the Act Parliament 1612. giving unto Bishops their Church-power and jurisdiction not to be founded in nor flow from the Supremacy but to proceed simply by way of ratification of an Act of a General assembly made two years preceeding and by the same Act. 1612. The Act 1592. establishing aswel the Protestant Religion as Presbiterian government and also limiting the prerogative as I have said is only rescinded in so far as the same is derogatorie to the Articles then concluded whereas the King with consent of Parliament by the Act 1662. laying down the Supremacy for the basis and ascrybing to himself the origen of Ecclesiastick power restores the Bishops in the same manner as if they were his own Commissioners and Delegates And to the effect the Supremacy may transcend all the Act 1592. is totally rescinded without so much as a reserve for the Protestant Religion as is above declared Fourthly in former times whatever were the errors and wrongs either of Church or State or both in the bringing in of Bishops yet this is very certain and important that the Church-assemblies at first conveened by warrand of the Churches intrinsick power and after confirmed by the Parliament 1592. were not upon the change discontinued but honest men did therein maintain both their right and possession except in so far as the same were invaded and they hindered by the Bishops their prevalencie whereas of late not only were the former Presbytries and Synods raised dissolved but the new meetings now conveened in their place were appointed to sit down as they sould be authorized ordered by the Bishops and Archbishops who thereafter are by Act of Parliament restored and impowered by the King as supreme over Persons and Causes Ecclesiastick and declared Arbiter by right of his Crown in these matters So that it is evident that they both are called in his name and do sit and act by vertew of a power acknowledging a subordination unto and dependence upon his Soveraignity by reason whereof they are also to him made accountable I grant that for better concealing the mysterie of this Supremacie Prelacie the present meetings were set up for the most part in the same bounds much under the same forme and name with the old presbyteries and synods But seeing their precarious dependence on Bishops with the Bishops their proper absolute subordination to the King as Supreme over the Church is undeniable from the above cited Act. 1662. that therefore the present Church-government as it is freqently called in the late Acts of Parliament so de facto is his Majesties government and not that of our Lord Iesus who hath not invested him therewith either by deputation or surrender is evident above exception Neither are these things so only in the law and appointment as is by some alledged no the frequent examples of Bishops their deposing and suspending in Synods after having asked meerly pro forma the advice of a few next to them without the vote of the whole their renversing the deeds of Presbyteries controlling whole Synods by themselves alone with his Majesties granting of the High Commission impowering Seculars to appoint Ministers to be censured by deposition and suspension as well as Ecclesiasticks to punish by fining consining imprisoning his removing and placing Bishops at his pleasure and his late granting a Commission of oversight or episcopacie for the Diocesse of Glasgow to him who mostly scrupled at a Patent of the Bishoprick because of its temporalitie These examples I say do clearly bring up our practice the full length of all enacted Having thus explained the condition of our present Ecclesiastick constitution in its authority principles and practices wholly different from any model that ever was seen in this Church I think were it not for the clearness of method I might leave the description of the present Prebyteries and Synods to the Readers own ingenuous collection but tò render my discourse the more easie I say that the Presbiteries and Synods which are now so termed amongst us are meetings for Church-matters conveened by his Majesties call acting by his authority in a precarious dependence upon the Bishops and absolute subordination to the Supremacie and this definition is so manefestly the result of what is premised and composed as it were of the Act of restitution and supremacy and proclamation so often mentioned that none can deny it Neither is it the present question whether we may simply joyne in these meetings or not For seeing that not only this conjunction would be an acknowledgement of the supremacie nothing different from yea rather worse then the sitting in the High Commission and an active submission to and owning of Prelacie in its highest usurpation But even the Articles of Accommodation by offering a mitigation do evidently suppose it to be inconsistent with Presbyterian principles It is clear that a simple unqualified Union with and in these meetings is not the case of the present debate The point therefore that comes next to be examined is whether or not the Articles do indeed contain such condescensions and conditions as may fully releive us of our just exceptions Which leads me to take notice of the Fifth Article as I said before in the first place as that which appears to be most direct to this purpose And the contents of it are 'T is not to be doubted that my L Commissioner his Grace will make good what he offered aneâ—â— the establishment of Presbyteries and Synods and we trust his Grace will procure such security to these brethren for declaring their judgement that they may do it without any hazard in contraveening any Lawâ— and that the Bishops shall humbly and earnestly commend this to his Grace These are the termes of the Article and for all that I have yet heard I am not so doubtful of the Comissioner's performance as I am still uncertain of what was offered The Brethren who conferred in the Abbey told us that Presbyteries were offered to be set up as before the Year 1638. and that the Bishop should passe from his Negative voice and so forth But what may be the import of the first part of this offer or how far it may conduce to the clearing of our Consciences I confess I am still in the dark That which the dissenting Brethren do and every true Minister of Iesus Christ ought to seek after is a Court meeting in the Name and acting by the authority and rules of our Lord and Master Any other Court called by the King and acting by an authority derived from the Supremacie If in matters properly Ecclesiastick is but a complexed usurpation against Christ whose the Government is both in the Constituent and actors If in Civils then it is wholly without the Ministers Sphaere and not to be medled in by them Now that before the 1638. the Presbyteries and Synods then sitting were for the most part our Lords Courts in so far as they were by Succession the same
its Assemblies and all other Acts whatsomever giving any Church-power Iurisdiction or Government to its Office-bearers or Meetings other then that which acknowledgeth a dependance upon and subordination unto the Soveraigne Power of the King as Supreme and which is to be regulated and authorized in the exercise thereof by the Bishops and Archbishops who are to be accountable to his Majesty for ther administration And moreover by the same Act the Act 1592. whereby Presbyterian Government was anciently confirmed and which by vertew of the above mentioned Act Rescissory did now in so far by the Act 1612. stand rescinded in respect that it doth also limite the Kings prerogative to be without prejudice or derogation to the priviledge that God hath given to the Spiritual Office-bearers in the Kirk concerning heads of Religion Heresie Excommunication Collation or Deprivation of Ministers or any such like Censure specially grounded in the Word of God This Act I say 1592. is now for this reason totally annulled in all the heads articles and clauses thereof from which Act of Restitution although the nature of our present Church-constitution may be very obviously gathered yet there are two other also to the same purpose of which I cannot but take notice The one is that concerning a National Synod wherein his Majesty by vertew of his Supremacy doth more absolutely appoint and determine upon the manner and members thereof then if it were a meer civill Court unquestionably dependent upon his Royal Authority reserving to himselfe aswell the proposal as the final approbation of all matters to be therein treated The other is the late Act 1669. asserting the Supremacie whereby the Supreme Authority over all persons in all causes Ecclesiastick is so fully declared to appertaine to the King and that by vertew thereof he may dispose upon the Government and Persons Ecclesiastick and enact concerning the Churches meetings and matters therein to be proposed as he shall think fit that a more absolute power in any thing can hardly be devised in his favours These Acts lying so well together I could not but lay them forth to a joint consideration And from them I suppose it will be very evident that the work of the last revolution was not only an invasion made upon the Churches Government by the setting up of Bishops and their usurpation over Presbyteries and Synods as hapened in their former introduction preceeding the year 1612 But that the alteration made is plainly fundamental and that by his Majesties assuming all Church-power to himself as the proper right and prerogative of the Crown without so much as pretending with the Pope a Commission from Iesus Christ for this effect and conveying the same by these communications alone which he is pleased to dispense and to such persons and meetings as he thinketh good to appoint and maketh to himself accountable there is not so much as that Genus of Ecclesiastick Government recognosced by Presbytery as only fountained in and derived from our Lord as Head of the Church let be its specification from our Classical form at present to be found in being in this Church But it may be said that I seem to make a difference betwixt the former and the latter erection of Episcopal Government in this Church and yet when Bishops were brought in in the year 1606. the Kings prerogative was by the then Parliament first enacted and by the next Act their restitution is thereon also founded and in like manner by the Act 1612. Presbyteries and Synods are turned to exercises of the Brethren and Diocesian visitations and the power of ordination deposition and excommunication is given to the Bishop and to compleat all by the same Act the Act 1592. was also rescinded So that it appeares that betwixt the former practices and the late establishment there is no great disparitie 'T is answered the apparent resemblance of the things objected is nevertheless accompanied by such reall and materiall differences that it doth only the more notablie evince the strangeness of the methods and nature of the present establishment beyond all that the same designes in former times could suggest King Iames was indeed bent for Prelacie as all do acknowledge but by seeking thereby to qualifie and oversway the Government of the Church in effect to subvert all Government given by our Lord unto his Church is an absurditie which his better understanding did prudently forbear and nothing save either the mysterie of this growing iniquity or the precipitancie of our times could have produced Now that this is the true state of the difference betwixt our and the former times the particulars following will easiely evince And first it is true the Parliament 1606. doth by their first Act declare the Kings prerogative but only upon the narrative of the accession of the Crowns of England and Ireland and in general over all estates persons and causes without the least derogation to the explication made in favours of the Church by the Parl. 1592. Whereas in our dayes this Supremacy hath been asserted declared and exercised in order to Ecclesiastick Persons meetings and matters not only far beyond any thing pretended to in civils but above all that ever was arrogate either by Pope or temporal Potentate Next by the second Act of the fore-mentioned Parliament 1606. the Estate of Bishops is indeed restored and that upon the ground of the Kings prerogative but to what To ecclesiastick power presidencie jurisdiction c. Fye Not at all but only to their former honours dignities prerogatives priviledges livings lands teinds rents c. And chiefly and especially against the Act of annexation 1587. These though unjustly bestowed were yet proper subjects for a King and Parliament as for other things purely ecclesiastick they rightly judged them to be without their line Whereas by the late Act. 1662. the King with consent of the Estates restores the Bishops both to the same things and also to the exercise of their Episcopal function presidency power of ordination and others above rehearsed declaring himselfe to be the proper and supreme Head whence all Church-pover doth flow and to whom the Bishops ought to be accountable An attempt so impertinent to secular Powers and subversive of the very subject matter of Ecclesiastick government that the former times not from any greater tenderness in these things but meerly from a clearer knowledge of their inconsistencie did not once dream of and therefore in the third place King Iames who knew well eneugh that neither did his prerogative extend to the proper power and jurisdiction of the Church nor could this be thereupon founded and that for him to assume the disposal and dispensing thereof was in effect to destroy it although by vertew of his Supremacy he restored the Bishops to their honours temporalities and possessions yet as to the power Ecclesiastick by them acclaimed he applyed himself to compass the same only by the suffrage determination of Church-assemblies and accordingly we see
abjured how can we in conscience again admit of it 2. Not to examine subtilly and strictly the import of the word power seing its fixednesse and its concomitant dignity that in a great part doth advance this moderatorship which otherwise would be only an office unto a superority and thereto adde an influence of power is rather a begging of the question and therefore though in Civils this fixednesse with its many other prerogatives and powers be by reason of the subject matter and expediency of humane affaires very lawful and allowable yet in Ecclesiasticks the very same reason of the different nature of the things with the constitution of a Gospel-Ministry and the contradistinction which our Lord himself hath founded betwixt it and the manner of civil governments do clearly render this fixed presidency an undue gravamâ—n impinging upon the brotherly parity and just liberty of his Ministers And certainly if the necessary privileges of the naked office viz. that of proposing directing the consultationâ— stating the question asking of opinions and votes and the casting vote in case of equality be of such noment in the conduct of affaâ—res that all the liberty of the Assembly and unfixedness and accountablenesse of the Chairman are scarce sufficient to secure them from abuse to enforce them by a fixation contrary to the Lords appointment of a ministerial parity is not more unwarrantable then inconvenient But 3. As these reasons do militat against the controverted Presidency in its greatest simplicity so the Presidency now offered unto us for all the abatements pretended being still that of a Bishop absolutely at this Majesties nomination not accountable to these over whom he presides vested with great temporalitiesâ— and lastlyâ— wholly dependent upon the beck of the Supremacy is without all question a thing most anti-scriptural unreasonable disconform to all pure antiquity Now that thus it isâ— both as to the reality of the thing offeredâ— the censure I have passed upon it I here openly challenge the Author and all his partakers if they dare adventure to contradict me What other construction can therefore be made of the alledged condescendences then that in such a mixture they are only empty foolish pretensions And what other judgment can be given upon the Authors offer to abate of his reasonable power warranted by primitive example then that the obligation of reason and pure antiquity are no lesse false then the offer made is simulat and elusory But seing the Autâ—or for all the warrants pretendedâ— doth at least acknowledge himself not to be thereby astricted but that he can come go in thir matters at his pleasure if he do indeed sincerely hate schisme as he professeth let hâ—m also confesse the violence done both to our consciences and persons in such free arbitrary things nay in his Dialect trifles and repent of his late inconsiderat accession Passing therefore his deluded beliefe of the Bishops their not being desirous to usurp any undue power but rather to abate contrary to their continual practice the Churches experience now for the space of 1200 years upwards and evidently repugnant to the manifest conviction of all the circumstances of our case I go on to his next supposition viz. That though Bishops do stretch their power some what beyond their line yet let all the World judge whether Ministers are for that ingaged to leave their stations and withdraw from these meetings for discipline which themselves approve And to this the answer is obvious that neither the sinful thrusting in of Bishops nor yet their excessive stretchinâ—s are the principal causes of our leaving and withdrawing When in former times K. Iames introâ—uced Prelats into this Church and they from time to time extended their usurpations many of the â—ords faithful servants in these dayes did neitâ—er desert nor withdraw but continuing with much stedfastness did constantly resist and testify against all the corruptions then invading the true Church-government whereof they were possessed But as the Author doth here fallaciously joyn our leaving of our stations Which is false we having been thence violently expelled And our withdrawing from their meetings groundlesly alledged to be by us approven which we hold to be a necessary duty So whoever considereth the manner of the late overturning by summary ejecting of many of us dissolving all our Church Assemblâ—es establishing a new government not in but over the Church by the King and his prelats wherein we never had any place will easily be convincedâ— that we are not more calumniously accused by these who would have their own crime to be our sin of leaving our stations then clearly justifiable for withdrawing from these their Courts which are wholly dependent on the Supremacy and very corrupt Assemblies which we never approved but have expressly abjured It is not therefore as G. B. apprehends it only by reason of the Bishops undue assuming of the Presidency in these meetings nor yet because we are by them restrained in and debarred from the exercise of our power in ordination and excommunication although these be very material grievances that we do abstain from their Courts No but the plain truth is that over and above the foregoing cause we hold the very constitution to be so much altered from that of a true Eccleasiastick Iudicatory called in our Lords Name and acting by his authority unto meetings appointed meerly by the King and recognoscing his Supremacy that we judge our not conveening therein ought not to be so much as termed a privative withdrawing but that it is in effect a negative disowning of them as of Assemblies wherein we never had either part or place which being a ground by himself acknowledged as I â—ave above observed the Doctor 's argument that the Ministâ—y is a complexe power and that as some of us have accepted a liberty to preach administer the Sacraments and exercise discipline congregationally wiâ—hout liberty to meet in Presbyteries and ordain so they may come to â—resbyteâ—ies notwithstanding they should be excluded fâ—om the full exâ—ercise of all their power is by reason of the non-existence of the subject viz. true Presbyteries utterly cut off besides that it also labours of a manifest inconsequence in asmuch as a Minister's doing in the first case all that he is permitted and only forbearing where a vis major doth impede is no just ground to inferre that therefore in the second case he may come to a meetingâ— and there by surceasing the exercise of his function and making himself a câ—pher for strengthning encreasing of the Bishops usurpation in effect tacitely surrender the power that he is bound to maintain vvhich tacite surrender I do really iudge to be more strongly implied aâ—d of a more sinistruous consequence then can be purged by a naked protestation espeâ—ially the same being precontrived capitulat Whereby without doubt the significancy of this remedy mostly commended by the necessityâ— and as it were the surprisal of the