A Seasonable Warneing To the Poor persecuted Church Of SCOTLAND, OR A Dissuasive to all true Non-Conformists, from sinful complying with, owneing of, and active submitting to abjured Pre●… ates, and their Underlings, by hearing of them, or any other way strengthening their hands to the overturning the Work of Reformation.  
By PHILALETHES.  John. 10. Vers. 1. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the Sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a Thief and a Robber. Matth. 7. Vers. 15. Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening Wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. 
Printed in the Year 1682.   

one inquiry into the Case now so common Whether it be lawful to hear the prelates and their curates? Or, which is all one, whether it be lawful for the Lords People in Scotland to submit to the pretended ecclesiastic authority of prelates and their curates and to receive from them the Ordinances of God pretended to be in their hands.  
FOR clearing up the state of the Question and making way for the determination thereof, it will be needful in the first place to open up a little the terms in which it is conceived. The terms which here are to be explained, we sum them up in these three: First, prelates and their curates. Secondly, Hearing or submitting and receiving the ordinances of God from them. Thirdly, lawful or not. The I. Belongs to the Subject of the question in obliquo. The II. Is its subject in recto. The III. Is the attribute of the question in recto. To which is added in obliquo, the Lords People in Scotland which term needs no explication. As to the first, we are to inquire what is meant by prelates.. Secondly what is meant by curates. As for prelates first if you believe the lies, dissimulations and prevarications of Prelatists, it will be hard to know what they are: But the shifting and unconstancie of expression in this point, if we will inquire what they are by divine right, they are just nothing, no ground at all for them in the Word of God, under what shape soever they introduce themselves; or whatsoever mask they put on for that purpose: Yea, on the contrary, the Word of God doth clearly condemn them. If we inquire, what they are by Jurisdiction,: That is to be seen in the laws and acts instituting& constituting them, we mean acts Civil or Parliamentary; for there is no ecclesiastic act or canon for them: Yea and more, all our Church Judicatories are yet standing in force against them unrepealed by any Church power whatsoever; yea albeit there were such acts and canons for them, yet that were not enough to make their authority lawful or valid, seeing Christ hes given no such power to the Church, as to make acts of that nature; so that they are not only a mere human creature but which is worse, a mere hvmane and political devyce deryving their whole power and being from the civil power and civil Magistrat, and pretending to make a new species or kind of officers over the House of God. Thirdly, if we ask for them in their practise, that is not only heard of, but sadly felt and sadly seen. Fourthly, If we ask for them in their patrons and exemplaries, that is the English Prelates whose vile image they are, albeit sometime they intimat some thing to the contrary. In a word, whether we consider their titles and dignities and usurped power over the Church, manner of government and way of Church discipline, exercised as it is, both the one and the other( for kind and quality) they are all one with the prelates of the Romish Church, as is clearly demonstrat by Didoclavius. Only with this exception, that the English and ours do not expressly aclowledge the Pope; but puts the Supreme Magistrat in his place: And as in the Papacy some holds them to be of divine right; others, that all their power is from the Pope, so some of ours mutters for a divine right, others derive from the King: whence either they make him one ecclesiastic person as well as a Civil, or else denies all government of the Church distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat, which clearly dethrones Christ, and gives him no visible kingdom or power or government in his Church: Now this manner of government and power( common to the Popish prelates and ours) is first Lordly forbidden, 1. Pet. 5.3. Secondly, Worldly and political discharged, Math. 20.25, 16, 27. Thirdly, Antichristian and tyrannical over the souls of the Lords People; set out by that Beast with the seven heads and ten horns, Revel. 13. For as the ten horned Beast holds forth the Pope and his prelates as false Prophets, and the scarlet whore a vile adulterous Church, Revel. 17. so that first holds forth their Lordly, worldly politic, tyrannical, antichristian form of government; all one with that of our prelates inconsistent with, contradictory unto and eversive of the government instituted by Christ in his Church; which as it is in its own nature spiritual, so( as it is exercised under Christ) it is only a ministerial power and declaratory of his will.  
We inquire next what is meant by curates or prelates Ministers. If you call them so. These curates are of three sorts. The first are these who being admitted before the year 1649. have either by word or practise[ or both] yielded up into the prelates hands that power which they had immediately from Christ by the Presbytery to govern in the house of God with others; or to sand forth new labourers to Christs vineyard, as need requires; or to administrat the public worship in one immediat dependence on him: In a word they have taken the keys of the House of God, and treacherously given them to the hands of the Antichristian prelate; and hes quit with their charter from Christ and taken a new charter from the prelates; all which is evident by their practical submission according to Law.  
It is Objected here: That albeit their Ministers hes given up their power of ordination or Jurisdiction into the prelates hands, yet it will be hard to prove that they have given their power of preaching also: And therefore notwithstanding of what they have done they ought to be heard. Answer: As Christ never appointed, so he does not allow Ministers in his Church having a power of preaching without a power of ordination or Jurisdiction; so that our submission unto such for hearing of them would be one acknowledgement of one officer in Christs house that is not of his own appointment Answer II. this upgiving of theirs is a heinous sin, and a signal piece of treachery unto and revolt from their formerly professed head and Master; for which they deserve deposition from any office in Christs House, yea excommunication from the same; and therefore the Lords people ought to do nothing that may seem to approve them in what they have done. Answer III. It seems to be granted here that we may not submit to their Jurisdiction, and yet th●y who hear submitts to it. Answer IV. we cannot see but they have given up their power of preaching into the prelates hand, as well as their power of Jurisdiction and ordination. For first as they could not have exercised any power of ordination or Jurisdiction without his leave, so neither any power of preaching. II. as now they exercise Jurisdiction in their pretended Presbyteries and Sessions by his licence and commission( in doing whereof they are his mere delegates and substitutes) so by that same licence and commission they preach; also as he authoritatively commands and regulats them in the exercise of jurisdiction, the like the does as to preaching, and all the other parts of public worship; so that they must preach &c. what he pleases and how he pleases. III. as he may take the exercise of jurisdiction wholly out of their hands( as he hes already done that of ordination) by substituting officials &c. so ( eodem jure) he may inhibit them all to preach, and command them only to say service; so that indeed I see not where the difference lies. If it be further said: they may think that their sitting does not differr from honest Ministers their sitting with and under the last prelates. We answer first there is a hudge difference, as from other things, so from this, that these Ministers were not set down by the prelates, nor did ever sit by a commission of delegation from them: But we remit the fuller clearing of this difference to the objectors who are called to have more serious thoughts about it then we are called to have. II. matters of duty or sin does not depend from our knowledge or ignorance, but from the Law of God: its a known rule, ignorantia vincibilis non excusat a culpa. Now the II. sorts of curates are these who being admitted by the respective Presbyteries since the yeir 1649. have further taken collation from the prelates; which collation, as it hes at least a virtual reordination in the bosom of it( for the act of Parliament looks upon them as no Ministers without this; and the narrative of the collation does bear that they have been tried and ordained, but does not say by the presbytery) so it bears also taking of the oath of canonical obedience to his Lo: whereby they become his sworn vassals and slaves; yea the very collation itself without the oath seems to be a right clear acknowledgement of the pretended power of prelates, and no doubt is devysed for that purpose, to be a mean of their establishment; for by it the prelate is put in the place of the Presbytery. It is implyed that now he hes the power of trial, and ordination, consequently unto which only he confers the bnfice; and this is the only thing which at first is called for at the hands of these Ministers for the establishing of prelates.  
The III. Sort of curates are these who( besides all their things) hes received ordination from the prelates since their entry, and hes thrust themselves upon the Lords people with out their call and consent: These then are the curates and prelates about whom the question is; concerning, whom we grant that there may be some further subdivisions; for it is a greater fault to submit cordially to the prelates, or to be active in dryving on their designs, nor it is to submit out of fear &c. II It is a greater fault to intrude upon the labours of faithful Ministers thrust out, nor it is to intrude upon a vacand congregration: These indeed are heinous aggravations.  
But the question is about our submission, by hearing, &c unto these who have submitted unto these prelates; which submission of theirs, and their deriving a power from them, is the fundamental guilt; the several ways of which are exercised in the three members of the foregoing division.  
The II. thing proposed to be explained is, concerning hearing of and submitting unto their prelates and their curates, and the taking the ordinances off their hands, for unfolding of which, consider first that by the ordinances of God, are not only to be understood the Gospel ordinances of preaching, but also Sacraments, and all other parts of public worship, manner of teaching, Government and Discipline; all which hes been in use among us these yeares by-gone, which we are bound to maintain by the Word of God and solemn Covenants; all which, and as many more, as they shall please to invent▪ our prelates and curates pretends a power to administrat. II. as to what concerns hearing we would further consider first what it is wear called to hear; we suppose it is not one acted Comedy, or a discourse of civil policy, trade or such like; neither a philosophic lecture in a college, but it is somewhat for spiritual edification that we are speaking of; nay it is the public ordinance of preaching instituted by Christ for the begetting of faith &c. in the hearts of the Lords people. II. consider whom we are to hear.  
One authorized by Christ in his appointed way for carrying his message to us; for upon the matter it may be the word of God, and yet not a message from him, not the Gospel ordinance of preaching, because not delivered by one who hes a valid commission. III. Consider how we are to hear, we are to hear the gospel ordinance of preaching in the faith and expectation of the Lords blessing on his own ordinance, submitting ourselves to Christ in the messenger and message; other ways we take the Lords name in vain, seeing this at least is requisite to make that part of worship morally and spiritually good: This then is the hearing now in question. IIII. We distinguish between occasional hearing and fixed stated hearing: The question is not, if a man were at his work where one of these were preaching, if he might stay still well-being, or hear a word in the by going, his occasion so requireing, or suppose their were no law for prelates, or no great rumour that there were any of that gang in any Church with in the Land, if a man traveling throw the country about his lawful affairs restend on the Lords day where such a one were without curious inquiry, and by one inculpable ignorance, he might hear such a one without sin. But that is not the question. It is concerning fixed and stated hearing to the making up of which these things do concur▪ first acts and laws instituting and constituting such and such Church Officers. II- The actual fixing of them by virtue of these laws and acts in such places. III. They being fixed, taking upon them to administrat all the Ordinances. IV. laws and acts appointing every one respectively to submit unto the set Officers so fixed, and to take the Ordinances off their hands V. Peoples practise in submitting to these acts and laws, doing that really which is required( tho outwardly only) and no more is required. Now this sort of hearing is a real and formal submitting unto the persons heard, and one interpretative( at least) taking of the ordinance off their hands. Whether they have power or no. And he who submitts to them as to the preaching of the word, may submit unto them in all other parts of worship or Ordinances, seing there is a like reason for all except there be a particular corruption in such a part of worship that may scar them. From this it appears, that it is more pertinent to ask, whether it be lawful to submit to the prelates and the curates, then to inquire, if it be lawful to hear them. For first the term, hearing, being more strict extensive, relates only to one Ordinance viz. to that of preaching. II, the term, submit, being more intensive, does better express the Nature of the hearing &c, about which the question is, it is not every sort of hearing that is here meant, but that hearing which is of the Gospel Ordinance of preaching, and that in a stated way, which hes submission involved in it, as is above declared.  
Thirdly we would advert, that when the Law requireing obedience and submission unto such and such Church Officers and attendance on them at such times, requires a verbal express acknowledgement of them whether by word, promise or oath. Then if that be wanting, their submission unto, and acknowledgement of them might possibly be esteemed not to be so full, but when the Law requires only peoples practise, then peoples practical obedience is enough to evidence their submission unto these Officers, as also their acknowledgement of them, and approbation of their way for why the Law requires no more of the people in their station, for fixing of these creatures in their places: The question then is, whether it be lawful or not to hear, or submit to the prelates and their curates, as is above expressed.  
But it is objected here, that besides these things abovementioned to make up fixed stated hearing, it is further requisite, that the party who hears live within the Parish, and that he hear not only now and then, but ordinarily.  
Answer first: It is granted then that the hearing one placed in a Parish by these who lives within the Parish, is fixed stated hearing, as consequently submission, as abovesaid, especially if their hearing be ordinary Ans: II. The question is not so much concerning fixed or stated hearing of them as Church Officers in the national Church of Scotland, and fixing them in and over that Church, and this is that which both the Law and practise aims at primarily and directly, and at the other but indirectly and consequentially, for it is but a circumstantial bussiness to be a member in this or that congregation, though never so fixedly. Ans: III, seing all and every one of the Ministers of the Gospel stand in an actual relation to the whole visible Church and every part therof, and have one habitual power to exercise all the parts of their office in every part thereof, according as they have a particular call, and seeing our practical consent to hear, or take any of the ordinances of their hands is a sufficient call, pro hac 'vice, of that which hic& nunc does actually constitut such a Minister our Minister; he actually and fixedly [ pro hac 'vice] standing between God and us, and actually dispensing Gods Ordinance unto us, his people, although otherwise he were a Minister in America, it followeth I say, that it is all one, whether we look on them as Ministers, or as our fixed Ministers seeing they cannot but be our fixed Ministers in that act, we mean de facto, non de jure. Ans: IV. We see no difference to be noticed of any worth betwixt hearing of them ordinarily, and hearing of them now and then, for it is the same thing. And certainly if it be lawful to hear them once, it is lawful to hear them ordinarily, and is as real submission unto them, and obedience to the Law, tho it be not so full extensive; we grant also it hes a more bent influence on their fixing; but majus& minus non mutant speciem.  
Objection: If the party hearing shall before his hearing give a formal testimony against the curates entry, his being Minister of that place, &c. that then his hearing cannot be accounted fixed stated hearing, in the sense aforesaid, much less submission unto him as such.  
Answer: first That Testimony( if of any availl) must not onely be against his entry, or being Minister of that place, but also against his being esteemed a Minister of the Church of Scotland; seeing that is the thing that the Law aims at primarily, as is said; and that is the thing also we are primarily sworn against in our solemn league and Covenant. II. this testimony( if any worth) must be as public, open and frequent, as our practise in our hearing, &c. otherwise it cannot so much as remove scandal. III. the curates laugh under thumb at this testimony( where it is admitted) and looks on it only as a device of wit to shun suffering, and are glad that thereby they may get the people hanked in to submit unto them, everlastingly, as they think, and never more, again of this clandestine testimony. IV. if hearing &c. be looked upon, esteemed and required as one approbation of the call and office of prelates and curates, and as a token of submission unto them; then it cannot serve the turn here; see Alting. probl. Pract 18. Likewise probl. 9. about being married with Popish priests, Pag. 304. but this is just our case; the importance of the laws, and all other circumstances considered, as appears from what hes been said concerning stated hearing, and will further appear in prosecution of argument. VIII. albeit in our thoughts and expressions we may prescind, distinguish and divide between the duty of hearing &c. and the sinfullness of submitting unto,& approbation of the curates and prelates; yet our practise owns no such precision▪ but does always involve a relation and submission unto both; the metaphysics in our heads does not influence our practise, neither can a testimony hinder or take off that submission and approbation which the practise off its own nature does involve. VI. if a testimony may take off the sin of submission unto and approbation of the prelates and curates in hearing &c. wherefore may not the like testimony take of the sin of idolatry in kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Elements of bread and wine; but this it cannot do, because in that act we are in a stated posture of outward, worship, having the Elements as the immediat object therof standing between God and us: for which see( amongst others) Mr Rutherfords divine Right of Church Government Cap. 1. quest. 5. The like we say of the other; for in hearing &c. we are in one outward stated way of worship& in that act we have the prelate or his Curat standing between God& us, tho not to be worshipped, yet to be practically owned& submitted into, as unto the messenger of the Lord of hosts; which practical owning and submitting unto, a testimony can ●o more take off here, nor it can take off idolatry in the other case. From all this it does follow that hearing &c. of the prelates and their curates does necessary involve submission unto them and approbation of them; notwithstanding of any testimony to the contrary; and that is all one to inquire concerning the lawfulness of hearing, &c. and of submission; neither can I see how a testimony of a private nature can take of that which is the legal and public intent of the action.  
The III. thing to the explained is what is meant by lawful: where we would consider, that a thing may be lawful by the Law of man, and yet not lawful by the Law of God; Because God is greater then man: therefore Christian People, when the commands of men comes out, would always try, if these commands of men be conform to the revealed will of God or not. The question is to be understood of the latter, not of the former. II● we may distinguish here between the reality of a thing and the lawfulness of a thing, or( which is all one) between its essence and is moral goodness; There may be Veritas Metaphysica where, there is not Bonitas moralis; a man in a fallen estate is a true man, though not morally good a border marriage is a true marriage for its substance, though not lawfully gone about, Factum valet quod fieri non debuit. Hence it follows, that although prelates and curates had the essentials of a gospel ministry, yet it will not follow, that we may take the ordinances off their hands; for that may be sinful and unlawful.  
Having explained the terms for clearing up of the state of the question, and being to speak only to these who are really troubled about the present case; before I come to the resolution of the question, I would premise some things that I know they will grant. As first, That our Lord Jesus hes instituted and appointed all the standing officers of his House, for the feeding and ruling thereof, Secondly, that these of Christs appointment are Ministers and Elders, who are to govern in a collegiat way, viz. by Presbyteries sessions, Synods& general Assemblies, with a direct immediat, subordination to Christ alone. Thirdly, That the prelate Bishop is none of Christs creatures, nor set in the Church by God, none of these gifts which Christ ascending on high gave to his Church, but a mere human creature and political device. Fourthly, That the Civil Magistrat hes no headship over the House of God under Christ the mediatory way, that he is not at all one officer in the Church the House of God. Fiftly, that there is a government spiritual, ecclesiastic visible over and in the visible Church in the hands of Church officers, acting under Christ their King, by them he exercises his visible mediatory kingly power; which government is formally, and in its own nature, distinct from the government civil, and not at all subject to the Civil Magistrat. sixthly, That the Civil Magistrat, nor yet the ruling Church hes no power from God to institut and appoint any kind of Church officers, or a new form of Church government never appointed by Christ. Sevently, That the Civil Magistrat cannot justly deprive any Gospel Minister either of his office, or the exercise thereof( especially he having committed no crime) neither can loose the relation between pastor and people. Eightly, That the obligation of the National Covenant yet lies on, notwithstanding of any thing done to the contrary; yea that no person, nor persons whatsoever hes power to loose these obligations.  
These things being premised, I resolve the question in the negative, thus; That for the Lords People in this Land to hear the prelates and their curates in the sense aforesaid, that is to say, to submit to them or the ordinances of God( pretended to be in their hands) from them is sinful and unlawful. The reason inforceing this conclusion, and moving us to determine so, are these: First, That which cooperats to the overturning of one ordinance of Christ is sinful and unlawful: But the hearing of the prelates and their curates, or submitting unto them, cooperats to the overturning of one ordinance of Christ: Therefore it is sinful and unlawful. The mayor is undeniable; the minor I prove thus: The government of the Church by Pastors, Teachers and ruling Elders in a collegiat way by Presbyteries, &c. with one immediat dependence upon Christ, is an ordinance of God. But the submitting to prelates; &c. does clearly cooperat to the overturning of that yea to the thrusting it out of the Church: Therefore, &c. The mayor is presupposed; To the minor, it may be said; It is not we who thrusts out Christs government, it is the Parliament, prelates, &c. Answ. The parliament indeed thrusts it out as Lawmakers, other magistrates yea& Souldiers as executors of the Law, the prelates as intruders,& you as obedient Subjects and Church members in your place& callings, willingly walking after the commandement;& that is all you can do, or is called for at your hands; so that your concurring according to your calling in submitting to the prelates, &c. officers and ordinances, altogether inconsistent with Christs institution, is a clear cooperating by you to the overturning thereof. But, Secondly, ye will say we are forced to it. First, We do it against our wills. Secondly, We mind no such thing in what we do. Answ, to the first, The will cannot be forced. Secondly, Ye do it out of free choice, and so most willingly; Just as a merchant in a storm at sea casts out his goods to save his life, which dead of his is simply voluntary, he choices it as the best in his present straight. So you, being put to it, either to join in worship, or to suffer; make choice of sin before suffering, which dead is so much the more sinful, in that the present straight is a providential call from God unto you for to give a testimony against the present course, which may be done by your refusing to join and submit, and by your suffering upon that account, when you dare not, nor have not access to give it another way: And it would be considered that the Lord of purpose sends afflictions and persecutions to try his people, whether or no they will adhere to every truth of his, and abstain from every false and corrupt course? And their very standing and abstaining may be a confessing of Christ before men; for they who avow his truth confesseth him, and the contrare is a real denying of him before men; and what they may expect that do so, he tells us in his word. As to the II. we are not so much to look to what we mind or purpose, as to what necessary and natively follows upon what we do, for the doing of that which is right and acceptable to God, it is requisite, thou purpose and desire the thing thou art about; but to thy doing of evil, the dead without the purpose and desire is sufficient; Bonum ex integro, &c. and whatever thou purpose, yet the adverse party does really purpose the overturning and out turning of the Government and officers of Christs institution; and if thou in thy place and calling concur with them in the Mean, thou must be interpnted to purpose the End also; yea altho thou both wished and prayed that such a thing came never to pass; yet if thou do that which may further its bringing to pass, thou art guilty; much more if thou do that which ●… s necessary to the bringing about thereof; and it is well ●… constrain that this course could not hold, if every one re●… used to join; and thou can only do for thyself. We have been the longer in the answers to these, be ause they may be made with equal strength against se●… erall of the following arguments, where also the same ●… nswers may suffice.  
Argument: II. That which brings in one officer in the ●… ouse of God, and a form of Government which is not ●… f Christs institution, must be a sinful practise: But ●… e hearing of, submitting unto, and joining in wor●… ip with and taking the ordinances off the hands of the ●… relats and their curates is such. therefore it is a sinful ●… ractise. The Maior and Minor are both clear from ●… ease grounds first because Christ hes instituted his own Government and all his own officers himself, and hes ●… ot left that to any man, neither will suffer men to do 〈…〉 as they please, as is presupposed. II. It is presup●… osed also that the prelates are not of Christs institution. II. They require no more of thee, but that thou will ●… ke ordinances off their hands, and looks upon it as a ●… ompleat submission unto them; neither can thou in ●… y place and calling do any more( upon the matter) ●… or their settlement; yea perhaps they would be angry, 〈…〉 they knew that you thought they needed any more ●… om thee for their settlement to the full, except that:& ●… beit we grant, that countenanceing of them,& hearty ●… osing with them,& with their government, would be ●… seful to their settling, as to the been esse of it; yet hear●… ng &c. of them is sufficient to the esse of it; neither can ●… e cheerfulness or heartiness of closing with them be enjoined by Law, these being internal acts of the soul.  
Object. But thou may say perhaps: Thy hearing of them preach cannot be interpnted a submission to ●hem, when thou art constrained to it. Answ. First, however ●hen thou takest Baptism off their hands to thy child it s a clear case. II. When thou hears them preach, thou either looks upon the preaching as Gods ordinance of preaching, or not; and upon the speaker as a sent Minister standing between God& thee, to bring Gods mind unto thee, or not: If the first its clear thou takes the Ordinance off his hand. If the second, Then thou mocks God, and so had better abstain; and however, thy practise is a real, though not a verbal submission.  
Arg. 3. That which serves to establish a tyranny in the Church over the souls& consciences of the Lords People must be sinful& unlawful: But the hearing of,& submitting, unto the prelates& their curates is such. Therefore sinful& unlawful: The mayor none will deny. The minor D●…prove thus: That which serves to establish prelates, serves to establish a tyranny in the Church: But hearing &c. of them and their curates serves to the establishing of them: therefore thy hearing of them &c. serves to establish their tyranny. The minor of this is proven in the foregoing argument. The mayor is clear: Because the prelates are gangrenes. Their tyranny appears first in that they intrude themselves upon the Church without any lawful power from Christ the Head thereof. II. The power they claim is not ministerial, which only is of Christs appointment; but a sort of absolute Lordly Dominion over both Ministers and People, which Christ hes expressly forbidden in his Word. III. In spoiling the Lords People of their privilege purchased by Christ to them; as for example; In obtruding upon them without Scripture, reason or their own consent, Ministers, Canons, Doctrines, model of Worship and Ceremonies, as they please. IV. In making Ministers absolutely depend from them, not only as to their ministry, but also as to the exercise of all the parts of Worship, and so making the Servants of Christ their slaves. They must teach what the prelates please, and that only; They must worship as they prescryve, they must exercise Discipline[ if any at all] in one absolute d●pendance on them, they must censure these faults[ yea whether faults or no] and these only which he commands, and ●… at way only as he commands; for all which purpo●… e requires one oath of obedience from them unto ●… self, by virtue of which he is constituted Judge ●… wfulness and unlawfullness, expediency and inexi●… encie of all that he commands,& neither they, nor 〈…〉 people may ask a reason of his commands, or so much ●… erce a judgement of private discretion about what he ●… mands; he under the name of things lawful and ho●… in that same Oath, brings in a number of things be s the Word of God[& therefore contrare to it] inven●… s of men without number, which he from his papal ●… ible judgement& by his Autocratorick power imposes; 〈…〉 both Pastors& people must receive and drink down ●… e, Now all these foresaid things are clear marks of ●… ranny and tyrrants: It is considerable therefore that we ●… e out of Babylon, separated ourselves from the ●… rch of Rome not only because of her errors in ●… ctrine, Idolatry and Superstition in Worship, but ●… use of her tyranny in Government,& thought it our ●… y so to do, then surely it must be our sin to do any ●… g that may tend directly or indirectly to the establish●… of such a tyranny in the Church of God,& indeed the ●… laticall Government this day exercised in the Church Scotland, differs not a handbread from the government ●… ercised this day in the Church of Rome. If it would ●… e been our sin, to have stayed still under that tyranny, ●… tainly it must be our greater sin; when we escaped scot ●… ee, to return and sit down peaceably under it again.  
Argument IV. That which upon the matter and in ●… ect, directly or indirectly does tend to make another ●… esides Christ, head of the Church, must be sinful ●… d unlawful. But hearing of the prelates and curates in ●… fect and upon the matter does so much therefore it ●… ust be unlawful. The mayor will not be denied by ●… y to whom I speak. The Minor is clear from this. ●… ecause the party to whom the● submit and with whom ●… y their practise they coopera●● 〈◇〉 is holden forth before] does deryve their power from the King as supreme hea●…& governor in all causes ecclesiastic, for all the act establishing the Bishops and the government to be exercised by them, giving power unto them, and in joining all to submit to them, are founded on this narrative, so that submitting unto them in obedience to thes●… acts is in so far as we are called to it, a most real setting up another head of the Church beside Christ.  
Arg. V. That which does concur to the turning of th●… kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, into kingdom which is of this world, must be sinful. But joining with the prelates and their curates in maner foresaid i●… such. therefore unlawful. The ma●or none will deny wh●… denies not Scripture, John 18: 36. The minor appear from these two grounds. First, That the prelates way do turn the spiritual Kingdom of Christ into a worldly politic Kingdom. II. That peoples submitting to them by hearing &c. is a partial concurring for carr●ing on o●… that. The first I make plain by this parallel; first the head of Christs Church is a spiritual one [ Christ himself] upon whom all the Members, Pastors and people have one immediat dependence without the intervention of another: But the head immediat of the Prelatical Church is a Political one, as is above declared viz: a worldly governor, a real pope, which is enough of itself to make the Church a papacy, a mere antichristian political kingdom, such as the papacy; for the thing that constituts the papal Church, and denominats one a member there of is the holding the popes supremacy, in all other things almost Papists disagree among themselves, but in this they all agree, and therefore called Papists. II. the laws of Christs kingdom are spiritual, Gods own word; but the laws of the prelatical Church or kingdom are worldly, human, and in nothing differing from state laws, yea the very same III. The Officers of Christs kingdom under him are clothed only with ministerial power, declarative of Christs mind, but those who alone are invested with power in the Prelati●… Church, have a power and Dominion Lordly, like 〈…〉 Princes and great ones amongst the Gentiles ●… b. 20.25. IV. The internal form of Christs govern●… is spiritual, working inwardly upon the conscience, the internal form of the prelates government is car●… compulsive upon the outward man. We might further ●… nce in the end, rewards, punishments, all which are ●… uall in Christs kingdom, but carnal and worldly in ●… relats kingdom, which is clear from matter of fact ●… it pehaps they will deny it. However from this it is 〈…〉, that the prelatical way is the turning of the spiri●… kingdom of Christ into a carnal and worldly one. 〈…〉 that II. the hearing of the curates in maner foresaid is 〈…〉 operating to the making that dreadful change, as is ●… able: for what is their hearing but a practically ma●… g themselves Subjects of this new kingdom, going 〈…〉, as it were, of Christs kingdom Spiritual, ima●… d now to be demolished( which is blasphemy to ●… ke) and listing themselves under the prelates colours, 〈…〉 what a dreadful thing is that? Not only most sinful ●… self, as were easy to them; but also fearful in its ●… sequences; for God will never bless that which is ●… his own ordinance, either for the good of thy soul or 〈…〉 of thine. Any thing that could be excepted here is ●…ed away in Arg. 1. Only to this and all the foregoing ●… ments together with arguments 6. and 9. this gene●… 〈…〉 answer is given: That which per se and by itself does ●… perat to the overturning an ordinance of Christ, esta●… hang of prelacy& a tyranny in the Church &c. is sin●… is granted: That which cooperats only per accidence, 〈…〉 accident, is denied. But the hearing &c. does coo●… at per se, to the fixing of prelacy, is denied: That ●… oncurrs per accidence, it is granted; and therefore ●… t the conclusion follows upon any of these premises 〈…〉 denied: For repl● to this Consider first: that it is not 〈…〉 one, to be a partial or cooperating cause, and to be one accidental cause, which is absurd, much less the●… is every partial cause in eodem genere, in tha● same kind, a●… accidental cause. II. a cause is either natural or mora●… a natural or physical cause is that which hath a natural or real influence in producing of some effect: A moral or legal cause is that which hath a moral or lega●… influence[ the effect being often only a legal result] by virtue of which the effect is imputed to it; as one wh●… counsels, persuades, does not hinder when they may●… and ought, commands a thing or obeys a command▪ when the thing commanded is only a legal result; an●… this is the present case: for these who hear and ought to hinder the setleing of ascetic Governmet and albe●… they cannot hinder it positively, yet they may do it negatively by refuseing to join in under the prelates, an●… albeit they do not command these things, yet they giv●… obedience in so far as is required; and if the effect b●… imputed to the party commanding, wherefore must i●… not also be imputed to the party obeying that command Is there any difference here. III. That which is a caus●… per accidence in reference to a natural effect; may be a moral cause per se; as he who sets a house on fire, hes no natu●al influence on the burning of it, yet the effect is justly imputed to him; the question here is not concerneing a natural, but concerneing a moral result. IV●… that hearing &c. be only one accidental cause in fixing prelacy &c. the accidentality must either be ex parte causa or ex parte effectus, in the cause or in the effect, it is no●… ex parte causae, this we think none will say; for they hear not, as they are John and James, or as Shoemakers or Tailors for example; But as they are Christians and Subjects: so Swarez disp. 17; Sect 2. Neither is there any accidentality here ex parte effectus; for that must either consist in the accidental connexion between the effects Produced, as the finding of a treasure is accidentally knit with the digging of the earth: or it must consist in the accidental connexion of two or more causes together, in order to the producing of such one effect; ●… s for example, a man going by one old ruinous house ●… r wall, that same very instant a ston falls down and ●… 'ounds him; but none of these two can have place here, Not the first, for between these two effects, receiving of the message and submitting to the messenger[ upon which establishing of prelacy and tyranny in the Church overturning of Christs spiritual government &c. kindly follows] there is a connexion no ways accidental or fortuitous; but on the contrair first natural, a rising from the relation between messenger and message, between ordinances and dispenser; the receiving of the one of which must necessary therefore be one acknowledgement of, and submission unto the other; yea, as hes been said, we cannot hear him once, but pro haec 'vice de facto we constitut this man in the circumstantiat case our Minister; or interpretative do so aclowledge him; neither can we hear him oftener, or ordinarily in one congegration, but our practise tends to fix this individual person in that congregation; which effect natively follows upon the practise, although there were a hundereth testimonies to the contrair, II. this connexion rises from the public intention of the Law and the outward maner how the case is stated between Magistrat and Subject, which speaks forth the taking of ordinances off the hands of such officers so qualified, invested with such offices and having their offices such a way; from which follows first a connexion moral between ordinances and such officers, even as such. II. that our practise of hearing &c. hes for the result of it, as much the receiving of such officers, even as such, as it hes the receiving of the ordinances themselves.  
Object. It will be said possibly, that these conjoined effects of fixing prelates &c. are not intended by these that hears &c. and therefore that they follow only accidentally on their practise. Answ. Their practise considered in itself hes a natural propenseness to produce these effects, as hes been shown; And therefore they follow per se upon their practise whether they intend such things or no. II. albeit their practise had no propenseness to the producing of such things, yet if they intend them, the effect will not be per accidence, as is clear in him who digs the earth, purposely to find a treasure; and that in hearing &c. there is intended the fixing of Prelacy &c. even by them who do hear. We make out this first because there is a public intention of establishing of it, with which they cooperat, which public intention, their testimony of a private nature cannot infringe, as hes been shown. II. granting that those who hears &c. intends no such thing with one intentention formal or physical; yet there is one intention here that we call moral, virtual and interpretative. For why when a moral agent does any thing that otherwise is a duty and with all sees or may see that some sinful thing is conjoined with it, that will necessary follow upon his practise as the effect thereof, that then and in that caice he is to go on, that effect is to be imputed to him, and he is to be interpnted to have intended it, although in his heart he hate it and wish the contrair; and this is a thing[ we conceive] all sound Divines and Moralists agrees upon; but those who hear &c. are moral agents, and they cannot but see these things to follow upon their practise: therefore they morally purpose the bringing about of them.  
Object: If it be said further: that hearing is a duty and a mean of salvation, and therefore we must hear whatever follow. Answer: first: by this argument we might hear a jesuit or Mass priest, if they would but profess to preach sound doctrine. II. we may not do evil that good may come of it, and that which otherwise were a duty leaves off to be a duty when clogged with sin; at least upon the matter. III. we are not to be too solicitous about events concerning our being deprived of means of salvation, but ought to commit these matters to God whose it is to provyd for these of his own house and family; and in the mean time ought to be diligent in those means and duties that we may lawfully perform and make use of; and ought to beware least under the notion of duty we sin against the Lord. Neither II. is the connexion between the cooperating causes in order to the producing of these sinful effects of fixing prelacy &c. merely casual or accidental; for all cooperating agents stand in a fixed relation to one another; they are all deliberat agents, and there is the connexion of a Law by which Gospel officers are thrust out, Antichristian officers thrust in, the ordinances of Christ overturned, a tyranny established in the Church and unto which things people are commanded to submit in their place and calling, and practically do so; which things hes been already cleared.  
Object If it be said here: That people in their hearing &c. does it not out of obedience to these laws, but in obedience to the Law of God, We Answ. first that the Law of God doth indeed enjoin hearing, but doth not enjoin sinful hearing, and therefore not the hearing of Prelatists; therefore this hearing is not in obedience to the Law of God. II. the hearing &c. is formal obedience to these human laws, because it is gone about in a way of stated obedience, unto which( in reference to human laws) there is nothing required but the making of them, promulgating and publishing of them, and putting them in execution, together with peoples doing of the things commanded, upon the knowledge they have, or may have of them; and that although their will were nether influenced by the authority of the command, nor hit by the threatening expressed in the sanction of it; all which is clear enough in point of outward and sinful obedience, albeit unto obedience inward and morally good more be requisite. We have insisted the longer in reply to this answer, partly because it strikes at so many arguments at once, and partly because of the weight laid on it, albeit not for any weight that is in it.  
Argum. VI. The embracing of a fundamental error in Religion though but in practise and interpretatively is sinful and unlawful: But the hearing of the curates &c. is in practise,[ in effect] and must be interpnted the embracing of a fundamental error: And there for is unlawful. The mayor is undeniable; Yea the main ground on which we separated from the Church of Rome was, errors fundamental, which they denied, and we drew by consequents from their doctrine. The minor I prove: The saying, that Christs visible Church is not his spiritual and Mediatory kingdom is a fundamental error, but the hearing of the curates &c,.[ at least in practise] is the embracing of this, and therefore a fundamental error. The mayor of this I prove: The saying that Christ is not a King is a fundamental error; But the saying that this visible Church is not his Mediatory kingdom, is the saying, he is not a King[ at least by consequence] for those who denies overturns one part of his Kingly office, do deny or overturn by consequence the whole of it, seeing there is a necessary connexion betwixt the parts thereof.) And therefore a fundamental error. The mayor of this is evident; for if Chri●● be not a King[ which is clear against Scripture, all Catechisms and orthodox Confessions] then he is not Mediator[ for the parts of his Mediatory office are inseparable] if not Mediator, then not Christ, and so not the foundation of our faith. Contrary to 1. Cor. 3. v. 11. The minor of this also is evident, because if Christ have not a kingdom, he is not a King.  
Object. Thou wilt perhaps say: The Church triumphant is his kingdom. Answ. We will not inquire here, 1. For how that Church above may he said to be a part of Christs Mediatory kingdom: But is there not a kingdom of grace as well as a kingdom of glory. Which kingdom of grace is most properly his Mediatory kingdom. Object. But it will be said then, the invisible Church, and not the visible, is Christs donative Mediatory kingdom. Answ. I. I grant that the metaphors in Scripture of body, branches, spouse are most fitly applicable to his invisible Church in reference unto Christ the Head, root and husband. II. That these who are, or are to be of the invisible Church, are the end, the finis cvi, for which all the ordinances are appointed, and a governmeet set up and keeped up. But III. I deny, that the invisible Church as such is formally a kingdom for the members hereof have neither laws, governours nor government, but as they are members of the visible Church,& that good which they get which makes them differ from others is the effect of the ordinances that they are under, as they are members of the visible Church; unto which I confess there is necessary, the cooperation of the Spirit of God making his ordinances effectual. The minor of the foregoing syllogism viz that the hearing of the curates &c. is practically the embracing of this error is cleared from these grounds first the prelates by their practise overturns the spiritual kingdom of Christ, and turns it into a worldly political one; as is proven by the foregoing arguments. II. because the most of that way in opinion denies Christ to have any visible kingdom or Government distinct from that of the civil Magistrat. III. those who submit unto the ordinances, pretended to be in prelates and curates hands, embraces this error, because they close in with that which is the effect therof; and is constituted by it. IV. we see in scripture, that although a man both in opinion and profession hold that there is a God, yet if his practise be opposite and tend to the overturning of that truth, by consequence, he is esteemed one Atheist Psal. 14: 1. Tit. 1: 16. So that albeita man should hold in opinion, that Christ is a King, and that his visible Church is his Meditatory kingdom, and also profess the same by words, yet if in practise[ though out of fear] he shall cooperat with these who overturns this truth, the Lord will esteem him one overturner of it, a Dethroner of Christ, and a drinker in of this fundamental error, whatever himself or others think: Now wether or no folks practical submitting to this pretended ecclesiastic Authority will not prove as much. Let any man judge.  
It is excepted here first: That the Doctrine of Church Government was never repute by any Orthodox writer among fundamental truths, the simplo ignorance where of without error or obstinacy doth condemn; yea, and that soundness of Church Government was never repute among the essentialls necessary for constituting a visible Church, except by Separatists and Brounists, and therefore ye may guess what. For answer to this we advert first: That Divines are not yet well agreed upon these things that are fundamental; and albeit these things( the simplo ignorance where of infers damnation) be indeed fundamental; yet there may be other things besides these which are fundamental also. II. There are some things primarily and formally fundamental, other things secondarily and by necessar consequence only, likewise there are some errors primarily and formally overturning the foundation, others only by necessary consequence: We say the Popish religion is guilty of errors in fundamentals, chiefly concerning the priestly office of Christ; and yet in terms they hold the priestly office of Christ, but with all maintains such things as by necessary consequence overturns the same we advert. III. That Government of Christs Church includes many things: As first Christs laws. II. His ordinances. III. His Officers. IV. The power committed to them, v. The measure of the power. VI. Thê maner and way how that power is to be put in exercise &c. In a word all the outward proper Gospel means of Justification and Sanctification, or the means of the application of the sacrifice of Christs death, of conversion, of edification, sanctification all which means Christ instituts and appoints by virtue of his Kingly mediatory power, and ordains to be execute, administrat and made use of in his appointed way, which means alone he blesses for his peoples good, and with which alone( in ordinary) he concurs by his spirit. All which prelates dispose on at their pleasure, at least the power that they usurp is a power of disposing upon all these things, as they please: Upon the laws, by changing and adding, making the law of God of none effect by their traditions; Upon the ordinances, by changing of them, and putting others in their place; Upon the Officers, by setting up new kinds of officers viz: themselves and others not of Christs institution and by exautorating and vassaling the officers of Christs own institution, and by depriveing them of the exercise of their power: Upon the power itself by changing the nature of it, usurping of it in a measure that Christ hes reserved to himself, and exercised in a way not appointed, but forbidden of him, Now taking the Government of the Church complexly thus, for the power itself, the several parts, acts, measure and mannr thereof, together with its subject and object[ which it effects and without which it cannot so much as be understood it being a relative thing] and not for any share or part thereof; in a word, take it for all those things[ purely ecclesiastic we mean] that are to be exercised in Christs Church, under and in a dependence upon him, as head and King thereof; the overturning thereof; will be found to be the overturning of fundamentals in Christianity, at least by consequence. For why. Those who overturns this Government, by consequence they dethrone Christ from being King of his visible Church and takes away his Kingly office yea in this, by consequence at least, they make the sacrifice of his death ineffectual, for he hes a Kingly office for that purpose, that thereby the satisfy of his death may be made effectual; for the overturning of this Government is the overturning of all the means appointed by his wisdom and authority for the making that sacrifice effectual, as hes been said: And that Pelats does de facto over●urn all these things, in some places is a known truth, and whatever is done among us as yet, it is the same power that is established here; peoples concurring therefore to the establishing of it[ whether they head or own these consequences or not] must be a sinful thing, and that is all which we say, and we conceive no sound writer will be against this.  
In reference to the II. part of this exception consider first that the thing whereby a Church visible is formally constitut( upon the part of the professors we mean) is the profession of substantial fundamental gospel truths, Hence it follows, that if either there be one open denying of such truths, or a profession of such errors, as by consequence overturns these fundamental truths that then and in that case that Church leaves off formally to be a Church, even as to the essentials, especially if all the professores own and avow all these consequences, otherwise not; which thing may hold good in the case of Church government, as above descrived. Consider II. that a Church may be very sound and full in their profession of all gospel truths, and yet may be hindered as to the practise of several of them by some extrinsical impediment, the want of which practise may be their grief and burden, in which case, such a Church is not corrupt, either in essentialls or accidentalls, albeit violently mutilat ab extrinseco. III. It may be the error of Brounists& Separatists that taking Church government only for some part thereof, they withall hold, that the wanting of that de facto did nullify the Church, but we are far from saying that, and therefore are not so severely to be animadverted upon.  
It is excepted II. That the chief part of Christs mediatory kingdom lieth in governing the invisible Church by spiritual invisible influences, and that the holding of this is only a fundamental truth and that therefore the denying of external Government and putting another in the place thereof is not practically a fundamental error, neither is cooperating therwith one imbraceing practically a fundamental error. Ans: I. Christ as King and head of his Church militant hes many things committed unto him. As first the appointing of laws, offices and Ordinances &c. for feeding and governing his Church, and the setting up a Government in it for that purpose, as is above described. II. The sending of his spirit for making these means effectual. III. The ordering of all things in a common providence for the good of the elect: But if we will consider his Government as exercised under him, it does formally consist only in the first. For why. As to the III. Christ exercises his power mediatory over things in a common providence, not by formal laws, officers &c. Neither as over persons, but by disposing of them as things. Neither as to the II. does the spirit work ordinarily, but by the outward means making them effectual: Neither hes the invisible Church as such, and as contradistinct to the visible Church, either laws officers, rewards or punishments; and consequently no Government. And as for these influences of the spirit, they are formally the effects of the Government visible and other ordinances as made effectual by the operation of the holy spirit, or the effects of his operation upon the hearts of the elect in concurrence with the ordinances. II. We say that a Government by invisible influences is either unheard of, or else very improper; for in that sense the stars and planets may be said to have a government in and over sublunary bodies whom they indivisiblie influence, which although it go near the Scripture phrase Job 38 Yet who will deny that phrase there to be improper. III. we fear that the holding of a Government by immediat influences shall go nearer enthusiasm, nor the taxed opinion goes near Brounisme, You see how warry practical Divines are in conceding that which they call the immediat testimony of the spirit; in conceding whereof, they hold it rather to be one act, and effect of prerogative and sovereignty nor of any regular Government. IV. As the outward Government of the visible Church is formally a Government which these invisible influences are not, so we cannot see but the one is as fundamental as the other? for both are founded upon the covenant of redemption, by virtue whereof Christ the Mediator is empowered to sand his Spirit, as well as to set up a government in his house and appoint all the outward means of grace; albeit we confess his working with the Father as God by the Spirit does antecede the Covenant. From this it follows first that if there be any thing fundamental in Christs Kingly Mediatory Government( which to deny seems hard) that then it does most formally consist in the outward Government of the visible Church. il. that the subverting of this external Government and putting another in the place therof is practically a fundamental error. III, that the cooperating thereto is practically the imbraceing of a fundamental error. IV. that it is sin.  
It is excepted III. that this Government suppones that if the Government of Christs House be subverted, how pure so ever the ordinances and doctrine were, we could not communicat in such a Church without being involved in a fundamental error.  
Answ. this is false[ with leave] for notwithstanding of any thing that is contained in this argument, we may freely hold that it is very lawful to communicat with a Church where there is no public exercise of government. II. that even a Church which hes a Government imposed upon it, which according to principles of the imposers is subversive of the Kingly power of Christ( which every corruption in Government is not) yet leaves not off for all that to be a Church, for some may reject it altogether, others who submitts unto it may disown the consequents of it which natively follow on it, either because they labour to put a better construction upon it nor it will bear; who notwithstanding sins in so far as they cooperat for the establishng of that: Now we may freely communicat with those of that Church, whether publicly or privately, in so far as our communicating is not a submission to that Government, or a practical ●… ncurrence to the establishing of it.  
Arg. VII. Those who are most grossly, incorrigibly ●… d avowedly scandalous, it is not lawful to hear them 〈…〉 submit unto them as unto Gospel Ministers: But the ●… relats and their curates are such: Therefore it is not ●… wful to join with them. I prove the mayor. If 〈…〉 be most sinful for a Presbytery to admit persons so ●… andalous and obtrud them on people, then it must be ●… full any way by word or practise to submit unto them; ●… r in the circumstantiat case there is alike reason for ●… oath; but the former is true. For the latter, the mi●… r is clear. For the prelates and the curates are guilty. ●… perjury in breach of Covenant, of defacing the Lords ●… orke and persecuting his people, casting out the spiri●… al Government and officers of Christ, and bringing ●… hers of mens devysing into their place. In a word, of ●… lthe most scandalous crimes spoken to in the former ●… rguments, and all this in one incorrigible and avowed ●… aner.  
Against the probation of the mayor it is excepted that taffeta may sin in ordaining a person to the Ministry ●… hen it cannot be a sin in people to hear that person ●… eing ordained; even as a minister may sin in admitting a ●… candalous person to the Communion, when yet it will ●… ot be sinful for a people to communicat with him; ●… nd therefore it is thought a wonder, it should be said, ●… hat there is alike reason for both. Ans: It is granted ●… hat a taffeta may sin in admitting a Minister and a ●… ongregation hear him in very many cases without sin; ●… t is likewise granted that a minister may sinfully admit 〈…〉 person to communicat& yet others communicat with ●… im without sin. But notwithstanding the mayor of the argument will appear strong not only in itself. But also sufficiently confirmed, if we will but consider first that it is not every sort of scandals that we speak of here, but such as are most gross and heinous being direct breaches of the II. and III. commands, groffer then murder and adultery which are but breaches of the VI. and VII.. II. their scandals are both open notorious and avowed. III. their scandals are made the qualifications of the man in reference to his admission, in stead of these qualifications required in the word of God. IV. their scandals are the conditions upon which people must accept of him and submit unto him in taking the ordinances off his hands; for it is publicly declared that there is no other capable of one office in the Church but those who are so endued. V. that hearing is not simply hearing, but such a hearing as involves submission to the scandalous man as to our Minister, as is already proven; and not only so, but its such a hearing as is equivalent to a call; seing of its own nature it tends to fix him and is a partial fixing of him in that place, or at least for making him our Minister pro hac 'vice; all which is clear: for as the prelates allow not the Lords people the liberty of a call, so they know they would give none a call who have such qualifications; and they on the contrare being resolved to have them all so endowed whom they sand forth, they force the people by external means practically to accept of them; and they being forced does that which is equivalent to a call. All which being considered makes the mayor sufficiently strong. As to what concerns its confirmation, We would further ask first whether or not the People hes a privilege of calling a Minister, as well as a Presbytery hes a power of sending him forth and ordaining him?  
II. whether or not a congregation in giving a call to a Minister so qualified with their scandals did not as much sin as the Presbytery in ordaining him? III. whether or no a congregation for their honesty deprived of their privilege of calling by a Presbytery ( quod absit) having such a scandalous person thrust in upon them in the express terms abovementioned did not sin in sitting down under such a mans Ministry. And whether or not ●… hey would be involved in the same sin& guilt, seing ●… esbytery hes no Lordly Dominion over them, and ●… g they are to take nothing off their hands by way of ●… d obedience. And lastly we ask if there be any mat●… f wonder in any of these things, surely we see none. 〈…〉 albeit neither the mayor without all limitation will conclude, nor yet the parallel between pastor and ●… le hold, yet both being understood, as is above ●… est, they will prove sufficiently concludent. If it ●… d Then you separat from the ordinances for the sins ●… dlow worshippers, contrare to the doctrine of these of ●… own party. Its answered these of our party who ●… ate most Zealously and accurately against separation ●… n that account, yet grants that when the sins of pa●… and people are such that we cannot frequent the or●… nces unless we be interpnted to approve of their 〈…〉 that then and in that case it is sinful for us to join. 〈…〉 the sins of prelates and their Carats are such; for 〈…〉 are involved in the very nature of the office, and ●… heir way of having it, so that we cannot submit to one but ipso facto we approve the other: neither will ●… estatio contraria facto, solve the bussiness here, tho ●… e be access to make it.  
●… t is further instanced here: when people are deficient due exoneration of themselves, according to their ●… ion in bearing testimony against the sins of Pastor or ●… ple, that then indeed they may be interpnted ap●… overs of them: But when they are not deficient in ●… at duty, then they cannot fall under any such inter●… etation. This is further confirmed by the example 〈…〉 Ely his Sones, whose wickedness did not warrant ●… e Jews their withdrawing from the ordinances in ●… at time. Answ. we distinguish here between sins that ●… e personal and sins the are involved in the office or in ●… e way of having the office: As for fins merely perso●… d whether in Minister or in people, we think a testi●… ony against them may well suffice to exonerat our consciences, free us of partakeing of the guilt, and hind us from being justly reputed approvers of such practi●… Howbeit I confess the clandestine testimony will sc●… sely suffice; for according to Christs prescryved wa●… private means proving unsuccesful, we should at leng●… bring the bussiness to the Judicatory, and leave it the●… upon the consciences of the members; and if the J●…dicatory be corrupt give a testimony against bo●… But as to the sins that are involved in the office or in 〈…〉 way of coming to the office, as is above expressed, testimony whatsoever can free the people from being J●…stly reputed approvers of these sins and sharers in the●… if they shall take the ordinances off their hands by ve●…tue of one office so qualified and come by. As for th●… of Elies sons, their sins were personal and not sins 〈…〉 their office( unless it were in the abuse of it, which is personal fault) for they neither had one unlawful offic●… nor yet their office by one unlawful officer; so that th●… peoples taking ordinances off their hands did neithe●… approve the one nor the other, And albeit the peopl●… be not expressly warranted to forbear sacrificing because of their wickedness, yet it is likely they did it for it is said, men did abhor the offering of the Lot●… because of their wickedness; and how they could abhor the offering and offer at one and the same time we do not well see, and if so, we do not find then reproved for not offering.  
Upon their grounds we build the Argument VIII●… If people cannot hear, &c. the prelates and their Curat without approving ipso f●cto of their gross scandalou●… sins, their unlawful offices, and the sinful and unlawful way of having their offices, then their hearing mus●… be sinful; But the former is true; Therefore the latter. The mayor is undeniable. The minor is also clea●… from what hes been presently said; Yet for forth 〈…〉 clearing of it Consider first, That the relation betwee●… Pastor and People is far greater then that between people ●… ong themselves; for it is not only a superadded ●… on. but also a relation in the direct line; whereas ●… her is only in the collateral; we must look upon ●… ister as standing between the Lord and us when ●… penses ordinances; but we are not to look so up●… ●… ople, when they partake of ordinances and join in ●… ip with us. Consider II. That the thing that 〈…〉 them in that relation and formally( to speak so) ●… s them in between the Lord and us is nothing per●…, but merely their office, all the concernments of 〈…〉, both as to the essentials and adherent proper ad●… notour and known, and those whether corrup●… r qualificing, we must eye, as it were, and 〈…〉 thorough towards God in taking ordinances of ●… ands; which practise seems to carry in the bo●… of it one approbation of all those things, seeing ordinances comes, as it were thorough the office so ●… ed. But then III. Seeing they either have one un●… office, as prelates; or holds it of this unlawful of●… and hes it from him in one unlawful way; and their officers are thrust in,& intrude themselves 〈…〉: and we are commanded to submit unto them ●… ke the ordinances off their hands, after that man●… d under that notion, and as qualified with all the ●… full qualifications above expressed: and seeing the which we formally obey( as hes been shewed; ●… rats to the fixing of them in their places, there●… must involve a practical approbation of all those 〈…〉. IV. Many Ministers admitted before the Year 〈…〉 choyses rather to suffer themselves to be thrust the exercise of their ministry nor that they should 〈…〉 a Synod with the prelate, the reason whereof can 〈…〉 be this, because their sitting in Synod with them ●… d involve one approbation of Prelacy, seeing there ●… hang but sitting required of them: therefore peoples ●… ng ordinances off the hands of the prelates and their ●… ts must involve one approbation of Prelacy and all ●… nful adjuncts of it.  
Obje●●. If it be said that the Synod is nothing bu●… cipher Synod in which they sit to take orders fi●… them. Answ. That I grant: but yet according to y●… grounds there is there one ordinance of God as to essentials. Viz. In the prelate a Presbyter with one tended power of Jurisdiction, between which and PreIacy you may make a mental prescision, just as●…tween that and the power of preaching you may 〈…〉 scind in hearing &c. but as your practise in sitting k●…wes no such precision, but necessary involves one probation of the whole, so the peoples practise in h●…ing knows it as little, and so involves one approba●… of the whole; and as a testimony cannot solve the●…siness in the matter of sitting, far less can it do in matter of hearing, for why. Your fitting[ as Pr●…tists say] is not merely to receive orders, but to jo●… in acts of discipline and government; whereas the po●… which the curates hes to dispense ordinances is sol●… derived from the prelate.  
Argum. IX. The guilt of perjury is a dreadful But the hearing of the prelates and their curates, as a said infers the guilt of perjury. And therefore dreadful sin. The mayor needs no proof. The 〈…〉 I prove thus; The doing of any thing that does re●… concur to the making of Prelacy take root in Church does infer perjury. The mayor is clear from Solemn League and Covenant Article II. where swear to endeavour in our places and stations to exti●… prelacy, therefore the doing of any thing to make it 〈…〉 root must be real perjury. The like also may be●…cluded from I. Article The mayor is made so clear gum. I. That there is no denying of it; for why. T●… require no more of us in our places and callings for t●… establishment but hearing &c. And it is further co●…derable, that hitherto it hes been looked upon amo●… us as a sufficient note of profession of such a faith such away, to frequent all the ordinances as called t●… ●… o sometimes unwillingly, and is sufficient among all ●… ease who require not one explicit Church Covenant ●… ith the independents, so that their is no shifting of it, ●… ea it seems very clear, that the mere frequenting of the ordinances pretended to be in their hands is like the lay●… ng of dung to the root of a three, and certainly without ●… his dung, they would never take root in this Church: And it would be further remembered, that according to article VI. albeit all should divide from us, yet we are never to suffer ourselves to be divided from our duty directly or indirectly, by whatsoever terror or persuasion, but should all the dayes of our life, zealously and constantly continue therein &c.  
Argum. X. That which is contrair to a Solemn promise made before God in the congregation of his people equivalent to one oath. must be sinful and unlawful. But the submitting unto the prelates and their curates in maner foresaid is such. Therefore unlawful. The mayor none will deny, if upon the maner it be lawful, which is supponed. The minor is clear from the practise of our Church, where a minister is admitted, one of the Parish in name of the rest stands forth in the midst, and there most solemnly promises submission to him in the Lord, adherence to him and all due encouragement, all the rest present and giving a tacite consent. Now the submitting to a Curat, tho but in practise; when the other is thrust out for his faithfulness at least in the circumstantiat case, wherein the public intent of hearing him &c. involves in it a new relation to the Curat, and so tends to the breaking of that relation to him who is truly their minister it must be quiter contrair to that promise, espeally seing the promise stands binding so long as he lives, or is not loosed from that power that put him there, neither does it availl to say, he is now out, and you cannot help it. why his out thrusting is neither your fault nor his, tho both your affliction, and violent out thrusting can nether loose the relation betwixt you and him, nor absolve you from your promise. It is con●essed that violent thrusting him out and driving him away, does interrupt the exercise of his ministry in that congregation, and makes his not preaching to them and their not hearing of him inculpable for the time, as also does not hinder them to take any of the ordinances off the hand of another honest man, seing that practise is no way of the same importment with the other. It may possibly be granted also, that when the grounds of thrusting out is somewhat in the person and not in the cause, and when the congregation can have another honest man upon the same terms they had him, when the Judicatory either formally does loose him, or may be supponed interpretatively to do it, that then the congreg●tion is free from their former ingadgement: But when the grounds of out thrusting are not so much somewhat the person, as somewhat in the common cause, and when the congregation can have none in his place, but one opposite wolf, and when it cannot be so much as rationally supponed the ecclesiastic judicatory which put him in would have consented to his thrusting out, then certainly in this case the argument does strongly hold. This argument I confess does not reach all congregations, yet will not want its oun weight with these whom it concerns. The former arguments prove it unlawful to submit to the prelates and curates, although they had essentials of a Gospel office in the Church. This following argument makes against the very being of their office and so strikes at the root: But because possibly it will not relish even with some of these who are not practically, we shall therefore only prove it& press it as we can submitting it to the judgement of the sober and Judicious.  
Argum. XI. These who want the very essence, being and reality of one office appointed by Christ in his house, for the conversion, salvation and edification of his people, off their hands the people of the Lord are not to take the ordinances of Christ, neither are they to do any thing that may be interpnted a submission unto them in the Lord, as unto the messengers of Christ, yea it is sinful and unlawful so to do: But the prelates and their curates are such. therefore the Lords people are not to take the ordinances off their hands, nor may do any thing that may be interpnted a submission unto them &c. without a heinous sin. The mayor none will denay, but Socinians and others the groffest of heretics and sectaries, and is clear from Rom. 10 15. How shall they preach except they be sent, that is impossible( speaking de Jure) would the Apostle say, so likewise Matth. 28: 19. John 20: 21. So that we need not insist upon it, for those who have not Christs mission or Commission, or have had it, hes it recalled, are not to be looked upon as officers in the house of Christ: Neither can there be one exception here drawn from our practise in hearing probationers or expectants, for they only exercise their gift in preaching, being licenced so to do by the presbytery. The minor is that which will be stuck at by many,& yet we shall essay to make it out, and to begin with the prelates, we say, they want the very essence of a gospel Church officer, authorized to teach, baptize &c for if they have it, they must either have it as prelates, or as as they are Presbyters or ministers, not as prelates, for the office of prelate is not of Christs institution or permission, as was presupposed, neither have they it as Presbyters: for if they have essentialls of this power as Presbyters, then they must either be virtually Presbyters, or formally so, but Presbyters virtually they are not, for one antichristian office in the Church cannot virtually contain in it a Christian gospel office of Christs institution, prelates and Presbyters are not subalternat( as Prelatists would have them) but mere opposites, like heat and could; but could is not virtually heat, neither is heat virtually coldness: Neither is a prelate formally a Presbyter first because correlatives with a mutual respect to one another are not consistent in one and the same subject, being opposites, as is known, a man cannot be both a father and a son with a respect had to the self same person; but according to the prelates principle, prelates and Presbyters are correlatives; for a prelacy as such is to them a Lordship and Dominion over the office of a Presbyter, or a Presbyter as such; for Presbyters they say, are nothing but their servants and underlings, yea very substitutes, which absurdity, their last& great Champion Doctor Hamond is forced to run into, from whence it follows that a prelate is not formally a Presbyter, no not so much as to the essentials of the office, seing he cannot be both superior and inferior to himself, a Lord to himself& a vassal to himself: This argument stands good in the principles of prelates, and we think Presbyterians. Should yield them no more then their own principles will bear. II. when prove the minor thus: Those who are not to be looked upon as Christians or Brethren, but are to be looked upon as heathens and publicans, their Gospel call[ hoc ipso] perishes, although they had it before; But the prelates are not to be looked upon as Christians and Brethren, but are to be esteemed as publicans and heathens and therefore wants the essence of gospel Church officers. The minor of this I prove first Because the prelates are guilty of horrid scandalous sins, as is clearly holden forth in the grounds of the foregoing arguments: and when they are  told of these in private by Christian people, they do spurn at it and menaces, and least they should be delated to the Church, and the Church upon their obstinacy should proceed a formal casting of them out, they have overturned all the Church Judicatories. Now whether he that simply refuses to hear the Church, or he who not only disdains to hear the Church, but violently overturns it, deserves not to be esteemed as a heathen and publican, let any man Judge. Moreover the most of our prelates did either at their admission to the Ministry, or since solemnly before God declare their approbation not only of the doctrine and worship, but also of the maner and discipline and Government of this Church with all the acts and constitutions of the Judicatories thereof, together with their submission thereto; in which it is determined that whosoever takes upon him the office of a prelate deserves immediat excommunication; seing then they have approven their own excommunication, should not we look upon them as excommunicated; especially seing their scandals are most gross and most notorious, and seing( because of their usurping power) there is no formal access unto them. The minor we prove III. thus: Those who falls from that station and office which they had in the visible Church and kingdom of Christ, and gets a station or office in the kingdom of Satan or Antichrist, hes lost the very essentialls of a Gospel Church officer: But the prelates are such, the rising is their falling out of the firmament of Christs visible kingdom, and now they are become at best, but Comets in Satans kingdom of darkness, they are no longer stars in Christs right hand; Therefore they have not so much as the essence of a Gospel Church officer. The minor of this well appear if we consider first that the officers of the house of God of Christs institution are by him set in the Church 1 Cor. 11: 28. are stars it Christs right hand Revel. 1. in which book the Christian Church is oftentimes compared to a world, in the firmament of which, for the enlightening and Government theirof Gospel officers are set. Consider II. that Revel. 9: 1. there is a star falls from heaven, that is, out of the visible kingdom of Christ, it falls from heaven to earth, that is, from the station and office he bare in the visible kingdom of Christ, unto a new office in Satans Antichristian kingdom. For why? He gets the key of the bottom-less pit[ which is spoken in opposition to the keys of the kingdom of heaven given unto those whom God hes set in his Church. Now let any man Judge if these keys be consistent together, especially considering that when he gets this new key, he falls, as is said; it is true indeed that by that falling star is principally meant the Pope, but others are to be understood also, as first Popish prelates, for their office differs not in kind from the Popes their professed head and Master. II. Our prelates; for albeit they do not avow him to be their head, and profess a distance from him in some points of doctrine, yet their office, Government and discipline is the same to one hairs breadth with that of Popery; that same political worldly Government and Antichristian kingdom, unto which they have changed the Spiritual Government of Christ, as was shewed before. Now from what hes been said, it will be easy to make it out that the curates or prelates Ministers wants the very essentials of a Minister of Christ, and so are upon no terms to be acknowledged as his Ministers, which is the II. part of the minor of the argument; for doing whereof we would sever these things which are necessary to the being of a Minister, from these which are necessary by divine precept or to the new being of it. Those which are necessary by divinine precept, are the call of the people. holinss inward& outward& literature; which thing cannot be wanting horrid sin and extreme hazard. As for the two, The curates hes them not. As for the 3. We hear not that there is much of it amongst the greatest part of them, houever we could wish they had more of it and grace to use it also; These which are necessary to the very being of a Gospel ministry, without which it is a very nullity, are gifts and mission or ordination: As for gifts( of which few of the curates are guilty in any tolerable measure) although a man cannot be a Minister without them, yet a man may have them and not be a Minister. The only thing then to be insisted on is mission and ordination: Mission and ordination in the essence of it, abstracted from the Gospel rite of imposition of hands and other circumstances, is nothing else, but a ministerial authoritative declaration of such a person to be a Minister of Christ, he upon exact trial being found fitted and qualified and sent of Christ as far as is discernible by man. Now who hes this ministerial authoritative power? Not the Lord prelate, not only because he is a Lord, but also because he hes no Church power, as is above shewed. For why This power is a part of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, which are not given to the prelate, he may, I confess, make open doors, and let them in upon the visible Church to exercise what gifts he hes, and does as he pleases, but it is by a pick lock by the key of the bottom-less pit; and this opening of the door per fas& nephas can never give to any man the authority requisite to make him a Minister of Jesus Christ; so that the curates ministry is a plain nullity, and consequently he is not to be acknowledged by the Lords People; This as it strikes most directly against those who hes their ordination from prelates, so it hes its own weight also against others of them; especially if we add those things that are brought to prove the nullity of the power of the prelate in whose hands they have resigned up their former power, and so hes fallen from their former stations. Against the probation of the first part of the minor of this Argument,  
It is Exepted first: That the office of a prelate, in so far as it is ecclesiastic[ for they have civil power conferred on them and honour] is looked upon by some as the power of a Presbyter extended in the exercise thereof; and so not differing in kind from the office of a Presbyter; and if so, it were hard to say, that because prelates usurp that extended power at their own hand with the allowance of the Magistrat, that therefore ipso facto they cease to be Presbyters. Answ. first: In the beginning of this discourse we held forth the office of a prelate to be essentially distinct from that of a Presbyter, to the inbringing of which there is nothing here brought but a bare assertion, and scarcely that. II. This power of theirs hes much in it of subjective intention, as it hes of objective extension; for it ingrosses in it the power of many Presbyters. III. Extend a Ministers power never so far, and widen his parish never so much; yet this never gives him a power or Lordship over other Ministers( which a prelate claims by virtue of his power ecclesiastic, and not by virtue of the annexed baronnie or civil honour conferred on him by the Magistrat) nor makes them vassals and slaves, or at least so many ciphers; much less gives it him a power to usurp that in ecclesiastics which Christ hes reserved to himself, and hes committed to no Church officer whatsoever, which that our prelates does, neither will the magistrates allowance help the bussiness here, so that this assertion is impertinent. III. it is easy for us to deceive ourselves by imagining them to be some other thing then they are or will grant themselves to be; but that will never solve the bussiness, nor satisfy the conscience.  
It is Excepted II: That granting the office of a prelate were deficient in kind from that of a Presbyter, and so not of Christs institution, for which cause it is said to be antichristian, yet the assuming thereof being a greater power then Christ hes allowed in his Church, cannot make their lawful power as a Presbyter cease, until by the Church they be deposed from Presbyters, for their usurpation& assuming the other unlawful power, so that at least whatever they do which other Presbyters by virtue of their office might do stands valid being done. Answ. we say that this office of theirs is purely antichristian, of that same nature for kind and quality with that of the pope; whereby he is formally constituted Antichrist; and if they well-being of this continue Presbyters, by that same logic the pope continues a Presbyter yet, and so one and the same man hes the keys of the kingdom of heaven hanging at the one side of his belt, and the keys of the bottom-less pit at the other side, and that star which is falling Revel. 9: v. 1. Is not fully fallen as yet.  
It is Exceptd III. That that opposition between prelate and Presbyter. as between heat and could, is not so apparent, the prelates not being antichristian. in a proper sense; for Antichrist disclaims them, and they him: It would rather appear that what opposition is between them, is the same that is between other ordinances as instituted by Christ, and the inventions of men superadded thereto, called also antichristian, because beside Christs institution, or because of Antichrists invention; there is therefore no more reason that their assuming of that power, should make them cease to be Presbyters nor there is that the superadding of the sign of the across, should make baptism cease to be baptism. Answ. Albeit the prelates be not the great Antichrist, yet they are limbs of him; and albeit they disclaim him in word, yet their office and practise owns him; and we fear their hearts too; the bairns fathers themselves: the opposition therefore seems to be that which we assert, because the one of these powers is inconsistent with the other, as hes been said and proven; which probation this probable assertion does not make invalid. Any further answer requisite here will be given in answering the main objection against this argument.  
It is excepted IV. that their being grossly scandalous makes not their office to cause, nor doth anul their acts as Presbyters, as we may see in the examples of Hophni and Phinehas. Answ. it is not only the grossness of their scandals we speak of, but the nature of them also; they being in their own nature eversive of, and incompatible with the Spiritual kingdom of Christ, the like whereof cannot be said of those of Elies Sones; as is before holden forth.  
Exception V. prelates being first made Ministers. as is supponed, no act of their own with out the sentence of the Church enlivening can exautorate them, unless it were such one act as did unchristian them viz total apostasy from Christian Religion, such as prelacy is not; even as no act committed by a Church member can unchurch him without total apostasy, except we fall in with the Papists and prelates, and maintain excommunication ipso facto, which is condemned by our Orthodox divines( for which we are bidden see Didocl. pag. 399.) and the reason seems to be, because as the admission, so the degradation of Ministers is one authoritative act of a Judicatory. Ans. I. it is true indeed that in a constitut Church standing unbroken, asther can be no admission without a Judicial sentence, so there can be no degradation either; but then, as in some cases 'a man may be a minister without any such sentence[ as sound divines hold] why may there not be a case also in which they may be exautorate without any such sentence: and whether or not this present case be such a case is humbly proposed to your Judgement.  
Answ. II. In a Church standing and unbroken we hold against the Papists and prelates that there can be no excommunication, ipso facto, or without a Judicial sentence; but whether or not that or the equivalent of it in a broken condition of the Church, particularly in the present circumstantiat case that is proposed to yowto Judge of, neither will this fall in with the opinion of Papist and prelates; for they hold excommunication ipso facto, in several cases in a constitut and broken Church, as is to be seen in Didocl. in the forecited place. Answ. III. there is a great difference here between a Church member and a Church officer, betwixt one Church officer& more, between Church officers who purposedly breaks the judicatory and others. Answ. IV. Those called Gentiles Revel. 11: 2. were Christians before& professed Christianity at the very time related to there; and so were not total apostates; but who I pray did excommunicat them, or by what sentence? And to say that they were Gentiles Jure, and Christians facto, will scarcely agree with the series of these Prophecies, or with what Protestant Divines writes concerning the mixture of the Romish Church.  
Exception VI. Ob ect. Two officers opposite and inconsistent can not be in one and the same person, if so be both of them be all officers, and the one of them not a nullity inforo Dei, as the office of prelate is, and therefore a Presbyter his pretending to it, cannot enervate his office of Presbyter, which he hath Jure Divino nam non entis nulla sunt accidentia. Answ. The prelates which were Presbyters before does not only pretend to the office of Prelacy, but also does actually and really usurp it, and exerce it. Secondly, one office may have all that is physical or metaphysical in one office albeit it want that which is of divine institution, and all moral goodness, and so it may be ens and have it accidentia as it really hes it acts, albeit the validity of these acts be questioned.  
Exception VII. Obect. It will follow from this Argument, that no ordinance whether of baptism or ordination could be conveyed to us by the Romish Church, contrare to our Protestant divines. Answ. There is nothing here contrare to the Protestant doctrine; for Protestants hold, that before the beginning of the Reformation, those within the Romish Church were not all alike; many did not own that Romish harlot; many who some way did own her, did not own her abominationes; some who did own some of them, we●e far from owning all the consequences which now are cleared to follow upon them; and none, will deny but that the Church of Rome is another thing now, nor it was before Luther began the Reformation; the Lords People being now come out of her, and those within her now being made formally to own her abominations: but more of this anon, much more might be added hereanent the validity of the call of our first Reformers, which we may not insist upon.  
Object. Against the probation of the second part of the Minor, it is excepted: That although it may be granted that ordination by the sole authority of a prelate ordaining, cannot be lawful ordination; yet that which is by prelate and Presbyters is lawful, at lest being done is a valid ordination,& such are the ordinations that are now. Ans. We deny that the ordination now are by Presbyters with the prelates first from matter of fact, because sometime the prelate imposes hands himself alone. Secondly, Because the office of these who at any time they admit to impose hands with them is already proven null. Thirdly, Because imposition of hands[ in which only they concur) is only one adjunct of ordination,& belongs not to the essence of it. Fourthly because the prelate claims unto himself the whole power and authority of ordaining, as may be seen in the edicts, albeit there were no other to evidence it, and therefore those admitted by the prelate to impose hands with him, are but so many ciphers, having no power either of trial, voicing or passing the sentence, wherein[ being pronounced publicly] the commission doth consist.  
Against the whole of XI. Argument it may be objected thus: That if the prelates and curates want the very essentials of a Gospel office in Church, then it will follow first that all their acts are invalid, and consequently to be done over again. II. This will unchurch this present Church. III. It will follow that not only the Churches in those nationes under the prelates were no Churches, but also that the Church of Rome before our separation from it, was no Church; all which are absurd, and therefore the premises from which they flow must needs be absurd also. Answ. First, That which is constitutive of the visible Church entitative, being the profession of Scripture truths, which also is the only essential note thereof, the want of true Gospel Officers( whom our present Church wants not, albeit the external liberty of the exercise of their gifts and offices be taken from them) or the intrusion of these who want the very essentials, can never destroy the present Church amongst us, so long as they hold to that profession. II. The Church of Rome before our separation from it had always some in it, both Officers and People who never did receive the marks of the Beast, his name or the number of his name; the like we say of the Churches of these Lands in the time of the former prelates, in which there were a number always protesting against that antichristian Tyranny, who at length prevailed so far as to get it wholly cast off and solemnly engaged against. III. The best way of shunning these absurdities in so far as they follow, is not to aclowledge these pretended Church Officers, nor to take ordinances off their hands, it will not be necessary to reiterat any of their acts. But IV. For a full and more clear answer to what is objected here consider first: That as it is difficult to find out wherein the essence of a moral entity or being doth consist; And the reason is, because each of these are made up of several physical or natural things and actions coexistent together and in a relation to one another, the adding or detracting one of which may sometimes overturn the very essence of such a moral entity, and sometimes not; and of this sort are all these things here in question.  
Consider II. That it will be all one here to inquire what is essential in these things, and to inquire what is valid in law, or in the outward court of the Church; for as in deeds of law, the adding or omitting of some things, will only make that a fault, but will not make the dead invalid, other things again, the adding or omitting of them will make the act or dead altogether invalid, even so will it be with the things here in question: For in the ministration of baptism for example, there may be some things the adding or wanting whereof will make the action sinful only; other things there may be that will make it not only sinful, but also altogether invalid. Consider thirdly, That albeit all the acts and ordinances administrated by the prelates and curates are alike questionable here, as to their validity; yet peoples minds uses not to be so much perplexed about these acts which ought and may be reiterated. We shall therefore only speak to these which may not be reiterated,& these are only ordination and baptism. But before we come to speak to the validity of for giving light unto them, we will speak a word concerning the reality of a Church entitive and Organical. Concerning which( supponing that the profession of gospel truths according as they are revealed in Scripture, is that which is formally constitutive of a visible Church entitive) Consider IV. That a visible Church entitive may be in a fourfold case and condition. First we may look on it as professing and owning all gospel truths and no other, the whole Covenant of grace as holden forth in Scripture, and walking in practise and in some measure thereunto; and this is not only a true Church, but also a pure Church. II. We may look on a Church as wholly apostatised, and fallen from the profession of these truths, even the most substantial of them; which is the case not only of Churches that may turn heathen or mahometan, but also of the Church of the Jews at this day; who, as they reject the whole new Testament, so albeit they profess the Doctrine of the old Testament, yet they hold it only according to the Letter therof; and not according to the mind of the Spirit of God; and of this stamp we apprehended many in the popish Church this day will be found; and such a Church as this is, is neither a pure nor a true Church. III. We may consider a Church as holding all the most substantial truths of Christianity, and preserving of them pure, but with all erring in some things less substantial or more circumstantial, and such a Church as this is, though a true Church, yet is not a pure Church IV. we may consider a Church as holding all the truths of God revealed in Scripture, as to the Letter of them, and yet perverting all, or most, even to the substantials of them, and that by alterations, additions, false glosses and the like; and of this stamp was the Church of Rome when we did separat from it, for albeit they kept some of the fundamentals pure, such as the Doctrine of the Trinity; yet the body of the Christian Doctrine for the most part( and that even in fundamentals, which comes nearest the heart of Christianity) what by Traditions, what by Papal Decrees, false Glosses, was altogether perverted, and that not only as it founds acts of faith, but also as it appoints and prescribes matters of Worship and government; a Church in such a case may further be considered, either absolutely in itself, or relatively in respect of God; and being taken absolutely, we may consider the body of the whole they profess and hold, either in bulk, for the Doctrines complex body of truth& errors imped together, by which errors these truths are wholly subverted, and in that sense, such a Church as that, is not so much as a true Church; for the profession of that whole body of doctrines together cannot be formally constitutive of a true Church of Christ. Or, Secondly, We may consider the body of these doctrines inadequatly or partially as they include the truths contained in Scripture; and then if the whole complex body of these doctrines be not rigorously imposed, or if there be some who does own only Scripture truths, or if they own some of these errors, yet they are of the lesser; or if they be of the greater sort, yet they do not either in opinion or practise own any of these gross consequences that necessary follow upon them: Then and in that case it may be said, that there are some true members of the universal visible Church of Christ there, albeit the bulk and body of Professors cannot be truly called a Church of Christ. Next such a Church as this may be considered relatively, with a respect had to Christ the only King and Head of his Church; in which respect it may be considered, either as holding still the public profession of that complex body of doctrines, or as already begun to cast off errors in opinion and practise, and to hold only to the truths contained in the Word of God. Under the former consideration such a Church is not a Church of Christ formally or actually, whether Jure or facto, no more nor one adulterous Woman who hes run away from her Husband, and is now of long time living with another man with whom the lies in adultery, is not her former Husbands Wife; which appears not only from the forementioned ground, but also from several places of Scripture see. Hos. 2.2. But then albeit such a Church cannot be called a Church of Christ formally or actually, yet it may be called his Church fundamentally, so long as the foundation of the relation between Christ and them is not altogether taken away, which is not taken away without utter apostasy on the Parts of total rejection on Gods part, which is like that of formal divorce between married persons; for albeit a wife ly in harlotry never so long, yet the foundation of the relation between her and her husband does always stand, until such a time as a formal divorce be made between her and him; under the latter consideration, such a Church as this, upon the back of their renouncing of these false& heretical doctrines, and their imbraceing of scripture truths purely, allanerly; both in opinion and practise without any further, it does presently become a true visible Church of Christ, actually and formally such. And this is the difference between the members of a Church so hugely degenerat, and those who are converted from paganism: Those who are converred from paganism, are to be baptized; those who are reformed out of such a Church as this, are not to be baptized for altho their baptism before was no baptism, wanted the very essentials and had no validity in it, as being a seal of that complex body of doctrines, spoken of before; yet they renouncing the erroneous part, and adhering only to what is sound, it returns to be true baptism, a valid dead, a seal of the Covenant of grace. From what hes been spoken concerning a Church entitive, it will be easy to pass a determination on what remaines to be spoken to. And first then, as to what concerns a Church organical[ by which we understand a ministerial teaching, ruling Church, consisting of Church officers, with a power to administrat all the ordinances of God, we say first that one organical Church, consisting of these officers whom Christ hes appointed entering upon their offices, teaching and ruling in the Church, after the maner that Christ hes prescribed in his word; are not only a true, but also a pure organical visible Church of Christ. II. these Church officers who have degenerat in Jewish, heathen, mahometan priests or such like, they are in no sense to be esteemed a ministerial Church of Christ. III. these Church officers who as to their power and office, way of having and exercise thereof are sound in the main, but yet hes some less substantial defects or excesses therein, these I say are a true ministerial, teaching and Governing Church of Christ, although not altogether pure. IV. these Church officers who have offices that are not of Christs institution, and usurps a power over the Church and ordinances, partly worldly and political, partly proper and peculiar to Christ himself, the only King and head of the Church; therefore; as inherent unto them purely Antichristian, such officers, I say, although there be something mixed in their offices and administrations which is of Divine institution, yet they are not, neither are they to be acknowledged the teaching& governing Church of Christ. For why? That which saltered and superadded of diabolical and human inventions, is destructive of, and does clearly overturn all that which is of divine institution; hence it is; that so long as they adhere to all the complex parts of their pretended offices or power, and are adhered to in these, although but in practise, so long, we say, their offices and power is null, and consequently all their acts are invalid; yet notwithstanding their renowncing what is corrupt in their offices or power; or being renounced by these who have received ordinances off their hands, then& in that case, their acts may become valid; baptism, for example; so as not to be reiterated; and ordination, so as to be the ground of sentence of formal deposition. Now this is the very case of this prelatical Church which is amongst us. For why: It hes such alte●ations and additions in it, which doth not only smother any thing of Christs institution, pretended to be retained; but also does altogether corruptly overturn and change the nature of it; as hes been hinted at in several places before, and were easy to show at full length if the nature of the government were our task at present  
From what hes been said here we deduce these consequences, as a distinct and direct answer to the several parts of this Objection. Consequence first: The Church entitive in this Land consisting of the body of professing people is not unchurched by what is said in prosecution of the argument. For why? the question touches not them, only it touches the Church Organical, or the teaching and Governing Church. Conseq. II. a Church professing popery, and adhering in opinion and practise to the whole complex body of Doctrines professed by the Church of Rome is formally and actually no Church at all in nothing to be communicated with, nor owned, except in order to the gaining of them from that way. Conseq. II. This same church renuncing their errors in droctrines and practise, is forth with to be acknowledged and may be joined with a true Church of Christ. Conseq IV. Romish Church officers adhering to all the complex parts of that hierarchical Government are no ways to be esteemed a teaching or governing Church, and all acts proceeding from them as such, are to be esteemed null and invalid. Conseq. V. The like is to be said of our Pretaticall Church officers of superior and inferior ranks, because their government differs nothing from that of the Romish Church, but in so far as hes been spoken to in the beginning of this dicourse. Conseq. VI. Church officers in a popish Church having been brought up in it, and having unwarrily engaged to be office bearers therein, after that upon conviction they have renunced that hierarchical government▪ and all the antichristianism in it▪ and hes been instrumental in drawing off the Church from that way to imbrac● the truth, they may be esteemed Gospel Church officers of Christs institution▪ and all the former acts may be esteemed valid, at least to those that goes along, with them in that renounciation. for why? that which was but fundamental before and nearest to a nullity becomes now actual and formal. Conseq. VII. The like may be said of these of the late ascetic Churches of Scotland and England for the same reason, and much more of those who did still declare against Prelacy. Censeq. VIII. People ad●ering to a hierarchical Government, whether popish or merely prelatical, and having had ordinances such as baptism administered to them, these acts that were invalid before, becomes valid then, whether these hierarchical officers renounce their former way or not: The reason is, because as their owning of and adhering( at least in practise) to these things that made the power null and voided did make the act invalid as to them; so their cordial renouncing of these things, and your owning only a Gospel Church office may make the act valid as to them. Crnseq IX. The office bearers in a Church reformed in government and discipline, as well as in doctrine worship, returning back to popery or prelacy; as their offices and acts are null and invalid, so long as they adhere to tha● way; so that albeit upon their renunceing again of that way( the people renuncing with them) their acts are to be esteemed valid, and their office also in so far as to be the object of a formal sentence of deposition, which would have been past before if a true governing Church had been standing) yet they are no more to be esteemed office bearers in the Church of Christ, because of their gross apostasy and backsliding, which is to be understood mainly of these who hes been directly or indirectly active and instrumental in carrieing on that course of apostasy; whose guilt as it is heinous in itself, so it is hugely aggravated by these following reasones: first. Because the evil of prelacy is now fully known and discovered. II. The difference that is between the spiritual Government of Christs house and the worldly politic and antichristian Government exercised by prelates, is fully stated. III. That same antichristian Government eversive of the visible kingdom and spiritual Government of Christ is fully and plainly embraced& avowed by prelatical men. And that IV. upon the back of solemn ingadgements by Oath and vow to the contrair, taken on by the same men. So much briefly for one answer to this objection. If there he any to whom this argument does not relish, let them pass it; if they please and look only to the foregoing argument, which we apprehended does sufficiently evince the conclusion: Unto which we add.  
Argum. XII. That which cannot be gone about in faith, the doing of it must be sinful and unlawful; but the hearing of the prelates and the curates, cannot be gone about in faith; Therefore it is and must be sinful and unlawful. The mayor is clear from Scripture. The Minor also from these two grounds first Because[ as we apprehended] no man seriously considering the matter can be fully persuaded in his mind of the lawfulness of the thing, and so at least, must go about it doubtingly, which is a sin be e God, even altho what he did were upon the matter ●… full Rom. 14: 5: 23. much more then when the matter ●… dogged with so much grossness. II. we are to go ●… out the use of the means of our salvation in the faith and ●… pectation of Gods special blessing to go along with ●… own ordinances for the good of our souls; we are not ●… ly to be put to these duties from the word of precept, ●… t also the soul in going about them is to reason thus: ●… ease are the very ordinances of God, this man is ap●… inted of God to carry his mind to me, and my desire 〈…〉 back again to God, the Lord hes made promises of ●… s presence and power in, and his blessing on his own ●… dinances, and in the faith of that I will go about my ●… ty: But how or with what conscience can one reason ●… s in hearing the prelates or their curates; his worship ●… en must be mock worship, a very spiritless and souless ●… orship; and what may God be provoked to do to such ●… orshipers?  
Many more arguments might here be induced for fur●… er confirmation of this conclusion, not only from par●… cular Scriptures, but also from the dreadful effects that ●… oseing, in with that way will have on the souls not on●… of this generation; but more as to the following. ●… l. But we shall add no more, they that are brought, ●… eing sufficient.  
It only now remaines that we endeavour to take out of ●… e way these things that may be objected against our ●… onclusion, whether by Prelatists or others of whatsoever J dgment.  
It will be objected first: have ye not the doctrine pure, ●… nd the worship unaltered, and may ye not dispense then ●ith something in Government. Answ. we must not dispense with any of the truths or ordinances of our Lord Christ, but must contend for all the points of faith once delivered to the Saints, we must keep these things in●… olbled to the coming of Christ, we must stand fast to the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, yea though one angel from heaven should teach the contrary II. Whatever prelates and their brood think of Government; yet we think it the overturning therof. III, What assurance have we for the doctrine and worship. nothing but he said and she said, the passing words of false men; where is the prelates catechism, confession of faith, or directory for worship to be found; and though they were to be found, yet what assurance could that yield, seing they assume a power to shape and change invert and innovat as they please. IV. Is there not a standing law for the articles of Perth, conform unto which is the present practise of many Prelatists. v. I grant they temporize now in many things, as to the outward way of worship, that they may the betrer hank and ensnare the souls of the Lords people; but if there were a general submission we would see another face on affairs. Ay but say they, ye should not Judge of mens intentions, but should take their professions. Answ. first whose profession should we take, that of false treacherous perjured men: II. are not the Lords people in all Christian Prudence to foresee hasards which concerns their immortal Souls, Act 20: 29, Phil. 3: 2. and wee believe, considering how false some men are, that their actings are a truer Judge of their intentions, then their professions are. VI. The Question is not whether or no we may hear, &c, our own lawful Ministers if they had the liberty of preaching, and were denied the liberty of discipline and Government. But the question is, whether or no we may hear, &c, them who hes thrust out the Government of Christs Institution, and introduced one of a diabolical Invention and who takes upon them to shape and change all the ordinances of God which we have proven already to be unlawful.  
Object. II. Will ye not obey the King and the laws. Will ye not be loyal? This is only the argument of the ignorant country curates, and inform it must turn thus: Whatever King and Parliament commands and enacts, ●… hat is forthwith to be obeied; But King and parliament hes enacted obedience to prelates and therefore they ●… re to be obeied. The Minor cannot well be denied. ●… s to the mayor I say that truly I can be hardly persuaded ●… s yet to think that the Kings pleasure is prima Regula ●… idei& morum, the first rule of Faith and manners, no ●… ot so much as in ceremonials of Religion; for if so, ●… he schoolmen hes been very dull and short sighted these ●… any ages by-gone, seing never any of them so much as ●… tarted upon that opinion. Neither can I see any ground ●… o assert that he is one infallible interpreter of scripture, ●… nd one unerring Judge of controversies Eccesiastick ●… tting in Cathedra Parliamentaria in the chair of State, albeit I know the people claims this. II. What if King and Parliament should command going to Mass the next ●… ear; the III. year the embracing of Machumets Alco●… an. Shall we forthwith yield obedience. Ephraim for a time was oppressed and broken in judgement, because he willingly walked after the commandment. Hos. 5: 11. III. Some are of the judgement, that in some cases it is better to obey God nor man, and that ●… n some cases passive obedience or submission is all that ●… he Magistrat can well expect but this is a dangerous argument, and therefore we will meddle no further with it.  
Obj. III. Separation from the Church is a pernicious and sinful evil; But your practise in not hearing, &c is a separation from the Church. Therefore &c. Answ. first. To the mayor, every separtion is not unlawful, but sometimes a duty; witness separation from the Church of Rome. II. Corruption in the essentials either in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, or Government, is thought a good ground of separation at least in so far III. local secession may happen where there is not separation from the Church. IV. separation from a particular corrupt Church is not a separation from Christs universal Church. V. There may be separarion from the corruptions of a particular Church, and yet not a total separation from that same Church, VI. The Lords people may be beat from their duty; and driven into a wilderness condition by violent Antichristian Spirits; in which case they cannot be esteemed Separatists from the Church. The mayor then being taken universally and without limitation is false; and being taken particularly, the argument is not concludent, but consisting of pure particulars. As to the Minor first we ask who it is hes made the Separation? Not we, for we stand where we were, holding fast these truths that we are convinced of by the word of God, unto the maintenance of which we are sworn and obleidged by our solemn Covenants, under which the whole Nation stands yet fast bound; some of ourselves, we confess, have turned apostates, taken on them Antichristian Titles, broken our Church to pieces, thrust out our Ministers and depryved us of pure ordinances, and what through fear and what through force, it hes carried a great party with them; But let any impartial person Judge, whether the apostates should be accounted schismatics and Separatists, or we who resolves in the Lords strength never to step one step nearer Rome, but in so far as we have already attained, to walk by the same Rule, and never to do any thing that may make us partakers of their sins, and so Sharers of their Judgments, when the Lord comes to reckon. And though possibly we be the feuest number, yet let it be considered whether Elias and the 7000. in Israel who bowed not the knee unto Baal, or the body of the Land were to be accounted the Separatists. We deny then the Minor of the argument; and though it were that our abstinence did infer separation, yet it will not be found, that our separation would be sinful; but rather a matter of duty; as will be clear by applying what is spoken; in limiting the mayor to the Minor in the argument, and the compareing of both with the grounds of the argument enforcing the conclusion, But as that is obvious in itself, so we need not stay upon it; seing we are merely passive, and not at all active in separation.  
It will be instanced here: That although we be not active in separation, yet it is not enough; for we ought actually to join in the present public worship; Because where there is a true Church, Christian people ought the join with it: But here is a true Church; Therefore &c. The minor is proven, because in this ascetic Church, the true word of God is preached and professed, which is the essential note of a true Church. Answ. I. to the mayor; let it be granted, there is a true Church entitive here, yet we deny there is a true Church Organical; for the organs their of viz prelates and their curates are Anticristian, as hes been shewed; hence we may join in private fellowship with the prelate, let it be true; we may join in public worship with their officers as such, by taking ordinances off their hands, it is false. II. where is a true Church that is impure, christian people if they can get a purer Church they are to join in worship with that, and notwith the other: If they cannot get a purer Church( I distinguish;) they ought to join; if they candoe it without sin, but if they cannot do it without sin, they must abstain. But that the prelates and the curates cannot be submitted unto, or joined with, without sin, is proven by the whole arguments enforcing the conclusion; for that our standing aloof is not for any thing in the people, but what is in the pretended officers. To the minor with its probation we say, that the pure word of God professed is indeed the essential note of the Church visible entitive, professores if they hold any error, as for example, concerning the spiritual Government of Christ, in so far that Church is defective, if not null, if it be in fundamentals. II. But to make up the essential note of the church organical, there is required also the preaching of the word; preaching [ I say] which is not only materially, but also formally essentially such, which cannot be but by preachers of Christs own sending; for every speaking of of the word of God is not the Gospel ordinance of preaching, neither is every one that speaks ●t sent and authorized of Christ, see Rom. 10: 14 15. But the prelates curates and their preaching are not of the Gospel stamp, their Church therefore wants he essential note; therefore the Lords people ought not to join actively with them.  
Object. IV. A wilful depriving ourselves of the word of God must be a sinful thing; But our nor submitting to the prelates and curates is a wilful depriving our sel●es of the ordinances; Therefore a sinful thing. the minor is proven, because we must either take the ordinances off their hand, or have none at all. Answ. the mayor we grant. As for the minor, it is not only false, but alewd lye; for albeit we cannot submit to the prelates and their curates without horrid sin; yet it is wee●l known, we would willingly submit to the pure ordinances of Jesus Christ and wait on them for our souls good. As to the probation of the minor. that we cannot have the ordinances but by the prelates and their curates, we confess it is our sad affliction; but it is not our sin, let them count for it who is the cause of it, the judgement of God we leave them unto: In the mean time we desire to look higher then the prelates in this matter, resolving to bear the indignation of the Lord, because we have sinned against him, until he pled our cause &c. And we hope that our standing aloof from them if We be diligent in private duties, may be a readier mean of bringing about that, nor our sinful joining with them can be.  
Object V. That which tends to make the whole country Atheists by casting them loose must be very sinful; But your not submitting to the Prelars, &c. tends toward that; Therefore it must be very sinful. Answ. I. That which per se or of its own nature tends to the turning of people atheists is sinful. I grant; that which tends only by accident that way, I deny. But that our not hearing, &c. Does of itself tend to make people atheists, I deny as false: by mere accident it may be true, and therefore that our abstaining is sinful it will not follow, the reason of this is, because my hearing would be( as is already proven) sinful and therefore my abstaining from sin, and cleaving to my duty, cannot have any influence of its own nature ●… 'pon anothers committing of sin, I confess through ●… heir ignorance and corruption, it might prove 〈…〉 scandal, only taken, but it could never prove a ●… iven scandal. II. That which most immediately and ●… f its own nature tends to the turning of people atheists 〈…〉 the depriving them of the pure ordinances of Jesus Christ, and clubing them unto a course of apostasy, as ●… or us, we must not sin in joining with a course of apo●… acie, though all the world should turn atheists, we must not do evil that good may come of it( and truly we see not what good would come of it] we have not ●… o learned Christ. III. we know nothing that tends so much to the turning of people atheists, and to making ●… hem think, that all religion is but fancies, and a ●… eer stirrup for wealth and worldly greatness, as for ●… en to preach and press one thing one year, yea and ●… o swear to it, and press others to do the same; and ●… e next year, over the belly of oaths and honesty, for ●… ase and worldly ends, violently to urge the plain con●… are. IV. We appeal to the experiences of all con●… cientious men, if ever atheism and ignorance of God ●… id more abound in any place of the world, then in the ●… laces where Prelatists bear sway; so that to join in a ●… ourse of submission unto them, were to join in the ●… establishment of atheism on the earth. V. We hope ●… hat the very want of public ordinances may contribute ●… ore to the keeping of these in a tender frame of spirit, ●… ho conscientously refuses to join with the Prelatists, nor the hearing of the dead and irreligious Prelatists could do, the country proverb hes something in it, better loose then in one ill tethering  
Object. But their grand Argument is from Matth. 23. which, as with a piece of greater ordinance, they think its one easy bussiness to batter down all the bulwarks of their adverse party; it may be in form thus: It was the duty of the People of the Jews to hear Scribes and Pharisees, and to submit unto them. Then it is our duty to hear the Prelatists and submit unto them. But the first appears from Matth. 23; v. 1.2.3. Therefore, &c. The connexion of this hypothetick mayor, they will confirm thus; because it hath been greater sin( if a sin) to hear Scribes and Pharisees, nor it is to hear Prelatists; because forsooth our prelates and their curates are not so bad as Scribes and Pharisees were; and it is not probable that Christ would command to hear Scribes and Pharisees, and not allow us to hear prelates and curates and submit unto them. This is their Argument in the best form, and with the greatest strength that I can think it can have. Answ. We shall first discuss the antecedent of the mayor assumed in the minor proposition with the confirmation thereof. As to the minor, then first, We would consider what their Scribes and Pharisees were. Secondly, What is meant by Moses chair. Thirdly, What is imported in their sitting therein. Fourthly, What is meant by doing and observing what ever they bid them observe. As to the first of these, to begin with the Pharisees, they certainly were a sect, Act. 15: v 2. and 26: v. 5. much like one of these amongst the Papists, for example the jesuits,( but what their tenets were is not my scope) and altho all the Pharisees were not of the tribe of Levi, yet many of them, especially those who were in public office in the Church, were Priests and Levites, see John 1. v. 19. and 24. compared; yea, this was a prevailing sect, and had infected the most of these in public office; hence we red of Priests, Levites, Rulers, Scribes and Pharisees, all of them Pharisees: See further, John 3: v 1. Act. 23: v 9. So that it will be all one to inquire here, what are Pharisees, with what are Scribes, as to any public office; for they seem to coincide in the same persons. As for Scribes then, Hebr. Se-pher, that is, a Scribe, book man, enarrator or explainer; it was a name of public office, not of sect. In this place of public office ecclesiastic, which Scribes were all of the tribe of Levi, Priests, Ezra 7: v. 5, 6. Nehem. 8.1, 2. and Levites, 1 Chron. 24.6. For the Levites were not only divided in Singers porters, officers, &c. but also in Scribes 1 Chron. 24: v. 23. the ablest for teaching by reason of gifts and education being designed for that employment. The office of their Scribes was fi●st public teaching, Ezra. 7: v. 10. Nehem. 8 Matth. 7: v. 29. and 13. v. 52. one office competent in ordinary to the tribe of Levi as such, Deut. 33: v. 10. Secondly, They were members of, or Rulers in ecclesiastic Judicatories, not only in the Synagogues or inferior Judicatories, but also in the Synedrim, or supreme ecclesiastic judicatory, being assumed into that because of their office or parts, Luke 22: v. 66. Act. 23: v. 9. Now their Scribes and Pharisees being men in public office of Gods appointment, in this far we may grant the minor of the argument. Furthermore in Scripture( which is considerable) there are some called Lawyers Doctors of the Law, whose office it seems( as is current among writers of Jewish antiquites) was not to teach publicly, or in the Synagogue but privately in schools, which Lawyers, albeit there were Scribes and Pharisees too, no doubt; for which see Matth. 22: 34, 35. compared with Mark. 12.21. yet all Scribes and Pharisees were not Lawyers, for which see Luke 4: 44, 45. but they were distinguished one from another by the distinction of the enclosed from the includent; which seems to be the only way of reconciling together of these three forceited texts: Besides its probable, that some Pharisees who were not Scribes or Levites might have been Lawyers, as to that part of the Law called Judicial, and so in a capacity and fitness to be assumed into civil Judicatories; viz. into the civil Synedrim supreme when it was standing, or if it was now standing, and not rather taken away by Herod; however probable it seems, that the Scribes and Pharisees Spoken of here Matth. 23: 2. were only these Scribes and Pharisees that were Lawyers; for what is spoken of Scribes& Pharisees here, vers 4. is appropriated to Lawyers in a contradistinction to the rest of the Scribes& Pharisees Luke 11: 46. and if ye will diligently compare these two chapters, ye will find that what is charged promiscuously upon Scribes and Pharisees Matth. 23. not excluding but including Lawyers under them; the same things are all distributively ch●rged upon Pharisees, Scribes and Lawyers Luke 11. and was pronounced against every one of them distinctly for their own share of guilt. The II thing considerable is what is meant by Moses chair? By chair here is to be understood in a metonymy of speech, some public office exercised in that chair, what this puklick office was will appear after we have made a sea●ch into the the word Moses. The word Moses may either be taken properly or figuratively; figuratively we say by a metonymy of the instrumental cause for the effect; Moses, for the Law delivered by the Ministry of Moses, see Luke 16: 29. the sense then will be, the office that their Scribes and Pharisees brooked, was one office versant about Moses Law, partly viz in teaching the same, partly in sitting in Judicatories and giving out Canons, decrees and sentences of judgement according to the same. But if any incline to take the word properly, which seems as probable, then it will be necessar to inquire, what office Moses had, and in what of these he could be succeeded by their Scribes and Pharisees. First then, Moses was a Lawgiver, but in this ●… e was not succeeded by Scribes and Pharisees; for no ●… rdinar officers had power to deliver a new Law, to ●… he Lords people, nor yet to add any thing to that al●… eady delivered; albeit their Pharisees were sinfully med●… eing with that II. Moses was King, in Jesurun, ●… ut in that he was not succeeded by their Scribes, &c. Neither did they claim unto it. III. Moses was one extraordinar Priest, as in consecrating Aaron and his Sons; but in this in one ordinary way, Aaron and his Sons and posterity did succeed him, not the Scribes and Pharisees as such. IV. Moses was a Prophet, ●… one expounder and applyer of his own Law, witness his delyvery of the whole book of Deuteronomy, and in this as in one ordinary way he was succeeded by the whole tribe of Levi, so especially by Scribes who here were also Pharisees. V. Moses was a Judge in matters ecclesiastic, in which he was succeeded by the synedrim ecclesiastic, and other inferior Judicatories, of all which Scribes and Pharisees were members as hes been shown. VI Moses was a Judge in matters civil, in which he was succeeded by the suprem Synedrim civill and others of inferror rank Into all which, no doubt, many of the sect of the Pharisees were assumed for that skill in the Judicial Law that they were presumed to have. Thirdly by their Scribes and Pharisees their sitting in this chair of Moses is to be understood their actual exerciseing of these offices which at present they did brook. Where it is considerable, that the word rendered, [ sit] in the Original is not in the present, but in the by past indefinite time, and should be rendered, they have satin, which phrase, as l conceive, hes three things in it. First their Scribes of the sect of the Pharisees hes crept in piece and piece along while ago into places of public trust and employment. II. They are now sitting and brooking their places without control, tho most unworthy. III. They are not to fitt long, Christ being within a few weeks by the Ministry of his Apostles to set up the Gospel Church in the place of that corrupt one of theirs; unto which therefore, while a short time were over, he would have no stir made as to any change: As if Christ would say, they have satin, do sit but shall not sit long, being incorrigible, such as will not submit to me and my Gospel, and with all the cursed sect of the Pharisees who for their corruptions in doctrine and practise are to be rooted up, and casten over the hedge, as plants not of my heavenly fathers planting. Matth. 15: v 13. IV. it is to be considered, that these words, whatsoever they bid you do, that observe and do, are not to be understood in that universality, but are to be limited by Matth. 16, 6.12. For they were to tak no corrupt Doctrine off their hands, and their for seing the matter that people were bidden observe, must admit a limitation, wherefore may not the maner of this observance admit a limitation also. V. It is very observable that there is not a word in the text of hearing, but only that they were to observe and do what they did dictate and command by virtue of their office, which dictates and decrees might be those of Lawyers, Scribes in their Schools, or as they were members of the several Judicatories, to the knowledge of which people might come by reading or otherwise; albeit they did not actually hear them or submit unto them, by countenancing of them; which certainly they might not do, if their countenancing of them; would have inferred one approbation of their corruptions; and if this interpretation of this particle of the text hold, by virtue thereof we may deny the minor, and assert, that their people were not obliged to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, especially seing the thing that Christ bids them observe and do, might be such doctrines, dictates and decrees which did anteced Christs so full a discovery of their corruptions in this and the foregoing chapters: All which will yet be clearer, if we will take a short view of the sense of the place together in order to its scope( having always done it by parts) whieh may be holden forth thus: Christ having put out these Scribes and Pharisees in a public disput and affronted them before the people, Chap. preceding, and being about to discover very much of their corruption before the said people, and denounce many sad woes against them, and with all not having a mind to alter any thing for that little time that was to interveen till after his ascension, neither having a mind to reform that fabric of the Jewish Church at all, but to lay down a ground for removing it out of the way, in planting of his Gospel Church, by the ministry of the Apostles, upon the back of his sending down the gifts of the Holy Ghost;& because for present their Scribes and Pharisees, were in place and power, had the truths and ordinances of God among their hands, lest in this mean time people should have casten at the truths of God, and being ready to reject them because of the horrid corruptions of those through whose hands they came: Christ in the entry here guards them against that, enjoining that notwithstanding of whatsoever, was to be discovered in these men, yet they would be careful to observe and do whatsoever was truth and duty, even tho taught and commanded by them, and not to cast at it upon that account; altho he was far from bidding them do any thing that might be interpnted a countenancing of them, or joining with them, or approving of their corruptions. whether in doctrine or practise. Heaving thus discussed the antecedent or minor of the argument; We come next unto the mayor the connexion where of we deny; As to the probation thereof we say first its false. Secondly, It is not full. As to the first, if ye will compare our prelates and Prelatists with the Scribes and Pharisees, either as to the way of coming at their places▪ or as to their principles, practices, Doct●ines and the sad effects that follows upon these, and redounds to the Church of God, it will be found, that in all these, the the one is as bad as the other; all which might be fully holden forth, if we did not here intend brevity; so that our prelates are no less bad, but rather more bad then the Scribes and Pharisees, it is true our prelates and Prelatists did never whereout Christ personally and crucify him; but that would they have done if they had lived then& had the same temptations. And however do they not whereout and crucify him in his members. And what is the difference then? Its true likewise Christ did never say out of his own mouth in so many words and syllabes, our prelates and Prelatists have finned the sin against the Holy Ghost; yet I think if ever any since the daves of these Pharisees, were guilty of that sin( of which I do not doubt) that some at lest of this present gang( all thing being considered) will be found to be the men: But I do not stay on this. Secondly. This their confirmation of the mayor is not full; for there may be many other differences between one party and another, besides that of personal goodness and badness, whereupon Christian People may lawfully join with and submit unto the one, and not at all unto the other. We shall therefore here in the close hold forth some of these differences, by which the bottom will altogether be beaten out of this objection and the Prelatists fully frighted away from this their supposed impregnable strong hold. First, Then their Scribes and Pharisees, what ever corruptions were in their persons, doctrines and way, yet they had a lawful office, power and authority of Divine institution, which our prelates have not; both which have been already holden forth and this is a very considerable difference; for as we may not in all cases submit unto those, who have the essentials of a lawful calling, viz. when the submitting unto them ●ust needs be interpnted our approbation of th●ir corruptions, and a joining with them in their evil way, and consequently sharers with them in their guilt; so we ●… ust never aclowledge them to be messengers of ●… hrist either by word or dead who have no lawful ●… ffice at all what I say of prelates here, the like I say of ●… relats, curates, according to Argument XI. Its true ●… dead the curates pretend to one office that is really of ●… hrists institution, on the contrare, the office that the ●… relats pretend unto, is not of Christs institution, yea ●… s expressly discharged in his word, and here is a great ●… dds, I confess. But the question remains yet, How came ●… hey by this office. Who made the office to their persons. Or how came they by that office again, if once they did ●… or fault it, certainly they could not take it to themselves Hebr. 5.4, 5. Neither could the prelate that antichristian officer make this application, as is proven ●… bove: Hence altho the office of the Ministry be a real ●… aweful Gospel office, yet a Curat is no more a Gospel Minister, whether as to circumstantials, nor a pursuivant ●… s a real pursuivant who only pretends a commission ●… rom the Lord lion, but hes it not, tho in the mean time the offiee of pursevancy be a real lawful office. If the Scribes and Pharisees whatever corrupt courses they ●… ooke to win at these places they held, yet generally ●… hey were admitted and assumed to the places by those who had power so to do; but our prelates and their curates come into their places over the belly, and without the consent, assumption or admission of any what soever that hes power, whether Pastors or People. III. The corruptions wherewithal the Scribes and Pharisees were infected, did creep insensibly bit and bit, and that in a longtract of time, without the discerning of beholders. But the corruptions of our prelates and Prelatists, come in altogether, and to the discerning of every beholder, and must be swallowed down in lump; so that they who submitts unto them, needs not say, that they were stolen off their feet before they adverted, as their people of the Jews might have said, in reference to the Scribes and Pharisees, insensibly infected with the leaven of false doctrine, Hypocrisy and other corrutions of these persons. IV. The corruptions of the Scribes and Pharisees when Christ pronounced these words Matth. 23: 2, 3. were not discovered; for altho Christ had made a right full discovery of them in his Sermon, yet that discovery was not made to all, but to a few and even those to whom the discovery was made, very few understood Christs meaning; for its known, that even Christs disciples after his resurrection, were still doting after a worldly Political kingdom and Government of Christ, like that of Antichrist now, and like that of our prelates, their ignorance of which is one evidence of their ignorance of other things which Christ taught. Neither was the doctrine which Christ taught in opposition to the corruptions of the Scribes and Pharisees at that time received, embraced and professed, at least by any considerable number, or in any public maner or way: But the corruptions which are in our prelates and Prelatists have been fully discovered to all, and to the conviction of all; so that even the prelates themselves, nor none of their gang dare bring matters unto a public rational debate; and the contrary doctrine hes been received, embraced and professed by all, as the truth of God, and that publicly by persons of all ranks, yea even by these who now hes apostatised; from whence it appears, that albeit it had been lawful to have heard the Scribes and Pharisees, yet it would not be lawful to do the like in reference to Prelatists. V. These words Matth. 23.2, 3. were pronounced in a declining state of the Jewish Church, then matters were still waxing worse and worse, and defection growing to a full height, so that matters yet had never taken a turn; but the commands to submit unto the prelates and their curates comes out of the back of a Reformation of the same corruptions and abuses. VI. The corruptions in the Scribes and Phatisees were never sworn but upon conviction of the sinfulness of them; but the corruptions of our prelates and Prelatists have been sworn out of this Church and solemnly covenanted against, and upon clear convictions of the sinfulness of them, and of their destructiveness to all the interests of Christs kingdom, and of the ruin they brought to the souls of his people, so that the oath of God is on us never to buckel with them. VII. The corruptions of the Scribes and Ph●risees were in a Church which Christ had not a mind to reform[ at leist as to corruptions only] but to desert one make secession from and that within a few weeks, by setting up his own Gospel Church, and to leave these corrupt men altogether to the judgement of God, which within forty yeares was cruelly execute upon them by the sword of Titus Vespasian. But the corruptions of our prelates and Prelatists are in a Church which by Gods appointment is to continue in that same frame to the end of the world without alteration, either in substantials or circumstantials, and which every one in their place and station is bound and obliged to keep pure. VIII. The corruptions of the Scribes and Pharisees were to be casten out, being now of a long time settled; but the corruptions of our prelates and Prelatists are to be received in: Now there is a great difference between these two, any man may perceive; for in casting corruptions out of a Church, there may be suspension for a little time upon providential considerations: Praecepta affirmativa, we say, obligant semper, said non ad semper; and in the little interim while a full discovery be made, things may stand in their former posture. But it is far otherwise as to the inbringing of corruptions, we must not give place here for a moment, the precepts discharging us in this case are negative; binding us not only semper, but also ad semper. IX. Supponing it was lawful at that time to hear the Scribes and Pharisees[ which I speak not to hear] yet if any did scruple to do so, their hearing of them would not have been a supervenient scandal; for as matters stood then settled, no man could have stumbled at their so doing; but as matters stand now circumstantiat with us, tho it were otherwise lawful in some cases to hear their prelates and their curates, yet it could not be done without grievous scandal, as who ever understands the nature of scandal and considers the foregoing differences, will easily discern. Now from those differences it does clearly appear, that altho it had been lawful to hear Scribes and Pharisees, yet it will not follow that it is lawful for us in any case, to hear the prelates and their curates. or to submit unto them, without horrid sin and scandal, and a pertakeing with them in their apostasy: yea granting[ which we shall not deny] that every precept of our Lord Christ to his Church is binding to it, in all after generatians; yet a precept of this nature will not bind, but in the like circumstantiat case Now what difference there is between the case of our Church and that of the Jewish Church, about the time of Christs suffering, hes been already shown. Neither shall I deny but that this precept might have had its own use, and have been obleidging, as to several things, when the Gospel Church began first to look out of popery, and had not yet wrestled out of the harlots claws, and pure Gospel ordinances not as yet set up; but that case was not like our case, but most like that of Jewish Church. We have been longer in our inquiry in this question, then we intended when we began, having always discovered greater abominations the further we preached into it; just like those who rakes into a vile sink or pudle, albeit in the brim nothing but ordinary filth appears, and afterwards a noisome stink arises, yet the snakes and toads are not discovered till they come at the bottom. We shall now then, having made this discovery, propone only this question for a conclusion of this discourse, that seing there is so much ill in this way, Wherefore is it that so many, of whom in charity better things might have been expected, joins with them in practical compliance? The reasons whereof we apprehended to be these. First rooted atheism, ignorance and regardlesness of God. II. Stupidity of conscience and untenderness of heart. III. Ignorance of the Gospel way appointed by Christ as King of his Church, for making the fruits of his Priestly office furthcoming for the good of souls, that is, by his oun officers and ordinances, according to his precise appointment IV. Loathsome indifferency and lukewarmness in the matters of God. V. Real regardlesness of their own souls. VI. Faithless and carnal fear of men more then of God. VII. Worldly myndedness, preferring the profits, pleasures and honours of this world above all things; some for fear of losing these things, and some in hope of gaining them, swallowing greater bones then this. VIII. Giving way to the falseness and deceit of the heart in coining distinctions and putting colou●s upon things which will not sustain before ●od, neither satisfy one awakened conscience. IX. a preposterous esteem of men in former ages tho in some things might have erred, in some things mistaken by us( for circumstances varieing, the case varies) following them sicco pede, never inquireing further into tru●h, thinking it enough that they thought and practised so. X The power where by ministers exercise their office not being much under debate these yeares by gone, and the derivation there of not being discernible and obvious to the understanding, as the gifts and personal qualifications, of Ministers are, some well meaning people look only at the gifts and personal qualifications never so much as inquires into the power& authority to exercise these gifts XI. Untenderness in the use of Gospel ordinances then we had them in purity, power& plenty; folks frequent-ing them with common hearts, acted only with custom and drawn with a sort of carnal respect to things or persons, tho spiritual not seing spiritual comeliness in the ordinances of life, nor considering that they[ we mean these of Christs appointment only] are the channels and conduits were through life giving and saving grace is conveyed unto souls, and that he hes trysted his special gracious presence in them, not being acted by divine command nor yet praying unto, and leaning upon the Lord in frequenting them, for his promised blessing upon his own ordinances, nor thirsting for Christ and his fullness exhibited in them in a word not endeavouring to worship and adore the Lord in spirit and in truth, with all the heart in every piece of his appointed worship. What wonder is it then that such folk prove untender now, yea and for their former abuse of mercies, be deserted and given up of God, to suffer themselves to be deluded, and made to esteem these things to be the ordinances of God, that are nothing but the empty shadows of them, real husks without any more. It were useful therefore for folks to repent for by-gone sins, to pray for Gods direction, to prie more narrowly into the evil of these things, to beware to party men in their sins in one unlawful practise[ although commanded] which hes such dreadful evils involved in it, and to remember the vows and ingadgements that are upon them to the contrary; for if we turn back again after all these vows, and with the dog lick up our vomit again, what will the end be? It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, nor after they have known it, to depart from the holy commandement given unto them. 2 Pet. 2: 21.  
FINIS.