up such a bodie it cannot be acknowledged for a lawfull and free Assembly But how prove they Commissioners admitted to be members of this Assembly not to bee such as are requisit to make up such a bodie First they alledge that the most part at least of the Clergie conveened at this Assembly are ipso facto deprived and their places voide as if they were naturally dead because they have never in presence of the Archbishop Bishop Superintendent or Commissioner of the Province or Dyocie subscribed the articles of Religion extant in the acts of Parliament nor given their oath for acknowledging our Soveraigne Lords Authoritie nor have read their testimoniall thereupon and the confession in their parosh Kirks after their returne as they are bound by act of Parliament Anno 1572. that whereas they bee bound by act of Parliament Anno 1606. to maintaine the Kings honour dignitie and prerogative Royall to with stand all persons power or estates that shall impugne or impaire the same and at their admission were obliged to performe this duetie of their alleageance and to testifie in their conscience that the King is suppreme governour as well in matters spirituall and ecclesiasticall as temporall according to the act of Parliament 1612. Yet notwithstanding his Majestie having ordained by act of Councell and Proclamation following thereupon that all the Liedges should swear and subscribe the said Confession together with a generall Band for defending his Majesties Person and Authoritie against all enemies within or without the Realme they have not only refused to subscribe the said Band and Confession but in their Sermons and other speeches disswaded deterred and hindered others to subscribe the same and have publickly protested against the subscription thereof The answer is easie The act of Parliament 1572. was never put in practise conforme to the tennour of it and order there set down or if put in practise the practise could not endure long For Archbishops Bishops and Superindentents continued not long after If there were any force in this reason all the Assemblies of our Kirk since the abolition of Bishops and Superintendents might be called in question and wee have had no lawfull ministers Yea their own pretended Assemblies did consist of many who could not produce a testimoniall of their oath and confession conforme to the tenour of that act Lastly the substance of that act hath been keeped conforme to the later acts made thereanent and none of the Ministers conveened at the last Assembly but have subscribed both the confession of Faith and Band for maintenance of the Kings authority either of late when the Covenant was subscribed or before when they past their degrees in Schooles or upon some other occasion But what suppose that act were yet in force that they had neglected to take their oath and were therefore deprived ipso facto of their benefice and ecclesiasticall living yet it followeth not that they are deprived of their office or can be unlesse they wilfully refuse to subscribe and take their oath to acknowledge the Kings authoritie It is to be observed that that act was made when some stood for the Kings Mother and would not acknowledge the King for Soveraigne during her life As for the promise made in Parliament by the Estates Anno 1606. have they failed in performance or the Subjects whom they represented Have they not in the last Parliament ratified that act As to the act for the oath of supremacie An. 1612. it concerneth only such as were to be presented to any benefice and not every Minister That act was a ratification of the act of Glasgow are altered in the act of Parliament and in place of these words Conservation and purgation of Religion are put in Supreme governour as well in matters spirituall and ecclesiasticall as temporall which words were avoided in the same oath when the conclusions were agreed upon at Leeth Anno 1572. Howbeit they then drew up a plate-forme of policie near to the English and put in the words Conservation and purgation of Religion which are used in the confession of Faith extant in the acts of parliament So they have abused their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow But what have the Commissioners done contrare to these acts oathes or promises They have refused to subscribe the confession of Faith and band enjoyned by the King and Councel hindered others and protested against the Proclamation Might they not doe that and not violate these acts Doth the acts of the Kings prerogative binde them to subscribe any confession or band in whatsoever sense it shall please his Majestie to make Or is it the meaning of the oath of supremacie The Estates I am sure never intended such a meaning Both must be interpreted by the first confession of Faith the act for the Kings oath at his Coronation the declaration made in Parliament 1592. and second book of discipline Notwithstanding of the ratification of the former act concerning the Kings prerogative and the act for the oath of imsupremacie his Majestie behoved to have a grant of posing habits upon Kirk-men at the last Parliament which needed not if he might have done it by vertue of these acts of Parliament Anno 1606 and 1612. and yet that is a matter of lesse importance then to enjoyne subscription to a confession in another sense then was received at the first and second universall subscription For now in the interpretation of the authoritie enjoyning subscription the confession is made to consist with Episcopacie and other novations introduced since the fame was first received Was there not reason then to refuse to diswade others and to protest against it Moe reasons are to be found in the protestation it felf Some Ministers were urged with subscription and of those some yeelded who notwithstanding had place in the last Assembly But what suppose all had protested and refused to subscribe as they were enjoyned by the Councel that could not have disabled them to fit and voice in the Assembly unlesse they had been legally convict before of offence in so doing and remained obstinate But let the Reader here observe the decliners legerdemaine They would seeme to be foreward for subscription of that confession which was enjoyned by the King and Councel but challenge men for not subscribing the said Confession that is the Confession extant in the acts of parliament for of no other have they made mention before in their declinatour They have vilipended the later confession and covenant in former times and we doubt notwithstanding of this taxing of others that they will subscribe this confession themselves without their own limitations and acceptions as the Doctours of Aberdene have done but that perfidious men will subscribe any thing And yet so impudent are they that they will have other troubled for not subscribing contrar to the true sense and meaning of the confession to make a partie and new rent in this Kirk They alledge that the Commissioners directed to
Religion they granted libertie to hold Synods no lesse then weekly meetings of congregations to divine service That French Catholick who wrot that treatise delibertate ecclesiastica in defence of the Venetians writeth to the same sense Imperatores cum libertatem Religionis edictis suis Ecclesiae concesserunt simul jus libere cogendi synodos illis attribuisse Nam cultus Christiani haec pars est prorsus necessaria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So it was answered in the Assembly holden in December anno 1561. to some Courteours Take from us the freedome of Assemblies and take from us the Evangel For without Assemblies how shall good order and unitie in doctrine be keeped Seeing then Assemblies are so necessare and CHRIST hath provided for all necessaries to his Kirk and promised his presence where but few are conveened in his name the Christian Prince cannot deprive the Kirk of this liberty Neither is this Kirk deprived of liberty to hold her Assemblies by any law or act of Parliament incase the Prince will not indict time and place Our Kirk had liberty to hold Assemblies and to appoint time and place till the year 1592. and yet were not the Assemblies called in question for sedition The Assemblies were frequented by men of credite in Court about the King and his Regents Some were authorized with commission from them from time to time to repaire to the same Commissioners have been directed from the Parliament to confer with the Commissioners appointed by the Assembly concerning Ecclesiasticall affairs Appellations of laick patrons were ordained by act of Parliament to end and take decision at the generall Assembly Superintendents and titulars of prelacies were ordained by act of Parliament to be called before the generall Assembly and to be deprived incase they were found Hereticall in doctrine The acts ratifying the jurisdiction of the Kirk namely the act Iames 6. Par. 6. cap. 69. Ratifieth consequently the generall Assemblies where all jurisdiction is ordered and censures sometimes exerced The Parliament holden anno 1592. did not grant liberty to hold Assemblies as if the Kirk had not had such liberty before but ratified her former liberty to hold Assemblies yearly or oftner pro re nata and to appoint time and place for the next Assembly by themselves incase his Majestie or his Commissioner were not present in the town But if any of them were present it was provided that they should appoint time and place This provision gave not a privative power to his Majestie to refuse a generall Assembly so long as he pleased for then the liberty of holding generall Assemblies could not be said to have been ratified but only a priviledge or prerogative to appoint time and place for the yearly Assembly The act of Parliament 1612. which they aledge in their Declinatour acknowledgeth the indiction of time and place to appertaine to his Majestie but doth not give a privative power to frustrate the Kirk of her yearly Assemblies if he please which were ratified before but that being presupposed bindeth him to appoint time and place If they will infer that it is sedition to conveen an Assembly a any time if the Prince will not indict time and place in respect of that act of Parliament they must remember that the act 1612. was only a ratification of the act of their pretended and null Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. the nullity whereof hath been made evident at the last Assembly and so they bewray their treacherie against CHRIST and his Kirk and for consenting to the ratification of such a Declaration in Parliament ought to be severly punished suppose there were no other offence to be laid to their charge The yearly Assemblies were a great impediment to their course therefore that liberty must not endure any longer But for reverence of the honourable Estates we make the best construction we can Howsoever the Kirk may lawfully hold her Assemblies howbeit there were no act of Parliament and the Prince we speak in the general refusing to indict time and place the necessity of the Kirk being urgent is to be suspected of disaffection to Religion notwithstanding of his externall profession Error cui non resistitur approbatur veritas cum minimè defensatur opprimitur Negligere quippe cum possis deturbare perversos nihil aliud est quam fovere Dist. 83. Can. Error The Reader may finde more to our purpose in the reasons alreadie printed for holding generall Assemblies Howbeit the Assembly holden at Glasgow in November 1638. was indicted by his Majestie and they acknowledge that it was indicted by lawfull authorite yet they hold the Assembly it self most unlawfull and unorderly in sundrie respects and their proceedings void and null in law for the causes and reasons following which wee trust shall prove frivolous Their first exception is taken from the time of election of the Commissioners to the Assembly That they were chosen by the Presbyteries before the Presbyteries were authorized to make election in respect his Majesties warrant to indict the Assembly was not published till the 22. of September following The election of Commissioners is ever in the libertie of the Presbyteries when there is apparant occasion of an Assembly as at this time they were put in full expectation both of a Parliament and Assembly And there was need of timous election that the Commissioners might have the longer time to prepare themselves for the matters of importance which were to bee treated The Barrons and free-holders make choise of their Commissioners to voice in Parliament yearly howbeit no Parliament bee indicted They themselves procured Commissioners to bee chosen in sundrie parts Anno 1617. before the Assembly was indicted upon the fourth of November to be holden at St. Andrews the 25 of that infant upon a report that his Majesty would have a generall Assembly and the five articles considered but would not appoint the time or place till the Commissioners were chosen Their drift was to hold or not hold Assembly as they should finde the Commissioners which were chosen would for the most part serve their turn But what need wee to insist upon this point seeing there was no Commissions produced at the last Assembly which were of date before the 22. of September the time of indiction The Table say they by their usurped authority did give order and direction for all Presbyteries to elect Commissioners and to keep a fast upon the 16 of September These whom they miscall the Table did not command or charge the presbyteries to elect or fast but because of the expectation we had of an Assembly invited them to seek Gods blessing with fasting both to the election of Commissioners and proceedings of the Assembly and because we had been out of use these many years of Assemblies rightly constitute sent to them their best informations and caveats They except next against the Commissioners themselves for if the Assembly be not constitute of such members as are requisite to make
this Assembly have forefaulted his Majesties favour in granting this Assembly and the libertie to be members thereof and were in the same estate and condition they were in before his Majesties proclamation and royall pardon because they are supposed to be of the number of these that adhered to the last protestation that it be lawfull for them as at other times so at this to hold Assembly notwithstanding any impediment or prorogation in the contrare they continue their meetings and tables discharged by authoritie refuse to subscribe the Band according to his Majesties and Councels command for maintaining the Kings Person and authoritie and protested against it and insisted with the Liedges to subscribe the Band of mutuall defence against all persons whatsoever that in their protestation they declared Bishops and Arch-bishops to have no warrand for their office to have no place or voice in Assembly notwithstanding his Majestie had declared by proclamation that they had voice in the Assembly to that effect as they have constantly beene in use in all Assemblies where they were present and therefore that it is a fearfull thing to conveen with these at this Assembly in respect of sundrie acts of Parliment ordaining that none impugne the authority and diganitie of any of the three Estates or procure innovation or diminution of their power and authoritie under the paine of treason and they arrogat to their meetings a Soveraigne authoritie to determine all questions and doubts that can arise contrare to the freedome of the Assembly whither in the constitution and members thereof or in the maters to be treated or manner of proceeding We answer first in generall They forfaulted not his Majesties favour in granting an Assembly for his Majestie did not recall the indiction of the time and place for holding the Assembly notwithstanding of all that is here alledged and therefore they might still conveen to the place at the time appointed As for the particular points alledged we answer Pardon was offered upon condition of acquiescing in the Kings declaration and offers But pardon importeth offence which is denyed Therefore the condition of acquiescing could not bee admitted and the offers in the declaration were not satisfactorie to their former protestations complaints supplications The Assembly was granted absolutely without any condition least his Majestie should leave in his subjects minds the least scruple and for setling a certain peace They protested that it should be lawfull for them being authorized with lawfull commission as at other times when the urgent necessitie of the Kirk requireth so in this exigence to assemble themselves at the dyet appointed for the Assembly notwithstanding of any impediment or prorogation in the contrary Of the lawfulnesse to conveen in Assembly when there is urgent necessitie we have set down some reasons already and moe are extant in print concerning that purpose They had need to fear the danger of prorogation both because the present case could not suffer delay and doolefull experience have taught us that prorogations from dyet to dyet ended at last in no dyet whereby the Kirk was bereft of her libertie to hold yearly Assemblies which they would now recover by this indiction taking it for a re-entrie Their meetings or tables as the adversaries call them continued because the cause continued preferring supplications giving in complaints attendance upon gracious and satisfactory answers and performance of the same making Protestations when there was need and yet in peaceable manner not in great companies as at the beginning for giving satisfaction to the Lords of Councel They have offered to cleare the necessity of their meeting and their carriage before the Parliament to whom they have appealed They have refused to subscribe the confession of faith again at the King and Councels command after their late subscription for the reasons already mentioned and the band for mantainance of the Kings person and authority because it is not the same in tennor with the old generall band subscribed anno 1590. The narrative is changed some lines designing the Papists and their adherents to be the partie threatning danger to Religion and the Kings person are omitted and no other partie designed in particular So that the band may be used against the Covenanters themselves who have been taxed for disorders disturbers of the peace of this Kirk and Kingdome to the danger of Religion and prejudice of his Majesties authoritie as they have complained in their Protestation They continued in seeking subscriptions to the Covenant till the holding of the Assembly because of references to the Assembly His Majesties Commissioner acquiesced in their explanation of the clause of mutuall defence where they declared their mutuall defence of each of other was not for their own privat quarrels but only in defence of the true Religion of the laws and liberties of this Kingdome and of his Majesties person and authority in preservation of the same What further can bee justly craved of them Such as were pretended Bishops had no warrand for voice in the generall Assembly unlesse they be authorized with lawfull commission The Superintendents and Bishops presence of old was required more for their triall then any need of their voice But the Assemblies were wearied with complaints made upon them and after many conferences and much disputation found their office unlawfull which was never since approved by any pretended let be lawfull Assembly So the custome of old doth not serve such as only pretend or usurpe the same office Nor are they capable as Ministers of any commission from any Presbyterie because they have deserted their flocks and have no particular charge For loppen Ministers and usurping Prelats should have no place in the generall Assembly The act of Parliament discharging the impugning of any of the three Estates or procuring the innovation or diminution of their power was made in a troublesome time in the year 1584. was protested against when it was proclaimed with other acts That third Estate of Prelats suffered innovation and diminution of their Estat within three years after by the act of annexation anno 1587. and in consideration of the great decay of the Ecclesiasticall Estate these are the words of the 113. act following the Commissioners of small Barrons and free-holders were declared to be members of the Parliament to sit upon the articles and vote in publick to supplie that decay So there may be three Estates without the Ecclesiasticall or Bishops And the acts of Parliament following were made by the Estates howbeit there were then no Bishops Yea acts were made against Bishops as anno 1592. Howbeit Ministers were not Prelats yet others who had the Prelacies voted as the third Estate For it is in respect of their Barronies that such as have Prelacies vote in Parliament whither they be Ministers or not By the act of Parliament 1597. Ministers provided to Bishopricks Abbacies Priories were declared to have vote in Parliament but without the knowledge of the Kirk
were Primats Archbishops and Bishops in office after mans invention allowed for the time We acknowledge none such in our Kirk Their consecration to the office was without the knowledge or consent of our Kirk and is laid to their charge in the complaint given in against them A knavish prat And yet forsooth they talk as if they were Primats Archbishops and Bishops in office like those of old Risum teneatis amici But what suppose they were acknowledged to be such in office should they disdaine commission from Presbyteries Paul and Barnabas were sent from the brethren at Antioch to the Councell which was holden at Ierusalem act â—5 They alledge that this doth enforce the nullity of an Assembly if the Moderator and Praesident for matters of doctrine and discipline shall be neither the Primat Archbishop nor Bishop but who by plurality of Presbyters and Lay-mens voices shall be elected which happily may be one of the inferior clergie or a lay-person For this their Presidentship they alledge canons of ancient Councels and custome of old both in other nations and our own not yet restrained by any municipall law Acts of parliament either of late or of old have not set down any order for moderation of generall Assemblies or nationall Councels Nor do we alledge the act of Parliament 1592. ratifying the liberty of generall Assemblies provinciall Synods and Presbyteries for free election of their Moderators Yet there is nothing in that act against free election or for Presidentship of Bishops We had no Ministers primats or Bishops either in stile or in office at that time Yea the power granted before to Bishops in that troublesome year 1584. and soon after quite abolished was then granted by that act to Presbyters as the right spirituall office-bearers in the Kirk And as for acts of ancient Councels we passe them as no paterns to us nor pertinent for them For we have no such Bishops primats or Metropolitans as were of old as hath been already answered And as impertinent it is to alledge that this presidentship is so intrinsecally inherent in them as they are Bishops that hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Presidents of all Assemblies of the clergie As the Chancelour of the kingdome hath place in Councell and Session not by any act or statute but hoc ipso that he is Chancelour For we know no difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter to be made by the word of God Neither do we acknowledge our fourteen forloppen Ministers for Bishops in office so much as by the constitutions of our Kirk Yea when we had Superintendents and Bishops yet the Moderator of the generall Assembly was freely chosen and never a Bishop chosen but once It was ordained in the book of policie chap. 7. that in all Assemblies a Moderator shall bee chosen by common consent of the whole brethren conveened This freedome our Assemblies ever had since the reformation till Spotswod sometime pretended primat began to usurp the place of the Moderator in their pretended Assembly holden anno 1616. Suppose the act of Parliament 1592 did restraine their authority yet say they the restraint is restored by act of Parliament 1606. and 1609. and all acts prejudiciall to their jurisdiction abrogat But that act of Parliament anno 1606. concerning the restitution of the state of Bishops can not be understood to concerne the spirituall office but only their temporall state jurisdiction priviledges and preheminences belonging thereto For by the act of Parliament 1597. when vote in Parliament was granted to Ministers provided to Prelacies their office in the spirituall policy and government of the Kirk was remitted to the Kings Majestie to be advised consulted and agreed upon by his Majestie with the generall Assembly at such times as his Majestie should think expedient to treat with them thereupon But there past no agreement before the act of Parliament 1606. but rather cautions to restraine them from all preheminence or power in the spirituall policie and government And in the act of Parliament 1612. which ratified the act of Glasgow 1610. the remit of the estats in the Parliament 1597. was mentioned and it was declared that all doubtfull and controverted points concerning the jurisdiction discipline and policie foresaid was not determined till that Assembly holden 1610. How then could the act of restitution anno 1606. be understood of restitution to their old papall preheminence and jurisdiction in the policie and government of the Kirk Next if they were restored to all their old preeminences in the spirituall jurisdiction and policie by the act 1606. what needed they any Assembly afterward to grant them some preheminence in ordination and jurisdiction Why stepped not the pretended Primat to the place of Moderatorship at their own pretended Assemblies holden anno 1606. 1608. 1610. without election Thirdly how could the Parliament restore them to any spirituall jurisdiction or preheminence who never had it at any time before For they had not been Bishops in office at any time before that they needed restitution Will they say because they had the titles of the benefice or Bishoprick the Parliament might put them in possession of the spirituall jurisdiction and enter them into the office then the Papists may be moved more justly to call them Parliamentarie Bishops then the English in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne who because of some rites and customes omitted at their inauguration sought the ratification of the Parliament for supply as Sanderus de schismate Anglicano lib. 3. reporteth and therefore were called parliamentary Bishops Hinc nomen illis impositum ut parliamentarij episcopi dicerentur In their printed Declinatour they alledge a little after in the same section that they have received their authority not from the Parliament but from Christ from whom they have received the spirituall oversight of the clergie under their charge This clause is not to be found in the Declinatour presented before the Assembly in writ but insteed thereof two lines bloted out Now it seemeth they are somewhat bolder after they have consulted with their brethren in England who now mantaine that their authority is not derived from the Prince But suppose the episcopall authority were institute by Christ which is false what calling had they to exerce that authority They had none from the Kirk And if not from the Parliament then none at all And yet before they said their authority was restored to them by act of Parliament 1606. which seemeth to import a contradiction And suppose from the Parliament as good as not at all As for the act of Parliament 1609. concerning the Commissariats it reacheth no further then the former Their consent to both these acts in Parliament and sundry other is one of the points of the complaint given in against them Nay they procured them and yet are not ashamed to alledge them howbeit to small purpose Being destitute of acts of Parliament or Assembly they argue from their
When it came to their knowledge much opposition was made none consented but upon conditions which should have been insert in the act of Parliament which was to be made for Ministers vote in Parliament It is true that anno 1606. there was an act for restitution of the state of Bishops but the Kirk repining because the conditions were not insert in the act And many Ministers subscribed a Protestation against the said act yet was not the act 1584. renewed nor Bishops restored to their spirituall estate nor were there then any Bishops having any spirituall estate whereunto they could be restored nor was the whole third estate restored which before was empaired For that third Estate consisteth of Abbots and Pryours as well as Bishops But how doth it follow that because such as were provided to Bishopricks were restored to vote in Parliament they were thereby restored to vote in the generall Assembly who were not then nor yet to this houre restored to the spirituall office of a Bishop Or how is the third Estate impugned by calling them to censure or triall seeing they consented to the act of their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow whereby they are made lyable to the triall of the generall Assembly in their life and conversation office and benefice as also by the tennour of the Kings Proclamation and his Majesties Commissioners Declaration given in to the last Assembly bearing expresly that all and every one of the Bishops and their successours shall be answerable to and from time to time censurable by the generall Assembly Their consenting to that same act of restitution is censurable and a point of the libell given in against them Can they not distinguish betwixt the state and the persons Yea may not the generall Assembly or any particulare Minister impugne an Estate erected or restored in name of the Kirk without her consent and to the prejudice of her liberties It is a calumnie that the meetings in Edinburgh which they call the tables arrogat to themselves soveraigne authority to determine all questions and doubts that can arise contraire to the freedome of the Assembly for they give only their best advice and opinion when it is asked and call instantly for a rightly constitute and free Assembly to determine doubts and settle this Kirk in peace They alledge the Presbyteries have losed their right if they had any to direct Commissioners to the generall Assemblie in so far as they have deposed their Moderators appointed by their Bishops in their Synods to governe them and elected others in their place contraire to the act of Glasgow 1610 and act of Parliament 1612. It is the hight of impudencie to call in question the right of Presbyteries to choose their own Commissioners which they have ever had since their erection The Assembly holden at Glasgow was a pretended Assembly and therefore any Presbyterie might from the beginning suspended obedience to the acts thereof till it were declared null in a free generall Assembly as it was at this last The act of Parliament was only an act ratifying the act of that same pretended Assembly and by their own procurement or rather another act adding omitting altering the words and clauses of that act and that with their knowledge and consent if not by their device and procurement And therefore are censured in this last Assembly for transgressing the caveats in this point as in many other Put case no just exception might bee taken against the constitutions and proceedings of that Assembly they fore-falted their right of appointing Moderators to Presbyteries at their Synods because whatsoever power was granted to them was upon assurance that we should have yearly or at set times generall Assemblies and that they should be lyable to their tryall which was not performed And therefore Presbyteries have rather failled in that they returned not sooner to their former liberty Beside this the sometime pretended Prelats deserted the Synods and appointed substituts who had not the same power to appoint Moderators Many Moderators dimitted their office of their own accord and then the Presbyteries according to the act of Glasgow it self had power to choose their own Moderator Many Moderators remained still unchanged till the last Assembly But put the case the Presbyteries had faulted in displaceing their Moderators the Bishops substituts doth it follow that they have fore-faulted their libertie of choosing Commissioners to the generall Assembly Every transgression deserveth censure or reproof but not deprivation from liberties They alledge next that the Ministers choosen Commissoners to this Assembly had not a lawfull commission because the Ministers did associat to themselves a ruling Elder out of every Pariosh who being ordinarly the Lord of the pariosh or man of greatest authority in the bounds doth over-rule them both by their authority and number being moe then the Ministers of whom some being ordinarly absent and five or six or so many of them put on the leit and removed there remaine but a few Ministers to voice to the election the Presbyteries formerly never associating to themselves lay-elders in election of Commissioners to the generall Assembly but only for their assistance in discipline and correction of manners calling for them at such occasions as they stood in need of their Godly concurrence whereas it was expresly provided by act of Assembly 1582. that they should be fewer in number then the Pastors Likeas these 40. years and upwards they have not been called at all to Presbyteries and by the act at Dundie 1597. whereby it is pretended that Presbyteries have authority to send these lay-Commissioners the only act authorizing Presbyteries to send Commissioners to the generall Assembly it doth no way appeare that lay-elders had any hand in choosing of Commissioners It is no new thing that Noblemen and Barrons have been choosen Elders We finde that they have been Elders in the Elderships of particular congregations soon after the reformation It were absurd to see the Nobility and gentrie best skilled for government set aside and the meaner sort not so well educat and able to rule over them The like may be said for Presbyteries It is a needlesse feare that they will over-rule the Presbyterie by their authority Ministers moderating the meeting and going before them in reasoning and voicing Nor can any such thing be laide to their charge in electing of Commissioners to this last Assembly They can not overswey their Ministers by their number if they will not be deficient to themselves If some Ministers be ordinarly absent so may some Elders and it hath fallen forth so usually and doth so at the same time That five or six Ministers being put on the leat and removed few will remaine so five or six Elders being removed there will be moe Ministers to choose the elder But what hindereth either the one or the other to voice to the election of others howbeit they be put on the leits either before or after their removell The