is there not here a reciprocal subordination and superiority of persons with a coordination of powers as is hinted above We plead no more for the Ministers of the Gospel and the Government of the Church commited to them We grant a great difference in other respects betwixt the Magistrat and Ministers they act as meer servants without all dominion in them He with dominion and Magistratical authority over the persons of Ministers yet for all this the powers are coordinat and in their exercise not directly subject to one another 2. These powers their exercise and respective objects becoming reciprocally the object of one another as the Ministry and its objects being one part of the Magistrats power the Magistrat and the objects of his power being likewise a part of the object about which Ministers exercise their power under different formalities and specifications there arises or results not only a sweet harmony and a mutual subserviency to one another in advancing of their respective ends but likewise an indirect subordination to one another in the exercise of their powers without any dependance of these powers upon one another But this subordination is only of the persons and not of the powers which by being the mutual objects of one anothers powers does not subject the power and its exercise but only the persons for any thing or power becoming the object of another does not subordinat it to that power the Word Ordinances c. are not by being the object either of the Ministerial or the Magistratical power subordinated or subject thereto so that the Ministerial power its exercise and the maters about which it converses are not by being the object of the Magistrats power subordinated to it This breaks the force of our adversaries Argument which lyes mainly in this Obj. 6. It is only this sort of Supremacy and subordination that the act of restitution does mean Ans It is not so as is clear from the words and frame of the acts for it is the Church assemblies their proper maters their constitution the intrinsick obligation of their conclusions that are subordinated to the Magistrat so that all is nothing without him Obj. 7. All Divines even the Presbyterians and independents in the Church of England grant the Magistrat to be Supream in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical none of them scruple to take the oath of Supremacy as it is established by law in that Kingdom Ans All Divines do not grant this as is to be seen in the writings of many and for any thing we know it is not yeelded by the Presbyterian and Independants in the sense controverted among us neither can it seing it quyt overthrows all Church Government in its distinction from and independency on the civil Government of the Magistrat which is contrare to the known principles both of Presbyterians and Independants and if the Prelats themselves durst speak their minde conforme to their owne principles they would not in this differ from us as Thorndike more free and engenuous then the rest of his party does declame and cry out against the oath of Supremacy as the great crying sin of the Church of England but to an excesse would assert all and much more then we do in this mater were it not for fear of offending the Magistrat on whom now they wholly depend and whose Creaturs they only areâ— which hath in our times reconciled the Prelatical and Erastian principles at least in appearance that are most contrare to and distant from one another yea more then theirs and ours And although the Presbyterians and Independants in the Church of England do take the oath of Supremacy yet it is with such explications allowed assented to by the Magistrat that give it a sound sense which was stumbled and scrupled at both in Queen Elizabeth and King James times till its sense was explicat and allowed as is to be seen in the instructions given to justices of the peace by Queen Elizabeth for administrating the said oath Bishop Ushers explanation of it approven by King James In which sense it is understood taken to this day among them But to understand this mater aright and to avoid the labyrinth of generalities ambiguities with which some divines perplex intricat it it would be considered 1. That there is a two fold proper supremacy one civil and another Ecclesiastical about Church power meetings and maters 2 There are two Kinds of Causes of those they call Ecclesiastical some that are only extrinsically such but in their nature immediat ends and use civil that for their more remote ends and respects to things truely and properly sacred are called Ecclesiastical as lawes made for the Church her concerns outward liberty and peace external rewards and punishments c. Againe some causes Ecclesiastical are intrinsically and formally such as who shall preach the Gospel be invested with the Ministery or who shall be deposed from it who shall be rebuked admonished and excommunicated or received and admitted into the Church c. 3 The terme CAUSES is not here to be understood in a physical but moral and juridical sense that is for questions to be decided by those who are impowered either by God or men to this work 4 Causes or questions as they are the object of power its exercise are either proper and immediat or els improper and remote Hence we say 1. That the Magistrat is Supream Governour in all things or causes properly civil relating to causes and persons Ecclesiastical the judicial cognition and definitive judgment of these belong to him and not to the Church in this sense we admit the oath of Supremacy declared ourselves willing to take it which was refused us 2 That the Magistrat is not the supreme Governour in Causes and over persons formally Ecclesiastical This we assert belongs to Christ Jesus only and not to the Magistrat as hath been proven above This is the supremacy we deny to the Magistrat and for which we have declined to take the oath anent it that is now established law being perswaded for the reasons formerly given that this is the supremacy granted by law and understood in this oath But3 That causes and persons formally Ecclesiastical are not the proper and immediat object of the Magistrats power but only improper and remote and the reason is becaus in the execution of Christs law given to the Church the judicial cognition and definitive judgment about these belongs not to the Magistrat but to the Ministers of the word as for instance it is not the Magistrats part to cognosce and determine who is to be received into the Church and who not this is proper to the Ministers of the Gospel and so of other causes and questions of the like nature Obj. Then the Magistrat in protecting countenancing and furthering of the Churches acts and sentences by the sword must be a blinde executer of them Ans This must be said
〈◊〉 fulness of prelacy to the well but not to the being of the political Ministerial Church which they grant â—ay be such without it as most of the former opinion â—â—â—ld 3. Others that lean not to Scripture for the 〈◊〉 of prelacy in the Church found it upon Ecclesiaâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—stitutioâ—s canons customes which they take to be the Interpreters of Scripture in this debate as Dounhame and others with him that make most use of antiquity 4. Others more moderat pious and more learned then the rest do so clip its wings that they bring it to a meer constant presidency in the meetings of presbyters for government making it a pure non-entity as to what is established by law amongst us and for which they bring no Scripture of which judgment was that godly and learned Bishop Usher who for knowledge in all the controversies of the Church especially in Antiquity was Nemini secundus 5. Some others argue for it as a matâ—er of indifferency that may be received or rejected as Churches and states see it fits their interests asserting that all its authority and goodness depends upon and flowes from the power that brings it in thus Stillingfleet 6. Some of that party have fallen on a new method for justifying its divine right being straitened as it seems with our arguments and the weakness of their owne alleadging that Presbyters were not institute in Scripturâ—-times by the Apostles that all Ministers mentioned in the Scriptures were Bishops in the sense controverted as Doctor Hammond but his evidence from Scripture and antiquity is so dimme that for any thing we know he hath gained few or none to follow him in this 7 These of the court party place all its goodness in the authority lawes establishing it granting it signifies nothing antecedently to these 8. If we shall consider prelacy and view it in its several parts as it is by law constitute and setled amongst us and bring them to the test and rule of the word of God that we may give judgment of them according to it how liteâ—â— of prelacy will be found to be of divine right 〈…〉 the confession of our adversaries of all that have appeared on the feild for its defence there is none that ever pleaded scriptural institutions precepts and instances for the Lordly titles eminencies and wordly dignities of the Prelats that are now annexed to their office nor yet for their civil places and power in the State nor for their several orders and degrees as Primats Metropolitans Archbishops c Or for the like among their dependents in their numerous and various distinctions of degrees of superiorities and subordinations as Vicars Chancelors Deans Arch deacons Subdeans Deacons Parsons c. whoever hitatherto did put pen to paper and contended for the divine right of prelacy never opened a mouth to plead either Scripture or antiquity for thesâ— except Doctor Hammond who argues for Archbishops and what is prelacy in its constitution amongst us without them The only thing debated betwixt us and our Antagonists anent it is the superiority of one Pastor over other Pastors and their respective congregations to the probation of which from scripture and pure Antiquity there are two things that must of necessity be made out from these first the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and secondly Diocesan Churches made up of several â—esseâ— Churches and their respective Pastores and Officers in these does the essential difference lye in their owne confession betwixt Bishops Presbyters or ordinare Pastores none of which two hath been proven from scripture and antiquity And if that which differences prelats from other Pastores of the Church be â—or made to appear from scripture how will their office 〈◊〉 of divine right and how can it be expected from 〈◊〉 â—ho are under such strait divine engadgments against it that we should comply therewith and submit to the lawes injoining conformity thereto We complaine of the subdolous and uning enuous way of our opposites in this debate who always keep in generals and never condescend on the particular differences betwixt Prelates and Ordinate Pastores nor undertake to prove these and the truth is they cannot for they are forced to confesse that it is clear from antiquity that Presbyters have ordained sometimes in conjunction with Bishops and sometimes without them And for diocesan Churches with one fixed pastor over-feeing other Pastores and their flocks we cannot meet with the least probable evidence from scripture and pure antiquity we find no argument from our adversaries concluding this It is empty arguing to say there were Apostles there were Priests and Highpriests in the Old Testament there were seven Angels in the seven Churches of Asia therefore there must be Bishops now If they will from scripture make out the difference now assigned betwixt Prelats Presbveers in these instances of the Apostles Priests and Angels we shall yeeld the cause Let none therefore blame us in holding to this as a necessare consequence of our Antagonists succumbing in the probation of these things that a parity among the Ministers of the Gospel in point of power or office is of divine right for if in the institution of the Ministery there be alike power given to all called thereto there can be no superiority of one above another by divine right 9. It is a question much debated among the Popish school men and in which they are not agreed to this day whâ—â—ther their Prelacy be an order or office distinct from that of Presbyters or only a different degree of the same 〈◊〉 with Presbyters including no power formally distinct from theirs which last opinion asserts that all power acclaimed by the prelats is formally in Presbyters so that by office they are empowered to and may doe all that the prelats pretend to How hotly and stifly was this question tossed the Councel of Trent betwixt the Italian Gallican and Spanish divines which for this cause received no decision in this Councel but was left undetermined as before As is to be seen from the History of the said Councel 10. If any will consider our adversaries arguments for prelacy and compare them with the arguments of Papists especially Bellarmins for the Papacy they shall finde that they plead as strongly for the Pope or an Universal Bishop to the Catholick Church as for the Prelat or Bishop now controverted betwixt us as wil be made appear by a particular condescension if our intended brevity would suffer it We referre such as question this to the arguments of both and upon an impartial collation of the same we nothing doubt but it will be manifest Doth not the much courted and endeavoured reconciliation with Rome by the prelatical party in former and later times with their concessions to them for making way to this agreement speak this with full evidence As their denying the Pope to be the Antichrist their granting a primacy to him over the Catholick Church their purgeing
and not to be the head of that Society to which any is such Now to the Minor that the Prelats and their Curats have their power from and in its exercise are subjected to a supream Architectonick power is beyond disput clear from the act of restitution formerly mentioned and other acts to be mentioned afterwards and will be so to any that consideratly peruse the same of which we are to speak at more large under the last head but for the time we propose these three from these acts for making out of this argument 1. They are expresly made to have a dependance upon and subordination to the King as supream to them in their Church judicatories and administrations 2 The government of the Church in its ordering and disposeing is annexed to the crowne as one royal prerogative thereof which not only suppons the government to be in him as the fountaine thereof but to be exercised with that dominion that is suteable to his regality 3 The giving of Church power to Church officers is supponed to be the effect and deed of his lawes and acts without which all power in the Church is declared to be null and void Objec Although the Kings Majesty be supream governour in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical yet he is not head to and of the Church Ans If he be supream governour in such causes and over such persons in Linea directa no question he is the head political to the Church for GOVERNOUR HEAD are equipollent terms whosoever is supream Governour to any society in this sense is a proper political head to it it is needless to quarrel about words if the thing be granted And that this subordination or supremacy is direct or in Linea directa is we judge clear from the fore mentioned acts seing they not only make the King the fountaine of Church power but moreover in the act anent the the National Synod he is made the All of the same and without him it is nothing The like of these the sun never shined on except these made by King Henry the 8. of England which being scrupuled at by all sorts of persons at home abroad they were in Queen Elizabeths time forced to alleviat the mater by removeing the title head and some mitigating explications allowed and ordered to be given to the subjects at the taking of the oath of supremacy but no such explications allowed here Arg. 3. If the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats thus thrust in upon them were constitut and setled in Christs way as Pastors and flocks in the just possession and actual use of all ordinances conforme to the rules of the word then it is no sinful separation for Churches in adhering to their Ministers not to receive nor submit to the Prelates and their Curats But so it is that the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats thus thrust in upon them were constitut and setled in Christs way as Pastors and flocks in the just possession and actual exercise of all ordinâ—â—ces conforme to the rules of the word Therefore it is â—â—â—o sinful separation on their part not to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats in hearing and receiving of ordinances from them We suppose the consequence of the major proposition is evident and will not readily be denyed by any and if it shall happen to be we prove it thus If there be divine obligations on Ministers and their Churches to the performance of the mutual duties of Pastors and flocks then it can be no sinful separation for Churches in adhering to their Ministers not to receive nor submit to the Prelats and their Curats But so it is that the Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the Prelats and their Curats were under divine obligations to the performance of the mutual duties of Pastors and flocks Therefore it is no sinful separation for Churches not to receive nor submit to the Prelats and their Curats The consequence of the major proposition leaneth upon these two and is infallibly made out by them first that thâ—â—e is a divine relation of Pastor and flock betwixt Ministers and the Churches over whom they are set and secondly that they are bound by divine commands to do the mutual duties of such contained and prescribed in the word of God none that acknowledge the Ministery to be an ordinance of divine instution and the Scriptures to be the rule of religion and righteousness will be able to refuse these We conceive none even of our Antagonists will deny the Minor if they do will it not follow that the Church of Scotland before and at the Prelats introduction was no Ministerial political Church which is false as we undertake to prove when ever our opposites give their reasons to the contrare But we know the greatest debate will be about the Minor proposition of the first argument to wit that Ministers and Churches required by law to receive and submit to the. Prelats and their Curates were setled in Christs 〈◊〉 as Pastors and flocks in the just possession actual exercise of all ordinances of divine appointment This for mater of fact is beyond all denial for the Churches of Christ in Scotland before and at the Prelates late entry among us in the Year 1662. were for the generality of the furnished with Pastors and in the possession of all ordinances The debate then will run upon the jus of that constitution that was existent and in being at the Prelats introduction against which there is nothing that can with any colour of reason be objected but one of these three Obj. 1. Prelacy was wanting in that constitution which it should have had Ans 1. To the validity of this objection it must first be made out that Prelacy as it is established by law and in use and exercise among us at this day is of divine right or an office institute in the word of God which is not yet done and for any thing we have yet seen never will Let our adversaries in this great debait consider the reasons and exceptions we have given in against iâ— and answer them yea we undertake to prove that it is not only without but against the word of God 2 We ask at the Patrons of Prelacy whether they judge it essential to the constitution of the Ministerial political Church If they judge it essential doth it not necessarily follow that all the Reformed Churches of France Holland c. are no ministerial Political Churches and that all ordinances dispensed in them are Nullities yea that the Churches of the vallyes of Piemont called the Albigenses which by all historians have their original deduced from the Apostles were not such seing 〈◊〉 the confession of all they never had Prelacy from their begining of Christianity to this day which is contrare to
sake although differing from us in some other things 5 It is thought sufficient ground for this charge that some yea many of the persons that come to and haunt our meetings are found not to be conscientious and Christian in their walk but flagitious or in many of their practises scandalous We cannot think our adversaries are serious in this do beleeve as they speak seing 1 This does fall as heavy and will to onlookers reflect as much and more on the objectors themselves as on us whose meetings for worship are found to be the sinck of all debauched and profaine persons thorow the Land can they refuse this It is like the foresight of this forced them to say in their lybel of greivances against us that the abominations mentioned in one Article were commited at our meetings and not by persons present at them otherwise their assemblies for worship should have been as chargeabâ—â— therewith as ours but in this our Antagonists 〈◊〉 like to the persecutours of the Christians in the prâ—â—mitive times who charged them for having these 〈◊〉 the like abominations commited at their assemblies as is to be seen in Church Histories The Lord deliver us from and rebuke the lying Spirit that is entered into and possesseth many 2. But if the presence of wicked and scandalous persons at the assemblies of Christians for hearing of the word and performing of other acts of worship be sufficient ground for chargeing the wickednesse and impieties of such on them as the cause inductive to scandals will not the assemblies that Christ his Apostles Ministers and Christians keeped in all ages be as lyable to this charge as we who excluded none but admited all to the hearing of the word and some other acts of worship as is manifest from Scripture and History whatever our adversaries will say for clearing of Christ Iesus his Apostles c. will acquit us 3. Do not men know that in preaching of the Gospel to sinners we should designe and labour their conversion as much as the edification of the converted Is not the Gospel with which Ministers are intrusted the mean and power of God to the one as well as to the other And seing this is our designe as it hath been our practice so it is our resolution not to exclude any from our assemblies how wicked soever they have been or are Truth is to charge us and our meetings with the sinnes and scandals of those that frequent the same is to reproach the Gospel of Christ and to Father all the wickednesse of its hearers on it contrare to its grand designe which is to save sinners from sin and all the miseries that follow upon it SECT V. Some Reasons why the Indulgence was not accepted IN the next place we come to the head of the Indulgence the not allowing of which hath been represented as a full evidence of our pivish wilful and stiff disposition to unpeacableness and distoyalty but we hope when our carriage in this mater is seriously thought upon and the reasons that determined us to this refusal are weighted in the ballances of the sanctuarie this charge will be found light and we are confident that upon trial it will appear we are not against but with all expressions of thankfulnes shall be ready to intertaine and receive any libertie for the Gospel its true interest and our selves that is consistent with our known principles that the Magistrat shall be pleased to grant us We look upon it as an unjust state of the question in this mater which hath been offered by some whether the Magistrat jure may or have it within the compass of his Magistratical power to give liberty to Ministers and people for serving and worshiping of God in his Son Christ Iesus according to his word this we do not deny but chearfully grant that although the exercise of Church power that is properly such be independent on the Magistrat yet the peacable exercise of it is truely from him it belongs to him no doubt to encourage countenance and protect the Church against all enemies and to relieve her of oppression when under it to this he is impowered and oblidged both as a Magistrat and as a Christian Neither is it with us a question whether the Magistrat may command Ministers to the duties of then function nor whether he may exeem them from the hazard of suffering to which they are obnoxious by law for their non-conformity nor yet whether he may confine Ministers simply and abstractedly considered from our present case which is only proper to the Magistrat and not all to the Church All these and much more we yeeld to the Magistrat about persones and maters Ecclesiastical according to the Word But the true state of the question to us is whether the Magistrat Jure Magistratico may of himself and immediatly without the Church the previous election of the people assigne and send Ministers to particular Churches to take the fixed and pastoral over sight of them prescribe rules and directions to them for the exercise of their Ministery and confine them to the said congregations The question thus stated being complex and consisting of several branches conform to the acts of Councel anent the indulgence we must of necessity for giving a just accompt of the grounds of our dissatisfaction therewith speak to them severally in some assertions with the reasons subjoyned Assertion First The Magistrat by vertue of his Magistratical power cannot of himself and immediatly assigne or send Ministers to particular congregations to take the pastoral charge and oversight of them For 1. We finde not in all the Word of God any such power given to or exercised by the Magistrat in the Church none hath yet given any instances of this If there be let them be produced and we shall acquiesce All acknowledge the Church not to be founded on the law of nature but on positive institution and supernatural revelation and therfore not to be governed in wayes and methods of Mens invention but in these that are revealed by the Holy Scriptures without which there cannot be a Church so that she owning her being constitution and all to them there must be some evident proof produced from these before we can yeeld to any such power in the Magistrat how long shall we exspect this 2. Also we finde the Church in the possession and exercise of this power from the times of the Apostles to the breaking up of the reformation by Luther and others in Germany as is manifest from Scripture and History We grant there was for some time a considerable debate betwixt the Pope and the Emperour of Germany about the investiture of Bishops which gave the rise to other Princes claming of the same seasing upon it but what says this to the mission of Ministers application of their Ministery to particular congregations For as Prelacy was the invention of men and the cause of horrid contentions in Churches and States so
really exclude Magistrats from the Communion of the Church and the benefite of the ordinance of Church Government which in its designe and effects is for saving of the soul as well as all other ordinances Other Arguments might be adduced as the want of power in the Magistrat to alter and change the Government of the Church or to nullify its just sentences passed c. SECT VII The sinfulness of the Ecclesiastick Supreamacy manifested BUt judging these sufficient to the conviction oâ— the unprejudged we come to the other part of ouâ— task which is to shew that this visible intrinsick government of the Church is assumed by and given to our Rulers in the present standing laws of the Kingdom which we shall make out from the acts of Parliament particularly act of restitution Parl. 1. Sess 2. Act. 1. act anent the National Synod Parl. 1. Sess 3. Act. 4. act against Conventicles Parl. 2. Sess 5. act against Keepers of Conventicles and withdrawers c. Parl. 2. Sess 3. Act. 17. act against unlawful ordinations Parl. 2. Sess 3. with others of the like nature But before we enter on the probation of this it will be necessare for clearing our way to it to consider alittle two things in the beginning of the narrative of the act of restitution repeated in several acts where first the Government of the Church is called the external Government of the same the tearm EXTERNAL being Notourly ambiguous should have been explained all not left to guess at its meaning EXTERNAL is by some opposed to the internal invisible Government of Christ on the souls of his people and so by it they understand the visible intrinsick Government of the visible Church that this is meant by the tearm EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT in this and other acts the following Arguments undertake to make out but some others oppose the terme EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT to this intrinsick visible Government of the Church formerly described and asserted to be distinct from and independant on the Mastrat and by it they do understand these humane adjuncts and accidents that are civil in themselves and not made sacred by divine institution some plead this to be the sense of these terms in the acts of Parlt but how groundlesly let our subsequent reasons determine Secondly It is there said that the ordering and disposing of the external government of the Church belongs to the Crowne c. it is hard to sense this for ordering and disposing when done by persons in authority is a part of government in it self and if it be so the Phrase is equivalent to this the governing of the external government of the Church which is a strange sort of speach as if a government needed a government to governe it What if this were said of the government of the government of the State Would it not be reputed non sense But the truth is all governments do necessarily imply a power to dispose and order all things relating to it as a part of the same without which it were imperfect and it is without disput evident from the experience of the Church under heathenish Magistrats that the government of the Church had this which by this act is taken from her Next we ask whether this ordering and diposing be an act of the Ecclesiastick or civil government If it be of the Ecclesiastick it is againe non-sense at the best and is as much as if it had been said the Ecclesiastical governing of the Ecclesiastical government of the Church a perfect tautology But if it be an act of the civil government how comes it that in this and other acts of Parliament it is called the Kings Ecclesiastical Government in opposition to the civil Obj. It is only objectively so called Ans Then it is properly and formally civil the phrase objectively Ecclesiastical being CATACHRESTICAL and ABUSIVE a very improper speach yea as improper as if we should call Church power or Government in the hands of Church officers objectively civil or civil Thirdly In the last place we desire to know whether this ordering or disposing of the Government of the Church be necessary or not If it be not necessary why is the Church troubled with it If it be we ask againe when it was exercised by the Church whether it was an act of civil or Church Government It could not be of the civil for the Church had none under persecuting Magistrats if it was an act of the Ecclesiastical or Church Government then it was purely and formally such and not truely civil although exercised about things civil in their owne nature and seing it was so how comes it to be the Magistrats now To any considerat and unbyaffed reader it will be manifest that these words or expressions come from mindes designing the enhansing of the intrinsick visâ—â—le Government of the Church and withall labouring to cover it but all in vaine Now that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Church formally and intrinsically such is assumed by and given to the Magistrat in the present standing lawes will be apparent to any that consider these things in the forecited acts of Parliament 1. That Church officers in the exercise of Church government in their Church assemblies or judicatories are put in dependance upon and subordinated to the King as Supream to them therein this makes the King the fountaine of Church power the Church officers to derive and hold their power of him which makes our King the proper Head of the Church substituts him in Christs roome to her 2. The government of the Church thus subjected to dependant on the King as Supream is in the act of restitution extended to and made to take in ordination acts of discipline inflicting of Church censures yea to all causes and matters formally Ecclesiastical to all about which Church power is exerced he is made the supream 3. All Church power and jurisdiction as it was exercised in this Church before the late introduction of prelacy without this derivation from and subordination to the Magistrat is rescinded and annulled certainly in these times the Magistrat had and did exercise a power about Church matters as is to be seen in the laws then made in their behalf but this does not now content without this supremacy which imports another power acclamed by the Magistrat now that was not then 4. This supremacy and as it is called the Royal prerogative of the Crown is given for the maine reason of the change made in the Government of the Church in overturning and casting out of the true government that then was and bringing in another in its stead without the authority and concurrence of the Church a fair opened doore for bringing in the like alteration and change in doctrine and worship when there is access to it 5. Prelacy by this act is restored not only to the former height it was at and had attained by law and practice before its last ejection out of this Church
but also to all that ever it was even in the times of popery which when considered in the constitution and priviledges it then had was an humane Office founded on the Supremacy of the Pope but now by this law on the Magistrat which sayes that although the persons be changed yet the Supremacy is the same 6. In the act anent the National Synod the nomination and election of persons by whoâ—n the government of the Church is to be exercised under the King is asserted to be the Kings by vertue of his royal prerogative and supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical so that the constitution of Church judicatories is made dependant upon him a thing never heard of nor practised in this or any other Church till of late 7. The right being and constitution of the National Synod of this Church is wholly dependant upon and derived from this law So as it is no Synod of this Church that is not gathered and constitute conforme to it although a Synod in this Church should have all that made Synods lawful and their acts obligatory in former times 8. The particular constitution of this National Synod as to its members which in this act are nominated and regulated thereby for all future times is determined for its ' times and places of meeting and put wholly in the Kings hand and asserted to be his right by vertue of his Supremacy over this Church It is no Synod that is not thus convocated 9. The maters to be handled debated and concluded in this Synod a thing alwayes judged intrinsick to the Church comes only from the King are to be proposed from him by the Arch-prelat of Saint Andrews and no other a fearful restraining of the divine liberty of the Ministers of the Gospel who may not speak of maters of doctrine manners although necessary for the times contrare to the freedome that is commanded them by their master anent these 10. The King 's or his Commissioners presence is made essential to the constitution and of binding force to this nationall Synod It is no Synod although constitute after the paterne of Church Synods in the primitive times if it want this 11. No mater debated and concluded by the Majority of this Synod is obligatory on this Church and its members if not approven and allowed by the King or his Commissioner This suspends the intrinsick obligation of Synods on the King so that no canon act or constitution do binde the members of the Church if he assent not As this secures the Couâ—t in their carnal liberties and sinful wayes so it shuts the door on all endeavours of reformation by the Church when Princes are vicious 12. In the act asserting the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastick the King his successors are enabled and impowered to medle with all maters and meetings Ecclesiastick which brings the doctrine and worship within his verge and subjects the same to him as much as the government 13. They are impowered to enact and emit constitutions acts and orders anent maters and meetings Ecclesiastick as they please and think fit and are not in the making of these astricted to any rule but their pleasure O HORRENDUM 14. All these acts and orders they may statute independant on the Church Parliament or any other by their sole authority never granted to any of his predecessours before 15. These acts and constitutions insert in the book of Councel and duely published are declared and made to be of full force and obligation to this Church and her members No need of Synodâ— here which by this are wholly subverted 16. All former lawes acts and clauses of them contrare to and inconsistent with this are made void cassed annulled which takes away the Protestant Religion thâ— Word of God as the rule the concurrence of the Church in the assistance of the constitutions Ecclesiastical that was provided and secured by former acts of Parliament a wide door for Popery 17. In the act against unlawful Ordinations as they call them the Ordination of persons to the Ministry by Ministers of Christ Jesus that have not conformed to Prelacy which was held unquestionable valid for its substance by all till this late gang of Prelats arose in which they are degenerat from their predecessours is by the sole authority of the Magistrat made void and all Ministerial acts and Church benefites depending thereon declared to be nul An act that unchristians and condemns all the reformed Churches making their Churches no Ministerial political Churches and all Ordinances dispensed in them nullities which their practice at this time in England does confirme while Romish Priests turning Protestants are without ordination made capable and advanced to Church places and preferments of which the Protestant Ministers of other Churches conforming to Prelacy are dented till they be reordained Other mediums contained in other acts of Parliaments for fixing of the preceeding conclusions we passe having hinted at some of them above judging these sufficient for the conviction of the uninteressed unprejudged who through the power of lust and earthly interest have not cast off the light of the word but keeps in subjection to it We shall in the last place answer some objections in which we have to do with two sortes of persons first the high flowne Erastians of our times who will admit of no government in the Church but that which is in and from the Magistrat whose designe as is evident from the act asserting the Kings Supremacy is to take all Government out of the Churches hands and to put it on the King his Councel to be only exercised by them which throw the dislike of Prelacy is not sufficiently lamented laid to heart nor resisted by many as its dangerous consequences to all the concerns of the Church do require Besides these there are who upon what principle is not yet known think that the Supremacy as it is now asserted by law is not formally Ecclesiastical but only objectively so which is strange some of the objections of the first sort we have met with as we went along the former heads we know of no other besides these of any considerable strength but one Obj. That the Magistrat being the keeper of both tables of the law of the table of Religion as well as of the table of Righteousness ought to have a care of Religion and hath power given him to exercise it about the same Anâ—wer This being the Achilles of the Erastians and semi Erastians of VIDELIUS in particular We shall returne these answers to it and shew it cannot bear their conclusion 1. Whatever power the Christian Magistrat can clame by this the heathenish Magistrat hath the same he is by his Magistratical office constitute in actu primo a Keeper of both tables as is evident from Rom. 13 1 2. If he do not exercise it it comes not from any defect of power in his office or the institution of it but from his blindness and unbeleef