God are free, as to the enslaving of their Conscience with the approbation, or their practice with doing of any thing that is unjust; yet they have not an immunity from stooping to suffer when God calls them to it. And let the case be but instanced in a Magistrates unjust Sentence against particular persons, and it will say for itself, whether their Christian liberty will reach a Non-submission or not. Likewise, when they urge, Arg. 12. that unjust Sentences are null in themselves, and therefore cannot bind to Submission and subjection: We grant that in foro interno, it is a nats' Sentence, not obliging the Conscience to any approbation thereof; Yet in foro externo, it is so far valide, as a man cannot deny submission thereunto without sinning against God, in contemning the standing lawful Authority of a Church, in making a Schism, and declining to suffer when God calleth him to it. And in this the very Independents agree, though they differ about the subject invested with the power of the keys; for they tell us, in their Defence of the nine Positions, pag. 210. That a Minister derives all his authority from Christ, by the Church indeed, applying that Office to him, to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ; Hence being the Minister of Christ to them, if they without Christ depose him, they hinder the exercise of his Office, but his right remaineth.  
2. While they urge, that Ministers are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5.12. Arg. 1. And that we are to be subordinate to Church-power only in the Lord, pag. 95, 96. That is so far from warranting Non-submission, and contra-acting in the Question betwixt us, that it doth strongly assert it. For (to omit many other things which the Learned find imported in this) to be subject in the Lord, as it imports, 1. An acknowledgement in our Consciences of their lawful Authority, And, 2. active obedience to what they command in the Lord: So, 3. in the case of an unjust Sentence, it requireth such submission and passive obedience, as He hath enjoined us in His Word in such cases; (which what it is, hath been spoken to before) and so it confirmeth our Assertion. That this is not a forced Interpretation, may appear, were it but from this one consideration, That this qualification of Submission and Obedience in the Lord, is not required in reference to Chruch-judicatories only, but of children also in reference to their Parents, and consequently of all inferiors paying subjection to their Superiors in their several stations, as is clear from Eph. 6.1. Col. 3.18. and elsewhere. Now, it is not to be supposed that the Apostle warranteth children, servants, or subjects to resist and counteract all the unjust corrections and Sentences of their Masters and Superiors, but that they should submit and suffer rather. For we find in Scripture, that it is the commendable duty of children to submit to their parents, even when they chasten them for their pleasure only, Heb. 12.9, 10. As also of christian servants to suffer unjustly under their bad Masters, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20. and generally of all Christians to suffer under their persecuting Magistrates, 1 Pet. 3.14, 15, 16, 17. and, 4.12, 13, 14.15, 16. and frequently throughout the Scriptures. And this, together with what hath formerly been produced, may satisfy that part of Arg. 1. wherein they call for a precept or precedent in Scripture to clear this matter. For here we find there is Scripture-warrant for this Submission, to which we may add, That the practice of the suffering People of God in all generations, is a clearer Commentary to these Texts, than all the glosses (tending but to sedition, schism and confusion of human society) they can fasten upon them.  
3. While they urge, (Arg. 15. pag. 113, 114.) That this brings in a Tyranny in the Church, and by parity of reason condemneth defensive Arms, which are judged lawful against State-tyranny: We are so far from allowing Tyranny or Injustice in the least, that we maintain, that all Judicatories are bound to judge righteous judgement at their peril. And if they proceed to ruin all Religion (as this Argument carrieth it with vehemency enough, to say no more) we have already cleared what the People of God may lawfully do in such a case; yea, in unjust Sentences of lesser moment, not only inferior Judicatories, but even particular persons in their stations, may do more than whisper once against them (as they are pleased to phrase it) and yet submit when they have done. But as to the Question betwixt us and this Church, they will find their Argument from defensive Arms to fail them. For (not to dip any further in that Question) no learned man ever allowed even the body of a Nation, or their Representatives in Parliament, to rise against a Prince (far less a party only, be they persons, or some inferior Judicatories, against the Supreme Magistrate, or a National Church and her Representatives, which is our case) upon the account only of the unjust sufferings of particular persons, while yet the affairs of Church and State were well ordered, That would soon make more unjust sufferers than would be under lawful Authority not resisted, possibly in many ages. And we believe it is without precept or precedent, that private subjects or inferior Courts, should rise in Arms against their Prince or Parliaments, only because they inflict some unjust Sentences on themselves or some private subjects, while yet they adhere unto, and overturn none of the righteous things concluded in a Nation. And therefore this Church being through mercy settled in the matter of Doctrine, Worship and Government, they may spare this Argument, till they prove this Church to be overturning all or any of these.  
4. That wherein they seem to place no small confidence in this matter (as appeareth by their frequent repeating and expatiating thereupon) is, that reason of the Apostles for their Non-submission to the Council at Jerusalem, Acts. 5.29. It is better to obey God than men, together with these Commands of God, enjoining Ministers to preach the Word, and Christians to partake of the Sacrament, in remembrance of Christ, 2 Tim. 4.2. 1 Cor. 11.24. These they propound, Arg. 2. p. 99 and the most of their reasoning thereupon is again recapitulate in short, Arg. 4. That these duties being commanded by God, they cannot omit them without sin, upon that non-relevant reason, of the mere will of men, unjustly sentencing them with Deposition and Excommunication. This they urge further Arg. 2. pag. 100, 101. from the instances (not only of the Apostles, and Jeremiah, and Amos, to which we have spoken before, but) of Daniel, counteracting the Decree of Darius, Dan. 6. and of the man's confessing Christ, though cast-out by the Jews for it, Joh. 9 But (to say nothing that this last instance will not prove that Non-submission to the Sentence of Excommunication, which they there speak of, unless they make it appear that the man did not only confess Christ still, but obtrude himself also upon the Jews in their church-society) The Answer to this is easy, if we take notice of a twofold distinction, 1. We would distinguish humane prohibitions of duties commanded by God. For, some prohibitions are not only restraints put upon some persons as to the exercise of these duties, upon the account of these persons incapacity (real or supposed) to go about the same; But are in effect and chief a condemning of these duties in their very nature and kind, as not to be observed by any person whatsoever: and so do not touch upon the incapacity of the persons who are prohibited, but upon the things themselves, considered as such moral performances, which are prohibited. Such a prohibition was that of Darius, which was a political Decree prohibiting the very duty of Prayer unto God, and that to all men universally, not to Daniel or some others only, upon any personal incapacity in them. So the Decree of the Jews was against the very duty of confessing Christ, and not a restraint upon some persons only, that they should not be the performers of that duty. And their Decree against the Apostles preaching, was a Law and dogmatic Determination against the whole Doctrine of the Gospel and the publishing thereof to the world, and not a restraint put upon the Apostles only, while they allowed others to do it. For, it may appear from their own words, Act. 4.17. and 5.2. that their quarrel was not against the Apostles preaching, but against the Doctrine which they preached, in this Name. They offered not to silence them from publishing Doctrine simpliciter, but from publishing this Doctrine. Again, There are some prohibitions which are mere disciplinary Sentences, restraining persons from such duties of an office, or the use of such privileges as they not only allow of in their nature and kind, but do allow others in the practice and enjoyment of them, and do only restrain others therefrom upon the account of their personal incapacity, real or supposed Ex. gr. when a Church-judicatory deposeth a Minister from preaching of Christ, upon the account of insufficiency or scandal, or debarreth a Member from participation of public Ordinances; suppose they do err in the particular, yet they are so far from condemning of these duties, of preaching of Christ and partaking of the Ordinances, that they provide another to preach in the room of him whom they have put out, and do see to the dispensing of the Ordinances daily, and to the inviting of the rest of the Congregation to join in the participation thereof. That there is a vast difference betwixt these two sorts of prohibitions, may appear further in this (beside what is said) that prohibitions of the first sort, are simply and in their nature and kind unlawful, nor can any such Decree be lawfully made at any time: But disciplinary Sentences are not unlawful in their nature and kind, but may, in some cases, lawfully be pronounced and executed, as is confessed by all. And as to the application of the distinction to the case in hand; We need not meddle with it in the matter of prayer and confessing Christ, seeing (as we shall hear upon the second distinction) these fall not within the compass of Disciplinary Sentences. But as to the matter of preaching and participation of public Ordinances, which are the things in debate betwixt us, we may hence take a clear solution of the difficulty. For, let once a Church-judicatory grow so corrupt, as to condemn the duties of preaching Christ and participation of public Ordinances, in their very nature and kind, and as to all sorts of persons universally: (which is the true case held out in their Instances; for even the false Priest at Bethel, and the Rulers at Jerusalem did condemn the Doctrine preached by Amos and Jeremiah, and did not quarrel only their preaching of it while they did allow it in others) And in that case, we should without scruple (as was said before) conclude them no true Courts of Christ; and consequently, not to be submitted unto. Yea, in case such decrees were published, we should hold it a case of Confession for Ministers to preach, and people to frequent Ordinances, so long as they had liberty or opportunity. And so, though neither the Apostles nor Prophets had been extraordinarily called, nor clothed with a Commission unrepealable (as hath been said) by any on earth, their warrant was sufficiently clear in that case to hold up the oppressed truth of the Gospel, against the sworn enemies of Christ and the Gospel, who would neither preach Christ nor suffer Him to be preached by any other; as we heard from these worthy Non-conformists, Authors of the Treatise against the Brownists formerly mentioned. But on the other hand, When a Church doth own all the Truths of the Gospel, and all the Ordinances of Christ, and doth no sooner put out one from preaching of Christ, but they provide another to make up that want, and do dispense the Ordinances in purity to the people of God; In such a case, (which, through mercy, is the case of this Church, as we have heard) Suppose they do err in discharging one to Preach, and another to come to the Ordinances: It is not the will of God that persons so suffering should make a Schism by their Non-submission and counteracting, upon the account of their personal suffering, or prejudice, as the preceding Arguments do abundantly prove: But, having used all lawful means of redress, by Appeals to superior Judicatories, they ought to acquiesce, and submit to the will of God calling them to suffer, rather than run upon the many inconveniences formerly mentioned. But to clear this further, (2.) We would distinguish duties commanded us by God, wherein we may be restrained by men. For, there are some moral duties incumbent to Christians simply and absolutely as they are Christians, and which are simply in their own power, by themselves and independently from others, and enjoined them without any respect to their Subordination or relation to others in the Church; So that to their performance of them, they neither need a call impowering them thereunto, nor are dependent upon the concurrence of any others, in or to the same: Such as prayer to God, and confessing of Christ, which are of moral natural right: And there are other duties of moral positive institution, which are not in men's own power severally and by themselves, and independently from others in the Church, but some way in the power of others beside themselves; and are incumbent to men as they stand in relation or Subordination to others; And are either duties to be performed by men as they stand clothed with an Office, received by the interveening Ministry of the Church; such as the ordinary Ministerial preaching of the Word, and the administration of other public Ordinances: Or privileges which they do enjoy by the Ministry of others, who are to dispense them unto them, or also by the joint concurrence of others with them therein; Such as the participation of Sacraments, public Assembly-praying and praising. The difference here is very considerable, Both as to the power of Disciplinary Sentences, about them (for Sentences of Church-censures are not conversant about performance of duties of the first sort, but only of the second; nor can there ever in any case, a restraint be lawfully put upon men in the matter of praying and worshipping God, or confessing of Christ, as there lawfully may be, in some cases, in the second sort of duties) And, as to the matter of Submission to Sentences restraining men from, and forbearing of the performance of them. For, the first sort are so entirely in our own power, that we neither need a call from any, warranting us to go about them, nor the concurrent acting of any other for our enjoying the liberty thereof. And they are so absolutely commanded, without respect to any dependence upon any other; and are so absolutely necessary, necessitate medii, for a man's glorifying of God, and his own eternal salvation, That it must be a sin not to observe them constantly, as affirmative precepts ought to be observed; yea, a double sin not to adhere to them in a case of Confession, as it is when these duties are prohibited by men. But as for the second sort of duties, Albeit (as hath been said) there can be no submitting to forbear them upon any decree of men prohibiting them in their very nature and kind; Yet, being duties that are not absolutely necessary, necessitate medii, and being, as to the exercise thereof, not wholly in our own power, of and by ourselves, but some way dependent upon others also, So that we cannot go about them, without a call and warrant from others, nor enjoy the exercise of them by ourselves; Therefore in case the Church, who calleth and ordains a Minister, will not suffer him to preach, Or a Minister (who hath the trust of dispensing Ordinances) will not dispense the Sacrament to a member, the sufferer breaks no command in suffering that injury, after he hath essayed all lawful means of redress. Seeing his forbearance is not a voluntary and elective omission of the duty he is restrained from, but a patiented suffering of an injury, under a necessity whereof providence hath brought him, unless he would commit a moral evil which he is obliged not to do by natural right, viz. make a Schism in a true Church, and bring contempt on lawful Authority. It is his affliction, and not his sin, nor is it the violation of any commandment, but only a cessation from a duty commanded, when he cannot do it without the violation of another command of more universal and necessary obligation. Neither is he by this cessation deprived of the exercise of any duty absolutely necessary to the honouring of God, enjoying of fellowship with Christ, and saving his own soul. And if they deny these things, they must yield also, that in some cases (beside that of an erring Conscience, which is yielded by all) a man may be concluded under a necessity of sinning on all hands; As that a Minister must either sin by forbearing to preach, or sin in making a Schism by continuing to preach, when he is deposed by a lawful Authority in a true Church, though erring in that particular. As such a case and snare upon men is held by the Learned to be repugnant to the infinite Holiness and Wisdom of God the Lawgiver; So we find godly sufferers before us, very far from judging their Submission and suffering to be any violation of Gods command calling them to their work. Parker, on the Cross, Chap. 4. Sect. 14. cleareth that sufferers in the cause of Nonconformity did not voluntarily, wilfully, or sinfully give-over their Ministry, adding, It is not the leaving of the Ministry that is a sin, but the causes why, the end wherefore, and the circumstances wherein, that maketh the leaving of it sinful. To wit, (as he expresseth both before and after in that Section) when men leave it for their gain and ease, etc. as Prelates and their creatures did: and not when these sufferers left it to keep a good conscience, and by leaving thereof, did perform that duty of suffering, and left their Ministry to keep their flock, by their example, from the wolf, and from all liking of his fair shows, and not as the careless shepherd, who leaveth them to the claws of the wolf; Yea, these sufferers did teach them by their example of suffering, when they were not suffered to do it by doctrine— but did willingly submit to the providence of the Lord; who for the present called them from it. Much more to this purpose may be read in the Author at large, in the Section cited, as also Sect. 15. Whereas it is said, that it is an omission of a duty upon a non-relevant reason, of the mere will of men, which they so often repeat; and in the close of Arg. 3. pag. 102, 103. tell us that these duties cannot cease to be obliging to such a person, hic & nunc, upon that reason, unless we prefer the commandments of men to the Commandments of God, and say, It is better to obey men than God. Answ. It is true that the unjust Sentence is the object of the man's suffering, and from it is the rise of his forbearance; but the reason why he suffers and forbears, is most relevant, as being in obedience to the Command of God, requiring us to suffer in a matter which is our privilege and comfort, rather than make a Schism. But this is their grand mistake, that they look only to men as their party, and to the injustice of their procedure; But do not remember, that God by that dispensation of His providence, in suffering lawful Authority to do them wrong, is calling them to suffer. And that when they submit thereunto, it is not to men, but to God also, and to the Order established by Him.  
5. Whereas they make it a great exception in the matter of Submission, that we are the plurality; and pag. 10. they allege there must be no good intention, when the stronger party doth press the Submission of the weaker. Answ. We do believe indeed, that this hath not the least weight with them in this debate; for they have made it apparent throughout the Pamphlet, that were they the plurality, they would not admit of it as a relevant exception against them; nor do we believe was this ever an exception before in any true Church. But to the thing itself; As by the Conference for Union, there was sufficient provision offered for securing them in matters of our bypast differences: So men of our judgement have yielded the same Submission we require, where they are the plurality. And when a Presbytery, (wherein the plurality was of their judgement) did depose one of our judgement for not submitting to their Sentence of Suspension, the Synod did ratify the Sentence of Deposition, though the Synod, as they well know, were of a different judgement from them, and were not satisfied with their procedure in his Suspension.  
Having now brought this debate to a close, (wherein, though we have not followed their method, yet we trust we have not shifted or passed-by any thing of weight in all their arguings) And having also spoken our mind, so far as is necessary, to the whole Pamphlet, We shall only, for a close of all, add a word to the Reader, and especially to those Ministers and Professors who differ from us upon the matter of our late debates. And, 1. though we have been necessitated to speak somewhat home to this Piece, and what is contained in it, in our own and the Church's defence; yet we entreat and obtest it may not be understood as spoken to all that Party, but only to the guilty, and chief to the Authors of this Pamphlet, to whom this Church and all Reformed Presbyterian Churches do owe little thanks, for their contributing so much to the advancement of all Sectarian Designs, and their strength●…ning the hands of all licentious persons, who live under their inspection and jurisdiction. We have made conscience to forbear railing, and have spoken many things (the Lord knoweth) in the grief of our heart of their way, which we wish had never been, or were buried in perpetual silence. And if any thing of that kind be found which any will dis-relish as, we desire that charity which Scripture alloweth unto men under much oppression, and do request that our Reasons may be weighed impartially; So we entreat that none will suspect that these things do beget any heart-alienation in us from our Brethren, with whom our soul desireth to be united in the Lord, and who (we trust) will return these Agents little thanks for their service. 2. Though the importunate clamours of these men have drawn us out (in our necessary defence as is said before) upon the debate of the late Resolutions, Acts of Judicatories, and Censures inflicted by them, which those of our Judgement have so often offered to remove, for their part, out of the way, that they impede not an Union: Yet let none think that we have receded from these our Purposes and Overtures, whereby all these debates may be buried. We hold ourselves bound to Declare, that in these things we are where we were, notwithstanding these Contests; and do hearty request our Brethren that there may be a condescendence on their part. And though we be reflected upon as carnal politic men in these our endeavours and offers; Yet we trust it shall be no grief of heart to us one day to be found lovers of Truth and Peace, and such as seek Peace and pursue it.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 29, line 31. read were deposed p. 55. l. 3. for that, r. than. p. 56. l. 1. r, vigorously, only for. p 64. l. 6. for that r. their. Ibid. l. 10. r. es there is guilt. p. 70. l. 5. r. Assembly. Ibid. l. 12. for would r. will. p. 107. l. 21. r. 98.